Measure 43 is nothing other than the first of many attempts to slowly chip away at Roe. Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

Watch a commercial from the No on 43 folks here:

Watch Commercial.

Good and strong arguments can be made for this or similar measure. I can't much hear them. Even at 54, when it comes to this issue I remember most of all being 17.

K: Measure 43 is nothing other than the first of many attempts to slowly chip away at Roe. Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

• I agree 100%. A group called SEICUS, I believe, has a great pamphlet that outlines the conservative, anti-choice right's attempt to attack abortion, contraception and reproductive choice one piece of legislation at a time. It's a shame that people are confused about this one.

I must say, I don't appreciate being classed as a M43 staffer simply because I've done my research. When I was sixteen I testified before the House Judiciary Committee in regards to parental notification and I'm politically minded. Surely it's not too shocking for you to encounter a a teenager able to think for themselves.

I've read the bill several times and seek out opportunities like this to debate the issue. And as someone who has read the bill I feel the need to address a point that Jenn made.

She said that Doctors can be sued if parents don't receive notification for any reason. I must admit that I find it shocing that the No on 43 camp would so blatantly lie. The bill clearly states(go read it for yourself!) that doctors can ONLY be sued if it can be proven that they never sent the notification. After it's sent, the doctors are not responsible for what happens at the post office or in the home.

And mmmhmmm-- I'll take your comment as a compliment.

YoungerVoice:

When you grow up, please move to Texas.

Younger Voice:

The problem is that you are simply advocating for Measure 43 because it is the first step at trying to get rid of abortion. As others above have stated, it is the first step down that road. The problem is that first, though you (collective) may try hard this will not happen. The second, is that in the process of attempting to do so you put the very lives of the teen girls whom you claim to care about so much in great danger.

Again, over ninety percent of teens DO in fact talk to their parents. For the other girls, there is a very good reason. Let's not go down the road of coat hangers as means of terminating a pregnancy.

First on the Measure 43 backers agenda is "parental notification", then it is contraception and then abortion as a whole... what's next on your list?

Let's get real here. Let's stop lying about how old "we" are and let's ACTUALLY "protect our teen daughters". Vote NO on 43.

I'm amazed that this measure has as much support as it does. But I think its sponsors were less concerned with actually passing it into law than ensuring strong turnout among religious conservatives. It seems almost like a means to an end, and I think it will give the religious right a reason to turn out. Remember--right after the primary, a lot of those guys were rather lukewarm towards Saxton's candidacy. Many of them still are. But since this measure is on the ballot, they have a reason to turn out, and will likely hold their noses and vote for Saxton.

Isn't this all about an individual's right to privacy? I guess you don't get that right if you're between the ages of 14 and 17? That doesn't make very much sense to me.

Many young girls live in homes filled with violence and domestic abuse, and requiring a letter to be sent to the house only escalates the situation.

Many? Just how bad do kids think they have it today?

Are you suggesting that we as parents are mostly child abusers? Wow.

Actually, I can almost see that point of view in today's kids. We can thank the current school system and teachers for presenting an "entitlement society" to our children. Our daughter, 17, called 911 on us because we had the gall to keep her from attending a party we didnt approve of, and we made her go to her room. She thinks she has the right to go wherever she wants. When the cop came, he politely told her that she only gets to do what mom/dad says she can do until she is 18.

And no, its not a "privacy" thing. Kids are not entitled to privacy from their parents in general. If it comes to light that there is real abuse, thats different, and a criminal matter.

BTW, the best punishment I ever administered to my oldest daughter was to remove her bedroom door.

Uh, Jon? Are you saying that young adults have to do what their parent's tell them to do, even if what their parents do is tell them to give birth to a baby? Or do you think they have the right to choose their own future?

I say we should vote on a law that requires parents talk to their teens (yes, this includes YOUNG MEN) about birth control.

Wow! You really don't think that teenagers have a right to privacy from their parents at all? That's so frightening.

Jon:

That is ridiculous. Of course people do not think that parents are mostly child abusers. Unfortunately, there are plenty. As someone above said before, more than 90% of teens DO talk to their parents prior to terminating their pregnancy.

How would you like finding out that your teen daughter used a coat hanger to do the abortion herself?

