« Compare and contrast | Main | Benedict and the Germans »
April 25, 2005
A plan?
Pro-life dems unveil plan to reduce abortions
Democrats for Life of America joined Reps. Tim Ryan (Ohio), Bart Stupak (Michigan) and Lincoln Davis (Tennessee) at a press conference Friday to announce the "95-10 Initiative" -- a plan to reduce abortions 95 percent in the next 10 years.
Kristen Day, director of DFLA, said the plan was "a legitimate policy initiative that will actually reduce the number of abortions." She said it "has been met favorably by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates and elected officials."
The initiative outlines 17 different policy programs designed to empower and promote women as well as protect unborn children.
Some of those include a national toll-free number for pregnancy support, studying why women have abortions, funding daycare on college campuses, increasing funding for domestic violence programs, and making adoption tax credits permanent.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Am I ego-centric or do some people say and do such ignorant and blatantly wrong-headed things just to tick me off? ;)
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Apr 25, 2005 8:58:02 AM
Excellent news. I hope the majority puts out a hand to them quickly.
Posted by: Dan at Apr 25, 2005 8:59:55 AM
Whether this proves to be sound policy or a trojan horse, I think it's easy to see WHY this is happening; the Democratic Party has finally recognized that its identification as the abortion party is a huge negative.
I watched the two national conventions last year, and noted the Democrats' rhetoric on "choice" was particularly muted, as compared with prior conventions, when they wanted to trumpet that position.
Since the election, James Carville and some others (whose names escape me) did a study on how Dems did with Catholics, and they admitted this issue is hurting them -- and, without saying the Democrats should stop being for Roe et al., they did suggest finding other ways to idenfity with the values of Catholics who don't like abortion.
Having said all that...maybe this will, upon further examination, prove to be sound policy.
Posted by: Septimus at Apr 25, 2005 9:01:30 AM
It's only a palliative; but geez, this problem is so big that even a coughdrop would be a start. Nice to see the Democratic Party doing something non-suicidal for a change.
Posted by: Maureen at Apr 25, 2005 9:10:53 AM
But can't we at least make some of them, well, illegal? At least some?
Posted by: Cathy Johnson at Apr 25, 2005 9:41:55 AM
I don't see this working. The abortion lobby, PP, NARAL, etc., wont budge on informed consent or parental consent laws, which have a demonstrative ability to reduce abortions. Plus, they will oppose any use of pregnancy centers because they imply that no abortion is better than abortion. They don't want abortion to be seen as the lesser of two choices. Of course, the only way that abortion is going to be seen as of equal value to no abortion is to restrict the flow of information dealing with the humanity of the unborn, which is central to the success of crisis pregnancy centers. Hence, PP is seeking to pass legislation that would impose extreme requirements on crisis pregnancy centers wanting to use ultrasound technology.
Posted by: David R. at Apr 25, 2005 9:47:29 AM
DFLA's position has been fight for criminalization alone won't reduce abortions. There needs to a cultural shift, perhaps even a policy shift, so that women don't even consider abortion as an option.
Posted by: ambrose at Apr 25, 2005 9:50:28 AM
I tend to agree. A snarkier headline to this might have been NARAL: Call Your Office because, should the abortion lobby allow this to stand, it will represent a significant weakening of their overall position within the party.
Posted by: David Morrison at Apr 25, 2005 9:51:41 AM
Tim Roemer first unveiled this program at the annual Quinn Colloquium in San Francisco in March. At the time it was 70-10. They're now more ambitious with the 95-10. What that attempts to imply is that abortion is totally solvable through social programs and sex-ed without recourse to significant legal restrictions. Strip away the parental notification requirement - and it will be - and this is no different than the current pro-choice Democrat solution. Roemer had some other very good wors though. See the article at http://www.catholic-sf.org/031805.html
Posted by: Jack Smith at Apr 25, 2005 10:05:48 AM
Laudable goal, all well and good. Frankly, it sounds like just spending more money on existing programs.
There are already 1-800 hotlines for crisis pregnancy being provided by the market (private organizations). Maybe they should advertise more.
Colleges already have daycare, as do most larger institutions and government.
Do they really want to know why women have abortions? It can't be financial. Poor women get boatloads of public assistance when pregnant & as mothers. If it is financial it is b/c college girls or professional women think about how they will screw up their careers and future earnings w/the responsibilities of a child. [I'm just saying what is being thought. I don't think it's right.] Maybe they will find out that the child is an inconvenience and there is a wish for consequence-free sex.
Domestic violence? What???
