Proposition 4 is another bad anti-choice proposal:  parental notification, an automatic child abuse investigation if the young woman doesn’t want to notify her parents and can’t find a judge to approve.  And if she is able to find a judge, the judge then has to declare her mature enough, and the judges have to make annual reports, county-by-county, on how many abortions are approved for young women each year.  

Details over the flip.

Proposition 4 on the general election ballot is an initiative measure to amend the California State Constitution to impede a minor’s ability to obtain an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.  This is all too familiar.  Twice in the past three years, Californians have narrowly defeated two similar measures — Propositions 73 in November, 2005 and 85 in November, 2006.  But this time, the measure is in danger of passing.  A poll (caution: .pdf file) conducted by the Field Research Corporation has it at Yes 49, No 41, with 10 percent undecided as of September 26th.  All of this in a state that is 71% pro-choice.  

Proposition 4 changes the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for minors caution — large .pdf file — until 48 hours after physician notifies the young woman’s parent or legal guardian.  To make matters worse, it mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors, and it authorizes civil damage awards against physicians for violations.  

It gets worse for young women in potentially abusive situations.  In this case, the physician would be allowed to skip the notification only if an equivalent notice has been delivered

… to an adult family member designated by the unemancipated minor and has made a written report of known or suspected child abuse concerning to unemancipated minor to to the appropriate law enforcement or public child protective agency.  Such report shall be based on a minor’s written statement that she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified and that her fear is based on a pattern of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of her exhibited by a parent.  The physician shall also include the minor’s statement with his or her report and shall also retain a copy of the statement and the report in the minor’s medical records.  The physician shall also include with the notice a letter informing the adult family member that a report of known or suspected child abuse has been made concerning the minor and identifying the agency to which the report was made.  The minor shall be informed that the notice and the letter will be delivered to the adult family member she has designated.

(proposed section 32(e))

A young woman facing the choice of an abortion is likely going through enough turmoil without having to ensnare her family into a child abuse investigation, especially if that family is dysfunctional.  

The initiative-backers attempt to throw a few bones by providing notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver, and permitting courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.  But court proceedings are intimidating and a young woman

must appear personally in the proceedings in juvenile court

It gets worse:

Each court shall provide annually to the Judicial Council, in a manner to be prescribed by the Judicial Council to ensure confidentiality of the unemancipated minors filing petitions, a report of the number of petitions filed, the number of petitions granted … deemed granted, .. or denied … said reports to be publicly available …

(emphasis added)

Why publicly available?  So the wingnuts can try to intimidate and remove judges siding with from young women who are seeking refuge in the courts.

There is also a provision for civil lawsuits of medical personnel and their assistants!  It includes awarding of statutory damages of $10,000  by a parent “wrongfully denied notification” even if actual damages are much less.  The proposed statue of limitation is four years after the young woman becomes an adult OR four years after a parent discovers a failure to comply whichever is later.  

Who is behind Proposition Four?

Proposition 4’s major supporters are winemaker Don Sebastiani and publisher James Holman of the alternative San Diego Reader.  From ballotpedia:

As of September 27, 2008, the six largest donors to Prop. 4 are:

James Holman, $1,375,590. (Of this, $1.35 million is listed as a loan)

Don Sebastiani, $530,000

Knights of Columbus, $200,000

Life Legal Defense Foundation, $50,000 (who are these people?)

The Lenawee Trust, $100,000 (again, who are these people?)

The Caster Family Trust, $100,000 (who is Caster?)

(Bold print added)

Ben Stein is also mentioned as a supporter on the pro Prop 4 web site (No, I will not link to it).

Here are some ideas to help defeat Proposition 4.  Please add more in the comments:  

– Contact Planned Parenthood or The Campaign For Teen Safety (No on Prop 4)

– Contact Assembly and State Senate candidates and request their support.  Request their campaigns to distribute No On Prop 4 literature along with their own.  (I spoke with mine today and she has already begun to include the No On Prop 4 message.)

