A wolf among the sheep

Recently, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) taped a telephone message used in California to encourage voters to reject Proposition 85, which would require parental notification before abortions are performed on minors.

We can quickly dispose of the Dallas Blog's report of this news. Tara Ross repeatedly tells us that parental notification is "common sense" supported by "mainstream" Americans who are "rational". On the other hand, she tells us that Senator Clinton is a "wild-eyed liberal" or a "ranting liberal", a wolf in "moderate's clothing." It's as if she believes that if she just asserts something enough times, sooner or later we'll just believe it without requiring evidence or logical argument.

Ms Ross, like others on the right, opposes Senator Clinton's goal of making abortion safe, legal and rare. Tara Ross is no moderate. That Ms Ross is so quick to pounce on Senator Clinton reveals just who the real wolf is.

But Ms Ross' a priori logic doesn't let Senator Clinton off the hook. She does seem to have a hard time articulating just where she draws the line on parental notification laws.

In the telephone recording, Senator Clinton is clear in opposing California's parental notification law, which includes a judicial bypass clause. She says,

"We are opposed because 85 will put our most vulnerable teens at risk -- teens who may already be endangered by negligent or even abusive homes. We can do better. Let's work together to protect all our children."

Last October, when California was debating (before rejecting) a similar proposition requiring parental notification, Senator Clinton was quoted as saying much the same thing.

"We obviously hope and expect that our children will come to us if they face difficult circumstances such as an unplanned pregnancy, but we also know that sometimes in the real world, families are in crisis, or there's a history of violence, and young people simply cannot confide in their parents. In situations like that, laws cannot mandate family communications, and there needs to be recognition and acceptance of that."

But in between, in January, 2005, at a news conference after a speech before abortion rights supporters, Senator Clinton referred to an Arkansas parental notification law, saying

"I supported parental notification with a judicial bypass."

Because both the Arkansas law and the California proposition contain judicial bypass clauses, one of which Senator Clinton supported and another opposed, Senator Clinton owes the voters an explanation. Exactly what kind of protections does she require in a parental notification law to find it acceptable?

Senator Clinton is obviously struggling to balance the benefits of parental counseling against the damage of stripping away the protections some young women need against negligent and abusive family situations. In that she is a moderate, as many in the vast political center are struggling to find that balance themselves.

Senator Clinton is probably also doing some political triangulation, too. That makes it all the more important that she resolve this dilemma. It's good to know that a politician struggles with difficult issues, rather than parrots simplistic, ideological positions, but leaving the impression that the politician is trying to have it both ways serves no one any good, including the politician herself.