I like the idea of permanent adoption tax credits, but people who are adopting are going the international route and getting the same benefit. Children from other countries are benefiting, but not US babies nearly as much. So, adoption tax credits are not going to help the crisis pregnancy problem in the US. There really ought to be concentration on changing state policies in order to limit the birth mother's ability to change her mind and to receive information about the child post-adoption, among other things. The child or birth mother should not be allowed most information about one another until the child reaches the age of majority. These are the reasons that adoption is a less desirable option--for potential adoptive parents--and no longer a great help to stop abortion in the US.
Bottom line. Keep throwing money at it. I am unimpressed, though it is good to see that they're getting the message.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 10:06:54 AM
If is has a significant effect, I guess I'm for it. My worry is always when people think that not only does it take _more_ than criminalizing abortion to recuce it, but that criminalization actually isn't necessary. I mean, with all the birth control flooding the US, we've seen little reduction in births out of wedlock, compared to the effectiveness of the strong prejudice against illegitimacy 100 years ago. Similarly, you could put all sorts of programs into place so that no one would _need_ to steal, but if theft was illegal, you can bet it would be a lot more common.
Posted by: scotus at Apr 25, 2005 10:06:59 AM
A plan? Well, not a plan to take on the abortion lobby. A plan to have it both ways: yes,we are trying to reduce abortions, can't you see? and no, we won't be outlawing them.
Did you notice that nothing in the proposal takes on the selfish,libertine attitudes that lead to, in fact, require, premarital sex?
Posted by: Horton at Apr 25, 2005 10:09:42 AM
The only protection for the unborn is to make the act of abortion illegal. I can' t recall any instances "on the books" where murder of grown adults, in certain cases, was legit.
Oh, I forgot about Terri Schaivo. Thanks Felos.
I think we are swamped in the "culture of the relative" as defined by Benedict XVI.
Posted by: Lily at Apr 25, 2005 10:15:40 AM
"Poor women get boatloads of public assistance when pregnant & as mothers."
What?? Right wing propaganda.
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway at Apr 25, 2005 10:17:13 AM
In terms of effectiveness, I think it's more likely to be "10-95" rather than "95-10." Still, every little bit helps. There is much that could (and should) be done in areas other than criminal law to reduce abortions.
Since they're apparently not happy with the existing toll-free numbers, I wonder who'll be answering the phone at theirs? Kate Michelman?
Posted by: mio at Apr 25, 2005 10:18:33 AM
Come on guys. Can’t you see through this? It is nothing but a shameless political PR from those who have no moral compass. These people have never been concerned about the death of a womb-baby before, now that it is politically expedient they are concerned. Fearing that they themselves are endangered, they are proposing some actions that will do nothing to make abortion illegal. I haven’t done the homework, but I would bet that each of these pols had a chance at some point in their career to support some restrictions on abortion, but didn’t.
The initiative outlines 17 different policy programs designed to empower and promote women as well as protect unborn children.
That just goes to show that they don’t get it. Anybody who lives under the delusion that the right to life and the “empowerment and promotion of women” are at odds with each other and that they somehow need to be reconciled to one another doesn’t deserve the time of day, let alone support. They obviously believe that to make abortion illegal would be “keeping the woman down”. They’ll never get my vote.
… studying why women have abortions…
They’ll probably spend 10 million dollars to find out what everyone already knows and it won’t save one single baby! It’s just an insincere charade to gain votes from life minded individuals and nothing more.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Apr 25, 2005 10:19:41 AM
No reason you can't adopt a "95-10 initiative" AND continue to push to make the act of abortion illegal.
If I were President Bush, I'd pull a "Bill Clinton" and work to get this initiative passed, sign it, and claim it as my own. My guess is that Democrat support for this "95-10 initiative" would melt away before they'd allow that to happen.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Apr 25, 2005 10:20:01 AM
"Colleges already have daycare."
That's not the case. I was at a Feminists for Life speech at Loyola University in Chicago, and the President of FML spoke and talked about all the work they're doing to reduce abortions on college campuses. She said most college campuses, especially smaller liberal arts colleges that serve only undergrads, do not have daycare. Also, college health plans do not cover maternity care. College health centers have brochures about where to get abortons, but not how to obtain services for maternity care and well baby care. Before Feminists for Life spoke at Georgetown U., their campus had no services. Now, after a group of students worked to change it, there are services for pregnant students. Any work on this would be a step forward.
Posted by: Jennifer at Apr 25, 2005 10:23:19 AM
"Colleges already have daycare."