You use the term 'entitlement' in your comment. I think it is sad that you cannot see past the world that you live in. It sounds as if the worst problems you have had in raising your kid is an incident about her wanting to go to a party. If that's the worst, consider yourself lucky. Although there are way too many children that come to home to a drunk parent day after day. I don't need to go into the things that happen in homes across this state and for that matter across the nation. You have to look outside of your own world.

PS - About that entitlement statement... You did in fact raise your child. If your daughter call 911 because you wouldn't let her go to a party, it says a lot more about her parenting by you than it does about " the current school system and teachers for presenting an "entitlement society" to our children."

I'm just saying...

Entitlement society from the school system and teachers? What are you talking about? More like parents who give their kids whatever the hell they want.

I'd like to reiterate my earlier comment regarding teenagers talking to their parents. I don't know what source you're getting your numbers from, but saying 90% of teens talk to their parents is a misguiding claim. Look it up at the Alan Guttmacher Institute website--- LESS THAN HALF of teens talk to their parents first, and they're much more likely to talk to their boyfriend about it.

Do a little research before citing statistics. And then pray that your teen is in the minority.

YoungerVoter: Have you seen the movie "Saved?" Dude, you gotta put that in your Netflix Que, it seems like a movie you would totally love.

To all:

I find this whole conversation to be quite amusing. Here you have a measure on the ballot that essentially provides an extremly important safeguard for teen ladies. I believe that it is not the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY of a parents to care for their child. How can they do that when our law allows minors to get a major medical procedure done behind their backs? As for the rape/insest claim, you have to be desparate when you bring this up! I think it makes perfect sense to have a judge make that decision. Otherwise, all girls could just say the magic words, and totally bypass their parents.

The other arguments being made here are just plain BS. It shows just how wrong pro-death people are when they are forced to challenge any law which reduces killing themselves or their unborn children. I believe that abortion is wrong, but if the law allows it, I think it is very important that abortion be done in a safe manner. That includes following normal protocal with regards to parental notification. You can't get any other procedure done without parental consent, why should you be able to get an abortion without even notifying your parents?

I know, I know, the parent might get mad and beat the child. But, don't parents beat their children when their kids get bad grades? Don't we still mail report cards home? If a kid gets in trouble with the law, aren't the parents notified? Why should a teenager be able to have a serious medical procedure without notifying their parents.

Let's face it, no one is anti-43 for the sake of teen girls. No, they are anti-43 for the sake of protecting their extreme political view. They are anti-43 because they are terrified that they might lose their "right" to kill. The only ones they serve to protect are themselves. Please, don't be so self-absorbed that you put your political agenda above the safety of teen girls. And please have the class not to make meaningless excuses as to why you are voting no. Just say it, "I care too much about my ultra-liberal causes to protect teen girls."

Here's a thought a la Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal--

Why doesn't this measure talk about the teen fathers and notifying their parents when they get a girl pregnant?

Adult men apparently have the right to object to adult women getting abortions. What about the rights of teen men? What about the rights of the parents of the teen boy who is getting the girl pregnant? Shouldn't those parents also know about what's going on? As the parent of a son, I'd sure want to know.

If the proponents of Measure 43 were sincerely concerned about protecting teens, that's the way they would have written the bill. It takes two to make a baby.

Since they didn't, it's clearly just a stalking horse for anti-abortion activists.

YoungerVoice - keep referencing the Alan Guttmacher Institute, but could you provide a link to where you're getting your data? All I can find is this - "Of course, all parents hope that their teenage daughters would consult with them about making the decision to have an abortion," says Cynthia Dailard, Guttmacher senior public policy associate. "And, in fact, most teens do.

And this: As with contraception, research shows that more than six in 10 teenagers in states without a parental consent requirement say one or both parents knew about the abortion, according to a study published in 1992 in Family Planning Perspectives (FPP). A similar study published in 1987 in AJPH found that the proportion of teens who inform their parents is approximately the same in states with and without such requirements. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that laws mandating parental involvement in a teenager's decision to obtain an abortion improve family communication or relationships.

Jon - You seem to be confusing the words "many" and "mostly". You quote me in saying "Many young girls live in homes filled with violence and domestic abuse" and then insinuate that "[you] as parents are mostly child abusers". How many girls do you think live in situations of violence and domestic abuse? If you saw the number, you'd probably refer to it as "many".

