Safe Haven Laws Revisited

I'm a pretty big fan of Safe Haven laws. Even though some moms can't seem to understand that they don't mean they can't leave their newborn on a church steps in near freezing temperatures with no one around, I want to commend any mother who makes the tough decision to help their child have a better life than they can provide.

It appears that they may be a problem with Safe Haven laws though. There's no age limit, at least not in Nebraska.


Here is a link to the story.
Nebraska Lawmakers Consider Age Limit on Safe-Haven Law

Monday, November 17, 2008

LINCOLN, Neb. — A Nebraska legislative committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on bills that would limit the age of children who could be dropped off under the state's safe-haven law.

The law has no age limit, which has led to the drop-off of 34 children at hospitals, most of them preteens and teenagers.

One bill up for hearing on Monday would limit to 3 days the age of children who could be dropped off.

Another would set two age limits, 1 year and 15 years.

The 15-year age cap isn't expected to be considered by the full Legislature because the bill also calls for those older children to receive new crisis services. Attorney General Jon Bruning says that is outside the limited scope of the special legislative session.

11/18 Letter from Mr. DeFazio

A number of weeks ago, I heard an interview with Peter DeFazio, US Representative for Oregon's Fourth District. He outlined a five step alternative to the $700bn bailout that now appears to be a free-for-all spiraling into a strange assortment of loans, public ownership of private entities, regulations, and mission creep. I wrote to Mr. DeFazio expressing support for his bipartisan program. Today, I received the following response.

I disagree with Mr. DeFazio on a number of issues, but this is an exception. Although I support government intrusion in this situation, I do not agree the program passed by Congress and signed by the President. Unfortunately, history seems to be supporting the skeptic.

Provided in its entirety:



Thank you for contacting me about the Bush Administration bailout. This bailout put the taxpayer at risk and didn't address the fundamental underlying economic problems. I voted against it both times it came to the House floor for a vote. Unfortunately, the bill passed the House of Representatives 263 to 171.

I was the first Member of Congress to take to the House floor and stand up in opposition to this $700 billion bailout. I authored three letters to my Democratic Colleagues urging them to vote against this bailout. You can see them on my website. I also was a key member of the "Skeptics Caucus" a group of Democratic Members who vigorously fought against this bailout. And I spoke numerous times against the bailout to the Democratic Caucus, all 235 House Democrats. The financial crisis we face today does not need to be resolved by forking over $700 billion from the taxpayer to the "Masters of the Universe" on Wall Street.

I was appalled that the legislation was loophole ridden allowing Wall Street executives to continue to receive golden parachutes, bonuses, and stock options. The media accounts of AIG executives attending a high priced resort after the government's bailout is unforgivable.

The fundamental premise of the $700 billion Bush Administration bailout is flawed, reckless, and foolish. It is flawed because it is not clear it will achieve its stated objective of injecting commercial banks with liquidity and it ignores the needs of main street America, it is reckless because there are better alternatives, and it is foolish because giving away $700 billion will limit our ability to deal with the myriad of other problems we face such as healthcare, energy independence, and job creation.

To put the sheer audacity of this bailout plan in perspective, a compromise has been talked about that reduces the initial payments to "only $250 billion". $250 billion would more than double our investment in bridges, highways, transit, and rail in the United States for five years. Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for every $1.25 billion we invest in infrastructure, we will create over 30,000 jobs and $6 billion in additional economic activity. In President Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, we invested in building roads, bridges, dams, hydroelectric systems and other public works projects to mend our nation's broken economy. That money trickled up to Wall Street from Main Street and rebuilt our economy. We did not just throw money at Wall Street with the hopes that the taxpayer might some day be paid back.

