August 5, 2008
-
Sarah’s Law would not have applied to “Sarah”
Planned Parenthood and its allies filed suit to remove the story of Sarah and any reference to “Sarah’s Law” from the official voter guide that will be mailed to California voters before the November election. “Sarah” was the pseudonym given to protect the identity of Jammie Garcia Yanez-Villegas, a 15-year-old Texas girl who died in 1994 from complications from an abortion her parents were unaware of. Planned Parenthood argues that since she had a common-law husband, Sarah’s Law would not have protected her.
Obviously, Sarah’s Law wouldn’t have applied to Jammie.1. Jammie lived in Texas. Sarah’s Law is for California.2. Texas doesn’t allow initiatives. California does.3. Texas recognizes common law marriage. California doesn’t. In California, Jammie’s common-law husband would have been guilty of statutory rape if he was more than 3 years older than her.
The use of an out-of-state example to illustrate a point is not new:1. Jessica’s Law (Prop 83) was named after a Florida girl.2. Megan’s Law (Cal PC 290) was named after a New Jersey girl.These California laws would not have applied to their namesakes from other states, but that’s not the point. These California laws are not about preventing past tragedies in other states, but preventing new tragedies in California. Sarah’s Law is not about protecting Jammie in Texas, but protecting girls in California.It’s funny that Proposition 4′s opponents would make accusations of misleading.
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” -Matthew 23:23-24
