Sponsors of Jessica’s Law urge Californians to vote yes on Proposition 85

Yes on 85 ^ | Oct. 23, 2006 | Albin Rhomberg

[Blue Collar Republican]

For interviews, contact Vernon Van (562)787-6250

[Blue Collar Republican]

PING

[Jaysun]

God. This is cheap. I don't know everything about all of the California Propositions, I'll grant you that. But from what I do know I'd say that any sensible person would vote no all the way down. If I'm wrong, and I often am, please tell me.

[SoldierDad]

So, you would vote against propositions which provide greater safeguards for children against being preyed upon by child predators or pro-death people?

[b9]

If you were here in CA, you would want to protect that precious baby daughter of yours, and would appreciate 83 and 85.

Why would you vote no on Jessica's Law and parental notification?

[Blue Collar Republican]

Yes, sir, you are wrong on this one. If you care about morality, you would vote yes on this one. If you have a teenage daughter, you would vote yes on this one. If your an 18 year old boy that just knocked up a cops under-aged daughter, you would want to vote no on 85.

So I guess it's about perspective.

[Jaysun]

Why would you vote no on Jessica's Law and parental notification?

I intend to be Governor of my state in 2010. They tell me that all Propositions in CA are bad. As I said before, if they aren't please correct me.

[Jaysun]

Yes, sir, you are wrong on this one. If you care about morality, you would vote yes on this one. If you have a teenage daughter, you would vote yes on this one. If your an 18 year old boy that just knocked up a cops under-aged daughter, you would want to vote no on 85.

So I guess it's about perspective.

Okay. I suppose I've some homework to do. Thanks.

[SFConservative]

Prop 1A: simply says gasoline sales tax can no longer be diverted routinely to uses other than road maintenance and improvement

Prop 83: Track child sex offenders for life - minor costs

Prop 85: Require the same notification to parents when their underage daughter seeks an abortion as they require when she gets her ears pierced.

There are a few sensible propositions on the CA ballot, surprising as that may be. Voting intelligently always beats voting knee-jerk against everything.

[Carry_Okie]

I have no interest in building the infrastructure to track every human being with GPS when it's far preferable to keep sexual predators in jail.

No on 85.

[REDWOOD99]

If you intend to be Gov. of your own state, you better start being wary of what "they" tell you, now!

[b9]

My apologies. I thought you were sincere.

[Blue Collar Republican]

Naw, thats 83, and your right. 83 may be a waste of time and money.

[bpjam]

Apparently you aren't enlightened enough since Hillary Clinton is recording phone messages to California voters telling them that children will be safer is we DON'T have parental notification of 12 year olds getting abortions through their school counselors. Strange world we live in, huh?

[Jaysun]

My apologies. I thought you were sincere.

I am.

[Carry_Okie]

Naw, thats 83, and your right. 83 may be a waste of time and money.

Getting sleepy, while my wife reads me PhD level nursing theory written by some psychobabbling idiot. All I can think of as she drones on is a whole career of totally wasted money. Speaking of which,

83 is worse than a waste of money; it's buying the rope for your own hanging.

[tanuki]

Yes on 1A

Yes on 83

Yes on 85

Hell yes on 90 (penalties on eminent domain)

Scrap everything else

[sageb1]

You're not going to be governor of anything if you don't do your homework.

[sageb1]

Exactly. The left's agenda is to take the parent out of the equation. There are 3 protections for the teenager built into Prop 85. Voting yes simply makes sure that parental rights are not removed.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

I think 83 is badly written and badly thought out. Our local rag did an article about it, and showed that the way our city is laid out, with lots of schools and lots of parks, there will be few places in town where the perps can live. The way the law is written, it is not clear if offenders can continue to live in these zones, or will have to up and move. If it is decided that they actually have to move out, I don't think the law will stand up in court. In addition, I live in the country, and I deeply resent having all these offenders dumped out in my neck of the woods to make a point. Why on earth do you think I want a child molester living next to me when you don't want one living next to you? (And rural areas aren't necessarily all that rural. In our "rural" neighborhood, many of the houses are on only about an acre each. Not much distance there.)

Mostly, though, I don't think the "tracking for life" will stand up Constitutionally, and I resent spending money on a law that can't pass that test. Write the damn law so it stands up the first time. Or better yet, keep the perps in jail where they belong, instead of dumping them out way too early and making it the community's problem. These people can't be cured. They shouldn't be out here at all.

Bad law, 83. Write a better version and I'll vote for it.