I think Congress should respond, but the basic premise of the Bush Administration bailout is flawed. Almost 200 economists wrote to Congress stating "As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson"[1]. The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the long-term effects. The former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp in the Reagan Administration wrote, "I have doubts that the $700 billion bailout, if enacted, would work. Would banks really be willing to part with the loans, and would the government be able to sell them in the marketplace on terms that the taxpayers would find acceptable?"[2] And James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, has asked "Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises. Is this bailout still necessary?"[3] I believe the answer is No. I have called on my colleagues to slow down this debate and seriously debate the alternative proposals.
Many economists have argued that unfair and abusive mortgage loans should be renegotiated to help distressed home owners save their homes. This would be astronomically cheaper and more effective in resolving this crisis without burdening the taxpayer. Helping working Americans stay in their homes would ultimately increase the value of Wall Street's depreciated mortgage backed assets. This plan would let the benefits of any bailout, paid for by taxpayers, trickle up to the banks and Wall Street, rather than hope the benefits trickle down. As the New York Times opined recently:

"We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don't have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers ."[4]

Another serious consequence is the $700 billion hole in the budget deficit this bailout will create. The next administration, Democratic or Republican, will be unable to initiate new proposals as it charts a new course for our nation. The Bush tax cuts blew the surplus created by the last Democratic Administration and the Bush Administration bailout will prevent the next administration from implementing its mandate.

My biggest concern of this bailout is who pays the $700 billion tab. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ? of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to high volume, speculative short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.

There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance economic reconstruction programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent. This is a reasonable approach to protecting taxpayers and ensuring the federal budget doesn't fall further into the fiscal hole.

I have authored the Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security (No BAILOUTS) Act of 2008, that would through a series of regulatory fixes resolve much of the liquidity crisis we face at no cost to the taxpayer. I believe this is a far more rational approach.

I also authored an amendment to the bailout bill that sought to protect taxpayers by requiring the Treasury Secretary to implement a low-cost FDIC program to restore liquidity before spending the $700 billion. I believe it is common sense to try the cheaper program first. My amendment also made sure Wall Street paid for the bailout with a minute transfer tax on securities spread over ten years. Wall Street should ultimately pay the taxpayer back for this bailout.

Again, thanks for reaching out to me. Please keep in touch.


________________________________________
[1]
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
[2]
Washington Post. A Better Way to Aid Banks. William M. Isaac. Sept 27, 2008. A19.
[3]
Washington Post. A Bailout We Don't Need. James K. Galbraith. Sept. 25, 2008. A19
[4]
New York Times. Editorial. What About the Rest of Us? Sept., 26, 2008. A26.

Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

The Secret to Happiness

It’s officially Christmas.

Christmas has been sneaking its way in through the backdoor since the back-to-school shopping season but now there’s an unapologetic full-court press to ring up and swipe in the next big shopping holiday. Retailers have even brought back the layaway as a convenience for all us consumers who don’t have enough cash to buy Christmas all at once. (By the way, if you can’t cash-and-carry the presents you’re buying to give as Christmas presents, you may have missed the point.)

As is tradition, my wife and I have set a dollar limit for the gifts we will give each other. I think we may even start a new tradition and keep to that dollar limit.

I know people who’ve already decorated their homes for Christmas. I don’t mean the confused people who leave their lights up all year. I mean, they’ve actually set up trees with ornaments and decorations and presents. If I didn’t know better, I’d say it was Christmas Eve in their living rooms.

Christmas’ arrival wasn’t really real for me until I was walking through our local mall and saw… Santa Spot. I couldn’t believe it, but there it was in all its redness. All it was missing was a drunk, smelly pervert in a bad costume pandering to the parents of thousands of whiny, snobby brats. (NOTE: The real Santa at the Downtown Macy’s is excluded from this description. Macy’s is where Santa hangs out when he’s in Portland. The best parents get to take their wonderfully well-behaved children to spend time with the real Santa. And since Macy’s took over Meier & Frank, they even remodeled Pottersville in to a real nice Santa Land with elves and reindeer and stuff.)

