Journal of No. 118

Prop 1 Abortion - Kinda Reluctant Yes

Certainly I support abortion rights, but this could have been better written. It bothered me as I read it that the plain language seems to suggest the state has no power to regulate abortion at all. I mean, that can’t be quite right, because I’m sure the state can still require that qualified doctors perform them, and so on. KQED spells out the issue: 

“Californians will vote on the amendment in the form of Proposition 1 come November, but as the election approaches, lawmakers still do not agree whether the measure would merely enshrine abortion rights as they are currently articulated in state law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks, or whether it would expand abortion rights, so as to permit abortions at any point in pregnancy, for any reason. 

The polls indicate voters are not inclined to nitpick right now. Ziegler predicts that they’ll accept the ambiguity in Proposition 1 and let the courts sort out the details later.”

I guess I’m in the same boat. I figure that if it passes, and if it expands the right to abortion, abortion will still be ‘regulated’ by the medical ethics of the doctors who perform them. In some ways, this is what we aim for. The decision in the hands of the woman in consultation with a doctor (and any other personal advisors she cares to involve).

And if there does happen to be a slippery slope, well… I guess we just fix it next time.

Prop 26 Gambling - No

I don’t think gambling needs to be expanded in California. If you do, then I think this is the better of the two props on the ballot. It keeps things within the boundaries of entities (tribal casinos and racetracks) that we’ve already designated for gambling in the state.

Prop 27 Gambling - No

Opens up gambling to mobile and online gambling everywhere, likely run by out of state operations.

The guff about ending homelessness is just a shell game. We’ve seen it a thousand times in California. If a dedicated revenue stream for X is created by a prop, the legislature just lowers the appropriation for X by the same amount, so that nothing really changes.

Prop 28 Arts funding in schools - Reluctant Yes

I just got through saying I don’t like props that earmark money for a particular thing. But schools seem to have become focused on math and english test scores, and the arts have been neglected, so maybe this can bend the needle back. No argument against was submitted. Not even Howard Jarvis.

Prop 29 Diabetes - No

This is the same union-backed things we’ve seen several times in a bid to create more union jobs. If there were actual health risks involved, they should be able to point to the negative conditions the prop is intended to fight. But they’ve never shown us there’s a problem. So there’s no need for this solution. Usually I’d lean toward the union if the alternative was giant for-profit companies, but this is just needless.

Prop 30 Soak the Rich for the Environment - Reluctant No

This is a tough one. I support progressive tax rates, but again, setting this new bonus tax aside all for a few specific environmental purposes is not a great way to budget things. California is already aggressively pushing electric vehicles.

Prop 31 Confirms Ban on Flavored Tobacco - Yes

Anything that makes smoking less attractive to anybody is probably a good thing.