I'll touch a little bit on your parenting style. From the little bits of information you've posted, it disturbs me. If your own daughter is calling 911 on you, you've done something wrong. And removing her door? That is an absolute invasion of privacy and I don't believe it's defendable from any perspective. Teenagers deserve to have privacy, if only for the reason of improving familiar relations. I have seen too lives of my friends ruined by their "helicopter parents" who hover over their every move, trying to control their life. Most of these kids end up resenting their parents and "acting out". On the other hand, you have parents that educate their children with good values, but don't try to control their lives. I think you'll find that those are the kids that turn out the best. I'm glad that I was brought up in that environment, and I urge you to change, for the sake of your daughter.

To both sides: Thank you for the comments. Some good debate so far. I would ask for more facts and statistics, as those are the best things one can base their argument on. And remember, accusations are no way to win the favor of the other side.

yo, as a young man who's had mad honeyz wif abortions, I is agreeing wif my main man Petey "Liam" Rosen. Me first girl who had one was 17 and i was only of 15 years old. She went and told her mom and dad and they both got well eggy on me. wes had to break it off after that one. the second girl was this fly luva from southies and she didnt gos and tell her moms and we is still togetha wif a beutiful baby boy named krystallo. me wishes it woulve worked out wif the first one "but so is life" as they says. so, as a lowa dema-graphic, hear me now- theres is a time and place for abortion, and theres is a time and place for telling them parents. as ciudadaños de los estados unidos we should be entitled to dat time and place, yo. respect.

this is a great discussion. "Rosen4preZ," you bring up some good points. it's nice to hear from some young colored men.

Funny-- Here's another "teen view" on the issue. As a seventeen year old girl, I feel that I'm better able to speak out on this issue than Liam-- Clearly, this law would effect me.

Funny – Here’s a real-life view on the issue. As the mother of a teen girl, and a former teen girl myself – both of whom had abortions – I feel I’m better able to speak out on this issue than “YoungerVoice” and her theoretical and one-sided views. Clearly, Measure 43 would have already effected my daughter and me, had it been law.

I come from a good family, a loving home with loving parents. I wouldn't be kicked out, beaten, or otherwise abused if I became pregnant and tried to have an abortion.

I STILL wouldn't want to talk to them about it. When I get a bad grade, I pray that it's not discovered. Getting pregnant? Yeah, that conversation isn't going to happen-- not when there's a way that I can get out of it without them ever knowing.

So what I’m hearing here, is that you are immature, dishonest, untrusting and untrustworthy. If you can get hide something from your good, loving, non-abusive parents, you will. And because of your personal lack of maturity and integrity, you claim the same of every other teen girl.

Unfortunately, Liam didn't do the proper research. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the majority of teens do NOT talk to their parents before an abortion. While Liam tried to make that insinuation, it's simply untrue.

When you cited the AGI, I thought something was odd. So I went to the website and had a look for myself. It’s an extensive site with a lot of info and links to a multitude of studies, but I was unable to find anything to back up your contentions. Please cite the source to back up your claim. In fact, here’s what I did find from AGI:

“Moreover, many minors voluntarily involve their parents when deciding to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. The younger the minor, the more likely she is to involve one or both parents in this decision; according to a 1991 study conducted by AGI, more than seven in 10 minors under age 16 who obtained an abortion reported that one or both parents knew about it. And, in virtually every case in which the parent knew about the minor’s abortion, the parent was actively involved in some way—either by helping the minor to make the decision, paying for the abortion or helping her get to the abortion clinic. According to the same study, fully three in 10 minors who obtained an abortion without telling a parent did so because they had experienced violence in the family, feared that violence would occur, or were afraid of being forced to leave home.”

Hopefully none of you parents are so naive to think that your daughters will WANT to come to you when something like this happens. I don't care how good of a home you provide.

Here’s the thing kiddo. No one WANTS to be in that position. I doubt anyone is so naïve as to think their daughter would WANT to come tell them this news. But, there’s the rub. Unlike Ms. “YoungerVoice,” most teens do talk to one or both parents and don’t need to be forced to comply with government enforced mandates to do the “right” thing.

And in the instances when it's a bad home, well, shouldn't we get the girl OUT of it?? I have known too many people in those sorts of situations to think for one minute that an abortion will help them. If they've become pregnant from incest, they deserve help and protection.