And I get it. Retailers need to generate excitement and pump up the shopping season to increase quarterly earnings. (Actually, our economy could use some good news from retail this quarter!) And my friends really like Christmas. It’s fun. The decorations are better than any other holiday’s. They get to feel that Christmas spirit for a month-and-a-half instead of three weeks. It’s something to look forward to. I think y’all are nuts, but I get it. Christmas allows us to be dreamy-eyed kids who believe in magic and run wishing to good and make a difference.

But for all the good and magic of Christmas, I love Thanksgiving. If for no other reason than, when else can we eat our body weight in carbohydrates and fats without guilt or shame? It’s a good day. I’ll start my Thanksgiving off watching the Macy’s Day Parade with the girls. Once we eat breakfast and get bored of giant balloons, we’ll get ready for the annual Turkey Bowl. Hopefully the field’s muddy. After pounding my friends and family in the ground with my superior athletic ability and knowledge of football strategy, we’ll have a light “lunch” of cheese, crackers, and meat, chips and salsa, veggies, including of course, black olives. The only thing better than watching a kid run around with black olives on their fingers is if they can flip their eye lids up and run around laughing so hard they nearly pass out from asphyxiation. Someone’ll have too much cheer and either get nostalgic or belligerent.

Right about the time we’re ready to pick straws to figure our who we’re gonna eat first, Grandpa will decide the turkey’s done. The fixins’ll be set in place. Someone, probably me, will say grace, and a sense of fulfillment will settle over the crowd. Grandpa will begin his, “I’m thankful for…” monologue that makes everyone a little uncomfortable wondering if he’s gonna start kissing or crying. And the day moves to a nice slow auto pilot of games, movies, food, naps, and Tums. What a day!

Not everyone’s Thanksgiving will be like mine. Some will be spent away from loved ones. They’ll be spent standing watch atop a tower in South Korea or clearing a mine field in Afghanistan. They’ll be spent in a hospital ER because someone had too much cheer and plowed into a family on their way home. They’ll be spent wishing they’d call or stop by. They’ll be spent wondering if anyone remembers when. They’ll be spent in a soup kitchen wondering where the next meal will come from. And for most people, the fourth Thursday in November will pass as any other day, not really caring that some legislative body decided that that was the day when the US remembered to give thanks that an Indian with an over inflated sense of charity sealed the death warrant of his people by showing some lost white guys how to raise corn.

It’s not the day I look forward to. Sure, we have a good time, and there are things we do that I enjoy, but my appreciation for Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the holiday. Thanksgiving is a reminder to be grateful for the blessings we enjoy. And they are many, far more than we can count or realize. Thanksgiving is the fist step to living a life of gratitude. Gratitude increases love. Gratitude increases appreciation. It helps us develop perspective. I cried and cried because I had no shoes until I saw the man who had no feet, a proverb goes. Gratitude is contagious. Showing gratitude is a law of the universe for true happiness, and it is something that truly people exude. Thankfulness and the act of expressing gratitude are the secret to happiness.

There is a real danger in forgetting to be thankful or choosing to not show gratitude. Have you ever done a favor for someone who took your action for granted? A lack of thankfulness shows a cavalier attitude towards that which we have received. We all owe everything to the God who created us and grants us our daily breath, and everything that has ever happened in our lives can be attributed to His granting it or doing it. For that reason alone, we should start off every day on our knees in thanksgiving, determined to make the world a little better.

Gratitude and thanksgiving engender a greater desire to serve. From service we receive blessings, and you don’t have to believe in a god to believe in that. Service is a drug, every bit as powerful as heroine, and once it has you, it is very difficult to pull away from. Blessings increases our feeling of thankfulness and desire to show gratitude and the vicious cycle of happiness keeps turning. It doesn’t matter where you get on. All that matters is that you stay on. And, to me, Thanksgiving is just another opportunity to remember all that has happened, all those that can be helped, and all that will happen because of simple ordinary efforts.

