About This Site

October 31, 2008 09:10 by Homeschooler

This site has been created by homeschoolers for homeschoolers. It addresses unfounded concerns over Proposition 4, Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy, being circulated among homeschoolers. If you have been confused by those concerns, you have come to the right place. This website provides reliable analyses that dispel those concerns, information about the eminently qualified authors of Proposition 4, and a partial listing of numerous reputable organizations and individuals who have endorsed Proposition 4.

You are invited to read why we say Vote YES on Prop 4. It is our sincere hope that you too will vote Yes on Prop 4 and stop child predators.


Currently rated 3.7 by 3 people

  • Currently 3.666667/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

About the Authors of Proposition 4

October 30, 2008 20:27 by Homeschooler
Professor Teresa Collett and Catherine Short, Esq. are the authors of Proposition 4. Professor Collett has drafted similar legislation for other states, testified in Congress, and defended parental involvement legislation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mrs. Short has ample experience with pro-life litigation and law in California, see http://www.lldf.org/Short.htm . Both know what is necessary for an initiative to withstand judicial scrutiny at the federal and state level. They are experts in their field and were retained for exactly that reason. In addition, Mrs. Short is the mother of nine children and she and her husband (who also is an attorney) home-school them.

Currently rated 3.3 by 4 people

  • Currently 3.25/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

We Endorse Proposition 4

October 30, 2008 20:20 by Homeschooler

Proposition 4 is endorsed or supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former California Attorney General Dan Lungren, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackaukas, Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco, the Catholic Bishops of California, Southern California Assemblies of God, Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Americans United For Life (pre-eminent legal arm of the pro-life movement), California Family Council, Eagle Forum of California, Concerned Women of America, Orange County Register, San Diego Union Tribune, California Republican Party, California Republican Assembly, Family Research Council, Bioethics Defense Fund, Traditional Values Coalition, Crusade For Life, Craig Huey, and Knights of Columbus, (partial listing).


Currently rated 3.3 by 4 people

  • Currently 3.25/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Another Homeschooler Speaks for Prop 4

October 30, 2008 20:07 by Homeschooler
If Prop 4 saves just one girl, her family, and an unborn child from a lifetime of pain and death, it is worth it!
 
For years, people of faith have been trying to right a terrible wrong: a 13 year old girl can be violated first by a child predator, then again by an abortionist, supposedly a medical professional..all without the parents or family knowing.  Unless, of course, she develops minor side effects like sepsis, uterine puncture, hemorrhaging or death.  Abortion is not a private act, but a public disgrace.  Voting Yes on Prop 4.. to protect our teens from perverts, and their groomers at Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry... makes perfect sense in an imperfect world.  Our large family believes in life and protecting our vulnerable teenage girls from adult statutory and actual rapists. . .  why doesn't Planned Parenthood, supposedly there "for the children"?  What a laugh. They prefer to protect their best and repeat customers: the adult predators who bring impregnated, minor children in for one or more "routine, safe and legal" abortion.  What a travesty! Real men? Hardly, cowardly scum, actually.  Of course, the huge tragedy is the girl's parents or family have no idea their daughter has already been sentenced to a lifetime of physical, emotional and spiritual trauma. 

My van's bumper has a Prop 73, overlayed with a Prop 85 and now a Prop 4 bumper sticker... it's time that this one gets good results. Successful passage of Prop 4 is soooo important! 

May Jesus bless you mightily!
Len Beckman

 

Currently rated 3.7 by 3 people

  • Currently 3.666667/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

A Homeschooler Speaks For Prop 4

October 30, 2008 18:52 by Homeschooler
My husband and I have been homeshooling our five children for over 13 years. Schooling at home allows us to focus on their religious and spiritual education as well as their academic education. We also care about their safety, and that is one reason we are in favor of Proposition 4. It is almost unbelievable that a minor girl in our state can be brought to a clinic for a major medical procedure, abortion, without anyone in her family being notified. This is a huge, ridiculous loophole that allows child predators to abuse girls, and get rid of the "evidence", without anyone reporting or notifying an adult. Proposition 4 closes the loop hole and denies child predators their current anonymity.
Please join our family and support Proposition 4, for the good of our children, and all those in the state of California!

