Parental notification repeal questions

Ever get the feeling you're being lied to?

I do, especially when reading the quotes of politicians in the local  papers.
Case in point is the 'parental notification law', or HB 184, which is  currently being considered for repeal, despite polls that show 80% of  the people of this state support parental notification.  Why?

I asked that question of Governor Lynch himself.  I received a very  nice response from him explaining that he does not want to take away  a parents right over their own child but that the current law did not  have a provision in cases of medical emergencies.

While I’m comfortable with allowing that exception  I question the  definition of “medical emergency” when used this way. Colin Manning,  Lynch’s press secretary, is quoted in the Union Leader as saying  “Current law fails to protect the health and safety of all women.”   Until now it has ALWAYS been discussed as a matter of providing for  the health and safety of “women”, yet I’d consider a minor under 18  to be a child or young girl. 

This all of course ignores that the current  law allows for a judge to make an exception in cases of emergencies  when parents can’t be reached.  But let’s give the repealers the  benefit of the doubt and assume that waiting on a judge is too much  time and we really do have cases where life or death is a matter of  minutes in which the doctor must make a decision. A pregnancy  however, is rarely a life or death emergency.

Why then when Wendelboe and Mooney put up an amendment which would  have allowed exactly what state Democrats claim they want, did they  shoot it down in favor of completely repealing the law?

David E. Cote, Janet G. Wall, Frances D. Potter, Bette R. Lasky,  Peter S. Espiefs, Gail C. Morrison, Stephen J. Shurtleff, Maureen  Baxley, Paul L. Hackel, Philip Preston, Gary B. Richardson, and Lucy  McV. Weber all choose instead of actually accepting the amendment to  vote to take away parents rights to know what their child is doing.

A child who isn’t mature enough to see an R rated movie because it  may contain a picture of a bare breast, who isn't allowed to have a  drink, or allowed to get a tattoo, or allowed to vote, is suddenly  considered adult enough to make a choice like this without their  parents ever knowing?

Why on earth would we want to cover up the crime of a statutory rape  by a 21-year old by allowing the 14-year old he impregnated, to go to  the abortion clinic?  These are the same Democrats who want to take  away adults' ability to choose whether or not to eat in a location  that allows smoking, to take awaythe choice to eat trans fats (which  Jim Splaine, author of the bill claims is to protect children), and  to force more and more safety regulations on society all for our  protection?  Meanwhile when it comes to something as serious as  abortion, a 14 or even 12-year old child should have complete  unfettered access without parental knowledge? (See below link: picture of  a 21 week old “fetus” which is legal to abort.)

So what’s the REAL reason for this bill, since clearly it isn’t what  Lynch is telling us?  Any state Democrats want to explain  themselves?  Care to tell us why you seek to take away a parent's  right to have a say over their own children?  Why does your party  outright refuse an amendment which would have done exactly what you  claim is the reason for which you feel you MUST repeal this law?   Explain away!