Archive for the ‘california’ Category

After yesterday’s post on how the Gospel and the Christian worldview shapes all that we do should be for the glory of God, I thought I share a more fun read that I finished a few weeks back.  We must read also for the glory of God, even with historical reading.  I will give first a review of the book itself and provide in the end a brief Christian reflection so that the Christian reflection doesn’t take away from my review of the book.

The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War by Leonard L Richards

Leonard L. Richards.  The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War.  New York, NY: Knopf, February 13th, 2007. 304 pp.

This turned out to have been quite a fun read largely because the author was able to present a non-stop account of the many interesting personalities during an interesting time period of American history’s pre-Civil War days.  The book is about California’s influence upon the sectional divide between the States and also how the people and interests of the different parts of the United States shaped the politics and direction of California.  Before this I never really thought much about how California’s role in the undercurrent that led to the Civil War.


Read Full Post »

I’ve been struggling over this issue after reading both analyses against and for the position by Robyn Nordell and the California Family Councel respectively.

The consequence of voting yes, may save lives by involving outside parties, including judges, other family members, and/or parents.

Although I believe Robyn Nordell identifies the cost of passing proposition 4 correctly:

Summary of Concerns Addressed in this Updated Analysis:

  • This initiative gives pro-abortionists constitutionally-guaranteed tools that they could use to circumvent a parent’s right to make decisions in the best interest of their children.
  • This initiative would place the vague and undefined legal terms “severe emotional abuse” and “emotional abuse” into the Constitution for the first time.
  • Innocent parents could be more susceptible to false allegations of abuse or neglect.
  • Prop. 4 sets a new standard and principle in the Constitution concerning 1) who is considered “family,” 2) who can be designated to take the place of a parent, and 3) under what conditions. Just because courts have already ruled in this direction, and California and some other states have parts of Prop. 4’s language in their state law does not make it right or wise to place this wording in our Constitution.
  • This constitutional amendment places dangerous wording in the California Constitution, which could be used as the basis to argue that parental rights can be diminished in other areas of the lives of minor children. This dangerous wording could be persuasive in further undermining parental authority and the nuclear family (father, mother, child) as an autonomous social institution.”

I think the California Family Council puts the priorities correctly, lives over parental rights:

“….if lives can be saved, we must support the passage of Proposition 4.”

The logic relies on the premise being true. Can lives be saved?

My concern is I wonder if the stipulations of a court waiver are so easy that parents won’t be notified even if the law passes. If the law is so ineffective that parents are not notified at all, then we’re really not saving lives but rather sacrificing parental rights in the constitution for free!

Thus, my struggle is how ineffective is this law?

Here’s a cause and effect chart from a doctor’s perspective I made to aid in analyzing the overall effectiveness of proposition 4:

Cause and effect chart of Proposition 4

Cause and effect chart of Proposition 4

My concerns about the court waivers are threefold:

  1. Judge only needs to deem an unemancipated minor as both mature and well-informed to issue a waiver.
  2. Judge only needs to deem notifying parents not in the best interest of the minor
  3. If the court fails to give a ruling by 5 pm the next court day (after filing for waiver), the court waiver is automatically granted.

All three of the waivers have nothing to do with physical, emotional, or sexual abuse! If the physician or staff at planned parenthood always advise the minor to take this route, my fear is that they will always get the waiver. We already know, Planned Parenthood tells minors to lie about their age anyways. Remember the undercover video at Planned Parenthood:

Why not advise minors to take the most easiest legalized and legitamate route, that WE legalized!

The only benefit to this proposition is it would allow civil suits by affected parents or minors for anyone aiding the minor to circumvent the proposition (e.g. Forging a parental waiver). But this benefit might be nill considering if getting waivers legally are easier than doing it illegally.

If this law proves ineffective and takes away parental rights, we would have to fight for another constitutional amendment to change it. Honestly, I wonder if the pro-choice people are really trying to pull a fast one on us. I feel the summary provided by the state was vastly inadequate, not even including this huge potential loophole.

For the full proposition PDF click here.

At the same time though, I wonder if the proposition might discourage even one minor from getting an abortion. If one minor ignores the advice of Planned Parenthood to seek a court waiver, then perhaps the minor will be convinced by their parents to not have an abortion. Or perhaps, a minor may assume, incorrectly, that their parents must be notified and abstain from abortion.

Although I suspect that the judges will always hand out a waiver, maybe the whole court process might cause one minor to save one child. Because I can’t say that one child won’t be saved, at this time I must say yes to proposition 4.

Read Full Post »

It seems as if freedom of speech is okay for every perspective except for Prolifers for the City of Oakland

They are trying to pass an ordinance to hinder Freedom of Speech and they built their case with fabricated lies.

City officials alleged there was a rising tide of complaints of “harassment” of clinic patients and staff and state and federal laws don’t offer enough protections. They want to impose penalties of up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,000 for violators of their new speech regulation. A final vote is set for Dec. 4.

But city officials are wrong on both counts, Johnson insisted, pointing out there were no records of complaints, no injunctions, no records of lawsuits, no record of police action and no record of any kind submitted to support the allegation that such situations are a problem.

Click here for the newstory

Read Full Post »

In California, Conservatives have been cheated once again with Governor Arnold


The word “MOM” and “DAD” is now banned in schools in California

Talk about stupidity

Read Full Post »