Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!About 40 people gathered on the south patio of the Santa Barbara Courthouse Friday for a Planned Parenthood rally opposing two propositions on November’s ballot — measures that, if passed, would mandate parental notification for teens under 18 seeking abortions, and overturn the State Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Representatives of the many local organizations that spoke the rally against Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 included the League of Women Voters, Pacific Pride Foundation, Santa Barbara City Council, SEIU Local 620, the Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee, and Clergy for Choice, an interfaith group that supports women’s access to reproductive freedoms.
Cheryl Rollings, CEO of Planned Parenthood for Santa Barbara, introduced the rally with a short speech explaining her organization’s stance on Prop. 4. Rollings acknowledged that “parents want to be involved with their teens, but in the real world, this is not always how it goes. The most important thing is keeping teens safe.”
Paul Wellman
"Those teenagers who find themselves scared and pregnant don't need a judge." Rev. Mark Asman, a representative of the group Clergy for Choice, said of Proposition 4. "They need a caring counselor and access to safe medical care."
“The real answer,” Rollings continued, “is family communication before [an unplanned pregnancy occurs].”
Reverend Mark Asman of the Clergy for Choice organization also spoke at the rally, echoing Rollings’ statement that legally forcing physicians to notify the parents of pregnant teens in order to provide abortions might lead to dangerous family problems for many young women.
“We know that parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers’ lives, especially in the case of a major decision like an unplanned pregnancy,” Asman said. “We also recognize that teenagers who do not talk to their parents about this decision usually have a very good reason [not to do so].
“For those young women who live in families where neglect and violence are a reality,” Asman continued, “requiring parental notification before abortion could lead to more abuse, more teenagers out on the street, and desperate young women willing to take matters into their own hands.”
Joel Rodriguez-Flores, a member of SEIU Local 620, spoke about both propositions at the rally. “This election is about issues that matter to families,” Rodriguez-Flores said. “[Prop. 4] will put teens in harm's way — and this is despicable. Trust can not be legislated.”
“In addition, same sex couples deserve access to every single thing heterosexual couples do,” he added. “I know my family does not hold homophobia as a family value.”
David Selberg, executive director of the Pacific Pride Foundation, spoke at the rally about Proposition 4, but also expressed his organization’s opposition to Proposition 8, which would again make same-sex marriages in the State of California illegal. Voting against the proposition, Selberg said, “is about not treating people differently.
“Regardless of how anyone feels about this issue, we don’t need Proposition 8,” Selberg said. “We don’t need more government in our lives. Just like the government shouldn’t tell you what to read, the government also shouldn’t tell you who to marry.”
Dr. Linda Phillips of the League of Women Voters, pointed out at the rally that both propositions 4 and 8 have been on the state ballot several times before in recent years, and that voters have repeatedly defeated all such measures. “Both of these propositions threaten basic Constitutional rights,” Phillips said.
Helene Schneider, a member of the Santa Barbara City Council, echoed Phillips’ statements. “Voters have voted against these issues already,” Schneider said. “What part of 'no' do you [the lobby groups who put Props 4 and 8 on the ballot] not understand?
“The history of our country has always been to gain rights, not to lose them” she added.
Also present at the rally were 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, 3rd District Supervisor candidate Doreen Farr, a representative of Assemblymember Pedro Nava, Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum, and former S.B. city mayor Sheila Lodge.
Note: Prop. 4 would, in fact, mandate the notification of only one parent or legal guardian, except under unusual circumstances, but most speakers at the event mentioned parents in the plural sense as they were referring to all hypothetical pregnant teens and their parents.
Devon Claire Flannery is an Independent intern.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Sounds like you have a passion that information and support is available to those kids and families who face life-changing decisions, AShaw -- a range of options, if you will.
Perhaps you will be moved to break out your checkbook and support a non-profit organization whose stated goals are to:
"... to actively promote family planning and healthy, responsible reproductive and sexual behavior through the provision of high-quality, comprehensive, educational, counseling, medical, and referral services.