– Contact our statewide Democratic elected officials.  Request they get help the word out:

Senator Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3553

Senator Barbara Boxer – (202) 224-3841

Lt Gov John Garamendi – (916) 445-8994

Jerry Brown – Attorney General (916) 445-9555

Debra Bowen – Secretary of State (916) 653-7244

John Chiang – Comptroller (916) 445-2636

Bill Lockyer – Treasurer (916) 653-2995

Jack O’Connell – Superintendent of Public Instruction (916) 319-0800

Betty Yee – Board of Equalization District 1 (916) 445-4081

Judy Chu – Board of Equalization District 4 (916) 445-4154

– Attend Obama-Biden rallies/meetings and inform the people you meet there of this measure.  Enlist their support.  Ask them to help spread the word.

– Boycott Sebasitani wines.

   — If anyone has Sebastiani brand wine, get together with friends who have some, videotape the wine being poured down the toilet and the bottles being smashed, then post the video on YouTube.  

   — Contact stores carrying Sebastiani wines and request them to remove the products.  

   — Contact everyone you know, in California and out, and have them join the boycott

– Write Letters to the Editor.  They still get read.

– Call sympathetic radio talk shows and get the word out.

– Bring this issue up at local club/central committee meetings.

If you are in the San Diego area, contact businesses that advertise in the San Diego Reader and request they pull their ads.  Support those businesses that do.  Boycott those that refuse.  Also, look at starting another paper to compete with the San Diego Reader and siphon off their ad revenue.  

We need to move out on this quickly.  Early voting has begun.  The good news is a little bit of effort will go a long way to defeat this ugly measure.  

Update

Sebastiani Wines Brand Names and Contact Information

This news story mentions some brand names under which Sebastiani Wines are marketed.  (Hat Tip to FoundingFatherDAR on DailyKos).

 B Side Cabernet Sauvignons will be offered in very small lots at price points from $20 to $30 a bottle. The wine will be marketed through the Three Loose Screws division of Don & Sons. B Side distribution will be focused on upscale urban restaurants and key independent retailers.

Don Sebastiani & Sons is a family-owned wine negociant firm specializing in the marketing of upscale varietal wines. Principals Don Sebastiani and sons, Donny and August, are third and fourth generation California vintners and merchants. The company is headquartered in Sonoma Valley and has a winery in the Napa Valley.  Don Sebastiani & Sons’ fast-growing The Other Guys portfolio is currently expanding at an annual growth rate of 200%: the more established Three Loose Screws portfolio includes Impact Hot Brands Smoking Loon and Pepperwood Grove.

(Bold type added)

Contact Sebastiani Wines.  Let them know you are no longer buying their product … and tell them why.

Don Sebastiani & Sons

Three Loose Screws Wine Co.

P.O. Box 1248

Sonoma, CA 95476

(707) 933-1704

The Other Guys

485 First Street West

Sonoma, CA 95476

(877) 996-8463

[email protected]

Also, contact local restaurants and request they quit serving Sebastiani Wines (or we will boycott them, too).

Here we go again, another round of endorsements.  The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here.  On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions.

See the flip for more information on the props…

Prop 1A: High Speed Rail: YES!

Prop 1A, recently revised on the ballot by legislative action, will allow the state to purchase $10 Billion in Bonds for the purpose of creating a high speed rail system.  The money will also be leveraged to get federal dollars as well as attract private investments.  This is a no brainer, but if you need more information, check out Robert’s HSR Blog.

Prop 2: Farm Animal Conditions: Yes

This is a simple law that requires farm animals to be able to stand up and turn around in their cages. While there are lots of protests from factory farming interests, this measure could level the playing field for small farmers.  Polls show this one strongly leading. The campaign has also produced a cute video with a singing pig.

Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bonds: Yes

While some of us are conflicted about the purchase of more bonds for another narrowly defined interest, this seems to be a net plus.  Simply put, this would allow the state to sell bonds to provide additional funds for our children’s hospitals, hopefully for capital improvements.  Our hospitals in general need a lot of work, but it would be even better if this money would go instead to ensure all county and other public hospitals remain viable. Not sure about that cheesy commercial though.

Prop 4: Parental Notification: No, NO, and NO AGAIN!

We’ve done this twice before, in the special election of 2005 and again in the general of 2006.  Enough already. We’ve said that we want to make sure that our teenage girls are safe, not use them as political pawns.  Prop 4 requires parental notification, which is fine if the teen has a functional family, but can be dangerous in an abusive home.  The proposition allows for a judicial bypass, but how many scared, pregnant teens have the wherewithal to go through that? This one is running close, so get the word out! As a sidenote, this is a good case for initiative reform to include a limit on how many times you can bring something to the ballot.

