Pro-Choicers, Gay Supporters Rally at Courthouse

Does Ms. Helene Schneider ever have her facts straight? Or does she just like to twist them to suit her political agenda of taking decision making ability away from parents and families?

Yes the voters voted already. They voted YES in 2000 on an initiative to ban gay marriage. The recent overturning of the will of the people was not by the voters, it was by the California Supreme Court. What part of no do YOU not understand? The voters voted "NO". Do you have a problem with the voters voting to say NO once again Ms Schneider?

DO you have a problem with parents being informed about their children and making informed decisions about how to handle family matters and what is best for their children? How are teens not "safe" when their parents are not involved in guiding them to a future they won't regret? I thought the whole argument behind the pro-choice crowd was to keep the government and special interst groups out of private matters? Parents need to be informed, when children are not old enough to make judgements and decisions that could impact the rest of their lives. Guiding children in decisions is a parent's job, not the job of a special interest group. You can't take away the right of all families to be involved in their children's decisions just because there are some bad parents.

Yes on 4 and 8! Power to the people, not to the judges and special interest groups!

If you are truly pro-choice you will recognize that one of the choices is to let the baby live and grow up to be a fine human being. Parents need to know if their children are faced with this choice, and guide them to the pros and cons of the decision.

There is a physical risk to the mother in having an abortion, there is a risk to the psyche of the teen if as an adult she must face the reality or even possibility that she gave up a chance to be a loving mother. There is a risk that later in life she may regret and be traumatized by guilt of the decision of murdering what "may or may not" have been a baby, perhaps the only chance she may have had. All of these things need to be discussed before making such a grim "choice".

A teen needs the wisdom and guidance and support of a loving caring parent in facing this traumatic but possibly beautiful situation. The possiblity and value of a new life should not be so easily dismissed, determined by a group outside of the family - the consequences and responsibility of creating a human being avoided as a subject to be discussed between parents and child.. Only God knows what that baby was created to do and be. Planned Parenthood is not God and should not replace actual PARENTS. If you believe in pro-choice you should allow parents to be involved in that choice. A teen is not wise and mature enough to face this alone. The teen also needs to know that the only one without a choice is the BABY and I doubt she will hear that from Planned Infanticide.

Sounds like you have a passion that information and support is available to those kids and families who face life-changing decisions, AShaw -- a range of options, if you will.

Perhaps you will be moved to break out your checkbook and support a non-profit organization whose stated goals are to:

"... to actively promote family planning and healthy, responsible reproductive and sexual behavior through the provision of high-quality, comprehensive, educational, counseling, medical, and referral services.

"We support the availability of these services, particularly to individuals whose access to other sources of help is limited.

"We promote public understanding, acceptance and support for reproductive choice and family planning services.

"We also promote public understanding of global problems that stem from population pressures and encourage support of programs working toward solutions to these problems. "

Their objectives are a perfect fit with the choice-centered ideas in your post.

You should send your donation to:

Planned Parenthood, Santa Barbara,
https://dnbweb1.blackbaud.com/OPXDONATE/...

Nice subtle sarcasm, binky, but your logic fails again.
The issue at stake, binky, is not whether or not information and support is available, the issue is about excluding parents from support and any input into this decision making process, and doing an "end-around" on their rights as parents to guide and raise their own children with values and respect for life and responsibility for their actions..

The one with the largest stake in the decision, (the abortee) should also be consulted in the decision, which is not possible, so why is the choice of his or her eminent death even an option and left in the hands of anyone but the Creator of this life?

I wonder what the "Clergy for Choice think of this excerpt from Psalm 139:

13For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother's womb.
14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

Seems to speak rather highly and respectfully of this "blob of protoplasm" during it's creation (by God) in the womb. Does this life before birth somehow have less value than it's mother simply because it is unborn? Would the phony Reverend Asman care to comment?

The article misquoted me slightly. Actually, what I said was that the League of Women Voters had consistently opposed measures like Props. 4 and 8. In 2000, voters did approve Proposition 22, which was overturned by a state Supreme Court decision in May of this year.

Both of these propositions threaten basic constitutional rights. Regardless of your personal feelings about either of these issues, it is wrong to use the ballot box to change fundamental rights and freedoms.

So it is right for these things to be decided by a small panel of liberal judges instead of the voters? I thought this was a democracy that allowed amendments.

If you want a country or state ruled by judges, when judges become conservative, you may regret that viewpoint.

Abortion is murder. Any doubts? Let's see the pro-choicers try it on themselves. They won't, because they realize they are lying hypocrites. They wouldn't even take a cubic inch out of their own arms. Like Hitler, they are "pro-choice" only toward other people-- those 'others', as did Hitler, they selfishly deem to be unworthy. Hitler was pro-choice because he killed only the ones he chose, just like the abortion mill butchers do, but at least he killed fewer people than does Planned Parenthood. He also charged only the gold teeth he yanked out of his victims' jaws.
Homosexuality was useful to the human species when we were cave-dwellers and needed a non-reproducing set-aside of the surplus population, so as to not overgraze our food supply. However, for the last 8,000 years or so we have had agriculture to provide our food. Those of us who are no longer primitive hunter-gatherers realize homosexuality has long been ludicrously obsolete, and today has little significance other than being a vehicle to transmit AIDS, syphilis, fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea, and whatever other pervert-friendly epidemic is coming down the pike next year.
Maybe Santa Barbara will someday progress beyond the degeneracies of Hitler and the ancestral troglodytes, but it is evident the failure-to-maintain-control element of human inadequacy will be around until evolution progresses further. Why is Santa Barbara so backward?

Ah, "RandyCrawford"'s comment is deserving of this:

Godwin's Law officially declared.

http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-La...

There is so much wrong with that irrational rant that it does not merit responding.

However, I'd like to thank Randy Crawford for demonstrating so well why anti-discrimination laws are still so necessary and why we should all vote no on Prop's 4 and 8. .

Godwin's Law is a pretty good call, binky.

RandyCrawford could have stopped at "abortion is murder" and made the point. But what is wrong with a comparison to Hitler if it is a truthful comparison? Will Godwin's law soon become law? Wouldn't surprise me. We don't want anyone to notice the similarities between liberals and Hitler, beginning with suppression of freedom of expression.

Devon, your note at the end of the piece seems to have the aim (pardon me if I'm wrong) of debunking claims made by speakers at the rally. I think it is entirely irrelevant to the core of the issue.

First, not all families are two-parent families. Many teens only have one parent or legal guardian.

Even if consent is required for only one parent in two-parent families, teens may not feel safe speaking to either of their parents about a pregnancy, let alone both. Several of the speakers alluded to this fact by mentioning that teens talk to other relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc.) --whether notification is made to one or both parents makes absolutely no difference in this case.

The bottom line, as several of the speakers pointed out, is that family communication cannot be mandated by law. To focus on comments about "both parents" is to miss the point.

Abortion is the ultimate in discrimination. It is the merciless killing of helpless humans precisely because they are helpless and human. Thus far America has killed millions more than either Hitler or Stalin. Proud of yourself, America?
Homosexuality is another form of discrimination, favoring the same gender over the alternative gender. Homosexuality is the futile inbreeding (without reproduction) of sameness, and is the opposite of the "diversity" its advocates hypocritically pretend to advocate. They succeed in specious peddling of sexual perversion only to the extent the intended audience is made up of gullible suckers.
Of course, those with lame arguments have better things to do than make them. Their feeble lies would show they have too much to lose.