That's not the case. I was at a Feminists for Life speech at Loyola University in Chicago, and the President of FML spoke and talked about all the work they're doing to reduce abortions on college campuses. She said most college campuses, especially smaller liberal arts colleges that serve only undergrads, do not have daycare. Also, college health plans do not cover maternity care. College health centers have brochures about where to get abortons, but not how to obtain services for maternity care and well baby care. Before Feminists for Life spoke at Georgetown U., their campus had no services. Now, after a group of students worked to change it, there are services for pregnant students. Any work on this would be a step forward.
Posted by: Jennifer at Apr 25, 2005 10:25:20 AM
May their tribe increase!
Also on Dave's blog: A Reason To Overturn Roe v. Wade That Is Not About Abortion
Posted by: Fr. Phil Bloom at Apr 25, 2005 10:25:44 AM
Jennifer,
I think you're distinguishing between services for employed instructors and students--who are not employees and do not get many of the benefits that employees get. In any case, even the second rate state school I attended in the midwest had daycare and "early childhood" programs, which I believe students could use--in the 80s.
WRT, social programs for unwed mothers, I have a few female relatives who, regrettably (in my mind if not theirs) became unwed mothers. They were rather disgusting in their glomming onto govt services. One young woman's mother thought her daughter was "better off" as a pregnant woman b/c of such benefits...than what I don't know. No, they're not skyrocketed into the Rockefeller class or anything, but they're getting goodies that they would not otherwise get. While of course babies are benefitting in that they're not killed, it's hard not to imagine more encouragement to keep one's baby than such benefits and baby showers to "normalize" the situation, based on my experience.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 10:36:06 AM
It's hard to conclude if this is a sinister attempt at de-politicizing the issue, or if it's a sincere hope to reduce abortions.
A friend of mine, about 10 years ago when she was in college, had an abortion. Ironically enough, she told me she was dating a Catholic man who didn't believe in birth control. I told her that he wasn't much of a Catholic if he was engaging in premarital sex, and demanded an abortion when she got pregnant. The reason she aborted? She was 19, was a straight A student at Yale, and was afraid of ruining any potential career. Now she looks back on the decision with horror, calling it murder. For the longest time, she couldn't understand why as a Catholic I was friends with her, but I think she understands now. Eventually, I hope she'll convert & receive confession. She once asked me, alluding to the crime, how I could still be a faithful Catholic if I've also sinned. I told her, that's why we have the sacrement of Confession. Her eyes opened wide at that, it was like a door into a new universe she had never heard of. I think she'll convert in time, but since she was never baptized at first and still loves watching shows like Desperate Housewives, it'll be a long process.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 10:37:55 AM
Empowering women to choose life is just fine, but while we're at it, how about overturning Roe and empowering citizens to govern themselves with regard to this issue.
Posted by: marie at Apr 25, 2005 10:39:45 AM
please don't have a knee-jerk reaction against this initiative because it is sponsored by Democrats. Democrats for Life is an organization that predates the new recognition (in the Carville memo et al) that the Dems have a problem with the abortion issue. In fact Terry McAuliffe refused to allow the DNC site to link to their website because he considered them faux Democrats. Which offended me a lot. Anyhow, initiatives like this are very important; please remember that at the time Roe came down, abortion was legal in 41 states - there are a lot of hearts and minds that will need conversion - overturning Roe is just one step in a long journey towards ending the practice of abortion.
Posted by: msp at Apr 25, 2005 10:45:30 AM
This program may or may not significantly reduce the number of abortions, but then we have no assurance that all the energy and money we are apparently willing to spend on using the criminal law to reduce abortion will work very well either.
For example, prolife movement went nuts over enacting partial-birth abortion bans even though we knew that they would almost certainly be struck down and, even if upheld, would not prevent a single abortion (since the abortionists would simply alter their methods to kill the child). If we were willing to make politicians' support of such practically useless laws the basis for prolife political endorsements, then we should be even more willing to make support of this program a requirement to receive prolife endorsements. Support for this program should be equally "non-negotiable," and politicians who don't support it should be denied communion and banned from speaking on Catholic property just as those who failed to support partial-birth abortion bans.
More effective non-criminal steps would involve changing work-place pay, vacation, and seniority rules to accomodate female reproduction and much higher tax incentives and welfare benefits for childbearing/childbirth and childrearing. But, unfortunately, much of the ideologically crabbed and myopic prolife movement just wants to put a lid on the pressure-cooker by enacting laws to put people in jail as the sole solution.
Posted by: Celine at Apr 25, 2005 10:48:52 AM
