Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

The Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative statute, better known as Prop 2, strikes me as being somewhere between common sense and ethical business practices. Under Prop 2, calves raised for veal, hens producing eggs, and pigs producing piglets would be given enough space to stand, turn around, lie down, and stretch their limbs freely. In other words, humane treatment.

Since there is a limited amount of space in the back of a semi, exceptions are provided for transportation, as well as for veterinaries and a few other specific situations where providing adequate space to stretch and turn would be nearly impossible, if not insanely cost prohibitive.

As California pig and calve industries are tiny, especially compared to the $337 million egg industry, most arguments focus on hens and egg production. Both the arguments for and against Prop 2 are fairly predictable: Even animals destined for slaughter deserve better. It'll increase the final cost to the consumer. The extra few pennies per dozen are negligible compared to the cost to the animals. Cheaper eggs will be imported from Mexico and neighboring states. And so on. However, there is one argument that the No on Prop 2 party keeps bringing up that will ring loud and clear in the heads of voters - higher production costs will push animal facilities into other states that don't have such regulation, and the ones that do stay will be breeding grounds for disease.

If hens were allowed to socialize with free birds, then yes, diseases would increase. However, nothing in the proposition says anything about open air cageless facilities. The animals would still be nice and safe inside, just with more space to exist in. As an added bonus, animals with more space are less stressed than those squished in a box, which makes the spaced ones healthier overall.

Okay, so depending on who you ask, you can get differing opinions on the health benefits to both humans and animals. But what about industrial farms picking up their hens and driving away? California already has budget problems, so the potentially huge lose of the egg industry's taxes would be a particularly nasty blow. At the same time, egg farms in other states must be drooling over the thought of Prop 2 making their imported eggs cheaper and gaining market share. That's why agriculture companies from Iowa donated nearly a quarter million dollars to the Yes on Prop 2 campaigns. Oh wait. They didn't. But they did donate that much to the No side. Now that's interesting...

When Arizona passed a similar law in 2006, the industrial farms didn't run away as they threatened to. Instead, the law provided a catalyst for reform across the nation. If Prop 2 passes, the same thing is likely to happen again, but this time with egg-laying hens. California won't be losing millions in tax revenue, much less thousands of jobs. Proposition 2 will be getting a Yes from me.

Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-2prop25-2008sep25,0,6031746.story
http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&aid=3548&ptid=9
http://iowaindependent.com/5542/iowa-companies-invest-nearly-250k-in-california-ballot-measure
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/poultry/
http://www.yesonprop2.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116:myths-vs-facts&catid=38:opposition&Itemid=123

Prop 4 is the Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy Initiative Constitutional Amendment. I'll start with the two aspects mentioned in the title.

The waiting period, while often suggested by anti-abortion groups, is necessary for the parental notification to be of any use, and as such, not a focus of debate. The parental notification aspect, on the other hand, is mentioned in every ad on the proposition. So, what constitutes parental notification? A written notification delivered in person or two notifications mailed, one first class, the other certified mail return receipt requested. While proponents claim this would protect teenage girls from complications, I can't help but wonder how many of them forgot their childhood and how often there was actually a parent home when the mail was delivered. Yes, in some households there is always at least one parent home. In others, there isn't always a parent at home when the mailman comes, so who gets first access? That's right, it's the teenager! Hey, here's the first class letter about my abortion, and here's some matches! Oh, and here's the card saying there's a letter to pick up at the post office. More matches! Do you see what I'm getting at?

Prop 4 also includes some exceptions - a medical emergency, a signed waiver by a parent or guardian, notice to a different family member combined with an abuse report, and a waiver granted by the court. There really isn't much to discuss for the first two exceptions, but the second two more than make up for the first.

A scared teenage girl who can't tell her parents that she's pregnant is not going to want to bare all to a judge, much less know that option exists. The one redeeming aspect of a judicial waiver is the free help from the courts. But the whole thing is moot anyway since how on earth is she going to get to the court on a school day? And with all the safeguards schools use to ensure that parents know about absent students, such as calling parents' cell phones and offices, it is likely that her parents will find out that she wasn't in school. And then what?