Prop 5: Drug Rehab: Yes

A sound policy reform to decrease the number of nonviolent offenders in our jails by placing them in rehabilitation facilities instead.  Prop 5 also reduces sentences for these nonviolent offenders based upon their successful completion of the rehab program. While not “ToughOnCrime”, it is SmartOnCrime.  This is a follow-up to the wildly successful Prop 36 of a few years back. Prop 36 saved us millions of dollars, this likely will as well. Unfortunately, today Senator Feinstein has come out against Prop 5 in a wildly speculative press release that merely rehashes the No on 5 campaign talking points. Let’s be smart, not pseudo-tough. Yes on 5.

Prop 6: Runner Gang Measure: NO

Another wasteful ToughOnCrime measure from the legislators Runner.  This is just plain bad policy that won’t actually reduce gang violence.  The measure increases prison sentences for young gang offenders (really, now?) and would likely cost about a billon dollars per year.  The Mercury News breaks it down:

It would require spending $965 million next year – and more every year

thereafter – on law enforcement, probation and police programs, with a

focus on gangs. That’s $365 million – 50 percent more – than last year.

And the amount will grow, because the initiative guarantees annual

increases for inflation, and higher prison expenses as a result of the

new or longer sentences it would impose for 30-plus crimes. Add in $500

million for jails that the initiative requires for more prisoners, and

it’s a daunting number, at a time that the overall crime rate has been

dropping.

Far too expensive for far too few results.

Prop 7: Renewable Power Standard: No

There already is a renewable power standard in California as part of recent anti-global warming legislation.  This bill would expand those requirements from 20% to 50% by by 2025 – but several small wind and solar power companies are opposed because the measure would essentially toss them out of the market by excluding plants smaller than 30 megawatts from even counting toward the standard.  That appears to cripple innovation and tilt the playing field away from sound renewable power development.  This is a noble goal which is poorly written to create winners and losers.  It’s a close call, but we’re voting no.

Prop 8: Anti-Marriage Amendment: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!

Not much to explain here. Prop 8 would eliminate marriage rights for same gender couples. It is time for Californians to stand up for equality. No on 8.

Prop 9: Runner Victim’s Rights: No

Another “ToughOnCrime” measure by the legislators Runner, this time funded by Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. Why is that relevant? Well, Mr. Nicholas has himself been indicted for white collar fraud as well as drug charges including accusing “Nicholas of using ecstasy to spike the

drinks of industry executives and employees of Broadcom customers.” Classy.

The measure itself reduces frequency of parole hearings and allows victims and their survivors to be present. I’ll let the OC Register, which suggested a No vote, explain the prop:

Prop. 9 would place those rights into the state constitution rather

than into statutory law, the distinction being that the constitution is

much more difficult to change if problems develop. It would also give

crime victims and their families the constitutional right to prevent

the release of certain documents to criminal defendants or their

attorneys, and the right to refuse to be interviewed or provide

pretrial testimony or other evidence to a defendant. The constitution

would be changed to require judges to take the safety of victims into

consideration when granting bail. It would make restitution the first

priority when spending any money collected from defendants in the form

of fines. It would also extend the time between parole hearings from

the current one to five years to three to 15 years.

I’m fine with victim’s rights, but that shouldn’t extend to creating bad policy and increasing our already ridiculously high prison population. We already have a crisis, we don’t need to exacerbate it. Vote No on “Marsy’s Law.”

Prop 10: Natural Gas Giveaway: No

Prop 10 would sell $5 billion worth of bonds to help Californians buy cleaner cars.  The problem of course is that clean is defined as to mean natural gas, and not hybrids. Huh? Furthermore, it wouldn’t require that the commercial trucks purchased with the overwhelming majority of these funds stay in the state.  This is simply a boondoggle for Swift Boat Veterans Funder T. Boone Pickens to get his natural gas company a ton of new purchasers and to get the state to build his natural gas highway. Natural gas is slightly cleaner than gasoline, but it’s still a technology of yesteryear.  We need real renewable energy, not more fossil fuels. Prop 10 is a waste of money at a time when we can’t afford to fully fund our educational system. No on 10!

Prop 11: Redistricting: NO!

