Humboldt County Supes Unanimously Approve Reproductive Rights Resolution to Support CA Prop 1
![Sporting a pink hat and holding a my body my choice sign, Rae Robison said she has been doing this a long time, referring to protesting for reproductive health. [Photo by Mark McKenna]](https://kymkemp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/PROTEST.ROE_.SCOTUS.COURTHOUSE.DSC_9039-noresize-900x601.jpg)
Pro Choice rally earlier this year. [Photo by Mark McKenna]
On Tuesday, October 4, 2022, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to support California Proposition 1 and the right of all residents to access reproductive health care. The resolution was sponsored by 3rd District Supervisor Mike Wilson and was unanimously approved with all five supervisors voting to support Prop 1 and reproductive rights.
CA Prop 1 will enshrine the fundamental right to an abortion and the fundamental right to contraceptives in the California State Constitution. If passed, Prop 1 will add Section 1.1 to Article 1 of the California Constitution: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”
Although California law provides meaningful protections for reproductive rights against state interference, the recent opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson from the U.S. Supreme Court highlights how California will no longer be able to rely on long-standing federal protections. “What we found out at the National level is that unless it’s enumerated in the constitution, the privacy clauses in our state constitution don’t protect these rights,” Supervisor Wilson explained at the October 4th meeting. Expressly stating a fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution will help protect against potential future attacks at the federal level and from courts down the line.
The resolution approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors states, in part, that, “the County of Humboldt supports the ability of all residents to access appropriate and affordable healthcare; and, the County of Humboldt, through its County-Organized Health System and the public health programs it administers, strives to improve the lives of everyone in Humboldt County, and to provide services and outreach to build trust with women, particularly women of color, low-income women and gender nonconforming individuals, and these programs and efforts would be impaired by government actions that criminalize abortion and deter women from seeking needed health care”
CA Prop 1 has been endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund, the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Democratic Party, Governor Gavin Newsom, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, as well as many other CA organizations and elected officials.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/10/06/first-lawsuit-drops-against-californias-doctor-muzzling-anti-free-speech-bill-ab-2098-n638663
My doctor, my choice
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A WOMAN?
For a father, it means the sacred place where children come from, from where they learn how nourish the fertile seed from which the tree of life continues to grow.
For children, it’s as simple as
MOM!
If you pay attention to this war on women, it clear that men dressed as women can demand to be called a woman, despite the fact that chromosomes say different, and they can further marginalize women by competing for all that belongs to the divine feminine.
Soon they will try to find a way to take motherhood away from you as well.
What it means to be a woman is for women to decide and define, being a woman means having the choice to give birth or abort. Women have found ways to abort unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time, across all cultures and will continue to do so.
I would imagine the same could be said for culling the less desirable as well…
After all, they’ve been doing that since the beginning of time too
What about a baby’s fundamental right to be born?!!!
I don’t understand why people can’t just get their tubes tied or use abstinence or birth control.
Why must women use “abortion” for birth control? Call it what you will but most abortions are the result of irresponsible sex. It’s ludicrous.
There are situations that may call for an abortion HOWEVER if you exclude irresponsible conception abortions they would be few and far between.
It’s so frustrating!!!
All these little lives being snuffed out. We treat animals waaaay better. ?
Nobody stops you from being celibate.
A healthy sex life is normal and fundamental.
and nobody stops someone from being responsible either, obviously. why do tax dollars pay for abortions if it’s a free choice of someone ‘exercising’ their right not to use birth control??
Is a Healthy sex life is now a fundamental sacred *right* for all humans?
I would imagine that along with inferred rights, comes inferred responsibility
Your financial responsibility for your driving habits is no one else’s but your own.
I think what many people who are neutral on the subject take issue with, is the social welfare net for the poor choices, bad habits of others.
a healthy diet is better for you. And nobodies dies from it.
define a healthy diet for all people, don’t forget allergies, and social pressures on facebook, or the posers.
Paleo diet works for all. Takes discipline though.
Selfishness overrides people’s sense of responsibility and love.
For all the pro choice people- planned parenthood now has a 37 foot rv that does mobile abortions. They post up at the borders of states that don’t allow abortions for easy access. Looks like they found the loopholes to keep doing what they do best.. Margaret Sanger would be proud
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/10/04/planned-parenthood-mobile-clinic/
Mike Wilson has stood up for, and vowed to defend idiots rights to be idiots.
That should come as no surprise.
He supports and advocates for the right to refuse contraceptives AND the for right to the consequential abortion.
How much stupider can you get?
That just screams entitlement.
Wilson and the rest of the brain dead, immoral, soulless, self serving supervisors, are a complete joke, and they have all ignored and stonewalled a significant portion of their constituency.
They didn’t even discuss it.
They just rubber stamped it.
Pardon the pun.
Bozos.
And speaking of the US Constitution…
Maybe they should have decided to put a $10,000 per day fine, per occurrence, on actually having the kids…
How constitutional would that be?
That would have been par for the course.
Baby killers gotta get their fix.
Good
aww California. The state with no death penalty unless your an unborn human being.
That’s a tragic fact. ?
Kill the unborn! But have compassion for the murderers, rapists and child molesters. Look at us- We care so much- We are very compassionate and righteous!!
Having compassion for a 14 year old pregnant girl would be good too. It’s not a simple, one size fits all issue. But under any circumstances it is not for the government to mandate protection for non-citizens (ie the unborn) at the expense of the citizen (ie the born mother). And so not you ever think that this will not kill a woman because, while death of mothers in labor now rare, pregnancies still kill.
But mostly IT IS NOT THE CHOICE OF ANYONE BUT THE PREGNANT WOMAN.
Mandatory abortions. Every single person at the age of 18 should receive a vasectomy or get their tubes tied. Then people can engage in as much sex as they want without worry.
If a minor gets pregnant she gets a mandatory abortion and $1000 fine. The boy who got her pregnant sits in jail for 9 months and also receives a $1000 fine. The parents of both children receive a $10,000 fine and jail for 9 months.
In order to have a child you must apply for a “pregnancy license.” In order to receive one it must be shown that both man and woman are married and financially able and willing to provide for a child. They must not have any felonies and must have graduated high school or gotten their GED.
If those conditions are met the man and woman receive a license to procreate, which expires in 1 year. They then undergo the medical procedures to reverse the vasectomy and untie the tubes.
If anybody has a child without a license all involved parties are mandatorily aborted.
I think that policy would solve all the problems.
I thought you were anti government not pro draconian government…
The abortion thing has gone on long enough. If you support abortion you are unAmericam and should be banned from the US. This is a compromise. It’s called “reaching across the isle.”
The “abortion thing” has gone on ever since humanity noticed they can do something about stuff that harms them. In other words, since humans were human. Abortions happen and have happened since before written history because birthing endless fat headed humans that still take decades to mature after birth both dangerous and very, very hard. And women have those same fat headed brains too that know this.
So guess what? You can’t do anything about eliminating abortions. No law has ever prevented them. It can only prevent safe abortions. So stop your war against women and leave the people who are at risk to decide for themselves how much of that risk they can take. Quit trying to micromanage just women and go after the men who so readily run away from the effects of casual sex. Maybe if anti abortionists would do that, they might have a bit of credit on the issue instead of being thought of a emtional basket cases and self centered jerks.
Almost everyone has an issue that they are willing to be a tyrant on. That’s why we have a democracy so we keep the tyrant in each of us from having power over others. In your case you’re in support of banning the majority of the people from the United States because you don’t agree with them on this one issue.
In other people’s cases they might want to ban guns or mandate that holocaust deniers be imprisoned. We might feel sympathy with the would be tyrant’s position–(for instance, I tend to, as a private business owner, delete holocaust deniers) but that doesn’t mean we should support the government illegalizing speech about it or exiling from our country people who have different views on abortion than us.
Equating being “unborn” to being a “non- citizen”, therefore being undeserving of mandated government protection is ludicrous.
Deserving or undeserving is not a legal criteria for any law, being so utterly subjective. And it is not what I said although in reality it can come down to that. What I said is no law can or should treat a citizen as having no rights just because they bear a potential future citizen. How ludicrous it is to say that it is okay to enslave a citizen to bear children against her will because some other citizen thinks they have the right to decide for her. Ludicrous but then if you come from the viewpoint that only men have any God given rights, that is were the logic takes you.
“What I said is no law can or should treat a citizen as having no rights just because they bear a potential future citizen.”
Nope, in fact, NOT what you said.
In fact, what you said was:
“But under any circumstances it is not for the government to mandate protection for non-citizens (ie the unborn) at the expense of the citizen (ie the born mother).”
Emphasis on:
“non-citizens (ie the unborn)”.
And what is ludicrous, is, a man or a woman, deciding whether or not an unborn child has any God given rights.
Unless you are carrying an unwanted child against your will right now, it sounds like you are the one trying to play God with your reasoning, by thinking that it’s you that should be making the decision for someone, or everyone else.
And I never said that only men have any God given rights, as you have incorrectly and unnecessarily postulated in your “reasoning”, if that’s what you want to call it…
It’s the fetuses, to me, that have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…”, etc.”, no matter their eventual gender.
If you are referring to “all men are created equal…”, and think that was intended to not include “women”, or for the sake of this discussion, female vs male “fetuses”, as far as rights are concerned, that would be an assumption of yours, that I believe, is incorrect.
And besides all of that, I hold what I interpret as Gods Law above all, or for those that don’t believe in God, morality itself, as what is being trampled on with the abortion practices of today.
In my opinion, abortion has its limited place in an imperfect, however humane world, yet it is it’s regulation, or rather the lack thereof, that defines how humane it remains.
Abortion simply cannot be a “free for all” entitlement, in all circumstances.
That is an absolutely hideous abomination.
It’s as bad, or worse of an ideation, than no abortions allowed at all, ever.
Again it is not God saying anything. It is you and you using the government saying that a citizen ( not a religious term at all) has no rights and the right of a non-citizen take precedence. Religion can say what it wants about the issue, can act as religion demands but, according to our Constitution, it can not use the government to enforce it. Period.
And this abuse of women might not be so egregious if there weren’t so many of like minded misogynists eager to remove a woman’s rights even to her very life in order to prevent it. Now that is a truly hideous abomination.
Abuse of women has been a universal issue.
That’s why I recommend every women learn about the effectiveness of CCW.
Dead pedophiles don’t reoffend.
Do you recognize these words from the Declaration of Independence, Nooo???
I hold them to be sacred…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–”
Emphasis on…
“…all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE,…”
(Bold lettering mine)
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, does it differentiate between the “unborn”, and the “born”.
It references the point of “creation” as the point that they are endowed with unalienable rights.
Men are not “aliens” with no unalienable rights, until after they are born, as your statement would suggest…
That’s preposterous.
The Constitution is what the Supreme Court addresses. There is no such thing as a law being determined by the Supreme Court to “undecare-able.” Too bad. So sad. You lose.
Sorry, Nooo,
Constitutional Fetal Personhood is what the Supreme Court was too cowardly, in my opinion, to have actually addressed….
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-fetal-personhood-rhode-island/
‘Supreme Court declines to take up fetal personhood dispute’
“Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a dispute over whether the unborn are entitled to constitutional protections, sidestepping an issue that could be at the center of the next big battle over abortion after high court’s conservative majority reversed the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision.”
“The court declined to hear an appeal from two pregnant women, filed on behalf of their then-unborn fetuses, and a Catholic organization of a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision. The state court left intact a Rhode Island abortion rights law and found the unborn babies, Baby Mary Doe and Baby Roe, did not have legal standing to challenge the law because they were not “persons” under the 14th Amendment. ”
( It should be noted that an involved decision was made prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned.)
“In Georgia, a 2019 law that grants fetal personhood to fetuses around six weeks of pregnancy, which was allowed to take effect after the Supreme Court overruled Roe, lets pregnant women claim their fetuses as dependents on their tax returns.”
“Bills were also introduced in at least seven states banning abortion by establishing fetal personhood, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights research organization.”
________________________
Imagine that, Nooo, human rights precedents being first set in Georgia, of all places…
I won’t change your mind because you have no willingness to see the suffering you impose. But, like with the stupid anti vaxxers’ insistence on the most ridiculous pseudo science attempting self justification, this can not be given a pass. You will be told even if you will not hear- you have no right to unreasoning insistence that others have to bear the cost of your intransigence.
I can apply your exact same argument for people who don’t want to harm themselves with mRNA vaccines.
To deny a woman the right to an abortion is to do away with equal rights for women. No man is ever sentenced to carry and deliver the unwanted product of unintentional conception.
When it comes to deciding on hiring a man or a woman for an important position, the fact that a woman must carry and deliver a baby should she accidentally conceive, absolutely WILL be factored in, when deciding who will get that position, and the women will take the back seat. Hello 1950.
See, time travel is now a reality in several states . Whoopee! You know it’s still a man’s world when your insurance will pay for his Viagra, but not her birth control. When abortion is not an option, equal rights are only available to those women wealthy enough to travel.
Wouldn’t it be amusing if all those who voted to reverse Roe vs Wade (men and women alike) woke up poor and pregnant tomorrow?
Right on. That would make a good movie.
That would be assuming that,”all those who voted to reverse Roe vs Wade (men and women alike)”, doesn’t include people already poor and pregnant, and, that “men and women alike” can get pregnant, wouldn’t it?
You seem to be insinuating that all those that voted to uphold Roe vs Wade, are those that think that “men and women alike” can get pregnant, aaand, are already poor and pregnant…
(Sounds about right.)
“Men and women alike”…
Pfft.
If that were true, there wouldn’t be an issue.
You seem very hung up on the gender thing.
What difference does it make?
Nothing to you apparently.
As it should.
Do you suggest discrimination would be preferable?
If so, toward which gender, pray tell, would you suggest receive superior rights?
(As if your hidden bias wasn’t already crystal clear)
Please clarify your cryptic assertion.
(I abhor deception).
Until then, I believe it is safe to assume that you advocate superior rights for the female, especially expecting, persuasion, is it not?
And yet, the alternate…, superior rights for men, or equal rights for the unborn, (male or female), you apparently have a real problem with even the idea of…
Makes perfect sense…. NOT.
That idea would be entitlement at it’s finest.
No. What part of “no” is not clear.
Oct 2, 2017,11:23am EDT
This article is more than 5 years old.
According to a recent report from JAMA, testosterone therapy among American men is on the rise. From 2010 to 2013, prescriptions more than doubled, which researchers partially attribute to ubiquitous drug marketing campaigns urging older men to boost “low T” levels. The swell of interest reflects a genuine physiological shift: Across the population, men today have less testosterone compared to men of the same age a generation ago. Asking why requires untangling a complex web of social, environmental, and behavioral factors that are dismantling age-old ideas about masculinity and triggering real anxiety over changing gender roles.
and………………………
May 17, 2020 Testosterone Levels Falling in Young Men
In an analysis of data from 4045 AYA men aged 15 to 39 years who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and had their total testosterone (TT) levels measured during 1999-2016, TT was significantly lower among those in the later (2011-2016) compared with earlier (1999-2000) survey cycles, Soum D. Lokeshwar, MD, an incoming urology resident at Yale School of Medicine, reported. Mean TT decreased over time from 605.39 ng/dL in 1999-2000 to 567.44, 424.96, 431.76, and 451.22 ng/dL in 2003-2004, 2011-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016, respectively, The declining trend was statistically significant.
https://www.renalandurologynews.com/home/conference-highlights/american-urological-association-annual-meeting/aua-2020-virtual-experience/testosterone-levels-declining-young-males/
Perhaps women will get their wish and one day soon their children will be designer babies made in a petri dish, for a large fee and only with the appropriate social score.
Or maybe it will be Biden’s predicted Armageddon and no will have to worry about having children again.
IDJ It kind of sounds like you are complaining about too much testosterone in standing up to Putin.
That is a pretty blind statement. Most women don’t “want” designer babies made in a Petri dish. But neither do they want to be treated by their government as a brood mares whose existence is solely taken up with reproduction. And neither do they want to be forced into celibacy to keep from that happening.
Hormones safe effected by environment. Both for women and men. Any farmer who raises livestock knows what must be done to encourage fertility. Fat animals are less successful at reproducing, which is exactly what your link shows. It has nothing to do with abortions. You conflate non related issues.
Just envisioning the “progressive” future.
China 1 child policies + AI social scores.
And a memory of when women and society loved children.
No one has outlawed a community from coming together and help a young or stressed mother to raise her child. People just don’t care.
One part of that is the estrogens that we swallow when we eat and drink out of plastic.