I don’t mean to offend or suggest that retailers have evil and people who decorate early are selfish and ungrateful. Decorate all you want. Sell as much as you can. Enjoy your Christmas as much as you can in whatever way you can. We all show our thankfulness in our own ways, and celebration and fashion are not my concern. Apathy is my concern and not even from you. Apathy is never achieved purposefully or all at once, and, on a personal level, it only serves to destroy the possessor. Many retailers and early decorates are very grateful and generous people just celebrating in their own way. But I’m concerned that, on a much larger scale, our community has become complacent and entrenched in entitlement. On a much larger scale, the darkness of apathy that will consume a soul, will consume a nation.

Americans are incredibly generous people. We’re also incredibly selfish. And unless we remember to be thankful, how can we really appreciate Christmas for what it is? So, don’t be in too big of a hurry to get to Christmas or maybe you’ll just be thankful when it’s over.

Duck blood needed

If you bleed green and yellow, the American Red Cross needs you. Join us this year for the Civil War Blood Drive.

Click on the title of this post or copy and past to http://civilwarblooddrive.com/

No stinky beavers, please.

Violent reaction to Prop 8

Note to radicals: if you want to change a population’s perception of you, acts of violence and terrorism emboldens those who support that which you oppose. It weakens your cause. Moreover, if you’re arrested and convicted of a felony, you probably won’t be able to vote the next time the question is put before the people. Therefore, violence is a self-defeating reaction.

Personally, I’m a big fan of Roosevelt’s, speak softly and carry a big stick, but I believe it must be tempered with Gandhi’s passive resistance. Somewhere in there is a reasonable medium.

I hope those who are disappointed with the outcome of Prop 8 can find a way to express themselves in a proactive manner. Vandalism and terrorism by the minority will not sway public opinion in the direction of the majority. If you want to change the world, you must change its perception.

Hanky-panky at the Treasury

Ever wake up and start to wonder if everything you’ve ever believed is a lie? Wednesday, I made a presentation on our current economic situation. It was filled with history and trends and comparisons and the economic values I’ve trusted since I was old enough to know better. This is part of the normal business cycle, I assured them. Our economy has a correction/economic slowdown about every five years. It lasts about 15 months and then we begin got recover. Look at the buying opportunity! In the context of history, blah, blah, blah. It was the longest presentation I’ve ever given, and I was relieved when my time was over. How do you tell someone everything’s fine when what you want to say is that we’re in the middle of a global mini-depression and the guy with the wallet can’t decide whether he’s coming or going?

This too shall pass, keeps reverberating between my ears, but our “leaders” are doing nothing to inspire confidence. On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) hit its all time high of 14,164.53. Thursday, it closed at 8,835.25 or 62% of its high just 13 short months ago! Although both nominal and real gross domestic product are higher than ever, both the DJIA and S&P 500 are at 1997/1998 levels.

Over the last 40 years or so, our country’s economy has experienced phenomenal growth. In spite of the volatile environment of the last 40 years, we’ve continued growing and growing and growing. But, is it sustainable? Are we growing too big, too fast? In our effort for more, has greed gotten the better of us? Are we paying the piper? If we continue to artificially hold up our economy with ever increasing mountains of debt, will we ever have a strong, sustainable economy? If not, what will the crash be like?

Perhaps one of the least settling things about this is that many of the same people who helped create this mess are trying to fix it. Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced that he was planning to use $350 Billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help relieve pressure on consumer credit instead of buying “toxic” mortgages. Originally TARP was sold as a way for the Federal government to purchase nonperforming assets from a bank, removing it from their balance sheet, raising its credit rating and ability to borrow, and making it a healthier institution able to better perform its function of loaning money and investing in the market place. But now it appears more than ever that this is just a big slush fund so the tax payers can make up for the poor business decisions of which ever company or industry Hank likes.

Paulson has committed $290 Billion to purchase stakes in banks and AIG. Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership wants as much as $50 Billion invested in the auto industry (which comes with additional perk of an “oversight czar” telling the industry what to make and how to make it). If they don’t get it, America could be out of the car business early next year. Cities are not approaching the Treasury for bailout funds. And the assistant secretary in charge of the bailout funds has already said that we’ll need more than the $700bn, maybe twice as much.