Mary Rollino
Member, Ojai Catholic Home School Association
Member, Association of Christian Home Educators of Ventura


Currently rated 4.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Response to Roy Hanson’s "Updated Analysis" of Proposition 4

October 29, 2008 13:22 by Homeschooler

By Catherine W. Short, Esq.

In July 2008, Roy Hanson published a “Preliminary Analysis” of Proposition 4.

After unsuccessfully attempting to communicate with Mr. Hanson to discuss his concerns, the Proposition 4 campaign responded with a detailed critique of Mr. Hanson’s Analysis, which pointed out, inter alia, Mr. Hanson’s obvious unfamiliarity with parental involvement laws. Repeatedly, Mr. Hanson objected to provisions that are required, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, to be included in parental involvement laws. To omit or weaken these provisions, as suggested by Mr. Hanson, would result in the law being struck down.

Two months later, Mr. Hanson published his “Updated Analysis.” In this updated analysis, Mr. Hanson repeats many of the same errors, though he has modified it somewhat in response to our critique of his “Preliminary Analysis.” In the main, he has simply buried many of the same errors in his new analysis, omitting the details that showed how misplaced his objections were. For that reason, readers who wish to grasp fully Mr. Hanson’s lack of expertise in this area and the overreaching nature of his criticisms should read Prop 4’s Critique of the Preliminary Analysis, as well as this paper.

Concern #1: “Extensive” exceptions circumventing parental rights.

Mr. Hanson still counts the medical emergency exception (Sec 32(f)) and the judicial bypass (Sec 32(g)) among the “extensive” exceptions that make Prop 4 unacceptable and impotent, even though both of these provisions are constitutionally required, both are in place in all of the other parental involvement laws that are currently reducing teen abortion and pregnancy rates, and even though, in Prop 4, these provisions are worded more restrictively than the equivalent exceptions in some other states’ laws – including the state of Texas, where Mr. Hanson now resides.

Mr. Hanson states that a minor who was not in fact in an abusive situation could “easily manipulate” the alternative family member notification provision. In fact, such manipulation would be very difficult. First of all, she would have to have another adult family member who would be willing not only to keep the pregnancy and abortion a secret from her parents, but also to stand by and let their relative, the girl’s parents, be falsely accused of abuse. Second, the girl would realize that this manipulation would probably result in her parents finding out anyway, and under much worse circumstances. If the parents have not in fact been abusing the girl, then it is highly likely that, if CPS opens an investigation, the parents will soon figure out why that happened. Third, even if the girl does not realize on her own the futility of this strategy, the doctor will probably point it out to her, in his own interest. He has no desire to be give a girl a secret abortion under circumstances which make it very probable that the parents will find out fairly soon, leaving him with extremely angry and distraught parents on his hands. He is going to tell the girl to seek a judicial bypass, which provides him with some cover.

Concern #2: “Emotional abuse” and “severe emotional abuse” are undefined.

Mr. Hanson provides a scenario in which a court would rule that certain facts (such as parents teaching a child that abortion is murder or that premarital sex is wrong) would constitute “emotional abuse” for purposes of the judicial bypass. (Updated Analysis, 2(b)).

What Mr. Hanson completely overlooks is that the judicial bypass cannot be granted on the grounds of “emotional abuse.” There are only two grounds in Prop 4 for granting the judicial bypass, and these two grounds are both required under U.S. Supreme Court precedents: a) maturity of the minor, and b) best interest of the minor. All that Prop 4 says about abuse is that, if a “best interest” finding is based on evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, that abuse should be reported.

