The following are the result of the November 3, 1992 U.S. ballot initiatives on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality rights. (Source: Nov. 7, 1992, Globe and Mail)
Maryland – Initiative 6: to ease restriction on abortion: Yes 62%; No 38%
Arizona – Initiative 110: To eliminate public financing of abortion, except when woman’s life is threatened. Yes 31%; No 69%
California – Initiative 161: To allow doctors to assist in death requested by terminally ill patients. Yes 46% No 54%
Colorado – Initiative 2: To deny preferential treatment to homosexuals based on minority status Yes 53% No 47%
Oregon – Initiative 9: To amend the state constitution to require that the government discourage homosexuality. Yes 43%; No57%
The Maryland proposal was a pro-abortion victory. It provides for the eventuality that Roe vs. Wade is overthrown. In that case a new liberal provision will kick in and replace a restrictive law of the Maryland Legislature which dates back to 1890.
The Arizona proposal was ambiguous and another example of the uselessness of the “gradualism” approach. Any abortionist can (and will) claim, if necessary, that he is committing abortions to protect the mother’s life. Who is to prove otherwise?
The question should have called for the end of abortion funding without qualifications. As it stands it was a victory for the pro-abortionists.
The California proposition 161 was an extremely dangerous initiative and the small margin of victory for its defeat (54% to 46%) is little comfort for the future.
The proposal for active euthanasia (Physician-assisted-death) received its primary support from the Hemlock Society. Its proponents framed the debate in the now customary clichés of “death with dignity” and the “right to choose one’s own destiny”.
The proposals required neither the presence of witnesses nor even the notification to the family of the patient’s wish to resort to assisted suicide. In other word’s it was an open invitation to doctors or nurses to commit murder.
Opponents included the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the California Catholic Conference. Yet 46% of voters said Yes!
This is the second time such an alarming proposal has been defeated by such a narrow margin. The earlier defeat came in the state of Washington in 1990.
Gay activists in Colorado were greatly upset by the vote to end preferential treatment of homosexuals by assigning the “rights” which supposedly flow from their homosexual condition. The measure bans all laws passed under the title of equality for sexual orientation.
In Oregon Initiative 9 called for a government declaration that homosexuality is “abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse”. The measure was meant to put a halt to the ever-increasing pressures and demands of gay-lesbian activists on lower legislative levels such as school boards, municipalities and health clinics. A number of people opposed to homosexual activism, however, thought the language of the measure inappropriate and voted against it for that reason. The election of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton a president of the United States is itself the greatest threat of all to the pro-life cause. Clinton has made it clear that he fully support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) already approved by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives.
New York’s Cardinal John O’Connor pointed out in his October 4, 1992 right-to-life statement that this “Freedom” act takes away the following freedoms:
“…above all,” Cardinal O’Connor declared, “the baby in the womb loses the freedom to be born, even if he or she is a perfectly healthy baby, minutes away from a natural, uncomplicated birth. If the Freedom of Choice Act were passed, that baby could be put to death at any stage in the pregnancy for any reason”.
In addition to this
“If it were passed, no state would have the freedom to restrict abortion at any point in the pregnancy for any reason, even if the majority of people choose to restrict abortions.”
“No state would have the freedom to insist that at least one parent be notified before a minor child could have an abortion.
No state would have the freedom to insist that a father consent before an abortion could be performed, or that there be any waiting period at all, or that abortion be done only in hospitals. Hospitals and doctors and nurses could lose their freedom as well the freedom to refuse to support abortion.”
Clinton, who has declared that he will take the pro-abortion position as a limitus test for candidates to the Supreme Court, will see to it that FOCA is passed quickly.