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

Add comment




  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading