Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions.
Right. Because the Democrats of all people should be able to separate these issues - promoting adoption (okay, this isn't terrible on the surface) and banning medical procedures used to save lives. Arg. I think I'm in favor of Howard Dean, again. As an MD, perhaps he has a better grip on why it's inappropriate for the government to intercede in medical decisions best made by individuals and their doctors.
And another thing. Maybe two. Parental notification bugs the hell out of me. (As does spousal notification.) Here's why: if there's a decent relationship between a young woman and her parents, or between spouses, I think they'll be able to find a way to discuss this themselves. If they can't, then there are bigger problems with the relationship, and forcing this kind of "notification" could be dangerous.
I got into a debate with this anti-choice guy who came to one of the events sponsored by the undergrad feminist group I used to mentor. He went on and on about how he didn't think his wife should be able to get an abortion without his knowing about it and having some say in the matter, and all I could think of (and I told him) was that if his wife wouldn't discuss this of her own free will, then maybe they had some other issues they needed to work out. If I were in that position (which, at this point, would only be for medical concerns anyway, but still...) I would WANT my husband's support. Because we have that kind of relationship.