Rape is one of the most under reported crimes (an estimated 40% of victims file a police report) for a variety of reasons, such as fear of the rapist, humiliation, worry about being believed, and disbelief of family and friends. In cases where the rapist is a family member, even fewer reports are made. So why would an abused teenage girl who hasn't told anyone suddenly be able to tell a complete stranger, knowing that a formal abuse complaint will be made against the offender? She already has a myriad of reasons for not telling, and they didn't just disappear. Mom still won't believe that her beloved second husband can do any wrong. Dad will beat her worse than last time when he finds out. It'll be her fault for breaking up the family.

In such abuse cases, I can't see this amendment doing anything but worsening the situation as girls find alternate means of abortion. Similarly, I can't see girls going through the court system, much less doing so successfully. Mailed notifications can easily be intercepted. While drafted with noble intent by its writers, this amendment is fundamentally flawed and based on a disconnect from reality. I am voting no.

Some of my resources:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/reporting.html
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:290390

For those of you living under a rock buried in a dune at the bottom of the ocean, Prop 8 is described quite well by its title "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

Prop 8 is a Big Deal here and, from what I've heard, all over the country. Homosexual people want to get married just like heterosexual people, and conservatives/fundamentalists/people who like to legislate their morality do not want their sacred institution corrupted. With the amount of money both sides have raised, I've been bombarded by quite of few ridiculous arguments, mostly on the Yes! side. Saying that you don't want your church to be forced to marry gays qualifies as ridiculous. Saying that children in public schools will be indoctrinated qualifies as ridiculous. Saying that it does not take away rights when the title starts with "Eliminates Right" extra super qualifies as ridiculous. Saying that marriage is an institution with religious origins and the government should keeps its secular nose out of religious business, well, that got me thinking.

What constitutes a marriage has changed radically over thousands of years. Depending on what society you trace the origins of marriage through, there are different levels of formality and consequences. However, a religious or spiritual component is almost universal. And while it is no longer possible to wed simply by saying, "I marry you," the religious implications have remained an integral part of the ceremony for many Americans.

Now that being publicly gay is not an automatic death sentence, gay people want to get married, but that tends to conflict with the historical religious wedding. In waltzes the civil union, a separate-but-equal attempt at appeasing both sides that is not recognized by the federal government, and forget about other states.

Even though marriage has been redefined as our culture has morphed, perhaps it should be civil union that is redefined. A giant search/replace all on marriage/civil union, if you will. Regardless of any details about the couple, as far as the government is concerned, it is a civil union. Churches, synagogues, and even drive through chapels in Las Vegas could still hold whatever type of ceremony they deem fit. Churches that accept gays could marry gays. Churches that don't would continue not to. But the important thing is that the legal end result is the same for every person.

Back in reality, I'm fully aware that this won't happen any time soon, and probably not ever. Millions of people are too attached to the word marriage and everything it means to them. Not to mention the undertaking necessary to rewrite all the tax code. Personally, I think the word is not nearly as important as the relationship that it signifies, as long as the word is the same for all. I will vote no on Prop 8.

Maybe it's just the mood that I'm in, but for whatever reason, this article on cnn.com pissed me off to the point of ranting about it. Bush appointed Keroack, a leader in the no premarital sex, no abortions, and no contraceptives community, as head of the Office of Population Affairs. This office is in charge of national family planning programs and abstinence programs. How on earth could even someone as dimwitted as Bush confuse no contraception and no abortions with family planning? That is easily the best formula for unplanned families. Not to mention the huge problems caused by only teaching abstinence to teenagers. That idea has never worked, and, short of vasectomies for all males, it never will.

There, I'm done.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/11/fetus.carpool.ap/index.html

I don't mind the special parking spots at malls and such, but the carpool lane? No, a fetus is not a separate passenger.

While I had little doubt about how this case was going to be decided, once one judge decides that the fetus counts as a separate passenger, the flood gates open for anti-abortion legislation and lawsuits with this as a precedent. There are some anti-abortion groups that have literally been sending pregnant women to drive in carpool lanes by themselves just so they can try to fight the ensuing ticket and have the fetus declared as a passenger, and by extension a person. Hopefully no judge ever decides to interpret the law in their favor.