Blue- I've referenced 4.4.28 and in re-reading it it could be taken either pro or anti. (However, nowhere in the wording is the phrase, "medical emergency, nor medically necessary" included) You are correct it is amibiguous. Since descriptions are generally in the full wording of the resolution rather than in the summarizatio(which is what both links ref) I would have to see the full resolution to know it's exact meaning. However, not only does it reference maternal health it's reference to child health could also be construed as pro-life. It has a date of 1966 but recently re-affirmed in 2002, which means that it was brought to a vote at a state convention among the delegates. Since items come before a vote of the membership, it's wording would have been provided and pros and cons would have also. I have contacted CA for a response and am still waiting. Unlike NV, they have a much larger organization and likely not as quick to respond to a general inquiry.

I know you have "shut me off" so to speak, which is your choice, but I have found that to be the case with pro-PTA'ers.

I have chosen not to go back and forth on this without new information. I have not seen any proof from you other than the first article referenced rather than opinion. I also do not want to spend a great amount of time in this topic when there are other topics I enjoy. I don't think this is a pro-PTA'ers attitude and I would be more than happy to debate this with you if we aren't repeating ourselves.

If we can all work together, no matter what the acronym, then why do I constantly see you lauding PTA across the board, trying to keep people from leaving it?

Since over half of your posts have been in this forum, it is likely that you have only seen me lauding PTA. I am not ashamed of it. I like the organization and I like what it does and I am proud of it. I do believe that is my right as it is your right not to like it. I will respond when I believe that the PTA side has been represented unfairly or not at all. I don't think that I have said PTO is bad, PTA is good because I don't believe that. In fact to quote myself from another topic

No matter what the end result, you're still a group of parents/caregivers trying to make this better for your children. One isn't better than the other, just different.

If you would like to read my other posts, you can check my profile and read them.

One more note; my first vice-president wanted to start a campaign for our other county PTA's to go PTO, and I said "no". I unequivocally told our board we would be glad to assist a chapter if they, on their own, wish to investigate becoming a PTO, but we would not solicit others to "join us".

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't have time to look for it, I recently read a post from you regarding doing just that. Or it may have been Rockne's answer that led me to believe that was your intention. Regardless, you are happier not being PTA, I am happier because I am. I will defend it if I read something that is what I believe to be incorrect or misleading but the first part of co-existing is not to insult one another or their beliefs and to respect each other. I am trying to do that. If I cut you off it is because I don't feel that same respect.

I read the CAPTA web link article w/great interest. I do lead you to 4.4.68, where a vaguely worded statement from 1972 gives the PTA the ability to support abortion, hiding behind terms such as "medical emergency". Doctors today will sign off for an abortion for a minor for any and all reasons, and call them "medically necessary". As for the Nevada statement, I applaud that, but I don't remember the PTA-PTO article ever referencing a stand in Nevada, only in California.

I know you have "shut me off" so to speak, which is your choice, but I have found that to be the case with pro-PTA'ers. If we can all work together, no matter what the acronym, then why do I constantly see you lauding PTA across the board, trying to keep people from leaving it?

One more note; my first vice-president wanted to start a campaign for our other county PTA's to go PTO, and I said "no". I unequivocally told our board we would be glad to assist a chapter if they, on their own, wish to investigate becoming a PTO, but we would not solicit others to "join us".

I would be much more happy, though, to peacefully co-exist with a group that would at least, at the national level, be honest about what they do, why they do it, and their motivations.

[ 01-08-2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: blue67ccm ]

Blue- I don't see where in my comments you get that I or the PTA agrees with the homosexual lifestyle. I have looked for the proof that was provided me, when I questioned these rumors.(Three years ago) I have sent out for the research to disprove your claim,and will post it when it is received.
I know that my resolutions book states that we have no postion on abortion or gay rights. I also know that unless we have a position on something, we may not speak to it. It's a rule that can not be disputed. If it has been spoken to, it has been done so without authority.
I do not compromise my own convictions when serving in the PTA. I am not the type of person that follows blindly and doesn't ask questions and research. I asked the questions and received adequate proof that this is in fact "urban legend".

my point being the PTA supports/doesn't support many things WITHOUT taking the pulse of the electorate.

As Council President and a member of the State Board of Managers, I have seen and been a part of taking the pulse of the electorate. Also, in re-reading the article that started this, I see no reference to California PTA supporting abortion. In fact, if this were the case, Utah (a very religious state)would not have 73% PTA membership. www.ptotoday.com/0800ptopta2.html
I wholeheartedly disagree that PTA is a group that supports these controversial topics. National does not yet have all their resolutions/statements online however,
www.coam.net/~npta/new/wherewe.html#PTAORG
You can see Nevada's official stance there and since CA is referenced www.capta.org/sections/advocacy/download...sitionStatements.pdf
I don't question your own personal experience with what happened with the PTA when you left. I am sorry that it was negative because I try not to do that here. But I deny officially as a State board member that we neither support or denounce abortion and gay rights. We do focus on the children. I'm sorry you can't see that. As for this topic, I've said all that can be said. Aside from proof (which is more for those people who read this rather than yourself), I'm done here on this subject of our position. I'm not even going to address the rest of your comments.
PTA or PTO, we are in it for the children. I'm not here to bash PTO/PFA or any other acronym but I will correct you when mistruths are stated. I am proud to be part of PTA and support others in their efforts to be a part of theirs.

OOPS! Almost forgot---I reviewed resolutions in the two years I was PTA President, and nope, no homosexual resolutions----my point being the PTA supports/doesn't support many things WITHOUT taking the pulse of the electorate.

Does your Senator call you for an opinion on every vote? No, he goes in with an "agenda" based on his views and platform.

PTA does the same thing at the National level; their membership drop of 40 plus percent in the past 40 years shows how they're reaping what they sowed with that agenda, and also, that many groups don't need the PTA to do quite well at their school.

Michelle:

But in order to "agree" with these points you make and the material which you point to, one must agree with the homosexual lifestyle to begin with, so therefore, yes, the PTA is making a stand, whether you choose to admit it or not. And there's a lot of Americans who choose not to agree with it, and would rather their parent/teacher groups focus on the children!!

I can work toward stopping bullying at my school, while loving kids of homosexuals at the same time, and still not compromise my views. As a matter of fact, the parents' sexual orientation is irrelevant. As we enter the upper grades, though, the issue becomes the student, and they shouldn't be discriminated against, either. This doesn't mean I have to agree with the lifestyle, though. By sending my monies to PTA, I am being forced to support a group who clearly does, and that's not what America stands for.

And, by the way, read the original article that, again, started this whole conversation. The California PTA has supported abortion-on-demand since 1972. That's REAL relevant to my child's elementary school, boy; great use of dues' money there!

The PTA's stand on homosexuality isn't an urban legend; I'm sorry you can't see that.

One more note: We (the lone PTO) work together with the other 40-some PTA's without a problem; even supporting their county-wide scholarship program; yet each time the "PTA Presidents" meet with the Superintendent, we're all still referred to as "PTA Presidents"......hmmmmmmm. Change is hard, I guess......and remember, the PTA threatened to ostracize us from our own county school system's programs and communication. Sounds American to me, eh?

I suppose when you read an article like this one it is easy to assume that it is gay propaganda but the film itself is about reducing prejudice not about choosing one lifestyle or another. It is not only supported by the PTA but the Children's Welfare League. Part of PTA's "agenda" is to reduce bullying in the schools. Bully's target differences. Not only does the movie talk about children who come from same sex households, it also includes children from multiracial, divorced, grandparent/guardians and single parent. It doesn't talk about promoting any lifestyle, just understanding each others differences. I think the biggest problem with concerns for what the PTA's involvement in the political process is, is information without research. I can understand that some people have a problem with one standpoint or another (generally the position on vouchers) but as I have said before, there are hundreds of resolutions and with a group that is diverse, someone will disagree with some. The question is do you disagree with all? If that answer is yes, than I can understand the decision to switch based on the political involvement. I have also said, I do not agree with 100% of our resolutions but I also don't agree with 100% of the positions of my politicians either even though I have voted for them because the majority is something to be passionate about. Thankfully, our resolutions don't address such hot issues as abortion or gay rights. In that instance, the issue of children would be lost.
If you would like to know more about the video in fact, I think it is important to know what the video IS REALLY ABOUT before you make any judgements.
www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/Current/NEA5.html
www.womedia.org/press_taf_whitehouse.htm