Thus, Mr. Hanson’s entire scenario falls apart. In petitioning the court for a waiver, a minor is not going to allege that she is the “victim of emotional abuse.” She would allege, on forms prepared by the Judicial Council, that notification of a parent is not in her best interest and then present whatever evidence she has. If the court denied the petition and she appealed, the issue on appeal would be, “Did the minor present clear and convincing evidence that notification of a parent is not in her best interest?” Emotional abuse would not come into it. Similarly, the court would not rule whether certain facts “met the threshold for emotional abuse.”

Rather, the issue would be whether those facts demonstrate sufficiently that notification of a parent is not in the minor’s best interest. Again, emotional abuse simply doesn’t come into it. The question of whether some conduct was or was not emotional abuse is one for the juvenile court, not the court of appeal, to decide for one reason only, namely, whether and what should be reported as suspected abuse.

There would be no “ruling” or “finding” or “holding” that any particular conduct constituted emotional abuse.

What makes this scenario ludicrous as a practical matter is the idea that a court of appeal is going to bend over backwards to grant the waiver of notification of parent based on these flimsy grounds (i.e., teaching that abortion is murder and premarital sex is wrong) but then risk revealing the abortion to the parents by telling the juvenile court to report those flimsy facts to child protective services as suspected emotional abuse. The scenario makes no sense on its face.

But the more important point is that “emotional abuse” is not a grounds for granting a bypass, and therefore, the issue of what is or isn’t emotional abuse would not be a matter to be decided by a court of appeal.

Concern #3: Innocent parents susceptible to false allegations of abuse or neglect.

First of all, “neglect” doesn’t come into Prop 4 at all. Although some parental involvement laws allow waivers of notification based on allegations of neglect as well as abuse, Prop 4 does not.

Second, as to false allegations of abuse in the context of the judicial bypass, there is simply no way around that possibility if one is to have a parental involvement law that will not be struck down. However, one can take comfort in the fact that apparently Mr. Hanson is unable to point to any cases of this happening in the 34 states that have these laws, going back up to 25 years.

Third, as discussed above, there are many obstacles and disincentives to girls making false allegations of abuse in the context of the alternative family member notification. Again, several other states have laws that allow a waiver for alleged abuse, and apparently there are no CPS horror stories coming out of those states.

Indeed, in Wisconsin, not a single minor has even used this provision for the past eight years (as far back as we could trace the data).

Fourth, Mr. Hanson’s “parade of horribles” concerning what might happen to innocent families is reminiscent of Planned Parenthood’s slogan, “If she can’t come to me, I just want her to be safe.” According to Planned Parenthood, parents believe that it is better for minors to be allowed to get secret abortions if there is any chance at all that they might otherwise decide to “take matters into their own hands,” even though there is no evidence of minors ever having done so, Mr. Hanson’s version of this is, “If she can’t come to me, I just want her to leave my name out of this completely.” In other words, Mr. Hanson wants parents to reject Prop 4 on the grounds that it is better that their daughter be able to get a secret abortion if the alternative is a risk that she might be desperate and vindictive enough to made a false allegation against them. In fact, just as with Planned Parenthood’s argument, Mr. Hanson believes that it is better for thousands and thousands of California teens (appx. 8000 - 10,000) to get secret abortions every year, than to risk that someday, some parents in California will be unnecessarily investigated by CPS. Better that thousands of girls deceive their parents, risk their health and safety, undergo the emotional upheaval by themselves, and frequently be coerced and exploited by boys and men, than that some parent possibly have to respond to false allegations of abuse.

One has to ask what parents themselves, who later learned of a daughter who obtained a secret abortion, think of this calculus. Do they say, “Well, at least we never ran the risk of her falsely accusing us. That would be worse than anything that happened to her or even might have happened to her”?

Concern #4: “New standard and principle” in the constitution.

