« 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
Anyone have thoughts on this:
Contraception Equity
* Require insurance coverage of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. (Modeled after Missouri legislation that was supported by both pro-life and pro-choice groups.)
(from http://www.democratsforlife.org/95-10.htm#empower)
Aside from the other problems with that plan, I wonder how likely such a requirement would be to exclude abortifacient contraception.
Posted by: r o at Apr 25, 2005 10:54:10 AM
Re criminal law: if there are no legal abortion "clinics" there will be a lot fewer abortions.
As for why women about their babies, I would hazard to guess that threats and lack of support from their husbands and boy friends has a lot to do with many of these cases. The one group that legal abortion benefits the most are selfish mails males who don't want the responsibility that goes along with the fun.
Posted by: john hearn at Apr 25, 2005 11:06:45 AM
...forgot to delete "mail"...
Posted by: john hearn at Apr 25, 2005 11:07:32 AM
The proposals are nice, but they do not get to the heart of the issue which is that abortion is protected and sheltered by the full power of the State. Until abortion is made illegal, everything else is only nibbling around the edges. These baby steps are good, but they cetainly should not deter us one second from the ultimate goal.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 25, 2005 11:38:48 AM
I'm not voicing any knee-jerk reaction against these proposals, in fact, I'd certainly support some of them. But I also think that supporting these proposals does not give anyone cover for the usurpation of power affected by Roe. Roe enormously expanded the abortion license in all but a few states, and overturned mountains of state laws on the subject. I understand that the popular will would not ensure a pro-life result in many states. Bu how exactly could the results be worse? Don't you think our fight for hearts and minds would be enormously aided by a recognition that the idea that there existed a constitutionally enshrined right to abortion was a tragic error? And that the democratic party's slavish support of that decision was a moral and political disaster? Time to fess up and move on. Strange how those who favor taking the issue to the people are considered the ideologically crabbed and myopic - and those that want to cling to a universally discredited and dishonest court decision are somehow the broad minded. I don't perceive the proposed efforts to aid women and efforts to overturn Roe as either/or proposals. I fear some democrats do.
Posted by: marie at Apr 25, 2005 11:41:51 AM
Whether sincere concern or cynical political ploy, why is it harmful to support these programs, so long as you continue to seek reversal of the law? Does it have to be an either/or decision? It must be admitted, though, that without the constant political pressure brought by the pro-life crowd, these proposals would never have seen the light of day.
Posted by: c matt at Apr 25, 2005 11:42:40 AM
Although, the cynic in me does wonder where these proposals were in late October/early November of 2004.
Posted by: c matt at Apr 25, 2005 11:52:32 AM
As I recall, abolitionists did not settle for a compromise on slavery.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 11:55:45 AM
It's interesting that the incremental, "change hearts first" approach is apparently only acceptable from the Republican Party.
Has George Bush yet called for overturning Roe v. Wade?
Posted by: ajb at Apr 25, 2005 11:59:47 AM
For those wondering, the folks pushing this plan: Ryan, Stupak, Roemer, Costello, have very strong Pro-Life records. They have been talking and working on issues like this for years and are not part of the crowd who are only now beginning to look for "common ground". How successful will they be? I say they have a 50/50 chance of getting any of this passed. And will the likes of Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Carville jump on this bandwagon? The answer to that will help determine the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Posted by: David - Catholics in the Public Square at Apr 25, 2005 12:00:10 PM
I believe that the greatest way to reduce abortions is by changing opinion one person at a time and providing help and assistance for pregnant young women. If this proposals helps, I'm all for it, even if it is for political reasons. As a college student at the University of Michigan, I got pregnant. When I took my urine test, on the shelf were MANY other pregnancy tests all waiting for the lab. When I was told that I was pregnant, the "counselor" firmly tried to tell me to keep all my options open and to take information about abortion providers. Even in the midst of despair, I NEVER thought about abortion. Ironically, while working on my master degree a couple of years later, I found out that I was part of a study of pregnant young woman at U of M. I think it was something like 90% were abortion minded. YIKES! When I finally told my friends that I was pregnant, I found out that 2 had had abortions. They both asked me if I thought abortion was ok for others. Uh, well no.
Posted by: carrie ryckman at Apr 25, 2005 12:02:23 PM
ajb,
Bush is trying to put people with integrity on the bench, but the Dems are holding it up. If the courts had honorable people on the bench you wouldn't have Roe and all of the other bad judgements that have come down, not to mention the crime that was perpetrated on Terri Schiavo. If Bush could appoint to the court nine Scalias, he wouldn't need to "call for the overturn of Roe", it would be a done deal.
And thank you David, I looked up Stupak's record and he is 100% according to Right to Life. However, I wonder where these folks stand on Bush's judicial nominees and if they are lobbying their Dem bretheren to confirm these appointments.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Apr 25, 2005 12:13:47 PM
Carrie - I am so affected by personal testimonies like your's. What you did was courageous and counter-cultural and, frankly, inspiring. I agree with your assertion that we should be focusing on individuals. Part of that program needs to involve accurate information and truly informed consent. I say get ultrasounds in every clinic that works with crisis pregnancies. There's a reason PPFA and NARAL are so against technology - it doesn't lie and huge numbers of women change their minds about aborting once they have an ultrasonic image in their heads.
Posted by: Nerina at Apr 25, 2005 12:16:20 PM
The Devil is in the details but if this effot is sincere, I think it certainly has the potential to serve as an important contribution to the cause of the culture of life.
A 95% reduction in abortion in ten years is certain a highly laudable goal.
Posted by: Richard at Apr 25, 2005 12:33:39 PM
As a pro-life republican I say grab it and run. Just don't let them strip out the difficult items like parental notification.
Finding and nurturing like-minded folks on the other side puts pressure on our own weak supporters and builds bridges with those who share our values. The cause is far more important than the politics.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Apr 25, 2005 12:46:03 PM
Promoting adoption is great and should be supported, but I'm convinced the pro-abortion lobby will oppose any efforts to support adoption. Planned Parenthood and NARAL have a business interest in having as many abortions as possible. They will not support anything that reduces the abortion rate by 1%, let alone 95%.
I also agree with others here that this an attempt to show that Democrats are "more pro-life" because they want to "reduce" abortion. Incremental attempts at reducing abortion are OK, but they are not a substitution for granting full legal protection to the unborn. Can anyone here imagine a politician from NAZI Germany proclaiming that the extermination of Jews should be "safe, legal, and rare"?
From a Catholic perspective, another problem with the plan is its support for contraception. The contraceptive mentality is the first step to the pro-abortion mentality. The two cannot be separated.
Posted by: William Bloomfield at Apr 25, 2005 1:09:10 PM
I'm delighted at the idea, but like others, skeptical how it'll pan out. No reason not to back anything good that goes ahead to the hilt. In fact, the fact that we're skeptical means we should be backing this harder. (Well, I'm a Canadian, so I don't have much influence, but my prayers are with you guys.)
One of the problems will be pro-abortion people trying to subvert this to their own purposes. We do not want a 'support' help-line for pregnant women paid for by the govt that is basically an extension of Planned Parenthood's help-line, pushing abortions on callers.
Posted by: Eileen R at Apr 25, 2005 1:11:03 PM
Bush is trying to put people with integrity on the bench.
As opposed to what our other Republican presidents did?
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994).
You can't blame it all on Clinton, much as many would love to.
Posted by: Laura at Apr 25, 2005 1:34:41 PM
Silicon Valley Steve: "As a pro-life republican I say grab it and run. Just don't let them strip out the difficult items like parental notification."
I agree. As I said above, Bush should push this initiative and then take credit for passing it - "working with a bipartisan coalition", of course. Just like Slick used to do.
If nothing else, we'll see just how committed the Democrats are to reducing the number of abortions through the "95-10 initiative".
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Apr 25, 2005 1:50:38 PM
The antogonism against this plan just shows how much people are entrenched with the Republicans. To whom do you belong, the Republican party or the Catholic Church? They are two separate entities.
Why the contempt for the focus on social programs? Our Church does indeed support them and the USCCB has taken various presidents to task for their gutting of these support nets. As for no correlation between poverty and abortions, look at NJ.
And yes, studies are>/b> needed! Why do we have so many more abortions than Godless, secularized western Europe? Interestingly, the legal status of abortion in a country is not strongly correlated with the rate at which it occurs. Indeed, in many countries where the procedure is illegal, women obtain abortions at very high rates. Similarly, in some countries where abortion is legal and very widely accessible, abortion rates are low.
