 |
|
Welcome to Robyn Nordell's Conservative California Election Website
Extensive Voter Information is Posted 3 Weeks Prior to California Primary and General Elections.
VOTER INFO FOR IMPORTANT MAY 19, 2009 CA. STATEWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION!
Proposition 4 – "Sarah's Law" On the November, 2008 Ballot
WHY ROBYN NORDELL OPPOSES SARAH'S LAW
Proposition 4 is one of those difficult election issues on which good people will disagree. There will be conservative, pro-life voters and activists on both sides of this issue. I respect the intent and hard work of Prop 4 proponents. After looking intently at this issue, I have come to the conclusion that I MUST OPPOSE PROP 4 / "Sarah's Law."
Below I lay out the primary reasons that I OPPOSE Prop. 4. Along with my own comments, I have included two excellent analyses of Prop 4, written by ROY HANSON, at my request. Thousands of California families are familiar with the outstanding work of Roy Hanson in the area of protecting parental rights in California.
DOWNLOADABLE - Robyn's 2 Pg Summary
WHY Prop 4 (Sarah's Law) is Dangerous for Parental Rights in California
#1 Roy Hanson's PRIMARY Concern with Prop 4 (9/10/08)
#2 Roy Hanson's Updated Analysis of Prop 4 (9/10/08)
10/24/08-Excerpt from Roy Hanson’s Child and Family Protection Association’s Action Alert Opposing Prop 4: “We remain confident in the statements that we made in our two September 10, 2008 analyses (referenced above) regarding Proposition 4. We have sought legal counsel on, and have examined, the materials that the Proposition 4 proponents have shared with us directly. Nothing that we have received directly from them, or have seen elsewhere, causes us any doubt on our position to Oppose Prop. 4.”
11/1/08 - Robyn Nordell’s Note on My Position to Oppose Prop 4: I had a three hour conversation regarding Prop 4 with a key proponent of the Prop 4 campaign in the summer. Since then I have read the materials that Prop 4 proponents have put out, both on their official website and elsewhere. Nothing that I have read or heard causes me any doubt on my position to Oppose Prop. 4.
**********
Looking at BOTH SIDES of the Arguments for Proposition 4
Steve Wagner is a Bio-Ethics Specialist and national Pro-Life Speaker;
Steve’s blog: Is Prop. 4 a No-Brainer for CA Pro-Life Advocates? Steve shows that there are pro-life people, with common values and reasonable concerns, on both sides of this very important issue. Excerpt: “Here's what's challenging about this particular proposition: some pro-life advocates claim that it protects parental rights while other pro-life advocates claim that it will undermine the very parental rights it's aimed at protecting.” Steve establishes common ground among conservatives on opposite sides of Prop 4 and calls people to carefully look at both sides. Steve refers to the Roy Hanson documents on my site, as well as responses to those documents.
A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW on Prop 4 can be found within my Proposition Information and within recommendations of some who have posted elsewhere on my site. For contrast, CA Family Council supports Prop 4. Even though CFC supports Prop 4, they acknowledge the legitimate concerns of pro-life conservatives who believe that the language of Prop 4 “could logically and conceivably affect the issue of parental authority in future court decisions.”
**********
WHY ROBYN OPPOSES PROPOSITION 4
(An Adult Family Member Notification Amendment)
Excerpt from Attorney General’s Summary:
“Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse reported, an adult family member. Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver. Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.”
Friends - Most of you know that I am strongly pro-life and have worked for more than twenty years on behalf of life issues, parental rights, religious freedoms, traditional values, and other conservative causes. I am saddened to say, that although Prop 4 is well-intentioned and supported by some very fine people, I firmly believe that the unintended NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of putting the wording of Prop 4 into the state constitution would vastly outweigh the sought-after benefits.
Prop 4 has the potential of causing great long-term harm to overall parental rights in California (outside of the area of abortion) and causing innocent parents to become much more susceptible to false allegations of abuse or neglect (both on a small and large scale.)
With so many examples of judicial activism and a growing bias against Judeo-Christian values and the traditional family, I believe that it would be short-sighted and very unwise for conservatives to give activist judges and liberal child-rights activists the tools, inadvertently provided by Prop 4, to use against good, innocent families in California.
Please take the time to read the excellent analyses of Prop 4, written by Roy Hanson, which explains how and why Prop 4 could be so dangerous to overall parental rights (outside the area of abortion) and for good, innocent parents and children in California. Also, please see my example below regarding one of the ways that Sarah’s Law is dangerous for good, innocent parents.
Roy Hanson's PRIMARY Concern with Prop 4 (9/10/08)
Roy Hanson's Updated Analysis of Prop 4 (9/10/08)
Who is Roy Hanson?
From Robyn:
Here are a FEW Examples of Why Sarah's Law is Dangerous for Parental Rights.