Another waste of time redistricting measure that accomplishes little other than guaranteeing Republicans additional power over the redistricting process.  Prop 11 would give equal power to Democrats and Republicans to draw the maps, and would exclude from the commission anybody who has had any experience relevant to the process.  It’s a flawed process that gives Republicans too much.  It’s opposed by leading minority organizations and the Democratic Party. 

For more information, see this diary here at Calitics. Our diary is actually recommend over the “official” No site, which is so hideous as to be nearly useless.  Anyway, Vote No on Republican Voters First!

Prop 12: Veterans Bond: Yes

These things always pass, and are always pretty small. This bond funds a program to help veterans purchase farms and homes.  It’s a decent program, and the bond has passed something like 20 times over the last 100 years.  It likely will again. Despite our concerns over ballot box budgeting, helping out our veterans is a worthwhile cause.

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Sarah Palin, fresh off the Vice-Presidential debate that Joe Biden handily won, is coming to California this weekend, including a rally at the Home Depot Center in Carson. California progressives are ready for her and are going to roll out our own welcome mat, letting Palin and the public know that California does not support her or the far-right beliefs she espouses.

The Courage Campaign is going to greet her with an airplane banner over the Home Depot Center tomorrow that will read “Sarah Palin, Thanks But No Thanks: No on Prop 4!” Proposition 4 is the return of parental notification, and Californians deserve to know what Palin’s stance is on Prop 4 and parental notification. In her interview with Katie Couric:

Katie Couric, CBS News: “If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?”

Governor Sarah Palin: “I am pro-life. And I’m unapologetic about my position…”

In 2007 the Alaska Supreme Court declared a parental consent law as unconstitutional, a decision Palin called “outrageous.” Her response was to appoint another conservative to the court, giving it a conservative majority.

Californians need to know that Prop 4 is an attempt by social conservatives like Sarah Palin to write their extremist beliefs into our state’s laws. Especially as Prop 4 holds a narrow lead in the polls, it is important that Californians are educated about Prop 4’s Palin-esque goals.

Courage Campaign members are helping to fund the banner – it’s a people-powered action, as are all these protest actions. Donate $33 to help get the banner in the air tomorrow!

The California Democratic Party will be there as well. They’ll be bringing a projection screen to a rally outside the Home Depot Center that will display questions for Palin – tough questions that the McCain-Palin campaign doesn’t want asked – that Californians have sent via text message. For more info and to sign up go to www.cadem.org/palin.

California progressives are also organizing protests for tomorrow’s Palin events. Community organizers are helping put together a protest at Home Depot Center, appropriately enough. Click here for more information. LA Indymedia has information on how to get tickets for the event. Orange County activists will be holding a rally at the OC Performing Arts Center near South Coast Plaza from 3:30 to 6 tomorrow afternoon.

The editorials are starting to trickle out of the newspapers.  Let’s start out with a big one from the San-Diego Union-Tribune going no on Prop 8:

As gay couples have gone to the courthouse and entered into matrimony, usually surrounded by champagne, family and friends, the worst fears of gay marriage opponents suddenly seem greatly inflated. For instance, Christian conservatives have asserted for years that allowing gays to marry would undermine heterosexual unions – hence, such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act. In truth, however, there has been no discernible impact on traditional marriage between a man and a woman now that gay couples in California have the same right.

*   *   *

In the past, this page has advocated civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. But our thinking has changed, along with that of many other Californians. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8.

This echoes a similar shift from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. I would expect most of the big city papers to go No on 8 with a few holdouts here and there.

Prop 4, or the Vote No, No, and No again to parental notification measure, is also getting some bad reviews.  Like this one from the Bakersfield Californian:  (yeah, really)

This is the third time in four years California voters have been asked to place a “notification hurdle” in the way of minor women obtaining an abortion. Twice California voters have said NO. They should do so again.

*   *   *

If the woman fears having her parents or guardians notified, she can ask a judge to waive the notification requirement or ask that an alternate adult be notified instead.

But for an alternate adult to be notified, the minor must claim she is being abused – sexually, physically or emotionally. Her report is sent to law enforcement and child protective services. Likely a young woman who fears retaliation would reject the notion of provoking a criminal investigation of her family to obtain an abortion.

*   *   *

Again, this year’s attempt falls short and should be rejected.