As for settling for nothing less than making abortion completely illegal, guess what folks, don't hold your breath. The very best we'll ever get in this country is a pre-RvW, where the states decide. Not to mention that under 4 Republican presidents and a Republican-controlled legislature, we haven't gotten any close to either. How many times has Mr. Bush even mentioned abortion since November?
We're being played. Since 1981.
Posted by: Laura at Apr 25, 2005 1:51:43 PM
Laura,
I am an independent, so to counter my statement by throwing previous Republican appointments have no effect. That being said, Scalia and Thomas are excellent justices. Rehnquist is more right than he is wrong. I don’t think anybody expected anything different from what we got with Stevens, but it sure seems that O’Connor and Kennedy turned coat so to speak.
Nevertheless, the issue is Bush has gone on record stating he desires constructionists on the bench, and the left opposes that and the fact remains that the only way you are going to put an end to legalized abortion in this country is to get people on the bench who will judge based on the Constitution rather than their own personal agenda.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Apr 25, 2005 1:54:01 PM
bold off
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Apr 25, 2005 1:55:55 PM
Who's antagonized by this plan? From what I can tell, most of us are saying let's go with it, in addition to pushing to outlaw abortion.
What you're seeing that you may be mistaking for "antogonism against this plan" is doubt as to whether the Democrats are serious about reducing the number of abortions or are just serious about reducing the number of seats they'll lose due to their party's pro-abortion stance.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Apr 25, 2005 1:56:46 PM
Laura,
The only time Republicans have had both the Congress and the Presidency has been under President Bush. President Reagan tried to appoint Robert Bork, but his nomination was derailed in a strongly Democratic Senate. And now that Republicans finally have control of the Senate and the White House, Democrats are using the only weapon they have to support legalized abortion, filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees. The Democrats obviously believe President Bush is committed to appointing Originalist judges committed to overturning Roe. I think your skepticism is ill-placed.
I will not accept legalized abortion, nor will I fall for the Democratic party's PR games where they try to "soften" their image on abortion, while at the same time accepting the money and support of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: William Bloomfield at Apr 25, 2005 2:06:40 PM
Call me a cynic, but there is no way that any plan to reduce abortions will pass. Planned Parentood is in the business of providing abortions, and they lobby Congress and states as often as any other business concern. They'll lobby against funding to any program that has the goal of reducing abortions. Their business is INCREASING abortions, since it's how they make money. If these proposals seriously would reduce abortions by 95%, then you can bet that PP will fight it.
As it is, upon closer reflection, I don't know if the specific programs are all that helpful in reducing abortions. I think that maybe a study might not be such a bad idea, but to be of any value it'd have to be done over time and that might be too long. Other things, like domestic violence centers or adoption credits, sound nice, but I don't know if there's any correlation between their use and reduced abortions. Hopefully a study might show what works.
The unfortunate truth is, there's more of a stigma against giving a child up for adoption than there is in having an abortion. The real problem isn't with the funding of pregnancy centers or adoption credits, but the culture, Hollywood, the media, and our communities.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 2:10:26 PM
If I may, let me pose a question I struggle with regarding this issue and ask for your feedback. I am a staunch pro-life, anti-abortion liberal.
However, I keep playing this scenario out in my mind:
Assumption: 10 years from now, Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is illegal and the punishment for participating in an abortion is that equivalent to a premeditated, first-degree murder. My then 17-year-old daughter comes to me and confesses that she got pregnant, got scared, and got an illegal abortion. Do I turn her in to the authorities? More importantly, do I morally equate her with that person who walks up to someone on the street and puts a bullet in his victim's brain for no apparent reason?
In my irrational core, I find that I simply cannot equate abortion with cold-blooded, premeditated murder. It just seems like an untenable comparison. I just would not want my daughter to face a lifetime in jail (or worse, the death penalty) for having had an illegal abortion. I would not want the doctor who performed the abortion to face a lifetime in jail (or the death penalty) for having participated in the event. I may think of their actions as morally abhorrent and wrong, but just cannot imagine translating this to the kind of civil punishment we mete out to what we more commonly think of as murderers.
Have any of you envisioned this potential scenario before? How have you evaluated the comparative morality of criminalizing abortion as murder versus what we normally consider as first-degree, premeditated murder? Is there a difference between the two? If so, how should this difference be dealt with in terms of the punitive aspects of law?