"We support the availability of these services, particularly to individuals whose access to other sources of help is limited.
"We promote public understanding, acceptance and support for reproductive choice and family planning services.
"We also promote public understanding of global problems that stem from population pressures and encourage support of programs working toward solutions to these problems. "
Their objectives are a perfect fit with the choice-centered ideas in your post.
You should send your donation to:
Planned Parenthood, Santa Barbara,
https://dnbweb1.blackbaud.com/OPXDONATE/...
binky (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The article misquoted me slightly. Actually, what I said was that the League of Women Voters had consistently opposed measures like Props. 4 and 8. In 2000, voters did approve Proposition 22, which was overturned by a state Supreme Court decision in May of this year.
Both of these propositions threaten basic constitutional rights. Regardless of your personal feelings about either of these issues, it is wrong to use the ballot box to change fundamental rights and freedoms.
LindaPhillips (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Abortion is murder. Any doubts? Let's see the pro-choicers try it on themselves. They won't, because they realize they are lying hypocrites. They wouldn't even take a cubic inch out of their own arms. Like Hitler, they are "pro-choice" only toward other people-- those 'others', as did Hitler, they selfishly deem to be unworthy. Hitler was pro-choice because he killed only the ones he chose, just like the abortion mill butchers do, but at least he killed fewer people than does Planned Parenthood. He also charged only the gold teeth he yanked out of his victims' jaws.
Homosexuality was useful to the human species when we were cave-dwellers and needed a non-reproducing set-aside of the surplus population, so as to not overgraze our food supply. However, for the last 8,000 years or so we have had agriculture to provide our food. Those of us who are no longer primitive hunter-gatherers realize homosexuality has long been ludicrously obsolete, and today has little significance other than being a vehicle to transmit AIDS, syphilis, fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea, and whatever other pervert-friendly epidemic is coming down the pike next year.
Maybe Santa Barbara will someday progress beyond the degeneracies of Hitler and the ancestral troglodytes, but it is evident the failure-to-maintain-control element of human inadequacy will be around until evolution progresses further. Why is Santa Barbara so backward?
RandyCrawford (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, "RandyCrawford"'s comment is deserving of this:
Godwin's Law officially declared.
http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-La...
binky (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is so much wrong with that irrational rant that it does not merit responding.
However, I'd like to thank Randy Crawford for demonstrating so well why anti-discrimination laws are still so necessary and why we should all vote no on Prop's 4 and 8. .
Godwin's Law is a pretty good call, binky.
HueyChapala (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2008 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Devon, your note at the end of the piece seems to have the aim (pardon me if I'm wrong) of debunking claims made by speakers at the rally. I think it is entirely irrelevant to the core of the issue.
First, not all families are two-parent families. Many teens only have one parent or legal guardian.
Even if consent is required for only one parent in two-parent families, teens may not feel safe speaking to either of their parents about a pregnancy, let alone both. Several of the speakers alluded to this fact by mentioning that teens talk to other relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc.) --whether notification is made to one or both parents makes absolutely no difference in this case.
The bottom line, as several of the speakers pointed out, is that family communication cannot be mandated by law. To focus on comments about "both parents" is to miss the point.
Giggles (anonymous profile)
September 13, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Abortion is the ultimate in discrimination. It is the merciless killing of helpless humans precisely because they are helpless and human. Thus far America has killed millions more than either Hitler or Stalin. Proud of yourself, America?
Homosexuality is another form of discrimination, favoring the same gender over the alternative gender. Homosexuality is the futile inbreeding (without reproduction) of sameness, and is the opposite of the "diversity" its advocates hypocritically pretend to advocate. They succeed in specious peddling of sexual perversion only to the extent the intended audience is made up of gullible suckers.
Of course, those with lame arguments have better things to do than make them. Their feeble lies would show they have too much to lose.
RandyCrawford (anonymous profile)
October 5, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment