Two outstanding members of our State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Ron George and associate Justice Ming Chen, are being challenged for retention of the court. The cabals behind the challenge object to their participation in a decision avoiding a state statute requiring parental consent for a teenage abortion.
It is most unfortunate that our democratic process enables 'single issue' groups to mis-focus their energy in the political arena. This is especially true of the conservative 'right to lifers' who seem to believe that their views have been etched in stone and sent down to them from Mount Sinai. In evaluating Justices George and Chen, one MUST consider their overall outstanding accomplishments to the court in particular and societal justice in general. They clearly deserve to be retained.
Those of you know me as a somewhat conservative Republican maybe somewhat surprised at the foregoing views but in evaluating candidates for election and/or retention to public office one must consider his or her overall views, capabilities and competency. By way of example I disagree with Dan Lundgren with respect to his views on abortion in that I consider myself pro-choice. Nevertheless, I support his progressive pro-business views so much that I believe his election is essential to maintain the recent growth of the California economy. Accordingly, he will receive my vote although I disagree with him on one narrow legal issue.
To demonstrate my balance on this issue I do have a serious question as to whether or not taxpayer funds ought to be utilized to fund abortions in view of the very substantial number (and vocal) citizens of this country who sincerely believe in the right to life. This opinion, however, is mutually exclusive from the issue of parental consent for a teenage abortion.