I am honestly torn by this scenario and I would very much appreciate any of your comments or thoughts on this. Thanks.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 25, 2005 2:10:53 PM
Why is it that those who think fighting for desegregation in the courts was a good thing, think that fighting against abortion in the courts is a bad thing? How long would segregation have lasted if it were fought by "changing opinion one person at a time"?
That said, no reason the programs can't be supported as well.
Posted by: c matt at Apr 25, 2005 2:13:29 PM
How have you evaluated the comparative morality of criminalizing abortion as murder versus what we normally consider as first-degree, premeditated murder? Is there a difference between the two? If so, how should this difference be dealt with in terms of the punitive aspects of law?
As the first question alludes to , the law has differentiated between degrees of murder - not that one life is worth more, but that circumstances surrounding the act can mitigate (or increase) the culpability and therefore punishment. Homicide, depending upon the circumstances of its comission, runs the range from criminal negligence to premeditation; from a third degree felony to a capital crime punishable by death. The law has always provided differening punishments based upon community standards set through elected legislators, and then mediated through the judicial/jury system. In short, the leigslature is the best place for these issues to be dealt with (what punishment should be available, what factors should be considered). Providing a lesser sentence then your typical axe murderer is simply a reflection that different circumstances are involved. Abortion still can and should be criminalized - but there should also be different factors evaluated in determining the punishment.
Posted by: c matt at Apr 25, 2005 2:25:18 PM
Laura,
Cardinal McCarrick would be proud of you, but just because most pro-lifers don’t by the demagoguery of the left doesn’t mean we are not concerned about other social issues. Social programs don’t have to be big on rhetoric and waste while yielding little results as the Dems always seem to endorse. They can be more effectively sound, productive and dignified.
A pre-Roe day is still better than today, and I believe we can do one better than pre-Roe. Part of the reasoning of Roe was “we don’t know if it is a person or not”. It seems to me with the right court in place and today’s technology, primarily DNA knowledge, we could get womb-babies recognized as the people that they are and have their life protected by the US Constitution (huge long shot, but realistic in its approach).
Jay,
I am somewhat antagonistic towards the plan. Not that parental notification, etc. aren’t desirable things in the interim (anything to limit abortions is a plus), but this plan strikes me as more of a distraction from the real issue, and a political ploy by a losing party who wants to have things both ways. Like I pointed out earlier, when someone views abortion as being an issue about a woman’s right or her “empowerment”, etc, they aren’t accepting what abortion really is and will always be acceptable to falling on the wrong side.
Posted by: Rick Lugari at Apr 25, 2005 2:25:51 PM
Jimmy,
I'll briefly point out that I believe prior to Roe, that abortion was treated as manslaughter. You may want to run a couple of google searches to find out more, including what type of prison terms were imposed.
Posted by: William Bloomfield at Apr 25, 2005 2:26:19 PM
Jimmy,
Would you have the same concerns if your daughter told you she murdered an adult in cold blood? Of course you wouldn't want your daughter to go to jail, even in that scenario. But murder is murder, and justice must be rendered, even if we quickly forgive her upon her repentence.
In your question, your grandchild is dead, murdered by his mother. I support criminalization for several reasons: as a deterrant, and as justice for the innocent victim. There really is no alternative, because if there is no deterrant or justice, then all we're really saying is that abortion isn't wrong at all, when of course it is. And while each crime has a different penalty, the law in many cases imposes great penalties on people who aren't primary actors because of the seriousness of the offence. One example of that is the felony murder rule: an accomplise driving an escape vehicle is liable for murder if his co-conspirator shoots someone in the commission of a felony. Even if the driver didn't fire the gun, he is liable because of the felony murder rule which says that everyone in a conspiracy is liable for murder. The public policy reason for that is to effectively punish criminals for the most offensive crimes.
In abortion, the mother isn't the primary agent doing the killing (that's the abortionist), but she is equally liable for the murder because it couldn't happen without her approval. I don't know how many years she should get, but I am definitely in favor of jail time.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 2:29:46 PM
Pro-abortion folks always cite the story about their own daughter being pregnant. I am not sure what criminal punishment the woman should have, but surely a doctor that conducts an unlawful act should be duly punished. Perhaps the woman's sentence would be less than what the doctor would do, ie, a drug addict is not punished for the same crime as a drug dealer. Besides, what if the daughter was involved in some other serious crime?