Currently the phrase "severe emotional abuse" is not in the definition of child abuse or in the state constitution. Prop 4 adds this undefined term to the state constitution and creates the following dangerous scenario:
On the basis of a pregnant girl making an UNVERIFIED claim to an abortionist that her parent has "severely emotionally abused" her, the following would happen:
- The abortionist would file a child abuse report against the parent.
(The parent could be totally innocent. Further, a false child abuse report against innocent parents can negatively affect ALL the siblings in that family.)
- The UNVERIFIED child abuse report would be put into the girl's medical records
- The girl would choose an "adult family member" to be notified in place of the parent.
(Do not underestimate the significance of this! We live in a state where 1) courts have redefined marriage and 2) ruled that sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws TRUMP religious freedoms (recent case against Christian doctors), and 3) where we continuously fight over who controls the children (the parents or the state). It would be short-sighted and dangerous to place wording into the California State Constitution that says A) an adult family member (including a first cousin) can be notified in place of a parent and B) that parental notification can be bypassed on the basis of an UNVERIFIED claim of abuse, including “severe emotional abuse,” by their teenager. Also, see Roy Hanson’s analyses for how Prop 4 can result in dangerous case law.)
- The girl can still obtain the abortion within 48 hours.
Please read Roy Hanson's Two Articles for Detailed Analyses
As to WHY Sarah's Law is So Dangerous for Overall Parental Rights:
Sarah's Law-Summary of the PRIMARY Concern (2 pgs)
(by Roy Hanson, 9/10/08)
Excerpts: "Prop. 4 can result in very bad case law that will be relied on by other courts, in circumstances other than abortion, eventually creating a very hazardous climate for families, permitting children to circumvent the will of their parents in all kinds of situations."
- "Under Prop. 4, the Appellate Courts will be making their decisions based on Juvenile Court records that are one-sided, containing the child's point of view. Normally Juvenile Courts allow adversarial due process hearings where parents may testify and be represented by legal counsel, who may cross-examine witnesses, etc., in which cases an Appellate Court would have the record of both sides to consider."
- "These Appellate Court rulings, when published, will result in new case law unrelated to abortion, which becomes increasingly detrimental to parental rights. With perilous new rulings resulting from Prop. 4, blatant judicial activism could further undermine parental authority, by creating dangerously expansive definitions of "emotional abuse" and undermining the traditional nuclear family (father, mother, child) as an autonomous social institution."
- "It may only take one case to produce a very bad ruling that can adversely affect the whole state."
Excellent UPDATED Analysis of Prop 4 ("Sarah's Law") (6 pgs)
(by Roy Hanson, updated 9/10/08)
10/24/08 - Excerpt from Roy Hanson’s Child and Family Protection Association’s Action Alert Opposing Prop 4: “We remain confident in the statements that we made in our two September 10, 2008 analyses (referenced above) regarding Proposition 4. We have sought legal counsel on, and have examined, the materials that the Proposition 4 proponents have shared with us directly. Nothing that we have received directly from them, or have seen elsewhere, causes us any doubt on our position to Oppose Prop. 4.”
Excerpts: "Some have said that this initiative is 'a step in the right direction'. We would suggest that this amendment to the Constitution is not just a step. Rather, it is a giant leap – and not in the right direction. Current bad case law precedents would become fixed in constitutional concrete. California would become the first state in America with the constitutional provisions contained in Prop. 4. As a result, a whole new genre of anti-family, anti-parental-rights case law could develop."
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.
Here is the full text of Proposition 4
Roy Hanson's Background:
Note from Robyn:
As many of you know, Roy Hanson of Child and Family Protection Association (a division of Family Protection Ministries) has twenty-plus years of experience in effectively helping to protect parental rights in California. I have known Roy for two decades, have worked with him on many projects, and have found him to be a consistently excellent source of information on parental rights issues.
The leadership of Roy Hanson and Jim Davis (Roy's associate) has been strategic in stopping or amending dozens of bills which would have damaged parental rights, private schools, or private home education in California. A few of the many victories of dangerous proposals stopped include: criminalizing homeschooling, defining educational neglect and truancy as child abuse (which could have been used against homeschoolers), statewide daytime curfews, mandatory government home visits of all infants and toddlers, and mandatory psychiatric examinations for all citizens every three years.
Their efforts have also been critical in passing positive legislation protecting parental rights (for example, SB 243 excluding spankings in the definition of child abuse, AB 1355 reducing the absolute immunity of social workers to protect innocent parents from false accusations of child abuse, and AB 2749 requiring CPS social workers performing an investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect to advise the individual of the allegations against him).
Roy Hanson has a MSSW - Masters of Science in Social Work, with a specialty in Public Policy from the University of Texas at Austin. He taught social work for four years at the university from which he obtained his Masters. He also double majored in Psychology and Sociology at Baylor University. He knows how social workers think, understands the CPS system, and how good, innocent parents can get caught up in the Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court System.
|
|