Parental Notification NOT

From Kathy Jean. Lopez at the Corner.

Of course, the abortion lobby shouldn’t be worried about their gal Hill. In the NYTimes piece today, for instance, there is this: "In response, two of Mrs. Clinton’s aides qualified her support for parental notification laws, saying she preferred an approach like New York’s, which does not require minors seeking abortions to tell their parents, but does provide them with information about their medical options. "

So she supports parental notification as long as it does not involve parental notification?

Wow this sounds a lot like Kerry’s statement on support for funding the war. I voted for parental notification before I voted against it.

The was a "clarification" by staffers because some pro-abortion types were concerned about what Hillary said

"I think so," Mrs. Clinton said. "I’m only speaking for myself. This is what I have advocated and believed for a very long time." She added, "I supported parental notification with a judicial bypass," referring to legal exceptions in which a judge gives a minor permission to get an abortion without informing her parents.

JoAnn M. Smith, president of Family Planning Advocates, said yesterday that she called Mrs. Clinton’s staff members after the senator’s remarks because some people within her organization were concerned. She asserted, however, that it was not a widespread feeling within her group.

Then there was this rant against parental notification.

"Parental notification is something that we are particularly concerned about in New York State," said Carla M. Goldstein, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of New York City, which works with and helps finance Family Planning Advocates. "Reporters and the general public really need to understand the dangers of parental notification. Judicial bypass can end up creating a much later-stage pregnancy."

Parents becoming aware that their child is seeking a surgery that will result in the death of their grandchild and can lead to physical and psychological complications for their daughter is so very dangerous to them. Dangerous that is to their bottom line of providing abortions. Notice also by mentioning judicial bypass they are assuming the cases where the parents would object. What an amazing society that we live in when people can openly support keeping the parents in the dark. That to circumvent parental authority is not seen as problematic in the least. Many others have mentioned the incongruities where a public school can’t give a child an aspirin for a headache and yet have no problems with packing them off for abortions.

Some abortion rights advocates expressed other concerns yesterday. Barbara de Leeuw, a Family Planning Advocates board member, praised Mrs. Clinton’s speech overall but said she was "a little disappointed" that the senator did not speak more about "abstinence plus," a term for sexual education programs that provide both abstinence counseling and health-conscious advice for sexually active people.

Abstinence plus? I haven’t heard that one before, but I am not surprised that they are working at ways to undermine what abstinence education programs there are. Maybe I will come up with a new program I can sell to the government called DARE Plus. Along with the drug abstinence program I would also promote health conscious advice for chemically promiscuous students. Hey don’t do drugs but if you do here are some nice clean needles and some chemical kits to ensure the quality of what you are buying. Teach kids to make safer drug deals and to plan ahead to escape safely if it goes bad. DARE Plus can even get a new mascot like perhaps a Lion with white powder dripping from his nose or visible needle tracks.