The only thing that might be of interest is studying why women choose abortions, as some one else commented. I used to be pro-abortion, but by the grace of God, have seen the light. I opposed the GOP only for that reason in my youth--when I bought into feminist crap. I am not convinced that the existence of various poverty programs for over a generation or two has done any good in reducing any social problems including abortions. The real point is to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies--which presumably constitute the most abortions, by the general theories about why abortions occur. I heard, however, that the idiot GOP-led Congress has recently eliminated funding for abstinence programs. Sigh!
I'd sure like to see data for 1973-2005 (ideally) on the total pregnancies reported, the number of live births, miscarriages and abortions (ie, the disposition of all pregnancies), and marital status [and ideally household income] of each. I'd like to see what the real social problems are that we really want to "solve" before going full force in the wrong direction. An economist can dream. [Speaking of economists, are folks familiar w/Steve Levitt's study linking statistically abortion and lower crime rates? Do you think the pro-aborts are going to use this as a defense?]
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 2:30:13 PM
jimmy huck,
I think the most likely scenario would be that the practitioners of illegal abortions would be sought out and not the women receiving the abortions.
And - not that I think this is right - it is unlikely the practioner would receive a very serious sentence. I work in the press and have seen how it is VERY common for people to murder their infants and get very light sentences. I remember a notorious case where a woman threw her baby into a farm pond and got *no* active time. Life really is cheap today, especially if you are a child.
Posted by: WRY at Apr 25, 2005 2:30:40 PM
In related historical news, recently discovered documents from the Democratic Convention of 1856 revealed platform proposals to offer tax credits for manumission and fund public relations campaigns to support it more widely. In the course of the floor fight over whether to provide assistance to white Southerners who could not afford a slave, these proposals fell by the wayside.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Apr 25, 2005 2:35:17 PM
WRY,
It is precisely because many consider life to be cheap, that we should have strict penalties for those who kill the most innocent among us. Murdering children is not something we should take lightly. Plus, if a law criminalizing abortion is to have any force I think it must go after the mothers to some degree.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 2:38:25 PM
I'm impressed by Carrie's experience. Like Sydney's friend, I had an abortion (at 16), right after Roe... then carried a baby to to term at Yale (3 yrs later) and gave her up for adoption. Took me that long to wise up. Let's get real. After 30+ years, everyone (and I mean everyone) knows and loves someone who has had an abortion. Condemning abortion does not mean saying these people should all go to jail. To me, the obvious solution is to ban abortions because too many people are swayed by thinking that what is legal is moral (false and illogical, but in my experience too common). For more thoughts on causation, take a look at a book called "Real Choices" by Frederica Matthewes-Green (sp.?). It isn't a quantitative study, but it covers all the ground. I think the Democrat measures aren't going to change much, but why not adopt them and move beyond? If abortion is not the knee-jerk answer from the first person the woman turns to, then we will have effected a sea change in the culture. In the meantime, information is the key... information about babies, and information about support. It would also help if the government would defund Planned Parenthood. Nothing out there that says we have to give them millions of Federal and state tax dollars, is there? Pulling their financial plug would help a lot!
Posted by: scotch meg at Apr 25, 2005 2:45:17 PM
I'm impressed by Carrie's experience. Like Sydney's friend, I had an abortion (at 16), right after Roe... then carried a baby to to term at Yale (3 yrs later) and gave her up for adoption. Took me that long to wise up. Let's get real. After 30+ years, everyone (and I mean everyone) knows and loves someone who has had an abortion. Condemning abortion does not mean saying these people should all go to jail. To me, the obvious solution is to ban abortions because too many people are swayed by thinking that what is legal is moral (false and illogical, but in my experience too common). For more thoughts on causation, take a look at a book called "Real Choices" by Frederica Matthewes-Green (sp.?). It isn't a quantitative study, but it covers all the ground. I think the Democrat measures aren't going to change much, but why not adopt them and move beyond? If abortion is not the knee-jerk answer from the first person the woman turns to, then we will have effected a sea change in the culture. In the meantime, information is the key... information about babies, and information about support. It would also help if the government would defund Planned Parenthood. Nothing out there that says we have to give them millions of Federal and state tax dollars, is there? Pulling their financial plug would help a lot!
