Topics & Issues
Abortion
Death Penalty
- Gambling, Drugs, Prostitution,
Pornography, Obscenity
Asset Forfeiture
Back ........
ABORTION
I fully support a woman’s right to choose.
In my younger days, I supported a woman’s unfettered right to
have an abortion, right up to the time of delivery. So long as it
was a fetus instead of “baby born alive,” I felt that the woman
had the right to chose whatever medical procedures she
wanted to have performed upon her body. My position has
matured; now, I feel that sometime during the course of the
pregnancy, the fetus itself acquires some rights. I suppose
that theoretically, the fetus gains the right to live at the time
that it becomes viable outside the womb.
On a practical level, I support the concept that the United
States Supreme Court came up with many years ago, in Roe
v. Wade, that essentially allows abortions on demand during
the first two trimesters of pregnancy and allows some
governmental limitations during the third trimester. I am not
firmly committed to this arbitrary dividing line, but it seems to
work. On a practical basis, and not on an ideological basis, I
support this solution.
Parental Notification: For me, the problem area in
abortion rights is the question of minors. I fully support
parental rights, but what about a teenage girl who wants an
abortion? Right now, a 16 year old girl needs her parent’s
consent to get a tattoo or an ear piercing; in fact, she needs a
parent’s consent to receive an aspirin from the school nurse.
But this same girl can get an abortion without her parent’s
knowledge. Something is wrong with this. The girl’s parents
need to have the right to know and to counsel their daughter
about this very important life decision. I accept that there are
some extremely rare instances where a child might be in
serious danger if she informed her parents of her pregnancy. I
accept that there needs to be some kind of escape
mechanism, where the minor can obtain a court order waiving
the requirement of parental consent and/or parental
notification. However, such a waiver should be granted only in
very rare occasions, with an adequate showing.
- Clinic Protests: There is a true conflict between the free
speech rights of abortion clinic protesters and the rights of the
clinic workers and patients to be left alone. The Courts have
worked out a reasonable compromise, creating a “demilitarized
zone” through which workers and patients can enter and exit
the clinics without being harassed.
DEATH PENALTY
I am a supporter of the death penalty. When guilty is clearly
established and a crime is particularly heinous, there is no
question in my mind that the death penalty is warranted.
When a criminal has earned the death penalty, he should be
put to death reasonably promptly, without spending twenty
years or more on death row. The prolonged delays that our
system inflicts upon the surviving family members of the
victims and on the guilty are inexcusable. Justice needs to be
swift!
VICTIMLESS CRIMES:
GAMBLING, DRUGS, PROSTITUTION,
PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY
There should be no laws against victimless crimes. These
efforts to legislate morality are improper limitations on the
freedom of individuals, waste precious law enforcement
resources (as well as equally precious judicial and prison
resources), and corrupt our society.
Every few years, we hear the politicians tell us that we need
more police officers patrolling the streets to prevent violent
crime. Why, then, do we have vice cops soliciting suspected
sex workers for sex, in order to entrap them into an arrest?
How many man-hours are spent by local police agencies to
monitor whether there are violations of vice laws in strip clubs,
where a dancer might touch a customer in violation of a local
ordinance? Cops going undercover into bars, drinking and
trying to bribe a dancer to violate the rules – is this good police
work? Isn’t it better if that cop were investigating serious crime
or even walking a beat to suppress violent crimes against
people or crimes against property? If we stop outlawing
consensual acts, we can focus on the real crimes!
ASSET FORFEITURE
Did you know that you could be driving around in your car, and
have the police seize your car, sell it and keep the money?
Not in some third world country, but right here in California? It
is called civil asset forfeiture, and here is how it works:
You are driving in a neighborhood that has had some problems
– maybe prostitution or drug sales. The cops spot you and
think you are up to no good. They stop you. There is not
enough evidence to arrest you; after all, all you were doing is
driving down the street. But they suspect that you were
“trolling” for a prostitute or for a street drug vendor. They can’t
arrest you or charge you with a crime, because there is no
evidence that any crime was committed. But despite the lack
of evidence, they can still seize your car, and charge your car
as being an instrumentality of a crime. Even though you were
never arrested or charged with any crime, let alone tried or
convicted! They don’t have to prove a thing. They just seize
your car.
Later, you can hire an attorney and file a suit to get your car
back. But as we all know, that is very expensive. And then, it
is not the burden of the police to prove that you committed any
crime at all. It is your burden to prove your innocence!
The entire concept of civil asset forfeiture as being practiced is
completely contrary to the ideals of the sanctity of personal
property and of innocence until proven guilty. By claiming that
it is a civil action instead of criminal action, they have turned
the rules on their heads. You are guilty until you prove that
you are innocent, and you forfeit your car as the penalty.
This is so unfair that my blood pressure is climbing just writing
about it. We need to stop this travesty. How? By voting for
me!
HOW TO CONTACT ME
Ken Weissman
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3222
Phone: (323) 655-4529 (4LAW)
Email: CalAG2006@yahoo.com
Click here to Email