So why are the Pro-43 advocates only worried about ferreting out these clandestine incestuous activities if the girl seeks an abortion? They aren’t demanding (yet) that parents be notified if a minor seeks birth control, treatment for an STD, or decides to carry the child to term. And if you’ve known “too many people in those sorts of situations,” which I highly doubt, why haven’t you reported them? Everyone deserves help and protection from incest, whether or not they become pregnant by it.

I keep hearing that we should vote no to help these poor girls, but no one is ever quite clear on how it helps them. Sure, they get an abortion without having to tell their parents, but does that remove them from abuse? Does that keep them safe? Hardly.

I find it particularly sad and so “through-the-looking glass” nonsensical that those who bluster so about family values, protecting our children, and the right to be involved in their teen daughters’ lives… need a letter from the womens’ clinic downtown to clue them in as to what Sis has been up to and with whom.

Where are these good, caring, involved parents when their 15-, 16-, or 17-year-old girls are being habitually molested? Or off having unprotected sex with their adult boyfriends? It’s a little late at the stage of the game, to worry about “keeping them safe” isn’t it?

The No on 43 gang keeps on using these girls as political pawns without ever showing what we do for them. Shame.

This is rich coming from someone posing to be a teenage girl and from the alleged “family values” crowd who’ve trotted out not one, not two, but three “real-life” teens to be the poster children for this measure. It is impostors like you “YoungerVoice,” who are using these girls as political pawns. Shame? Shame is right. This is all about publicly shaming these girls and exploiting their mistakes to further your agenda. Why don’t you just sew a big red “A” to their bodice?

Measure 43 gives them the opportunity they need to get out of a bad home.

If all these girls needed to get out of an abusive home was to tell someone in authority about it, do you think they’d wait until they were in this position to do so?

No, there isn't an automatic exception for rape or incest-- if there was, there would suddenly be ALOT of cases of rape an incest.

Again dear, not everyone is as dishonest and calculating as you admit to being. And why does an automatic exception for rape or incest preclude reporting the alleged perpetrators? Couldn’t all those who were suddenly (and apparently falsely?) accused of rape and incest be investigated regardless of how they are reported?

Instead, she's able to reveal the abuse to a judge who deals with those sorts of situations daily and, again, CAN GET THE HELP SHE NEEDS.

Why would a scared, pregnant teen suddenly be able to “reveal the abuse” to a stranger over the phone in an administrative hearing, if she wasn’t able to do so to anyone else before? This makes no sense!

And sorry again, dear. Administrative law judges do not deal with rape, incest or “those sorts of situations” on a daily basis. They are not even actual judges per se. They are state employees and are not required to be a lawyer, nor do they have to have any training or experience in the sensitive issues to be decided upon.

How does a no vote help them? Oh, right--- it doesn't.

Be honest with yourself-- Don't you deserve to know before your daughter has a surgical procedure? Doesn't she deserve the benefit of follow-up care? Don't be so naive as to assume she'll talk to you first, no matter how loving the home.

Be honest with yourself “YoungerVoice,” and acknowledge the fact that if a teen wants badly enough to conceal something from her parents, and her parents are so out-of-touch that she’s able to, she will. Doesn’t she deserve the benefit of safe, legal medical care? Don’t be so naïve to assume she’ll forgo an abortion, no matter how strict the laws. And stop being so condescending as to assume all teens have as lousy a relationship with their folks as you seem to have with yours. This attitude, more than anything, tells me you are no teenage girl.

I deserve better.

Yes you do. If you are mature enough and assertive enough to make such a claim, you are old enough to realize that there isn’t always going to be someone looking over your shoulder forcing you to toe the line. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Stop pretending that you need the government to force you to do what you cannot bring yourself to do on your own. Stop blaming others for your mistakes.

My fellow teenagers deserve better.

Yes they do. They deserve not to be judged by the likes of you. They deserve recognition of their individuality and the uniqueness of their situation. They deserve not to have self-righteous, authoritarian strangers like you decide what is best for them.

And parents deserve to know.

Perhaps most do, but “deserve” is a strong word. “Knowing” is not a parent’s inalienable right. The law states that parents do not "deserve" to know many things about their teens:

[S]tates have long recognized the importance of allowing teens to receive confidential health services, especially where sensitive health issues are concerned. According to a 1997 analysis by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), no state mandates parental consent or notice for minors seeking contraceptive services, prenatal care, sexually transmitted disease (including HIV) services or treatment for alcohol or drug abuse; in fact, many states have explicitly authorized minors to consent for these services. Similarly, states have largely declined to obstruct a minor’s ability to make other reproductive-related life decisions; only a handful of states require parental involvement in adoption services, and none requires parental permission for a minor to carry a pregnancy to term and become a parent herself.

