The California Courage Campaign has launched our fall campaign to oppose the Bush agenda on the ballot in California this November in the form of several propositions.
Our Stop Bush in CA page is an excellent resource for information regarding the initiatives on which we’re taking stands:
No on 85
Yes on 86
Yes on 87
Yes on 89
No on 90.
We’ve also just launched a letter to the editor writing campaign to get the word out in the media that Proposition 90 is unacceptable and needs to be opposed. Please join the effort by going HERE and using our user-friendly webtools, complete with talking points, to send an LTE today.
I’m also going to be keeping tabs on all the proposition news in my weekly (or perhaps more frequent, as needed) “Prop Watch.”
Join me for all the latest proposition news over the flip.
Proposition 85
The OC Register has an article reminding us that this year’s Prop 85 is essentially a re-write of last year’s parental notification bill, Prop 73. The bills are nearly identical except for some strategic changes that have been made to the wording of this year’s model:
Proponents have adjusted the wording of the measure in an effort to weaken some arguments against it. One change is removing the definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." Opponents last year pointed to that as an indication of the philosophy and ultimate intent of the backers…
Another change is stating explicitly that a parent can sign a standing waiver for their daughter, which would allow her to get an abortion any time without special notification. This is designed to defuse the argument of the parent who says, "I just want my daughter to be safe if she's going to have an abortion, I don't care if I know," said Albin Rhomberg of "Yes on 85."
Proponents are confident that even if the original wording remained intact, 85 would pass this year. They attribute the 53-47% defeat of 73 to the "vote No on everything" anti-Arnold wave of the 2005 special election.
While The L.A. Times acknowledges the changes to the newer bill, it says Prop 85 "still contains the same troubling provisions" and "remains part of a broader campaign to chisel away at a woman’s right to privacy."
More over the flip.
They lay out the case against Prop 85 in a recent OpEd:
By requiring doctors to notify a girl’s parents (or seek court permission) before she can end her pregnancy, Proposition 85 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. The measure would almost invariably delay abortions, and because teens are more likely to find out later rather than sooner that they are pregnant, it could lead to more later-term procedures, which are riskier and more complicated.
For girls who are afraid to report molestation by a family member, the proposition would create an almost insurmountable obstacle. Similar laws in other states have not appreciably changed teen pregnancy or abortion rates.
Let’s make sure Prop 85 doesn’t pass. VOTE NO ON 85
Proposition 89
In their ongoing quest to make the case for clean money, The Yes on 89 folks have compiled a list of the special interest money that has flowed into California from out of state in the last 5 years. Remarkably, Middlesex County, New Jersey is responsible for more donations to California campaigns ($10.2 million) than Kern County, California is ($7.5 million.) Why?
Middlesex County is the home of Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies involved in last fall's high-priced ballot battle over discounts for prescription drugs.
Big Pharma isn’t the only special interest investing in California campaigns. This year, add big tobacco to the list.
Since the June election, there have been at least nine new contributions of more than $5 million, led by a $13.8 million donation from Philip Morris and $10 million from R.J. Reynolds, of out-of-state tobacco companies that have each put up more than $20 million to fight Prop. 86, which would boost the state tax on cigarettes by $2.60 a pack.
That fact alone makes you want to support Prop 86, doesn’t it? We are. Learn more at Yes on 86.
Meanwhile, a new poll shows that while Californians are critical of the role of big money in our elections, Prop 89 has not yet made its case with voters.
A poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 61 percent of likely voters are convinced the current system that allows politicians to collect millions of dollars in special interest campaign contributions is hurting the state, while only 6 percent think it's good for California.
But when asked whether they backed Prop. 89, which is designed to take almost all private money out of California campaigns, only 25 percent of those surveyed said yes, compared with 61 percent who said they would vote against the initiative.
Proposition 90
The City Council of Pasadena has joined the California League of Cities in formally opposing Proposition 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes Act.” You almost have to admire how perfectly Rovian its title is considering what a far cry it is from describing what the measure would actually do.
While acknowledging some reform is necessary, opponents said a provision requiring the government to pay property owners for substantial economic loss resulting from regulations on use of private property would end up costing taxpayers billions in lawsuits. "This goes way, way too far," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 90 campaign. "Now, when a developer wants to build 50 houses and the city tells him he can only build 25 – he can sue for compensation for the others."
While Prop 90 would
prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire private property unless the government itself plans on using it.
The Pasadena City Council took issue with the fact that 90
would prevent cities from acquiring blighted areas, eliminating slum lords, building affordable housing and providing public facilities by private for-profit agencies.
In other words it would prevent the government from doing what’s best for its citizens.
Help us fight Prop 90 by writing a letter to the editor today.