Follow me over the flip for a few more endorsements…

Prop 11, or the “Republican Voters First Initiative” as I like to call it, is getting panned around the state.  However, I’m guessing we’ll see a split decision on this from around the state.  Some papers will take the High Broder Position of thinking that this is real reform from some good touchy-feely groups. It’s not, and the SF Chronicle agrees with me (UPDATE: Turns out that most of the newspapers are, in fact taking the High Broder position on this pseudo reform. I actually linked to an op-ed by the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California. Sorry) :

California’s got real problems – an economy in turmoil, a massive budget deficit and political gridlock in Sacramento. And what do the political insiders bring us?

No help for our sagging state economy. No solution to the budget gap. No end to political gridlock. Instead, we get Prop. 11 – another scheme to change redistricting – how we draw political lines between one legislative district and another, and thus whom we elect to office.

California needs political reform, but Prop. 11 is a phony.

It’s complicated and confusing, relying on a 12-step political process to choose who draws legislative districts, and it won’t treat every part of the state equally. Many communities will have no representation at all. There’s no guarantee, for example, that the Bay Area will have even one seat at the table when district lines are drawn.

What it will do is give even more power to people who already have too much clout – the oil companies, corporations and PACs who helped pay to put Prop. 11 on the ballot. That’s the hidden agenda behind Prop. 11.

As for Prop 7, it’s getting mostly panned as well. After a big Sierra Club No Vote, the No side has almost all of the major enviro groups. And now they are getting most of the newspaper endorsements. Including the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, and this one from the San Jose Mercury-News: (NOTE: I work for the No on Prop 7 Campaign.)

Solar, wind and other clean energy producers oppose the Solar and Clean Energy Act, Proposition 7, even though it promises them more business at higher prices.

Environmental groups who’ve fought for renewable energy oppose Proposition 7. Private and public utilities oppose it. Both political parties oppose it. Business and labor, consumer groups, taxpayer groups, the League of Women Voters … . You get the idea.

“No” is the green vote on Proposition 7.

And finally, Prop 10 is also featured in that the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial, also getting panned.  I’ve said frequently that it is a bad deal for California that gives money to a wealthy Republican Swift-boater (T Boone Pickens).  The Sentinel picks up on both of these reasons:

What Proposition 10 will bring to California is more bond debt. That $5 billion in bonds will be repaid over 30 years, bringing the cost to an estimated $10 billion.

California does not need to take on additional debt to finance the purchase of vehicles.

I’ll get to a bunch more editorials as the election draws closer.

State law mandates that every initiative that is going to appear on the ballot must have a legislative hearing sometime before Election Day. On Tuesday in Sacramento, Proposition 4 – “Sarah’s Law” – or Parental Notification for the third time – was heard by a joint Assembly-Senate health committee.

In a packed hearing room, opponents, including Planned Parenthood, the California Medical Association, the California Teachers Association, and other organizations representing nearly one million Californians watched as Assemblymember Dave Jones pinned the initiative’s author Katy Short to the wall, asking her question after question about the deceptive nature of Prop. 4. “Isn’t it true there is no Sarah? Isn’t it true she was a married woman? Isn’t it true nothing in Prop 4 would have applied to Sarah?” Katy Short could do nothing but resort to slamming the California Legislature.

When the opponents of Prop. 4 took the field, a doctor who treats teenagers, a representative from the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood President Kathy Kneer, turned the discussion to the dangerous effect of Prop. 4 on California’s teens and why voters should reject it for the third time. Following the scheduled testimony, when chair Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally asked for public comment, only a handful of supporters went to the microphone, whereas opponents lined up around the room, representing hundreds of coalition groups opposed to Prop. 4. It was no contest.

The good guys won, hands down. But one side note – an anti-choice fixture in the capitol, Albin Rhomberg, began to take individual pictures of opponents as they lined up at the microphone. This is something he has done for years to scare Pro-Choice activists. Chairman Dymally told him to sit down and stop taking photos…. But this is the kind of campaign from the proponent that we are all up against. For more info about how you can help defeat prop 4 and how to help, visit http://www.noonprop4.org.

Maggie Shandera Linden has more than 25 years of experience working in local, state and national politics, public affairs and community relations. She has worked in the halls of Congress, as well as the Capitols of California, Oregon, Nevada and Washington D.C. She co-managed the Campaign for Teen Safety (No on Prop 73 and No on Prop 85) and is one of the campaign consultants for No on Proposition 4.