Hillary Clinton has spent the past few years cultivating an image of herself as a moderate. The move is natural. After all, she knows that she can’t win the presidency if the American public perceives her as a wild-eyed liberal. And Clinton very much wants to be President.

As Senator, Clinton has reached across the aisle to sponsor legislation with Republicans such as Majority Leader Bill Frist or South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. In January 2005, she gave a speech in which she called abortion a “sad, even tragic choice,” and she called for efforts to reduce teen pregnancy. Many commentators saw her statements as a deliberate effort to reach out to the pro-life community. Moreover, Clinton’s position on the War in Iraq has become positively centrist. Indeed, she has even been booed by anti-war activists in her own party.

Clinton is so very centrist and moderate these days that one can easily be lulled into forgetting her very liberal past. But every once in a while, her true colors come shining through, if only for a moment. One such incident came to light last week.

Clinton was asked to tape a telephone message urging Californians to vote “no” on Proposition 85, which will appear on the state’s November ballot. If passed, the initiative would require that parents be notified before their minor daughters receive an abortion. Clinton agreed to lend her voice to Proposition opponents, and her anti-parental notification message was played in around 250,000 Californian households on October 18.

Clinton’s opposition to the California measure is a far cry from the moderate image she has been nurturing in recent years. Parental notification is an eminently reasonable restriction on abortion, even for one who is otherwise pro-choice. Few Americans like the idea of their minor daughter undergoing a serious medical procedure behind their backs. Children can’t even take an aspirin at school without parental permission. Why should they suddenly be allowed to weigh the benefits and risks of a surgical procedure, just because that surgery would not be considered but for that child’s sexual activity?

Someone who is truly “moderate” would recognize that the parental notification issue is not solely about “a woman’s choice” versus “life of the fetus.” Instead, it’s primarily about the right of parents to be involved in the medical decisions that impact the emotional and physical well-being of their underage daughters. Actually, it’s more than that. It’s about the duty of parents to protect the health and welfare of their children. Parental notification laws simply enable moms and dads to do their jobs.

Only ranting liberals can’t see through their “pro-choice” mantra long enough to see that the emphasis in the parental notification debate is on parents and their children, not on choice. Most mainstream Americans are rational enough to realize that parental notification requirements are not an assault on women’s rights. They are simply a matter of common sense.

Last year, Clinton seemed to place herself in this commonsensical, moderate camp when she claimed to support parental notification, provided the legislation contains a “judicial bypass.” Such judicial intervention could be used, for instance, if a teenage girl has abusive parents. The California law contains such a provision, so Clinton’s lack of support is puzzling—unless you go back to the “true colors” theory.

In 2005, Clinton’s support of parental notification was no more than talking. She was cultivating the moderate image that she thinks she needs to be elected President. Last week, Clinton acted in a manner that is more consistent with the liberal, pro-choice feminist who lives underneath that seemingly moderate exterior.

Voters should be wary of the Clinton in moderate’s clothing when they go to the polls in 2008.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment