(This is an amazing post, a powerful defense of the right to choose. – promoted by Robert Cruickshank)

The question of what a woman should do when she is pregnant but does not want to raise a child is extremely personal for me.

It is the question that my birth mother, unmarried and eighteen years old, faced forty-three years ago.

This was before People v. Belous (1969) and Roe v. Wade (1973) established a woman’s fundamental right to decide whether to give birth.

Just a few months before I was born, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the “Therapeutic Abortion Act,” which changed California’s criminal code to permit the termination of pregnancy by a physician when there was substantial risk that its continuation would “gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother” or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

I am not sure whether my birth mother would have qualified for a legal abortion under the “physical or mental health” requirements of the new law, but she could have risked terminating her pregnancy by illegal means – as more than 100,000 California women did every year before the Act’s passage. In fact, Governor Reagan said that he signed the new law to prevent the death and injury of thousands of California women each year from illegal and dangerous “back alley” abortions.

My birth mother decided not to have an abortion, and instead gave me up for adoption.

Of course, I’m happy with her choice – I would not be here otherwise.  I was raised by two loving parents who wanted and were able to care for me.  I have also had the incredible joy of being able to thank my birth-mother for her decision – reuniting with her and my two younger brothers several years ago.

I received a great gift from my birth-mother’s decision – but I would not have wanted her to have been forced by the government to give birth to me despite being unable at that time to properly care for a child.

Whether or not to have an abortion – or whether to give a child up for adoption – is a deeply personal and often painful decision for a woman or couple to make, and it is a decision they have to make based on their own faith and values, not someone else’s – and certainly not the government’s.

My opponent for the 70th Assembly District believes otherwise.

He believes that he has the right to impose his own faith and beliefs on every woman and family in California.  He has vowed to use his position in the legislature “to defend life from conception to natural death” – bringing back the days when thousands of women each year in California were forced to make the horrific choice between having unwanted children or illegal, dangerous abortions.  And he has already received thousands of dollars in contributions from groups outside our district that are determined to use the government to impose their particular faith on everyone else.

We cannot allow politicians and outside special interest groups to impose their own faith on every woman and family in California or allow the government to intrude into this most personal of decisions.

That’s why I need your help now to keep the decision whether to give birth a deeply personal decision based on one’s own faith and values, not someone else’s and not the government’s.

Melissa Fox

Candidate for California Assembly, 70th A.D.

http://votemelissafox.com

First off, a pleasure to meet you folks at Calitics. Just a guy from North Orange County, pretty liberal and pretty friendly. I’ll be doing weekly or daily (depends on the OC coverage/importance) Open Topic threads on the OC.

Dems gaining (small) ground in Orange County, Repubs. losing it.

Just this week the OC Registrar of Voters updated its voter regs., with Democrats at 512,089 (Up from 511,811) with Republicans at 698,893 (Down from 699,678).

By percentages:

GOP: 42.7%

DEM: 32.0%

DTS: 20.3%

Oh, the “most Conservative county in America”, ain’t so conservative anymore.

Chuck DeVore touts his “Pro-Family” views:

Just when you think this guy is already radical..

Chuck DeVore receives a perfect pro-family score

March 18, 2009

Chuck DeVore was one of 18 lawmakers who received a perfect pro-family score from the Capitol Resource Family Impact for voting in 2007-08.  Capitol Resource Family Impact runs California’s only pro-family state lawmaker ranking.

Thank god i’m not being represented by this loon (I’m in the 72nd AD), but this guy still makes us OC residents look like narrow-minded, bible-thumping, wing-nuts. Hell, i’ll take the HP chick over this guy..

Arianna Huffington coming to Anaheim!

The dazzling woman who founded the awesome Huffington Post will be at the Sheraton Park Hotel in Anaheim on August 6th, hurry and get tickets soon! Details can be found on the Orange County Democratic Party’s website.

Have Dinner with Judy Chu

Tomorrow at the Villa Roma Restaurant in Laguna Hills, you can sit down and have dinner with CD-32 candidate Judy Chu (At the cost of $45.00). Details can be found on the Orange County Democratic Party’s website.  

(I’m going to promote this because it’s starting to get a good deal of attention. Half of the equipement needed by the Naitonal Guard to aid in recovery and assistance is not in the state, and we’ve known about this for months. Sen. Boxer raised this concern yesterday. It’s hampering efforts and I think it’s worthy for consideration. – promoted by David Dayen)

Dear George W Bush & Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Where is the National Guard?  Why is not the National Guard involved in protecting the people of Southern California, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, and Los Angeles County from the fire storms?

Might they be in Afghanistan?
Might they be in Iraq?
Might they be on the border of California & Mexico?

Is it not the job of the President and of the Governor to insure the safety and security of persons and property in the State rather than in an ill-conceived overseas venture?  Just a thought.

(Edited for space only. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

California Psychological Association (CPA) Signs on as Amicus to American Psychological Association’s Brief to CA Supreme Court Re Gay Marriage.

As you know, the issue of Marriage Equality has been simmering below the radar for quite some time since Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, first recognized Marriage Equality for same-sex couples.  Newsom gained international attention in February 2004, when he directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.  Newsom claimed the California Constitution’s equal protection clause as his authority.  From February 12, 2004, until March 11, 2004, when Marriage Equality was halted by the California Supreme Court, about 4,000 couples were issued marriage licenses under Newsom’s directive in San Francisco.  On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court voided all of 4,000 licenses.