Surely it's not too shocking for you to encounter a teenager able to think for themselves.

Not at all. I know many. But everything you’ve argued here says teens can’t think for themselves. You want the government to forcibly protect you from your own bad judgment. How is that thinking for yourself?

I must admit that I find it shocing that the No on 43 camp would so blatantly lie.

As opposed to the Pro 43 camp? See Reinhard’s Sunday column for blatant lies in which he states:

“A victim would talk over the phone to an administrative law judge in the Department of Human Services to wave [sic] the 48-hour parental notice requirement. That’s it. The 15-, 16- or 17-year old would not need the judge’s permission to wave [sic] the notification requirement, much less have the abortion.”

The bill clearly states (go read it for yourself!) that doctors can ONLY be sued if it can be proven that they never sent the notification. After it's sent, the doctors are not responsible for what happens at the post office or in the home.

EXACTLY!! So what good it is it? You claim that if there’s an automatic exemption for rape or incest, ”there would suddenly be ALOT of cases of rape an incest.” So what’s to stop these same lying, manipulative girls (Geez, you have a high opinion of your peers!) from giving the wrong name or address or otherwise attempting to thwart the notification? Will doctors now have to do a background check and will they have to demand legal, valid state-sanctioned ID before providing medical care?

Vote NO on 43!

Girls who are resorting to abortions will continue to get abortions, regardless of Measure 43. By requiring places that provide legal and safe medical care to notify parents, teenage girls will shy away from using these licensed clinics so they can get around this measure. Instead, they will be forced to go to these "secret abortion clinics" featured in the YouTube Diner Ad that YoungerVoice posted. Teenage girls deserve the access to safe medical practices, instead of risking their lives in places that are unlicensed and dangerous.

Adult men apparently have the right to object to adult women getting abortions. - No they don't

Girls who are resorting to abortions will continue to get abortions, regardless of Measure 43. - This is true of all laws, some people will break them. However, M43 doesn't prohibit abortions.

This means the judge (by the way, it's an administrative judge) can DENY HER THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. I know that the practice in Michigan was that minors were not refused abortions, but that the abortion rate went down (sorry no readily available stats on hand). This is notification, not permission, so it is my understanding that the judge would not be given authority to deny the abortion.

Measure 43 is nothing other than the first of many attempts to slowly chip away at Roe.I don't know about the "nothing more" part, but yeah, I hope someday all abortions are illegal. Of course, the pro-life movement might restrict enough abortions to the point where most people would then find it less of an issue. Most people favor some restrictions, and since right now there are no restrictions the pro-lifers have an advantage.

I suppose I would change my mind about this issue if someone could explain to me that a fetus is not an individual homo sapien. If a fetus is a unique individual homo sapien he/she deserves to be protected by the laws.

Wrongy - Well, your understanding is wrong - the judge reserves the right to deny the woman an abortion.

And you know another way to get the abortion rate down? TO TALK TO TEENAGERS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL! I swear, there really oughta be a law...

RUSerious,

Have you, or any of the No on 43 crowd, actually read the text of Measure 43? If you had, it is in the voters pamphlet, you would know that you are completely wrong. No where does it allow the judge to deny the girl an abortion, the only thing he could do is deny her a bypass so she would have to tell her parents. You should also know that in other states where parental notification laws are in affect bypass requests are granted about 90% of the time. 
Another myth coming from the No on 43 campaign that can be dispelled by simply <b>reading the measure</b> is that an abortion provider can be sued if the parents never recieve the notice for any reason. This is not true. The notification is done by certified letter so the abortion provider would receive a reciept from the post office when sending the notification so they should not be worried about being sued as long as they have this reciept to prove that they actually sent the letter.

Dear oldervoice,

Your personal attacks on youngervoice were totally uncalled for. I know youngervoice in person, not just onilne, and I can ensure you that she is, in fact, a teenage girl. The fact that you consistantly attack her for lying about her age is actually quite hilarious. It is bad news when your rational is so off base that when a reasonable person offers a better point of view, you automatically assume that they must be old and wise. She is neither (JK).