Although Prop 4 does contain a definition of “adult family member,” that definition is circumscribed by the prefatory language “For purposes of this Section. . .” Each of the definitions in Prop 4 is designed specifically for that section. Prop 4 does not define any term for general purposes in the state constitution.

Mr. Hanson states that “parental involvement can be undermined with a constitutional provision that allows for the circumvention of parental involvement” in the absence of a “due process court hearing.” It is logically impossible to have a due process court hearing on the issue of parental notification of a minor’s abortion. How would Mr. Hanson propose that parents be given a due process hearing to decide whether or not they should be notified of a minor daughter’s imminent abortion? To state the question is to realize its absurdity.

Again, Mr. Hanson is objecting to provisions that are required, by U.S. Supreme Court precedent, to be in a parental involvement law. To omit these provisions would mean the law would, not might, be struck down.

Concern #5: Inappropriate language for the Constitution

Mr. Hanson seems to be under the impression that the California Constitution has some historically sacred status, akin to the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution as a whole. On the contrary, the California Constitution is a veritable code of diverse laws that has been amended over 500 times since the initiative process was instituted about a hundred years ago. Hardly an election goes by without at least one amendment to the state constitution being proposed, and frequently enacted.

Mr. Hanson then begs the question by saying Prop 4 will be difficult to change “when new bad case law precedents eventually develop . . . ” As explained above, his scenarios for that happening do not make sense on their own terms.

Concern #6: Dangerous wording in the constitution could be used to diminish parental rights in other areas.

Again, Mr. Hanson seems to think that the California Constitution is a semi-sacred document, rather than seeing what it has in fact evolved into, i.e., a place for the people to put new laws to ensure they are not tampered with by the state courts or the legislature. Prop 4 does not contain sweeping pronouncements about the rights of minors vis-à-vis their parents. It is a meticulously exact prescription for requiring parental notification and exceptions thereto in a single narrowly defined situation.

Mr. Hanson argues that future courts could look at the judicial bypass and decide to expand those provisions to other areas of the law. Any court looking at these provisions would see their wording is virtually identical to other parental involvement laws and the Supreme Court precedents upholding such laws. The idea that a court would hold that the people of California, in enacting these provisions of Prop 4, intended to initiate some piecemeal emancipation or semiemancipation of minors is ridiculous. In fact, parental rights are much more at risk now, under the current state supreme court precedent holding that minors have a constitutional “right to privacy” that forbids the state from requiring parental involvement in a minor’s abortion decision. Mr. Hanson’s worst-case scenarios would be far more likely to be predicated on the minor’s “right to privacy” as it currently stands than on a law specifically limiting minors’ rights to engage in certain activity without parental involvement.

Conclusion: Fixed in constitutional concrete.

Mr. Hanson says that, if Prop 4 passes, “Current bad case law precedents would become fixed in constitutional concrete.” That sounds very scary, but we have no idea what he means. What “current bad case law” is he referring to? And how would Prop 4 affect those cases? That statement is typical of Mr. Hanson’s hyperbolic pronouncements about parental involvement laws and California constitutional jurisprudence: very scary-sounding, but ultimately meritless.

CONCLUSION

Prop 4 provides a very significant parental right to millions of California parents who now are completely without any right to be notified if a minor daughter seeks and undergoes an abortion. The portrayal of Prop 4 as a step backward for parental rights is erroneous and misleading.


Currently rated 2.7 by 3 people

  • Currently 2.666667/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

What do Robyn Nordell, Roy Hanson, and Planned Parenthood have in common?

October 28, 2008 22:07 by Homeschooler

They oppose Proposition 4 with unsubstantiated allegations intended to defeat Proposition 4.

Dear Christian Friends,

I had long hoped this letter would not be necessary, but continued unjustified opposition to Proposition 4 by influential yet misguided persons requires it be written to set the record straight. 

Today there are no laws in California to protect minors against sexual predators who cover up their acts of statutory rape with secret abortions. Parents are NOT notified of their minor daughter's impending abortion. Proposition 4 would correct this serious problem. The unsubstantiated concerns by opponents of Proposition 4 have not occurred in any of over 30 states that have parental notification or consent laws. Based on results of similar laws in other states, Proposition 4 will

  • Reduce abortions among minors by 2000 to 2500 abortions each year in California (saves lives and avoids regret)
  • Reduce teenage pregnancies and STDs
  • Re-establish parental authority when needed most
  • Remove protection that sexual predators enjoy today
But this will only happen if Proposition 4 is passed this November.

There is a campaign by a faction of home-schoolers lead by Robyn Nordell and Roy Hanson to oppose Proposition 4 for what have been shown to be unfounded reasons. An explanation of the situation and errors in Mr. Roy Hanson's Summary of Primary Concern about Proposition 4, Sarah’s Law.

Mr. Hanson’s paper was solicited by and is being widely broadcast by one Robyn Nordell. Mrs. Nordell has established a reputation of providing voter information in the past, much of which is based on evaluations conducted by other groups or individuals, with Robyn being the arbiter of what to accept and place on her website. Roy Hanson's and Michael Farris' papers in opposition to Proposition 4 are a case in point.

Michael Farris, the Founder and present Chancellor of Patrick Henry College, is an attorney who initially took issue with Proposition 4. After discussion of his concerns with proponents of Prop 4, Mr. Farris withdrew his paper. No indication of Mr. Farris' paper or reason for its withdrawal can be found on the Nordell website, but Roy Hanson's paper is there for public consumption.

Repeated calls to Mr. Hanson’s office had been made by Proposition 4 campaign officials to contact Mr. Hanson and discuss his concerns, all to no avail. However, Mr. Hanson reiterated his opposition to Prop 4, which Mrs. Nordell proceeded to broadcast by e-mail as well.

Mrs. Nordell’s relatively recent opposition to Prop 4 is perplexing since she supported the two previous parental notification initiatives, and supported Prop 4 during its signature-gathering period. The argument that Proposition 4 is somehow defective and inferior to its predecessors is clearly unfounded and crisply addressed in the attachment and on the website noted above.

Professor Teresa Collett and Catherine Short, Esq. are the authors of Proposition 4. Professor Collett has drafted similar legislation for other states, testified in Congress, and defended parental involvement legislation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mrs. Short has ample experience with pro-life litigation and law in California. Both know what is necessary for an initiative to withstand judicial scrutiny at the federal and state level. They are experts in their field and were retained for exactly that reason. In addition, Mrs. Short is the mother of nine children and she and her husband (who also is an attorney) home-school them. It is reasonable to expect that she understands both sides of the issue being presented by the Nordell-Hanson faction. Mrs. Short has attempted to speak with Robyn Nordell about her concerns, but as with Mr. Hanson, her calls have gone unanswered. Neither Roy Hanson, who lives in Texas not California as his paper may misleadingly indicate, nor Robyn Nordell is an attorney.

Proposition 4, if passed, would be the first California law to restore parental rights and protect minors from abortion’s devastation since it was legalized here 41 years ago. The bottom-line questions are: 

  • Is the hypothetical and unsubstantiated threat postulated by Roy Hanson and Robyn Nordell more important than notifying parents, including home-schooling parents, if their child is getting an abortion?    Yes____    No ____
  • Is the hypothetical and unsubstantiated threat postulated by Roy Hanson and Robyn Nordell more important than preventing an estimated 2000 to 2500 abortions on minor girls in California each year?    Yes ____  No _____

Proposition 4 is endorsed or supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former California Attorney General Dan Lungren, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackaukas, Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco, the Catholic Bishops of California, Southern California Assemblies of God, Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Americans United For Life (pre-eminent legal arm of the pro-life movement), Eagle Forum of California, Concerned Women of America, Orange County Register, San Diego Union Tribune, California Republican Party, California Republican Assembly, Family Research Council, Bioethics Defense Fund, Traditional Values Coalition, Crusade for Life, Craig Huey, and Knights of Columbus, (partial listing).

