Oregon Anti-Abortion Group Opposes Measure 43

(CLACKAMAS) - Ordinarily, a pro-life organization like Life Support would be endorsing a ballot measure that purports to reduce the number of children killed by abortion. However, we find ourselves entering into a world of the surreal after reading the “Parental Involvement and Support Act.”

This is such a flawed, compromised piece of legislation, that it does not deserve the support of pro-life Oregonians.

At best, this measure will fail to deliver on the promises made by those who are promoting this misnamed Act. At its worst, Measure 43 will unleash the force of law to drive a legal wedge between parents and their minor daughter by guaranteeing her the right to an abortion.

Section 3 (1) of Measure 43 says, “A person may not perform an abortion on an unemancipated minor or a ward until 48 hours after the parent receives written notice…” Section 3 (2) defines the meaning of receipt as, “Receipt of notice under subsection (1) of this section is deemed to occur not later than 12 noon on the second mail delivery day after the mailing of the notice.”

A cursory read of this act may lead one to conclude that our daughters will be protected. Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, nothing could be further from the truth. Stated conversely, Measure 43 effectively says:

An abortionist may kill the unborn child of an unemancipated minor or a ward 48 hours after written notice the parent is “deemed” to have been received.

There is no requirement in the measure to confirm that the child’s parent actually receives the notification. This notification is “deemed” to occur automatically at noon the second day after mailing, regardless of whether the letter is ever received.

James E. Leuenberger PC, Life Support Legal Counsel, said, “Measure 43's ‘parental notice’ is meaningless. Real notice would require actual conversations with both of the mother's parents.”

The effect of this Act will be to overrule the God-ordained authority parents have been given over their children. Measure 43 will use the full power of the state to break this bond, ensuring that once the (alleged) notification is made, a parent will lose the right to raise their daughter in the way she should go, leaving her fate in the hands of others.

Even the title, "the Parental Involvement and Support Act" is misleading, since this measure requires neither parental involvement nor support before an innocent life can be taken.

Measure 43 does not condemn, or even speak out against the killing of unborn children. It merely attempts to regulate one of the purest forms of barbarism imaginable. This measure will cause many pro-lifers to unwittingly vote to affirm the legal right to abortion.

Oregonians deserve better than this. Life Support is recommending a NO vote on Measure 43.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Guy W. October 24, 2006 6:09 pm (Pacific time)

Sigh, both sides are idiots with agendas that obscure reason! On one side we have pro-lifers who have pulled a "humanity begins at fertilization" faith out of thin air. Nowhere in history will you find ANY group that believed such a thing! In fact if God feels we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why is there NO WAY TO TELL THIS EVENT???? PRetty hard hoe to row wouldn't you say? Also up to half of all fertilised eggs do not implant or miscarry before the woman even knows she is pregnant. These two things together would seem to show that God if God feels humanity starts at fertilization then He has no problem with abortion! On the other side we have the pro-choicers. They have goten so used to responding to what the opposition does that they have lost all sense. They have managed to get themselves in a position of backing extreme late-term abortions through simply refusing to back an inch on the idea of a woman having control and not being forced. Why don't both sides get a clue and solve the problem? If we look back through time we find that the first trimester is the most common time for societies to decided that someone is "home". THis is when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. No society that I know of placed it earlier!!! Some didn't even acknowledge the babies humanity until it had survived a prescribed number of days and was named. Here is the proposal. First trimester abortion is by demand. 2nd trimester abortion may only occur whith a doctors clear recomendation to avoid harm to the mothers health. Third trimester. Now this is the key. 8 and 7 and even 6 month premies live and grow up and thrive. HOW can any thinking person deny that that is NOT A PIECE OF TISSUE anymore? In the third trimester it should be LEGALLY a person. The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7. If there is a threat to the mothers health of life in this time the doctors would have to use the same criteria they use when dealing with conjoined twins deciding who lives and who dies when that choice MUST be made. What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody. The pro-lifers will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequence. The pro-choicers will never accept a return to women being chattle, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies. So why not use sense and reality to settle things INTELLIGENTLY? Total victory or nothing!! They all cry while womens lives are ruined over zygotes and babies who should have rights die.

A 16 year old pregnant woman October 20, 2006 12:06 pm (Pacific time)

Can you not realize this Measure, if passed, could force teenage girls to seek illegal ways to abort the children they don't want? This measure is unfair to teenage girls. As one myself, I am against Measure 43.

John October 18, 2006 1:58 pm (Pacific time)

I am not for this.

Justin October 15, 2006 8:55 pm (Pacific time)

veteran mom, actually there are a great number of well done studies that show measures like this actually cause teen pregnancy rates to decrease along with abortion rates. See "Impact of the Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth" by James Rogers et al. for starters. It was the first and there were many studies that followed which came to the same conclusion. Teen pregnancy rates actually dropped 10% as the abortion rates dropped 28%.

Anonymous October 8, 2006 10:49 pm (Pacific time)

don't get distracted with semantics. If the goal is persuasion then call it what you want, progress here is painfully slow and you demonstrate equality is not based on strength of argument (persuasion) but on favoritism of values. Get it? That's why I don't participate. Rise up already.

Henry Ruark October 8, 2006 8:53 am (Pacific time)

EqR: Was expecting your emailer relayed via Tim, per our recent session-here...but hasn't showed. Why not ID-and dialog ? Debate gets nowhere since someone has to "win" -- and in life that doesn't always work. Ready when you are, on other-topic or this one or as you choose...but ID-needed and emailer for positive dialog --if that's what you seek.

Albert Marnell October 7, 2006 7:25 pm (Pacific time)

Eqriddler, If I believe that you are homosexual or gay I do not perceive that as a negative. Gay people in general are far brighter and creative than most people I deal with because they have suffered more than any other group of people as far as I am concerned. Being gay or homosexual to me is a positive thing, and if people are gay or homosexual they should consider themselves fortunate if they are able to survive the horrible discrimination and suffering that is placed on them. You think that being gay is a negative. I think that it is a positive. I feel that this means you are homophobic which is not a sign of a healthy psyche. I brought up the issue of human sexuality because I believe that you are the one who on another website said that I was a pedophile and it fits perfectly in with the timing of specific events. Am I 100% sure it was you, I am 99% sure and nothing will change that. To be clear homosexual is a compliment, to call someone a pedophile is vile and potentially ruinous of ones reputation and ability to work or live peacefully in a community. It is the ugliest of accusations designed to detroy a person. This will not happen to me, but the attempt by someone, probably you, fueled my hatred for anyone that I thought would be even slightly connected to such a plot. And for the record, I think that pedophiles need help not punishment. And most pedophiles are men after girls, 90% of children molested are little girls and underaged girls. The media likes to focus on the 10% of pedophiles that are after young boys because the media is trying to link pedophilia to homosexuality. Pedophilia is a sickness and hurts children (mostly girls). Homosexuality is a common variant from the majority and is a good thing.

eqriddler October 7, 2006 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

Al, if you do not intend to insult by calling me a homosexual, what IS the point? All the abuse in name calling you attempt to inflict, damages your credibility and your efforts so clam down and use words. I don't care if you hate my ideas, just tell me where I'm wrong. Does that idea sound juvinile to you? How about showing everyone else who reads here how right you are and how wrong I am? Juvinile? I am being pretty persuasive right now and unless you come up with something better, you are going to look bad. So, are we debating the issues or not?

Albert Marnell October 6, 2006 10:39 pm (Pacific time)

I have not doubt that eq. did the vile blog on another site. As far as being gay is concerned, nomad thinks it is an insult. First of all I was speculating that eq. was probably gay but in the closet. Calling someone a homosexual is no more of an insult than calling someone heterosexual. I was not calling him a name, I was making an observation based on a number of things that neither of you (if you are two different people would understand). This is not a chess match. No, eq. you have won nothing and as you called me a loser on the other site, maybe that is what you are. I do not use those terms, they are used by tweny year olds. Loser is a high school term. Nomad does not call people names but yet here he calls me juvenile and grade schoolish. He also throws a punch at my "State of Mind". What is wrong with this picture? Most of my comments were meant for eq. Anyone is a punk, coward and blockhead if they can not understand the simple concepts that I present and then want to insult me in direct or subtle ways. I wrote a very astute comment about the demonstrations that neither of you commented on. It is totally factual and alot of experience and work was put into the summary of what Iraq is really about. Other people complimented me and laughed saying, "Al your way over people's heads." As in don't bother. Nomad, I think that eq. is gay and that is good. It is just my opinion, based on so many things. Being a homosexual or gay or whatever you want to call it is not a negative. You may not have called me a blockhead but you have been just as rude and insulting. I am more direct. You criticize virtually anything that I say, and at this point I really do not want to bother anymore. I believe people should give their names. Anyway, I am tired of this and see that alot of my pearls are cast before swine. Read the commentary on the demonstrations and if you do not know what I am talking about, we have nothing more to say about anything. I know the facts and the names. I do research and do not shoot from the hip. Enough, this gets boring after a while. I do not like to banter with people that do not think logically or rationally.

Nomad October 6, 2006 6:55 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Marnell, first of all I have never said anything vile about you, I have no idea what you are talking about and I am not the only one you have accused. I would not do such a thing. I visited this page for the first time last week and prior to that you didn't even exist to me. You should also know that someone else has usurped my pseudonym on at least one occasion on this page. EQ is correct, you are not able to maintain a meaningful adult level debate. Instead of addressing the issues, you stoop to juvenile, grade school name calling attacks. I have referred to your ignorance, but I have NEVER called you a name, yet you have labeled me a blockhead, punk, coward and a homosexual (huh?) which all speaks volumes about your state of mind. As far as pen names, for all I know AM could be YOUR pen name. I could give you any name, but what difference would it make, we are only here to discuss issues, and sometimes to challenge each other, and it should be a positive experience. Like EQ, I will also no longer debate with you. Please just relax and enjoy the page. Cheers

eqriddler October 6, 2006 6:32 pm (Pacific time)

Point #1. I didn't write the blog from nomad to Albert. Point #2. I don't beat people up. Point #3. I make arguments that stand alone even if in oppostion to someone elses. That hurts your feelings. I am truly sorry about that because I really want to know your thoughts. Your ground rules are a bit hectic for me because there is so much abuse to negotiate.

Henry Ruark October 6, 2006 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

EqR: Your failure to respond to Al or others where you have realistic point you can prove simply torpedoes the purpose here --which, hard to believe sometimes but true-- is to learn from each other, not beat the s.... out of the other guy if vulnerable. Allasame many great teachers, specific ones unnamed since they vary wildly among nations, and sometimes violently, too. BUT if you have-a-point, then make it...that's how you pays your dues on this train.

eqriddler October 6, 2006 1:57 pm (Pacific time)

No Al, I didn't post the blog, I'm being truthful and you would know I was, if you had the perspecitve I want. Really, all I want to do is discuss the issues because there is something to be gained by others insight even if it is opposite. It takes thought and effort. Notice I don't attack the person only the message. I used to play chess and when I lost, I had to learn to accept it. I didn't like to loose so I became a stronger player. But the skill has generalized to the debate of issues and I like to think I've won evey debate against you. But my satisfaction would be even greater if you knew it too. However, you wouldn't ever admit to it so I'm not expecting it. All I would ask is for you to let me search the depths of my own mind. You might not understand my request but be assured you can enrich my life even as much as I try to yours.

Albert Marnell October 6, 2006 1:51 am (Pacific time)

Eqriddler, Your the one who posted that blog. What is a realistic perspective...Your Perspective? What is my "Focus", that I do not believe in superstition? You also are not my deceased parents so don't tell me how to direct my comments. Speaking of deceased parents, I had to end my mother's life because she was on life support from an accident. She was not a zygote or a fetus or a baby, she was a full grown human being but there is a time to end life. And I have news for you, it is far more painful to tell the doctor to take your mother off of life support because she will die anyway or suffer until she dies than it is to abort a zygote or a fetus. For the record I would not advocate aborting a fetus in the last month unless it was a danger to the life of the mother. So if I do not need a Christmas Ornament in Vatican City to tell me what to do with anything I certainly do not need you to tell me what to do or how to think.

Eqriddler October 5, 2006 10:58 pm (Pacific time)

Al, I do not know nomad so kindly direct your comments accordingly. I don't believe you can sustain a legitimate argument one way or the other concerning this subject because you have a particular focus that prevents you. I'll read your comments about the issues but I won't respond unless you get a more realistic perspective.

Albert Marnell October 5, 2006 9:41 pm (Pacific time)

Nomad EQ., I have the balls to give my real name. You always hide behind your nom de plume....coward! Then you go and print something vile about me on the internet. Your just a punk kid still in diapers in his twenties.

Albert Marnell October 5, 2006 9:20 pm (Pacific time)

By the way Nomad EQ, I didn't have to run to the dictionary. Your so knowledgeable only with a dictionary in hand and futhermore if you had lived a longer life you would know by now that the answers to life are not in a book, a dictionary, encyclopedia or anything else. You probably are demented enough to believe in a God, Spirits, Angels, Heaven, Hell, Satan, Judgement Day, The Holy Ghost etc. But maybe you should because Halloween is coming up.

Albert Marnell October 5, 2006 9:06 pm (Pacific time)

Nomad Eq, Your the ignorant one. By both our definitions a "zygote" is not a baby, your definition agrees with this. To quote your definition a fetus is "A Developing "HUMAN". Therefore it is not a human. Furthermore you take everything out of context. You are so literal you should see a shrink. If you want a 20 page elaboration, I could give it to you except your such a BlockHead. If a 5 month old "fetus" which is a "Developing Human" needs the coat hook for a number of possible reasons, run to the closet and get one. Which by the way is something you should come out of....the closet....accept yourself. It is ok to be gay or bisexual!

Nomad October 5, 2006 5:46 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Marnell is oozing his ignorance yet again. He says these people know nothing about biology, yet he states a fetus is not a baby. He obviously doesn't know what a fetus is so I will try to enlighten him. Webster's defines fetus as a developing HUMAN from usually 3 months after conception to birth. In Albert's world then, a baby born even a couple of weeks prematurely is not a baby and can be put to death. And a zygote by the way is defined as the developing INDIVIDUAL produced from the union of two gametes. Who knows nothing about biology??

ProGod October 5, 2006 10:00 am (Pacific time)

His creation has no right to end what He has begun. All the words people can speak don't compare to the Word made flesh and it doesn't matter if you're prolife or not, if you're not Pro GOD.

Anonymous October 4, 2006 6:52 pm (Pacific time)

If you're pro-life, than you must be anti-war, right?

veteran mom October 4, 2006 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

So, the idea is to reduce teen abortions? Great! How about if we start with eliminating teen pregnancies? Prevention is the cure, so what's the dilemma? Bringing life into the world is serious business- and personal. Anyone given birth lately? Over 500,000 women DIE every single year- yes, in this day and age- from childbirth! So, encouraging teens to see a pregnancy through... how ridiculous. What I see is that the same people against ending a pregnancy are also against preventing them, and also against the WELFARE system that they insist these young girls be thrust into. What doesn't fit here? Isn't the formula for failure obvious? Why would anyone favor keeping parents in the dark? Well, let's consider the type of parents you should be picturing. NOT Ozzie and Harriet, NOT the Cosby's, NOT the Brady's. Go rent "Cider House Rules", and get a touch of reality. Maybe your life is rosey and you have complete trust and confidence in your parents, but most pregnant teens really don't come from where you do. They don't have your options. Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion, and if you believe this, you have been badly brainwashed. Life may begin at conception, but millions of zygotes are washed away without their "mothers" even knowing...because it is a combination of cells and barely noticable as a bloodclot. Would you have us throwing funerals for embryos? Naming them? Get a life- your own. Abortion is a horrible consequence of a bad situation, and I've never met ANY women who were happy about the decision they had to make. You'd be surprised to learn how many woman have had abortions- that YOU are friends with. Luckily, they haven't been judged all their lives due to the fact that they were given the privacy our constitution granted, and it wasn't subjective depending on their age or income. It will be though, if 43 passes. Just one more knotch in the belt of the anti-woman contingency. They're REAL, and they're REPUBLICAN. What an honorable group. Ha!

Albert Marnell October 4, 2006 4:44 pm (Pacific time)

A zygote is not a baby and a fetus is not a baby. These people know nothing about biology and believe in the living Christmas Ornament (The Pope). Abortion in the first tri-mester is good for society, as I have said before there are too many 30 year old women in this country called grandma!

John Doe October 4, 2006 2:15 pm (Pacific time)

Under the ballot measure, a teenager would not be able to have an abortion unless her parents are notified 48 hours in advance. According to research from University of Alabama professor Dr. Michael New, similar laws in other states have significantly reduced the number of teen abortions. As a result, Life Support is siding with Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates who oppose the measure. Why a so-called pro-life group would favor keeping parents in the dark about a teenager's abortion appears to be fallout from a grudge it has against the state's pro-life organization, Oregon Right to Life. ORTL is the primary backer of the parental notification proposal and in its political endorsements, typically favors pro-life candidates of the major parties because they have a greater chance of being elected and instituting pro-life policy. As a backer of Constitution Party candidates, Life Support has frequently been on the outs when ORTL makes it endorsements. The group is led by Constitution Party candidates and considers the endorsement of pro-life candidates in major parties a personal affront. The organization, in its press release, also wrongly states that Oregon Right to Life has endorsed Republican candidate Ron Saxton, who backs abortion, for governor. Oregon Right to Life has not endorsed Saxton and is merely educating its members that Saxton, who favors parental notification and other pro-life proposals, is better on the issues than pro-abortion Gov. Ted Kulongowski. That has prompted the group to issue scathing press releases against ORTL claiming it favors abortion and using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions -- even though the group has worked to get state tax dollars out of abortion and elect candidates who will help. By opposing parental notification Life Support has proved it's not pro-life.

[Return to Top]

Oregon Anti-Abortion Group Opposes Measure 43

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News