Also, I know for a fact that youngervoice is absolutely not a liar. She is an extremely honest person, and I think that your attacks on her integrity are nothing more than a twisted means to discredit her character and her argument. I believe the message that she intended to convey was that she would have a difficult time bringing something that serious to her parent's attention. It would be far easier to go and have a "simple" medical procedure done than to go and tell your parents that you did something horribly foolish. I don't believe that makes her dishonest.

The bottom line is that voting no on 43 is clearly nothing more than puting your extreme political views (abortion is always ok and should never be safe or regulated in any way) above the safety and wellbeing of teenage girls. So, why don't you look into your own motives before you go on attacking others. Vote "yes" on 43, and keep the ultra-liberal nonsense out of the picture.

Elle, Phew! Thank you so much for clearing up the "myths that are coming from the No on 43 campaign!" Hahaha. So silly.

The aspect of this measure that drives me crazy: A young woman is forced to tell her parents about having an abortion and the young man is totally off the hook, once again. When are we going to start making men be responsible for their sexual activity?

I was at a 43 debate and those arguing from the yes side said that no, the judge did not have to grant anything.

Elle - Are you saying that it's okay for the judge to decide to tell the parents, even if she says she's been raped by her mother's boyfriend/stepdad/her own father? Why wouldn't we just believe her? Why should she have to go through that process after having been raped? Why in the world does anybody think this is okay????

TNT409, "Ultra liberal nonsense?" That's what you call trying to protect teenage victims of rape by someone in their own home? Preventing their rapist from finding out they need an abortion? If that's what you call ultra liberal nonsense then I guess slap a sticker on me because I've just been labeled!

Elle -

You should also know that in other states where parental notification laws are in affect bypass requests are granted about 90% of the time.

Source?

Liam,

My source for that figure was a report prepared for Congress when they were considering the Child Custody Protection Act.

TNT409 -

So the gist of your entire argument is that I've unfairly launched a "personal attack" against the allegedly young (and honest) YV? And without addressing a single one of my claims, you conclude that I am putting my "extreme political views (abortion is always ok and should never be safe or regulated in any way) above the safety and wellbeing of teenage girls." Interesting. But typical.

My only interest in this issue is that abortion IS safe and regulated, and I never made any statements to the contrary or said that "abortion is always ok."

I was not the only one who questioned her age, and it certainly wasn't because I considered her a wise, "reasonable person offer[ing] a better point of view"! I beleive the issue of YV's age is relevant to the extent that she is using it - as well as her sex - to assert the superiority of her views. Remember she used that to claim that her opinion was more important than Liam's. She also accused "the 'No on 43' camp" of politically exploiting teen girls.

But, I will concede that I do not know how old YV truly is and have no way of finding out; so if she is a teen girl - I apologize.

Nevertheless, I stand by the rest of my comments because YV's true age and sex do not diminsh the validity of my arguments to her post. And I'm sorry if you define an honest person as someone who, in their own words, would hide anything they could get away with hiding. I don't.

Anyone who claims the moral high ground here, as YV (and you) have done, opens themselves up to a critique of their morality. Anyone who challenges others' facts or statistics, shouldn't cry "Foul!" when those are, in turn, challenged. Debate the issues at hand if you want any credibility, don't whine about how mean and unfair the people who disagree with you are.

THAT'S why I object to the Pro 43 camp's use of teen girls (either real or contrived) to hype this measure. We're beastly ogres if we rebut any claim or conclusion they make - no matter how erroneous or illogical. THAT is political exploitation.

Even more, I strongly object to the meme that these girls, who are self-admittedly immature and lack judgement, somehow know my daughter (or any other teen) - or what's good for her - better than I do.

To Righty and Elle -

The reason I bolded part of Reinhard's quote was because I was disputing his erroneous claim that "The 15-, 16- or 17-year old would not need the judge’s permission to wave [sic] the notification requirement.

This is patently false. Go read the measure yourself. [HINT: See Section 5(2) and all of Section 7]

But I guess if the Pro 43 camp said so, it must be true.

Okay.

I am the mother of a young man who is 19 1/2 years old.

He has a major chronic disease (Crohn's Disease) which was diagnosed at age 16.

During the diagnostic process, because he was over the age of 15, not only did I have to sign permissions, both Doernbecher and Kaiser (who did diagnostic and major medical work on him) required him to sign off on it, because he fell within that age bracket where he could approve or disapprove despite what I said or wanted.