Posted by: scotch meg at Apr 25, 2005 2:48:20 PM
Thanks for the stats. However, putting aside the issue of whether an act of murder should be enshrined as a basic right, the Guttmacher Institute is hardly known for its objectivity in this area. Regardless, it is interesting to note that "abortion rate" as they determine it is based upon "per 1,000 women 16-44". Thus, if a country where abortion is legal has 1000 women, but only ten get pregnant, and all ten abort, the abortion rate would be reported as 1%, when in fact, 100% of the pregnancies resulted in abortion.
Another country, where abortion is illegal, and has 1,000 women, all get pregnant and 20 abort, would have a reported abortion rate of 2%, thus appearing to have "twice the abortion rate" of the other country, when in fact its rate is 96 percentage points lower. It seems the more acurate way to measure would be the number of abortions per pregnancy, not women.
Posted by: c matt at Apr 25, 2005 2:50:38 PM
Ditto to what SVS and others said above: how can it not be good to see signs of a bidding war between Democrats and Republicans for pro-life votes? If it continues, sooner or later somebody has to deliver to keep getting our votes. Doesn't really matter to me whether or how much or on which side cynicism is involved. It's politics, not theology.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Apr 25, 2005 2:52:44 PM
c matt,
I agree w/you. As I said above, I want to see abortions over pregnancies. This page I link below has other interesting data besides the bad Guttmacher methods. [The site sponsors seem to want to provide alternatives to abortion.] The number for 1995, of 311 abortions per 1000 live births, could be extrapolated to meaning (excluding miscarriages and death at birth) that 24% of all pregnancies (otherwise healthy) end up in abortions. [24%=311/(311+1000)] Yes, it may be a bit high b/c miscarriages are excluded. And as I said, most abortions are by unmarried women, white even. Hmmm...
http://www.abortionfacts.com/
statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp [copy and paste to your browser]
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 3:22:03 PM
"Would you have the same concerns if your daughter told you she murdered an adult in cold blood? Of course you wouldn't want your daughter to go to jail, even in that scenario."
Sydney - this is a very fair question, and one that I should have addressed in my original post. This may sound strange, but if my daughter were to murder an adult in cold blood, I would feel no remorse at all in turning her in to the authorities and would be able to accept a life imprisonment sentence (never capital punishment) as just -- but I just can't swallow abortion as an equivalent situation meriting the same punishment. I just can't.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 25, 2005 3:25:45 PM
"Assumption: 10 years from now, Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is illegal and the punishment for participating in an abortion is that equivalent to a premeditated, first-degree murder. My then 17-year-old daughter comes to me and confesses that she got pregnant, got scared, and got an illegal abortion. Do I turn her in to the authorities? More importantly, do I morally equate her with that person who walks up to someone on the street and puts a bullet in his victim's brain for no apparent reason?"
Every parent's nightmare, a child who has committed a terrible act. Legally of course concealment of a crime may make an individual an accessory after the fact, so looked at strictly as a legal question the child should be turned in. I pity any parent who could view such a matter involving their child as strictly a legal question. Some parents have the moral fibre to have a child punished no matter the anguish it causes the parent and child; others simply can't bring themselves to do it. This of course is why relatives and friends of the accused do not sit on a jury.
As to the hired hit man with an MD after his name, I can think of no earthly reason, other than likely implication of the child, why he should not pay the full penalty for his crime. I have less sympathy for him than I do some ill-ecucated street punk who murders someone in a holdup.
As to treating the child in the womb with the same care we extend to those outside the womb, we had better begin to do so. Already the same callous disregard we show for the unborn child is beginning to bleed over into infanticide of handicapped infants, light sentences handed down to parents who murder newborns, and those who are just plain inconvient to someone, like Terri Schiavo. Once we decide that some humans are expendable, that category tends to increase over time. If you don't believe me just ask Professor Singer at Princeton. There are numerous categories of humanity he has absolutely no problem putting to death. May Christ have mercy on us all.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 25, 2005 3:29:45 PM
"Pro-abortion folks always cite the story about their own daughter being pregnant."
Excuse me, Peggy, but I am NOT pro-abortion. I am against abortion in all circumstances, but I struggle with how to translates this moral position into a legal/criminal one.