Consumers aren’t spending any money because we’re up to our eyes in debt and worried about our jobs. Businesses aren’t investing because consumers aren’t spending. Exports aren’t much help because the entire world is feeling the squeeze (Equador will miss a $30 Million interest payment tomorrow because of dropping oil prices). That leaves the government as the last spender in the equation, and the policy of the moment is public ownership of private companies and loans to help industries and companies bridge through this cycle. But where is the end of the bridge? Should the public own private companies? And have we made up our minds now?

In this case, I do support government spending, even deficit spending. Both of which are acceptable practices in this situation, but I would like to see it controlled and directed mostly to infrastructure. Extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps, and other welfare benefits will help a little but a bigger benefit will be gained by government spending on programs that will help Americans get back to work and invest in the infrastructure. I’d like to see $700bn spent on roads and bridges, energy generation and distribution, levies, and the like. Of course, the rub is in the fair distribution of the stimulus to ensure that influential districts do not receive a disproportionate allocation of the funds. Stimulus could also be directed at health care, education/job training, and national security especially in seaports and airports. But just loaning it to companies that can’t pay the bills they have? Where are they supposed to get their revenue from? The consumer still doesn’t have any money? We’re still in debt? And we’re still worried about employer cutbacks.

I can just imagine the Paulson strategy meetings… Phase one, pay full price for mortgage that aren’t worth anything and hope they’re worth something someday. No. Wait. Let’s borrower tax payer money to invest in private companies, especially the companies we regulate, making unprecedented public ownership in private companies. It doesn’t matter if they can’t pay their bills. We won’t worry about that right now. Then, we’ll go back to Congress, get the rest of our money, and see about the other thing we told them we’d do. And if that ain’t enough, we’ll just tell them we need more. Blackmail’s fun. Can you believe people rob banks?

More important than actually doing anything worthwhile, Washington needs to portray a sense that they actually know what they’re doing and are acting purposefully. Honestly, I don’t think most of us recognize when they screw up anyways. People are pretty forgiving and unless they do something foolish like draw attention to themselves, we generally assume they just meant to do it that way.

Finally, I appreciate a person who recognizes when they could have made a better decision, but the Secretary of the Treasury is one of the most powerful people in the world. He has the world’s resources at his disposal. Far too much is riding on his decisions for him to be wishy-washy. Come on, Hank. Get it together!

Where Were We When Life Needed Defended?

I’ve received a lot of feedback (both here and offline) on yesterday’s marriage vs abortion post. I drafted the following in an effort to address the majority of them at one time. It’s a bit long, but it builds to a heck of a punchline!

Politics is the art of community building. The making of laws is the art of community defining. There are two ways a community will define itself, empirically and subjectively. The first involves natural laws that can be tested, proven or refuted, and are until new evidence proves otherwise. The second is based on values, our own moral compass. It works only as long as a majority of people agree. It works well only if an overwhelming majority agrees and abides by it. Unfortunately, the subjective rule of law is inherently exclusive and will change as the population’s morals change. I certainly feel that we must develop laws that are based on broad, overarching values that most of us can agree on and will pass the test of time. This country was founded by a God who preserved it and directed its formation. Moving away from moral values will have damaging consequences, which is why we must identify the most generally shared values in our community and base our governance on those.

Once values enter the picture, we are faced with the questions, who’s values? Why? What makes their values more right than someone else’s? Subject governance based on might makes right is polarizing. It’s divisive. Instead of finding common ground and working together, we focus on our differences. We deplete our resources on the things that tear us down rather than build us up and ignore the larger issues we face. Certainly our decisions should be based on our values, however, when defining our community, we must support our beliefs with fact.

If you’ve ever bought something you didn’t really need, you’ve seen this principle in action. Think of the last time you bought a car with more features than you needed, a pair of jeans that was more expensive than another, or had desert after a good dinner. Our buying decisions are based on emotions (I want it. I want it. I want it.), and we defend the decision with logic (I need it. I need it. I need it.). Buyer’s remorse is the lack of sound logic to support the emotion that led to the decision. Community defining works the same way. Since our values change in both the short and long term, subjective governance is a volatile way to define our community.

