'No stealth motive'

One of the measures on the ballot for California's "special" election, Proposition 73, would require doctors to notify the parents of minor girls before performing abortions. Now, we may spend the next three centuries debating the morality of abortions, and the psychological impact of sex and abortions on minors. However, today's Chronicle reveals that there are two pieces of fine print in the text of Proposition 73 that we all need to be aware -- and wary -- of, and for different reasons.

One is that the measure attempts to redefine the term "abortion" in California. Currently, an abortion is a "medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy.'' But Proposition 73 would define it, at least for minors, as "the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female...with the knowledge that the termination will...with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born." (Emphasis mine.)

For their part, the measure's authors claim no "stealth motive" for inserting that definition, but the wording reeks of Karl Rove and the Religious Right's highly orchestrated campaign to impose its theology on all of us through law. There was no justifiable reason to write in a definition of abortion in the proposition. All they had to do was say, "as defined by California law." This is a "baby step" toward their desired redefinition of abortion as murder. It's the whole "how to boil a frog" metaphor. Try to just drop the country into boiling water, it will immediately jump out. But place the country in cool water, and raise the temperature incrementally, and your frog is doomed, unaware of the creeping danger. No stealth motive, my ass.

The other, and even more constitutionally -- or possibly unconstitutionally -- dangerous provision concerns judges. See, minors can avoid notifying parents by going before a judge and demostrating maturity or arguing that notifying parents would not be in the minor's best interests. But the measure would require a public report to be issued annually on every judge's record in such cases.

This is absolutely ridiculous. There is no other type of case which has this requirement. And not only would this result in vicious political attack ads, as the Chronicle story points out ("Judge X allowed young girls to secretly kill their unborn babies in 9 cases out of 10 last year"), but it could also potentially place judges in physical danger, just like the posting of abortion doctors' names and addresses on Web sites.

There is absolutely no sociological benefit to these public reports. They would only be used to attack and point fingers at judges who don't support one set of religious beliefs through rulings from the bench. It compromises the independence of the judiciary. Inexcusable. No on 73.

AP Wire + Photoshop = Blog

As I work at a newspaper, I have access to a wonderful thing called the AP Photo Wire. I also have access to Photoshop. And sometimes an opportunity comes along that's too good to pass up. Now I ask you: Which of these two images is more "truthful"?





Answer: Although the top image represents the physical reality, the bottom one much more closely resembles ideological reality.

How could this happen in America?

So we supposedly live in the greatest country in the world, right? And capitalism is the best system available, right? Well, call me a bleeding-heart liberal commie if you want, but there are at least a few "industries" that should not be free-market or profit-based, even here in wonderful America. Energy is one -- deruglation has worked out wonderfully in California, and the oil companies have realized that with the American attitude of entitlement, gasoline is really not a flexible resource, so they gouge us at the pumps and post record profits.

But the biggest problem area is health care. It should be written in the Constitution that ALL persons in America have a right to the very best health care, at absolutely no out-of-pocket expense. The greatest country in the world should be able to figure out how to do that, even if it means actually getting the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. But insurance companies and hospital systems are in the business of making money. As a result, many American families are financially ruined by health care costs. From The New York Times:

From 2000 to 2005, employees in the most common type of insurance plan, known as preferred provider organizations, saw their premiums for individual coverage rise 76 percent, to $603 from $342, while their deductibles - the amount they pay out of pocket before insurance kicks in - rose almost 85 percent, to $323 from $175, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. By 2003, a survey by the Center for Studying Health System Change estimated, 20 million American families had trouble paying their medical bills. Two-thirds of these had health insurance.

Yep. God bless America and God bless capitalism.