Rapists would get pass

Re: your Oct. 13 article, "Parental notice for abortion on ballot again":

Too bad The Star didn't question Planned Parenthood spokesperson Amy Moy more carefully.

According to Moy, "research shows that teens have delayed care and counseling in states with forced notification laws." What research did Moy have in mind? Perhaps the 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the Texas parental-notification law?

One finding of that study, quoted out of context, might appear to support Moy's claim. But the study shows that, overall, both abortions and births decreased among minors after Texas passed its parental notification law.

In other words, fewer minors got pregnant.

But don't take my word for it. Just Google "New England Journal of Medicine Texas abortion" and read the study for yourself.

Another question I would like to hear Moy answer: What about sexual predators who use abortion to cover up their crimes? I can't find a word about this topic on the "No on 4" Web site. But the "Yes on 4" site documents case after case in which genuine sexual predators impregnated minors and then procured abortions for them, sometimes repeatedly. And the abortion providers did nothing, other than provide an abortion. See www.yeson4.net/abuse_stories.aspx for details.

The standard arguments against Proposition 4 conjure up spooky images of teens "taking matters into their own hands," while telling us that these same teens are responsible enough to have an abortion without their parents' knowledge. Then, while we all fret about what might happen if this law passes, real rapists get a free pass.

— Ben Dunlap, Santa Paula

Question for Boy Scouts

In the Official Voter Information Guide, I noticed the Rebuttal To Argument Against Proposition 8 was written by, among others, Robert Bolingbroke. It lists below his name that he is "Council commissioner, San Diego-Imperial Council, Boy Scouts of America."

I used to be a Boy Scout. I had planned on my young son being one, as well. But how can I support an organization that supposedly "accepts all" when the person in charge is allowed to connect the organization to a measure that clearly states not all people are the same? This issue, whether for or against, is obviously aimed at one's personal beliefs and is only a subjective imposition of California law.

I'd like to see someone get an official statement from the Boy Scouts of America on this issue. Isn't "lifestyle choice" just another way of referring to one's personal creed, as in the phrase, "regardless of race, religion or creed"? If public law can dictate my personal choice of whom to marry based on that person's sex, who's to say this can't be used to affect the color of skin or religion of the person I want to marry? If you affect one word in that statement, such as "creed," you can affect any word in that statement.

— Johnny Lowe, Camarillo