Reader editor Jim Holman launches fourth parental-notification ballot measure
OK, so we don’t actually know for sure it’s Holman. But, like with 2008′s Prop. 4 (which Holman ran out of the Reader offices on India Street), a “John Smith” signed the letter (PDF) to the state Attorney General’s initiative coordinator. There’s no contact information listed. And, like Prop. 4, the title’s the same: “Parental Notification, Child and Teen Safety, and Stop Predators Act” (the “predators” part comes from the Prop. 4 camp’s allegation that sexual predators regularly impregnate teen girls and then secretly force them to have abortions).
It’s pretty much the same stuff as before: The ballot initiative would amend the California Constitution—which currently guarantees privacy to any woman seeking an abortion—to say that “a physician shall not perform an abortion on an unemancipated minor until at least 48 hours has elapsed after the physician or the physician’s agent has delivered written notice” to the girl’s parent or legal guardian. Like Prop. 4, notice isn’t required if the girl can prove she’s a victim of physical or sexual abuse by one or both of her parents. To do this, she needs to get a family member who’s 21 or older, a law-enforcement officer or child protective services to sign and notarize a statement documenting the abuse. If a family member signs the statement, it’ll be turned over to law enforcement.
The girl can also ask a judge to waive the notification requirement.
Any physician who performs an abortion on a minor without parental consent “shall be liable for damages in a civil action” by the girl or “by a parent wrongfully denied notification.”
The California Department of Public Health will also be required to produce an annual report on all abortions performed on minors (the report won’t contain the names of doctor or their patients).
Prop. 4 was defeated in November 2008 with 52 percent voting no.
Prop. 4′s predecessor, Prop. 85, was defeated in 2006 with 54 percent voting no.
Prop. 85′s predecessor, Prop. 73, was defeated in 2005 with 52.7 percent voting no.
It’s a safe bet this is Holman. He must’ve been heartened by the two extra percentage points he received the last time. Energy would be much better spent organizing a fight against this invasive prop. than worring about the fanatics of Westboro Baptist Church.
The TV ads for this should end with Holman saying “Hi, I’m Jim Holman and I don’t have a life.”
Doofus should stick with running The SD Weekly Geezer into the ground…
I like to use the pro-prop 8 argument…until I realize my own hypocrisy (damn it!!!): we voted! We’ve spoken (3 times!!!) Argh.
Maybe if we vote on something that does not take away a person’s rights four times in a row, it sticks?
See, there’s where I feel I am not being hypocritical – my votes have all been pro-rights, not anti-rights. Yay!
And in the meantime, Planned Parenthood will be forced to divert precious dollars to fight this outrageous initiative one more fucking time.
Aghhhh shit not this fuckin thing again. get a fucking life holman.
Basta! It’s time to hit Holman where it hurts.
For too long he’s been hiding his right-wing agenda behind the “alternative” marketing position staked out by the Reader. The paper was started with support from local banker-types interested in suppressing the investigative reporting on local mis-deeds by the underground papers in our fair city.
Now it’s simply the media equivalent of lithium…”ignore those men stealing money…read this unedited & meaningless feature….and can we get you a boob job?”