The people of United States define our community in an interesting way. All of our rights are stated in the negative. We have a right until the people use the government to take it away, and our laws are designed to prevent government from usurping our most precious rights. The act of granting rights by a government because of some special status moves us to a strange realm where we are dependent on another to tell us what we can and cannot do, which is decisively un-American. Certainly we restrict rights (e.g., voting, drinking, driving, etc.), however, in each of those cases either there is empirical data to support the values-based decision or our values were shaped by the evidence.

A majority of Americans seem to believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Why? What does “marriage” mean? Is it a legal status used to define that sharing of rights? Is it a moral commitment to another person? Is it a tradition? And why is a priority? Love? Companionship? Convenience? Security? Chemistry? No one person can answer these questions for all of us. These are personal questions. There is no empirical data that shows that homosexual couples benefit less from the marriage than heterosexual couples. And the overwhelming majority of homosexuals choose not to get married. We ought to be amazed that any two people can meet, decide to be in love, commit to supporting each other as helpmeets, and actually stick with it!

If marriage is a civil agreement between two consenting adults, then religion may not set policy. If marriage is a moral commitment between two adults who vow to love, honor, and cherish one another, then the state has no involvement except to record rights and responsibilities. But if you believe that marriage is a religious ceremony, you must also believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion according to their own dictates. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then you may believe that God has set agency as a fundamental principle of His gospel, perhaps it is the most important principle. You may further believe that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the [God], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

As for my own beliefs, I agree with The Family: A Proclamation to the World issued by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My religious beliefs lead me to support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Never-the-less, that is a religious distinction, and all attempts to support this definition empirically don’t hold water. I supported the ban in Oregon out of a sense of obligation to the people I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and the President of the Church who I believe is God’s representative her on the Earth today. (Comparable to an Abraham, Noah, or Elijah.) But for that, I can think of no reason to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

My objection to the grossly disproportionate attention given to 18,000 married homosexual couples in California over the nearly 100,000 babies that will be aborted this year is completely independent on my views of marriage. The Coalition on Marriage took up the easy victory. Ironically enough, if it hadn’t been for the black and Latino vote that came to support Mr. Obama, Prop 8 may have well failed.

Active supporters of Proposition 8 addressed the lower hanging fruit and may have been motivated by revenge against a “liberal” court overturning their 2000 victory. This wasn’t about reaffirming the will of the people. 9% fewer California’s voted for Prop 8 then voted for Proposition 22 in 2000, in spite of the . This was about a religious crusade against a politically weak minority pushed forward on fear of a condemning, angry God, images of little old boys holding hands on the playground, and grown men kissing. This was a campaign of propaganda and when the moral winds shift, it will be repealed.

The amazing amount or resources committed to this one issue will prove to have been misappropriated. If you’re afraid of being condemned for not standing up for the “traditional definition of marriage” and telling two consenting adults that you will not acknowledge their behavior, I ask you to consider the implications of ignoring Proposition 4 and every other piece of legislation like it. Tens of millions of babies have been killed in the United States before they had the chance to take a breath. Tens of thousands of babies will be killed this year in California because we have failed to move the pro-life cause forward in any meaningful way. Minors can’t drive without their parent’s permission. If their outside past curfew, they can be detained. Parents and responsible adults protect children from harm and are involved, especially in their times of dire need. Failing to pass Prop 4 failed to protect our children. It failed by nearly the exact margin by which Prop 8 passed. $2.7 million was spent advocating for parental notification. $6.3 million was spent opposing it. Our grossly negligent absence in this issue puts the blood of those babies partially on our hands.

Marriage and the family are worthwhile causes and worth defending. I do not agree with how our resources were allocated and believe that we sacrificed parental notification for control over homosexuals.