I am also against the killing that comes from war, but I don't want the soldier who cluster bombs a neighborhood, knowing full well that innocent civilians as well as militants will likely be killed in the process, to be punished like a common murderer. It is a moral position on killing that merits a different kind of legal/criminal codification.
I don't think I am alone in this struggle of translating a moral position into a legal/criminal position.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 25, 2005 3:35:54 PM
Of course I'm all for reducing the number of abortions, and I would love to see any really pro-life initiative from any Democrats, but I don't see how Catholics can support this plan as it is now, because it would force insurance companies to cover contraception.
Posted by: Thomas Hurley at Apr 25, 2005 3:57:07 PM
Jimmy,
I did not think you pro-abortion, and I was wrong to say what I said without such qualifications. I apologize. It does happen to be true, however, that your argument is a common one made by pro-abortionists. Indeed, I don't know what the legal penalty should be for the woman who obtains an abortion, but surely the doctor should go to prison for committing murder, or manslaughter as suggested by another comment perhaps.
I have examined the stats I found at Heritage House on my blog. If the data are to be believed, most abortions are by single, white women 25 years and older. Are these really women who would benefit from social welfare programs? I'd like to know their income and education levels, too. I really think that poor women don't have much to lose by becoming unwed mothers, whereas college-educated/professional working women do, hence their greater incentive to have an abortion.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 3:58:10 PM
Jail time for women who abort is something that is usually hand waived away by pro-lifers with the line-"rarely happened pre-Roe, won't happen post-Roe."
But its good to see honest discussion on the eagerness of retributive justice of some individuals who support the pro-life movement. Would this mean that Project Rachel should work to acquaint itself with prison ministry? Should they turn over names to the authorities?
The strongest act of compassion produced from the pro-life side is Projest Rachel. Would they need to go underground? Or just dissolve, as to avoid being "accessories after the fact?"
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway at Apr 25, 2005 4:00:48 PM
Women in poverty count disproportionately among women who have abortions. That the numbers of white women are greater fails to reflect the economic status of the women.
White women are the mjority of the country. On the whole about 12% of the nation is black. So when the number of black women who have abortions are disproportionate by three time the number expected should this respect demographics strictly.
White women are the most likely person to have an abortion, but a black woman is more likely to have an abortion.
Quoting stats means you have to be honest with them.
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway at Apr 25, 2005 4:09:11 PM
Daniel,
Jail, like other criminal penalties, is usually thought of as a deterrant. Merely because something is illegal doesn't mean that people will obey the law. If there were no penalties for crime, then certain illegal activities would flourish.
Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a role for mitigating circumstances for women involved in the crime of abortion. But if we're going to get serious about this, then it makes no sense to declare something illegal without imposing a penalty. It's better that the hypothical scenario about these laws be considered now, so that if in the future Roe is overturned, a proper state-level response can be formulated. Certainly we wouldn't want Roe overturned merely to find that states enact laws enshrining abortion as protected in its own right. Instead, we should work to find ways, post-Roe, to make sure abortion is not merely de-federalized, but also made illegal. And that means considering deterrance.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 4:10:05 PM
The laws before Roe did not punish women for having abortions at all; they only punished abortionists. The assumption was that the women were victims, desperate because of social pressures against unmarried pregnancy. It never occurred to me when marching in support of a human life amendment, that anyone was considering penalizing the women. A woman who has an abortion has usually already been mistreated by a man who got her pregnant and didn't support her emotionally or otherwise to have their baby. She is often miserable about what she did even if she doesn't admit it to others and pretends she is just as casual as can be about it. Many of them mourn for years. We do not need a law which makes this a crime for the women. Just go after the abortionists, who make money on killing unborn babies. Where did this idea ever come from of punishing the women? Are you planning to put the fathers of the babies in jail also? If you aren't, how dare you consider punishing the women? More often than not the men are the reason why the woman chose abortion. I know, we don't just punish hit men, we punish people that hire them. But just because every kind of killing of a human being is wrong (with possible exception of in a just war and -maybe-legal executions in some rare cases) it doesn't mean that every kind of killing of a human being is equally evil, equally malicious, or deserving of equal punishment. There are a great variety of punishments for killing in different sorts of circumstances. Diminished responsibility, duress, mitigating circumstances, premeditation, ability to understand the consequences of one's actions are all taken into consideration. So are the amount of suffering inflicted on the victim and the victim's family. I believe previous laws assumed that a pregnant woman was the victim herself of an irresponsible man, was suffering a great deal of emotional stress and duress and had greatly diminished responsibility for the action of seeking an abortion. Why can't we go back to the pre Roe V Wade type of laws on the subject? MD's who did this would lose their licenses and spend a few years in jail for their first offense. Any further offenses would get long sentences to make sure they never did it again.
