Voter Guide 2008
The Women's Foundation of California Releases a Voter Guide for 2008 California Ballot Propositions
Vote Your Views on November 4th!There are ten propositions on the California ballot this fall. On November 4th, you get to decide with your vote on crucial issues for women and girls, including another parental notification initiative and a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Download the Women's Foundation of California Voter Guide Now! The Women's Foundation of California has created a voter guide to help you cast your vote for women, girls and California's future. Print it out and take it with you to the polls on November 4th! Three initiatives on the ballot are especially important for women and girls:
Download the full Voter Guide Here.
Prop 4 threatens teen safety & reproductive rights Prop 4, a constitutional amendment that would require doctors to notify parents 48 hours before terminating the pregnancy of a woman under 18, is a serious threat to teen safety and an erosion of Parental notification initiatives have been rejected by voters twice already, in 2005 and 2006, so it is not surprising that Prop 4 hasn’t received much attention this election season. Both supporters and opponents of Prop 4 agree that family communication is important, particularly about something as serious as pregnancy. However, legislating family communication simply does not work. Research shows that a majority of teens do consult their parents or go to a trusted aunt or older sister prior to seeking an abortion. For these young women who have good relationships and open communication with their families, this law is unnecessary. It’s the young women living in unhealthy or abusive family situations who are put at most risk by Prop 4. For these young women, disclosing a pregnancy to their parents could expose them to further abuse, being kicked out of their home or worse. The authors of Prop 4 argue that, unlike previous, rejected versions, this year’s proposal includes a clause that allows teens to petition a judge to have an alternative adult family member notified in lieu of their parents. But this provision is rendered meaningless by the maze of red tape young women would have to go through, particularly for those from low-income families or rural areas and those with limited English speaking skills. Can you imagine a frightened, pregnant teen with no money having to skip school, find transportation to the courthouse, fill out complicated paperwork and make a court date to come back and reveal to a judge the intimate details of both her pregnancy and her abuse? In particular, young women of color, low-income women and those living in rural areas would be disproportionately harmed by Prop 4. These communities experience higher rates of teen pregnancy, and already have significant barriers to accessing quality reproductive health care, and may have more difficulty reaching a courthouse and navigating the court system. Prop 4 compounds each of these existing challenges. Alternatively, the fear of parental retribution could push desperate young women to seek illegal abortions or to carry the fetus to term in secret without prenatal care and, in extreme cases, to abandon the baby after giving birth. These kinds of ordeals do not protect teens; they harm them. We should be particularly wary of these unintended negative consequences because Prop 4 could be modified only by yet another ballot proposition, not through an open and accountable legislative process. Having failed to convince voters in 2005 and 2006 that their initiatives were necessary, Prop 4 proponents have turned to misleading scare tactics in their campaign, such as TV ads suggesting parental notification might stop sexual predators. Parental notification for abortion has no relevance to this issue of preventing sexual abuse. Contrary to the claims made by its supporters, this initiative is not about protecting young women. Prop 4 is part of a broader strategy by anti-choice activists to incrementally erode reproductive rights and access to quality reproductive healthcare. Dozens of medical, civil rights and community organizations oppose Prop 4. These include the California Nurses Association, the California Academy of Family Physicians and the California Teachers Association. Californians who are undecided about Prop 4 should check to see if the public figures and organizations they most respect support or oppose this ballot initiative. Rather than turning to failed policies like Prop 4 that put teens at risk, parents and policymakers should focus on prevention by fostering meaningful family communication and providing appropriate comprehensive sexuality education that gives young people the tools to avoid unintended pregnancy and to thwart sexual abuse. Many issues on the ballot this November will have important implications for women’s health and rights. Please consider Prop 4 high among them and reject it for a third, and hopefully final, time.
