Thanks to Aaron Gleason for passing this link along to me.

I sure am glad that we Evangelicals have moved on to caring about more important social issues. Because if we still cared about protecting the unborn, we'd be in rough shape right now.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert%20P._Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

Like I said...please pray for Barack Obama. 

Californians have been subject to a variety of ads for and against Proposition 4 over the last few weeks. Since most of the ads I’ve seen are misleading, I thought it might be helpful to shed some light on the arguments that have been made from both sides.

A summary of Prop 4:

Prop 4, also known as “Sarah’s Law,” would amend the California Constitution so that parental notification would be required 48 hours prior to an abortion. If the minor fears parental notification due to potential abuse, the law would allow for certain adult relatives to be notified and require the doctor to report the parents to Child Protection Services. Exceptions are made for cases of medical emergencies, prior parental waivers, or court waivers. Doctors would be required to report statistical information on the abortions they perform to the state of California. If the parents are not notified properly, the law would allow them to file for damages in a civil lawsuit. The law would also allow for minors to appeal to the courts if they believe they are being coerced into having an abortion.

Fact Check #1:

The group behind Prop 4 named it “Sarah’s Law” after a fifteen year old who died from complications resulting from an abortion. What they don’t tell you is that this girl was in a common-law marriage with the father. It is unclear whether or not she would have been required to notify her parents in her specific situation. Furthermore, a representative of the Prop 4 support group said that Prop 4 could have saved “Sarah’s” life. There’s really no reason to believe it would have. While it is hypothetical, given the situation it seems likely she would have gone through with the abortion and would have been equally vulnerable to dying from resulting complications. (source: http://www.lifenews.com/state3440.html)

Fact Check #2:

The most popular argument against Prop 4 is that it would put teens in danger because it requires them to notify potentially abusive parents. A commercial portraying this has been airing constantly and it is all over the “no” group’s website. These commercials mislead the public into believing that Prop 4 requires pregnant minors to report their abortion only to their parents or legal guardians. However, the option of notifying an adult family member is clearly and thoroughly explained in the proposition. This adult family member could be a grandparent, stepparent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling, or first cousin. Furthermore, opponents to Prop 4 have not been able to cite a single case where the minor was victimized as the result of notification in any of the thirty-five states where similar laws currently exist.

Fact Check #3:

Another story cited by supporters of Prop 4 is that of a fourteen-year-old girl who was raped over one hundred times by a thirty-nine year old man. He took her to Planned Parenthood (PP) twice and the supporters imply that PP performed the abortion. The ad faults PP for not reporting the predator and implies that Prop 4 could have lead to the predator being stopped. Only the pregnancy test was performed at PP, not the abortion. PP could have notified authorities regarding the pregnant minor, but they likely had no way of knowing who the predator was to report him. The predator was actually the minor’s stepfather and both the minor and stepfather claimed he was her father to the hospital that performed the abortion. Had Prop 4 been in effect, it would have changed nothing since it appeared that the parent was notified.

Fact Check #4:

The website against Prop 4 claims that, “What we see happening in other states with parental notification laws is that some teens opt for a dangerous alternative – illegal abortion. Teens may even take matters into their own hands (back alley abortions, self abort or worse).” This is a typical slippery-slope argument from pro-choice debaters. Using their logic we could argue that since robbing banks can be dangerous, we should make it legal and banks should make stealing easier. What is the result of Prop 4 on teens who refuse to have a “safe” abortion due to parental notification? The truth is that there is no evidence that this has ever happened in the 35 states that have similar laws to Prop 4.

Conclusion

Both sides have been misleading in some way in arguing for their position. As voters, it is our responsibility to work through the arguments and attempt to make a thoughtful decision based on the facts, not the rhetoric. The “yes” and “no” websites are likely the best places to start sorting fact and fiction:

http://yeson4.net
http://www.noonprop4.org

The problems I point out with the "pro" Prop 4 stories only have to do with their anecdotes. I think the campaign seems to be grasping at any story they can find that can be used to appeal emotionally to voters; to the degree that they misrepresent some of the stories as I pointed out. (There are more stories on their website and I would be surprised if they embellished all of them.) However, the only problems I can find are with their stories; not with the fundamental arguments why the proposition is needed. I think their arguments are sound and compelling, and they do themselves a disservice by the way they appeal to these stories. My criticisms of the "no" side are with their fundamental arguments. They have not provided any good reason to reject the proposition.