Deuteronomy 30:19-20 provides us with ultimate guidance:

"This day I call heaven and earth as witness against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."

This is not the time for ambivalence and confusion on Proposition 4. It is time to take a stand for life!

Vote Yes on Proposition 4.

Sincerely,
Bob Cielnicky
Founder, Life Priority Network


Currently rated 2.7 by 3 people

  • Currently 2.666667/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Response to Roy Hanson’s “Summary of Primary Concern” about Proposition 4

October 28, 2008 22:00 by Homeschooler

by Catherine Short, Esq.

Mr. Hanson’s "primary concern" about Proposition 4 centers on the judicial waiver procedures. He states that it is "not a good idea" to place these procedures in the state constitution. However, beyond that statement, he gives no indication as to why they are particularly troublesome in the constitution, as opposed to being in a statute. Indeed, Mr. Hanson’s worst-case scenarios, if they were plausible at all, could just as easily play out in the case of a statute as a constitutional provision. As we see in other states, these predictions have not been borne out in actual experience.

Mr. Hanson lays out a hypothetical situation involving a girl seeking a secret abortion alleging that a parent has inflicted emotional abuse. This hypothetical is based on the misconception that Prop 4 requires a finding of abuse, emotional or otherwise, for a court to rule that notification of a parent is not in the minor’s best interest. In fact, Prop 4 provides that the court may waive notification on two grounds, i.e., maturity of the minor, or best interests of the minor. As noted elsewhere, these are federally constitutionally required provisions. Prop 4 further provides that if the finding that notification of a parent is not in the minor’s best interest is based on evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, that evidence shall be reported to child protective services. Thus, a court need not find abuse of any sort in order to grant the waiver in the minor’s best interest. This is what U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires.

Mr. Hanson’s scenario is premised on "liberal, activist" judges being inclined to waive notification for a minor. Granting that is the case, these judges can do so without making any finding or drawing any conclusion whatsoever about abuse, emotional or otherwise. Indeed, if the judges in fact want to help girls get secret abortions, they will not even acknowledge that any evidence about a minor’s relationship with her parent is evidence of emotional abuse, because that would trigger the reporting requirement. Rather, they will steer clear of saying anything about emotional abuse that could trigger the reporting requirement.

Mr. Hanson then posits that a court’s rulings about what constitutes emotional abuse would allow juvenile courts in other cases to rule "that a child can circumvent the will of their parents in circumstances having nothing to do with abortion if they want to do something that their parents won’t allow them to do." Mr. Hanson does not specify what legal mechanism a child would use to achieve this end. In the case of notification for abortion, there is a specific legal mechanism, because obtaining an abortion has been held to be a federal constitutional right. There is no mechanism for children to petition the juvenile court to get around their parents’ wishes or prohibitions based on emotional abuse. This whole line of argument is a red herring.

Finally, Mr. Hanson appears to be under the impression that Prop 4 is the first parental involvement law to use the term "emotional abuse." In fact, it is a common term in these laws. Indeed, the parental notification law in Texas, where Mr. Hanson has resided for several years, provides that a judicial waiver may be granted if the court finds that notification "may lead to the physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of a minor." Texas Family Code §33.003. Has Mr. Hanson seen the slightest evidence that the term "emotional abuse" is being misconstrued in Texas or any of the other states whose parental involvement laws use this term? Apparently not, as he did not even seem aware that the term was used in these other laws.

Like the concerns expressed in Mr. Hanson’s "Preliminary Analysis" of Proposition 4, Mr. Hanson’s "primary concern" is without foundation. Proposition 4 deserves the support of California voters who want to protect minors, enhance parental rights, and decrease teen pregnancies and abortions.


Currently rated 2.3 by 3 people

  • Currently 2.333333/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5