11.09.2005

Only in California

I have only a few minutes this morning to comment on the results of yesterday's election. So, I'll limit my remarks to what happened in California. (More on the national returns later.)

What I thought were a few "no-brainer" propositions apparently did require a brain. To NOTIFY parents of their minor's request for an abortion! I was talking with friends the other day and found out that a man who goes in for a vasectomy is REQUIRED to have his wife's approval and has a 7-day waiting period.


How is it that a 30+ year old man, who has four children needs his wife's APPROVAL and a waiting period for a procedure on his body while a teenager has unilateral authority?! She doesn't even need to tell, much less be required to have the consent from anyone, for a procedure that affects her body and takes the life of another's.

I will write more later. But, for now, I will leave you with a quote I heard from Dennis Prager this morning regarding teachers: "Why are teachers exempt from excellence?"

15 Comments:

At 11/09/2005 11:06:00 PM, Blogger Sleep-Deprived said...

Absolutely maddening. California citizens recalled Davis and elected Arnold because of the dire need for change in the state. Why would people vote for the recall, and then vote against change that the state needs? If they didn't want change, why did they bother to recall Davis? What a monumental waste of time and money.

And Lores your point about the vasectomy consent is just ONE MORE example of how screwed up the thinking (or lack thereof) in this state is. It's enough to drive a person elsewhere.

Argh! I am one frustrated Californian today.

 
At 11/10/2005 02:04:00 AM, Blogger Layman said...

And I am a frustrated Texan living in California!

 
At 11/10/2005 02:13:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

I am a frustrated red-stater at heart living in a blue state.

 
At 11/10/2005 04:15:00 AM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

I'm just frustrated...

 
At 11/10/2005 04:24:00 AM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Prop 73 results really surprised me. I thought that one would definitely pass. I think proponents for it simply didn't do a good job at getting the message out.

I was at the rec center today with Kerri, Lores, and one of my coworkers (union member) voted no on every single measure proposed by Arnold. When I discussed Prop 73 with her, she changed her mind ; and when I discussed 74 and used your personal experience as an example of why the probationary period should be extended for teacher tenure, she said she wished she knew about that side of the argument before. I just can't believe she voted without finding out what the other side of the coin was about; but I guess that's typical. Many people don't really follow politics that closely and all she hears are the soundbytes: hurts teachers, against unions who stand up "for the little guy", 73 is anti-abortion, etc. Demonize the other side, and you think you have a good handle on the pros and cons.

Just goes to show how important it is to get your message out there. It seems that the side who won in these elections were the ones who spent the most.

 
At 11/10/2005 05:13:00 AM, Anonymous david said...

This is my little theory: there is about 20 percent of the people in this country who are conservative and will vote Republican no matter what and another 20 percent who are liberal and will vote Democratic no matter what. (You can actually plug in whatever numbers you want as long as the middle number is bigger than the other numbers) The other 60 percent are in between and it's not that they can't make up their mind and therefore have no opinion, it's that the majority of these people see very little difference between the parties and hate all politicians. So the result is that they end up voting AGAINST whomever is in power instead of voting FOR anyone in particular. So the people that were against all those propositions turned the election into a referendum against Arnold and that 60 percent voted them down based on that. That's what happened in the recall, they hated Gray Davis so much that the ended up voting for Arnold simply because he was a movie star and NOT Gray Davis.

I know it's not as fancy as the proposition awhile back that party trumps all, but I'm a simple guy.

 
At 11/10/2005 05:19:00 AM, Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Forgot something else: in regards to the vasectomy comment, I had also heard this brought up, I think by Dennis Prager a week or so ago. But rather than Prop 73, his comparison was with the hypocrisy of spousal consent in vasectomies, but none in abortion.

It was Prager or Medved, anyway.

 
At 11/10/2005 05:44:00 AM, Blogger Charlie said...

Since I don't live in California, I'm suspicious that the vasectomy waiting period is an urban legend. Do you have a source, Lores?

It's remarkably arrogant to think that a man should be subjected to such a thing when a woman can abort her baby without consulting the father at all.

But of course, I would want to see any reforms go in the direction of requiring both situations to be covered by waiting periods and formal consent, not the elimination of all spousal consent in all such circumstances.

 
At 11/10/2005 06:14:00 AM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

As far as I have found, there is no requirement for spousal notification when it comes to vasectomies. That would be silly, since a person's organs belong to them alone. Sure, it would be a REALLY good idea to let your wife know that you had it done, but I haven't found anywhere that notification has been required by law. I believe that in some areas there is a waiting period required, but a vasectomy obviously isn't as time-sensitive as an abortion.

 
At 11/10/2005 06:32:00 AM, Blogger Goat said...

All of them went down even the socialist ones, a victory for the status quo. Conservative districts did not show up, period.

 
At 11/10/2005 06:42:00 AM, Blogger Sleep-Deprived said...

charlie - I don't know about Lores' source, but I specifically remember my obstetrician talking about the hypocracy of the vasectomy consent requirement. I can't remember the context in which it came up (conversation was a couple years ago) - but I remember my disbelief at hearing about it.

 
At 11/10/2005 07:11:00 AM, Blogger JCOsmom said...

Charlie and Jaymeister-
I know Lores' source in the vasectomy comment and I will vouch for them and the validity of her statement until she (Lores) hops back on here to give more clarity or info for you.

 
At 11/10/2005 07:25:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

My source is a couple who just went through this process in the last year. He even looked up the information after we talked and noticed that the waiting period could be as long as 30 days.

But, he and his wife both were shocked that she had to sign a consent form. They, too, had a conversation with their doctor about the irony that a woman does not need anyone's consent to get a hysterectomy or an abortion. Their doctor had no answer for them.

 
At 11/10/2005 01:02:00 PM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

If that's the case, then somebody should lobby for the consent requirement to be eliminated for vasectomies.

 
At 11/10/2005 04:41:00 PM, Anonymous Just a Man said...

I'm a frustrated southerner living in the nation’s capitol. This whole thing absolutely breaks my heart. Being in DC I see a lot of backroom talks and you would be so surprised how press and PR effect decisions. What happened to making a decision based on beliefs, values, and morals? It appears that a majority of the leaders in this country base a decision on how it plays in the mornings papers. Government is here to fight for the ones that can't fight for themselves, what more of an example of that principle is found in the abortion issue. An unborn is the "poster child" of defenseless. God help us all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home