More below the flip…

Since then, courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey have ruled that Marriage Equality must be recognized.  The legislature of Massachusetts passed legislation for Marriage Equality.  More recently, the courts in New Jersey have ruled that the State must accommodate Marriage Equality.

In California, the people, through their duly elected officials in both legislative chambers have attempted to recognize Marriage Equality in 2005 and once again in 2007.  Both times, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Marriage Equality Terminator, vetoed the legislation.  He has indicated that the issue should be a matter for the courts and the voters of California to decide.  Schwarzenegger has obviously ignored the fact that the voters of California have spoken in 2005 and again in 2007 in favor of Marriage Equality through their legislators.  It so happens that the California Supreme Court may make a decision on Marriage Equality.  The Court will hear oral argumentss in a case for Marriage Equality in which fifteen (15) same-sex couples will be represented by the the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

Now, Miguel E. Gallardo, PsyD, President, wrote the following to the members of the CPA:

“Dear Members:

“I hope this message finds you all well and in good health. I am writing to inform you that, as an association, the CPA signed on to an Amicus Brief recently filed by the American Psychological Association with the California Supreme Court. Additionally, this email is intended to provide you with some background information and inform you of the process used by the Executive Committee (comprised of the CPA’s elected officers) and the Board of Directors in determining the appropriate action for CPA.

“Background

“In July 2007 the Public Interest Directorate of APA requested that CPA sign on to an Amicus Brief that the APA planned to file with the California Supreme Court. An Amicus Curiae Brief (literally, “friend of the court”) is a brief that is filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case, but who has an interest in the case and believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.  Amicus Briefs often include educative information and resources that may be useful to the Court.

Re full disclosure, BlueBeaumontBoyz is a member of the American Psychological Association.

Gallardo’s message continues:

“The Issue

“The current case stems from the original action of the San Francisco Mayor to allow marriage between gay and lesbian couples.  This case comes to the California Supreme Court from the California First Appellate District Court (Division Three), which reversed an earlier trial court decision, and upheld the constitutional California’s Family Code, that defines civil marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  The California Supreme Court must decide whether to uphold the Appellate Court decision or to overturn it and find the current definition of marriage unconstitutional (as did the earlier trial court).  A decision to overturn the Appellate Court’s decision would, in essence, enable gay and lesbian couples to be married in the state of California. 

“APA has filed similar Briefs in other states, including in Maryland where the Supreme Court recently rejected the Brief, but APA believes that the California case is probably the most important case to date on this matter and that this case will have a very large impact on the rest of the country. In addition to CPA, APA was joined in this Brief by the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

“The Decision Making Process

“The Executive Committee of the CPA Board of Directors based its actions on our newly adopted guidelines from the Social Issues Task Force which stipulate that the Executive Committee, after considering any issue, will determine how to involve the full Board of Directors. In this particular circumstance, the Executive Committee involved the CPA Board of Directors as early as was feasible in the review process. The Executive Committee ultimately reviewed all the relevant documents provided by APA, as well as other materials provided by various Board members and other interested individuals in this case. The final meeting of Executive Committee occurred on September 10th when a final decision was made to support the Brief. It was during this meeting, and several others, that the members of the Executive Committee reviewed the comments gathered from the Board of Directors comments, concerns, and suggested actions to change the language in the Brief. Based on the final meeting on the 10th, and the Executive Committee’s review of the comments from the Board of Directors, and by a majority vote, the CPA Executive Committee agreed that CPA join the Brief as an Amicus. 

“In essence, we followed what we believed to be the appropriate mechanisms to make an informed decision on behalf of the CPA and its members.

“This decision was forwarded to Dr. Clinton Anderson in the APA Public Interest Directorate.  Dr. Anderson and other members of the APA expressed their appreciation for CPA’s position on this issue.  A copy of the Amicus Brief that was filed with the California Supreme Court is attached for your information and review.

“We hope you find the information contained in this email and in the attached document helpful in understanding the significance in maintaining a level of integrity in our decision making process, as well as, ultimately deciding what final action to take on behalf of the Association, its members, and the communities in California that we serve.

“I appreciate your membership in the Association and I look forward to continuing to serve you in the future.

Best regards,

Miguel E. Gallardo, PsyD

President, CPA

The full brief may be viewed at [http://www.cpapsych….]

Hey all,

Just discovered this blog from a link on MyDD. Seems there’s little if any activity from OC. I’ll try to post here occasionally to let you know what I see going on around me, though I definitely don’t see it all. A little about myself: I’m an alternate on the DPOC Central Committee (former delegate), CDP delegate, active in DFA-OC, communications person for a Congressional candidate, and precinct organizer for my city of residence through OC’s incipient involvement with precinctcaptains.org.

More after the jump…

We have some interesting races here, with our only Democrat-held seats (AD-69, SD-34) the only significantly contested primaries. Otherwise, I believe we actually have a great set of candidates this cycle. Most of the state Assembly and Senate candidates came out to DFA-OC’s candidate forum in April. They really surprised me. We also have some great candidates for local office and are finally working on building a farm team for the next decade, when–I firmly believe–Democrats will overtake Repubs as the plurality party in the county. Just you watch!

Please post with questions comments, as well as suggestions for my Congressional candidate.