Why do you Pro 43ers think you have the right to judge anybody else's individual situation?? YOU DONT HAVE TO GET AN ABORTION IF YOU DONT WANT IT! But every girl deserves the right to do what is best for her! Many parents will not let their daughter go through with the abortion once they are notified and then we end up with unwanted babies. This issue should be the girl who is pregnant's decesion, she is the one who has to live with it, NOT YOU!

I think it should be voterd against because teens of that age are old enough to make their own decisions. As a young teen I make mistakes that I can talk to my parents about but if I where to get pregnatn I wouldnt be able to face them. I'm saying that kids may have been raped or live in an abusive house and if they live in an abusive house the notification could endanger the life of that teen!! I think it's wrong thaty they wanna pass this measure, because some teens are old enough to makle theses decisions. Because they maybe will talk to their parents about it when they're ready and after it's done. I'm against abortion 100% but in some cases it's of and this is taking away and invading privacy of someone!

There is a right to privacy and I belive that all Young wemon should be able to aply it without the consent of their parents. Wemon should be able to chose to tell their parents about abortions. Its not right for people to tell you that you have to tell your parents about something. If you want to keep your personal life personal do it.

If a teen wants to keep her personal life personal. Let her. She shouldnt have other people telling her she cant do something without telling her parents first when theres a right for wemon to make their own choice and a woman should be able to make the choice to not tell her parents about Rape, intercorse or anything else she doesnt want to. Im not saying "Let a rapist free" im saying show some respect to the right of privecy. A minor doesnt need to tell everything. Its much more complicated than that, its the emotional pain thay the minor could suffer if the abortion got out.

Jessica:

Its not just the men that should take responsibility. The wemon arnt all inesnt. Being a woman myself i do understand it is harder for us but men... Do you even understand their feelings. They could be just as mentally disturbed.

And Youngervoice:

I love your outlook on life its very "Proper" But not all of life is like that. Take a look from someone elses eyes. Its fantasy where you are a perfect world where parents are told everything. That aint guonna happen!!!!

NO ON 43

NO ON SEX

1)Janets a guy 2)Nick, Be seriouse this is not a game

we cant vote since wer under age,but that doesnt mean we cant have a say on this subject. if we could vote we would vote and we incurage you to do the same. if they hve to send a letter to the girls parents and the parents are abusive, the result could be worse then death.It mite even be death. this is a tough subject to talk about but we have an opinion and we hope you listen.

This measure is not as simple as it sounds. Measure 43 does not make any exceptions regarding rape or incest and the only alternative for a potentially abused teen is to plead her case to an administrative law judge at the Oregon Department of Human Services. These judges who work at the Oregon Department of Human Services will not receive any special training in sensitive family matters. They are not even actual judges per se. They are state employees and are not required to be a lawyer, nor do they have to have any training or experience in the sensitive issues to be decided upon. Measure 43 also threatens doctors that they will lose their licenses or be sued if the notification letter is not sent to the parents for any reason.

  Measure 43 is a threat to young girls. National surveys show that many teens do talk to their parents when they become pregnant. But some teens are unable to talk to their parents because of abuse or violence in their homes. Just recently, in Doddridge County, West Virginia, David Keigley was found guilty of murdering his 14-year old daughter because he had gotten her pregnant after raping her. 14-year old Mariah Keigley was 7 months pregnant with his child when he suffocated her. Cases like these, though rare, do exist and these girls deserve protection under the law. Measure 43 will not protect them. Sending a government-mandated letter to an abusive parent will put a vulnerable teenage girl at great risk.

  VOTE NO ON MEASURE 43, KEEP TEENAGE GIRLS SAFE.

We have opinions and we want to be heard. LISTEN TO US!!! (please?) puppy dog faces sits on the floor and pouts we hope that you vote NO on mesure 43. Measrue 43 is wrong and girls shouldnhave the right to choose what to do with their body.The government shouldn't control girls body's.

Actully, The government isnt controlling their bodys their cotrolling their rights to choose. The right to choose weather or not they want to cause their parents the disappointment. Weather they want to face humiliation or the pride of doing "The right thing" What is the right thing. Who ever said talking to your parents was good? Well, in most cases almost ever good they say is bad. A vote no on 43 will extend our rights. You shouldnt force your teen to tell you something thats why you have trust and if you need to Force them to ddo something thats no trust. Thats reality..