No on 43

This evening, I listened to the City Club on OPB radio. The topic was ballot measure 43. This is the ballot measure that will require 15 to 17 year old girls who wish to have an abortion to get parental consent, or if they can't or won't do that, to get permission from a judge. To see the text of the ballot measure go here.
The proponents of the measure say it is to foster better child-parent relationships. They argue that it is not anti-abortion, it is anti-kids-doing-things-without-their-parents-knowing.
I'm not going to go into the opponent's arguments. They are very clearly laid out by people more informed and more eloquent than I. No on 43
Instead, I would like to explain why the flaws in the proponents arguments are enough to convince me to vote against 43. I will be refuting the points straight from the Yes on 43 website. Their first point is that Oregon is behind the times because it is one of only six states that have not passed a parental involvement law, and further more that the laws in other states have not been shown to be unconstitutional. Unconstitutional, to me, sounds like illegal. And behind the times, sounds like "everyone else is doing it", which by they way is stereotypically the kid's line, not the responsible parent's. So, there first reason becomes that Oregon should pass this law because everyone else is doing it and it's not illegal. You know, that is exactly what people told me about smoking when I was a teenager. "Come on, man. Everybody smokes and you're 18 now, so nobody can stop you." Well, not everybody smokes and it turns out it is legal to give yourself and other lung cancer. What is not mentioned, is that of the 44 states that already have some type of parental consent law, how many of those state's laws are like Oregon's proposal. Many states, 16 of them to be exact, do have parental consent laws. But, wait a minute, I thought it was all but 6? The other 28 states have parental notification laws, or another type of law, with multiple states having the laws on hold while the court system decides the constitutionality of the law. So, it doesn't look like everybody else is doing it, and it doesn't look like everybody else thinks it's not illegal.
The second point that Yes on 43 makes is that bypass protects victims of rape, incest and abuse. They state that "parental notification laws provide help to girls who have been victimized, rather than just allowing them to have an abortion in secret and returning to the abusive situation." Wow. So, let me get this right, if step-dad is molesting a girl and she goes to get an abortion because he has impregnated her, notifying him of this makes the problem go away? I had know idea it worked like that. I would have thought that he would be pissed off and the abuse would escalate.
The third argument is that girls don't talk about it with their parents. Enacting this law doesn't change that fact. The young woman can simply talk to a judge, and the parents still do not know. See above for why they may not want to talk to their parents about getting an abortion.
Fourth, that this is a traumatic and emotional time for the young woman, who may not have thought out all of the ramifications of her actions. That is true. It is also true if the woman in question is 25. Why do 25 year olds not need consent from one of their parents? Also, how does a certified letter coming in the mail, especially if the young woman has not told her parent(s) about the pregnancy, make the time any less traumatic or emotional. If the parent is angry, it may make it considerably more traumatic and emotional.
There are two further points I would like to make. The first is a response to the general mission statement by the proponents of ballot measure 43, that this is not about abortion, it is about communicating with children through a potentially difficult time. That sounds great, doesn't it? But, if that were really the reason for this ballot measure, why is the aim not to repeal the Oregon law that allows teens to be medically emancipated at the age of 15? Why is it only abortion and cancer treatments or treatments for sexually transmitted diseases? Why is it only girls and not boys?
The second and final issue of the evening, is about the methodology used by Yes on 43 in stating their statistical evidence. They are skewing the facts in their favor. Let me use an example from the Yes on 43 website, with all links provided so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. On the page entitled The Facts, They state that in 2004 there were 1957 abortions had by teen-agers. They provide a link to a document by DHS, which lists a breakdown by age. 51 abortions were had be girls under the age of 15. 1906 were had be girls aged 15 to 19. So, it may be true that there were 1957 abortions by teen-agers, but is implied that this resolution will effect that many. Right away, you can subtract the 51 by girls that were too young to do this without parental permission anyways, which leaves us with 1906. 18 and 19 year olds will not be effected by this law, so even assuming that each age in that group has equal numbers, we are now talking about 1163 teen-agers. 205 occurred out of state, so again adjusting for 18 and 19 year olds, we can subtract another 126 for a total of 1037 15 to 17 year olds who had abortion. This is just a little more than half of the number that they are implying. It doesn't mention anywhere in the document how many of the young women told their parents about it before going through with the procedure either. (Based on the fact that the next to age groups are considerably higher, I would guess that 18 and 19 year olds account for an even larger number than the one I've presented.) I really hate it when people treat me like I'm stupid. :D

September's half gone

How can it be that we are already half-way through September? It's been a busy summer, maybe that has something to do with it.
I got married on July 23rd in an early afternoon ceremony in the sweltering 100 degree heat. Fortunately, I was dressed head-to-toe in wool. Did I mention that it was outside? :D It was fine, though. I had a great time, and only remember one or two moments where I was too warm. I recall that I had been in the get-up for over an hour before I started to perspire, and it was not until the receiving line that I started to sweat. Anyone that has known me for longer than a couple of days, knows that I am one sweaty (swt) man. That's not a hyperbolic adjective in the title of this blog.
I just found a website of Oregon blogs. It has hundreds of Portland blog links and hundreds more from around the state. I am excited to start reading what others in Stumptown are writing.