Prop 6 Letter from Belinda Smith Walker Executive Director, Girls & Gangs; Board Member, WFC Dear Friends, Believe it or not, this message is the first I’ve sent to friends and colleagues concerning a As you may know, for the past 11 years I have worked extensively with Girls & Gangs, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing direct services to girls and young women involved with the juvenile justice system in The goal of Prop 6, safe neighborhoods, is one we all share. Prop 6, however, undermines this goal. Prop 6 assumes that gang suppression laws — with tough criminal statutes, penalties and prosecutions — will effectively combat gang violence. This is not the case. National authorities assert that suppression tactics do NOT reduce gang violence unless they are combined with strategies that provide youth with alternatives to gangs.[1] Prop 6 requires that Virtually every study of gang problems and high crime communities calls for a coordinated, balanced approach that includes community based service providers, mental health, drug and alcohol services along with law enforcement. Prop 6 eliminates community based agencies and other private sector providers from local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils. It takes direct state funding away from county mental health and drug treatment programs and puts it in the hands of local probation authorities. Only about 3% of Prop 6 funding would go to rehabilitation and prevention programs. And of the new funds ($365 million) Prop 6 requires, 27% would go to gang suppression (arrest, prosecution, incarceration, registration in gang data base, GPS tracking) while no new funds are directed to gang prevention or intervention. Education and health, especially mental health, are key aspects of gang prevention, intervention and turning around the lives of youth offenders. Because Prop 6 does not provide for any new funds, it directly reduces the already scarce dollars desperately needed by schools and children’s health care. Should Prop 6 pass, this fiscal drain could be changed only by a 3/4 vote of the State Legislature. A few more points: 1) Newspapers throughout 2) Statistics cited by Prop 6 proponents do not accurately present statewide trends. Proponents claim that Prop 6 responds to a dangerous upward trend in Proponents claim that local public safety programs have lost funding compared to other state-funded programs. Not so: The Legislative Analyst reports that the Local Public Safety Fund for law enforcement more than doubled from FY 93/94 to over $3 billion in FY 08/09.[3] For more information — and there is much more available — I urge you to visit the No On Prop 6 website, www.votenoprop6.com. Most of all, I urge you to vote NO on Prop 6. Thank you for reading my message and giving it your consideration. Please pass it on to others who might be interested. Best wishes, Belinda Smith Board Member, Women’s Foundation of California 1 - Justice Policy Institute, “Gang Wars: the Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies”, 2007, at www.justicepolicy.org 2 - “Crime in 3 - LAO, FY 08/09 Budget Analysis, Judicial & Criminal Justice
Prop 8 Undermines women & families Proposition 8 consists of a single sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in We disagree. Everyone should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Proposition 8 is wrong for one simple reason—by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry it enshrines discrimination in our constitution. It mandates one set of rules for same-sex couples and another set for everyone else. Our laws should treat everyone equally. We agreed with the California Supreme Court's decision this past May when it ruled that the state constitution does not tolerate a distinction between unions of opposite-sex couples and those of same-sex couples. We encourage voters to affirm the Court’s ruling by voting no on Proposition 8. The debate over Prop 8 points to a larger question about the way in which we value families. As the reality of American families becomes more and more diverse, will we as a society become more open or more exclusive? A majority of families in the This choice is not merely a moral one. It has important implications for women, children and for our families’ economic and social well-being. Kids, no matter who their parents are—a married heterosexual couple (biological or adoptive parents), a same-sex couple, a single mom or dad or a grandparent—should never feel that their lives are less-than. Studies show that kids thrive in all kinds of family structures, as long as they have loving and stable environments. Many same-sex couples in Families are also often defined by economic interdependence. Our current legal and economic structures favor straight married couples over other kinds of families and, moreover, a 30-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources. There is, however, potential to create new structures that make it easier for all kinds of families to provide one another with adequate material support. We should find ways to recognize and accommodate all family structures with our public policies in order to build more stable families and communities. We believe that by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition we all benefit. We support efforts that expand existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households. Proposition 8 supporters are right that domestic partnerships come exceedingly close to guaranteeing the same rights as marriage, as the state's high court recognized. Still, there are differences. Some are statutory—domestic partners must share a residence, while married couples can live separately—and others are pragmatic. Studies have found that domestic partners do not receive the same treatment or recognition from hospital staff, employers and the public as spouses do. Opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader so-called “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare and attacks on reproductive freedom. Voters will recognize the proponents of Proposition 8—they are the leading Christian Right organizations that have been attacking women’s rights and LGBT rights for decades: the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for Meanwhile, opponents to the measure represent a broad coalition, including the California Teachers Association, the California Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters, the California NAACP, California Federation of Labor, United Farm Workers, a number of religious institutions, elected public officials and nearly every major newspaper in There is a sense that we have become increasingly polarized as a nation in recent years, and many people are yearning to move toward a more connected, inclusive society. By decisively defeating Prop 8, we have an opportunity to begin to strengthen that new social fabric. We can reject the notion that we should use the ballot to take away rights and create more narrow definitions of families that separate “us” from “them.” Instead, we can put forth a new vision that recognizes not only committed same-sex couples, but all families. Voting No on Prop 8 is just the first step. It's time to put this issue to rest. Marriage is a fundamental right that belongs to everyone. Vote No on Proposition 8. |
.jpg)