👎 PROP 1 NO 👎

When Roe-v-Wade rocked the nation in 1973, the collective assumption at the time went something like this: Legal Abortion? Oh, a few fringe people might avail themselves of this desperate possibility, but for the vast majority of women, this rash procedure will always be unthinkable. 

Within 15 years, abortion was tantamount to birth control. At its height, 3,000 per day were dying. At work was "the law of unintended" consequences: by the time the debacle of Roe/Wade was over, some 35 million children had been disposed of, and all because seven Supremes (yes, they were down by two justices during that session) forgot to nail down the definition of "health of the mother" in it's attempt to "limit" abortion's prevalence.  Hence, throughout its term, Roe allowed a vague definition of "health" to mean anything anybody wanted it to mean. Anthony Levatino describes a patient during his 20 year abortionist career, whose urgent abortion was excused because her "social health" demanded that she not be pregnant for her senior prom.*

Now we see the same tragedy about to unfold in California. What most people see in Prop 1 as a benign paragraph intended to "enshrine women's rights into the state constitution" will bring about disastrous, unforeseen consequences, all due to vague language much like RoeWade did to this country for nearly 50 years.

State ballot Proposition 1 (aka Measure 1), is a deceptively worded three sentence constitutional amendment, poised to fool every unassuming voter. Crafted to appear benign, it allows death by abortion right up to the moment of birth and w/o a doubt, beyond. The real goal: infanticide is the next step in the march toward the left.  

Proabortion apparatchiks have convinced their victims that NoT voting for it would outlaw all abortion, yet, voting NO would CHANGE NOTHING in California law. 

And that bit about contraceptives? Gavin Newsom just threw that in to enflame the masses. No one I know has ever suggested restricting contraceptives. Putting that smokescreen in there was tantamount to planting a smoking cockroach in the smoked cheese.

Can the governor's team do anything but lie? It would seem not.

The biggest blunder of the entire ball of Prop 1 Bastillishness, is the use of overly broad, ill defined terms: an "individual's" reproductive/sexual "freedom" opens the door to a raft of court approved obscenity: trans lawsuits insisting taxpayer funded sex change? Legalization of pedophilia? You name it, this loosey goosey vague language is capable of it. It virtually guarantees that the proposition will empower reproductive freedom for individual gerbils, pimps and pervs, not just women. Freedom to reproduce what? Well, as Nancy Pelosi once said, "... We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it."  The Zoom call below (minute 49) explains that our court system, especially in California, nearly always reads legal language "expansively" rather than narrowly. It remains to be seen what sized trucks will be driven through the holes in this purported guarantee of a woman's (er, I mean, "an INDIVIDUAL'S") right to choose (to kill his/her unborn child). 

Likely, voilá: every harebrained weirdo with a novel definition of "reproductive freedom" will have his way in court against any traditional definition of that phrase. He will be free to incestuate* his children, and every weirdo judge in this state will pat the perpetrator on the back and offer him a lifetime subscription to Kinsey & Co. S/He'll say The State Constitution made me do it. My hands were tied.

(*made that word up. forgive me.)

LINKS:

Zoom Call on Prop 1  - see especially Minutes 3:00 & 11:00; *minute 49

CA Family Council says...

Conclusion:

apparatchik:

noun

1. A member of a Communist apparat.
2. An unquestioningly loyal subordinate, especially of a political leader or organization.
3. a communist who was a member of the administrative system of a communist party

LA Times columnist

George Skelton gets it,

 even though he's an apparatchik and says he's required to vote Yes to placate his pro-abortion friends and family...

"... the language sure doesn’t read that way to most voters, I suspect. At least to those of us who aren’t lawyers.

It says the state cannot restrict abortion — any abortion — period"

...and he would be correct.

Bottom line of a five page analysis from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) :

IV. Conclusion

California’s proposed “Reproductive Freedom” Amendment would undermine the state’s compelling interests in protecting and promoting public health, safety, and the general welfare. The amendment’s use of the broad and undefined term “reproductive freedom” paves the way for unregulated abortion, commercial surrogacy, and sterilizing gender transition surgeries. The establishment of a broad, right to “reproductive freedom” could even shield criminal sexual activity, hindering the state from enforcing laws criminalizing incest and statutory rape.

The amendment’s use of the term “individual” rather than “woman” will provide an untested fundamental right to “reproductive freedom” for men—and a resulting lack of accountability for their sexual actions. And it will provide unprecedented access to abortion and sterilization for minors. The amendment will put healthcare providers who wish to preserve life and “do no harm” at risk of lawsuits for declining to perform procedures, like abortion. It will cast out health care providers who wish to provide life- affirming care and it will forbid aspiring doctors from practicing medicine in California.

NOTES: 

• My State and County have stepped on Lady Justice's scales:

I spent an hour scouring my County Mailings, County Taxpayer supplied voters guide, every Prop 1 voters guide, every pro/con Prop 1 argument, and only ONE of them, from a private advocacy group, supplied the exact wording of the proposition.

• The County-printed and paid for voters guide PARAPHRASES the amendment to utterly misconstrue the matter. If the actual prop was in there, I couldn't find it.

Looking throughout the online portals of my corrupt state government revealed no attempt to be factual. Here's their official statement, duplicating the verbiage in the Sample Ballot: 

" YES/NO STATEMENT

---

A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom—such as the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives.

A NO vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would not be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom. These rights, however, would continue to exist under other state law. " 

I find it infuriating that an "unbiased, neutral" government can get away with being so punch drunk lopsided in its reportage.

Go here for all your ballot questions

editor's note: Post was strained through a standard asthmatic, post-covid, ear infected, Cipro hobbled, toothache'd brain fog. There will be typos, misspellings and angst driven disarray.