As for these proposals, I am suspicious that these people are trying to get their "make all insurers pay for contraception" (even in the plans of Catholic institutions) plan through hidden in this array of other good proposals that it is hard to oppose. I think we all know that increased availability of contraception does not reduce abortions. It only makes people think they can expect to have sex but not have to be responsible for children. It certainly makes men think that! Some young women who are in love with a man have a very natural desire to have his baby once they start to have sex with him. This desire occurs whether they are in any kind of position to take care of a baby or are emotionally mature enough to do so in our society. I think this is one reason why there are so many pregnancies even when contraception is so very available. Women sometimes unconsciously subvert contraception out of this very natural desire. And then of course there is just carelessness and accidents. We have to oppose the part of the proposal that pushes contraception.
I think day care centers in colleges are a good idea. A lot of women feel that they will be utter failures if they don't finish college, be trapped, have no future, be lower class. A way to continue school while having their babies would really helpful, and I think would encourage some women to decide to have their babies. But they have to be good day care centers, especially for infants, and those are not cheap to fund.
Tax credits for adoption is a great idea no matter where the babies come from, and even if it doesn't reduce the abortion rate. It helps some babies get a good home, and considering all the other things tax credits are given for, this one is a winner. Maybe there should be greater credits for adopting a baby or older child with any sort of disability.
Domestic violence programs? Just prosecute the men who hit women...and make sure that hitting your wife is called assault, rather than harrassement. In most places, even now, if you hit someone on the street it is assault, even if you don't injure them, but you have to cause your wife a significant injury before you are charged with assault rather than "harassment."
Batterers classes are often run by people who preach the most extreme academic feminism to working class men who just have to shut up and listen; it is punishment but it is no kind of education as it has no relevancy to the lives of the abusers. I approve of some kind of assistance to women who have been abused to have a safe refuge and some kind of help to financial independence. I think this is only very marginally related to the abortion issue.
National toll free number..nah...it would wind up being an abortion referral service while the law stays what it is now.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Apr 25, 2005 4:20:46 PM
Susan: "Where did this idea ever come from of punishing the women?"
When I read articles in the NYT from women who decide that triples is too much because they'd have to shop at CostCo, and hence decide to abort 2 of the babies in favor of having only one child, I have to think that such activity, the mental state of intent, and the desired outcome, are the same thing as premeditated murder. And that it should be punished accordingly. Not every woman is a victim.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Apr 25, 2005 4:25:45 PM
Sydney Carton can thank his lucky stars he doesn't live in my city, or he'd be getting an earful from our local group. Despite Daniel's silly gloating that this proves something, this doesn't. There isn't one mainstream pro-life leader who holds the view women should be put in jail for having abortions.
As someone has already pointed out, the unborn's life is worth as much as an adult's. What makes abortion different from first degree murder for most women is the degree of culpability, not the lesser worth of the unborn child's life. It is not a lie that most women are victims of abortion. Yes, they have a guilt, which they have to deal with, but it is rarely the same guilt as pre-meditated homicide. Guilt is mitigated by fear, confusion, pressure, ignorance etc. Very few women walk into an abortion clinic without some of these factors in play.
It's also the truth that women were never prosecuted for abortion prior to Roe vs. Wade.
Beside the elements of justice and compassion, there's a very good practical reason why women shouldn't be prosecuted for abortion. If only doctors are prosecuted, the woman who's had an abortion is not afraid to notify authorities about the abortionists' activities.
As for women who have abortions for reasons like the infamous "I Don't Want to Have To Shop at Costco" lady, those are the sorts of people who will continue to have abortions no matter what the law is from quite capable doctors, and have them outside the reach of the law. The rich live by different standards than the rest of us. There is really no point to legislate something for these rare cases that's going to scare women from coming forward to testify against some crook looking to make a fast buck off women's sufferings.
Posted by: Eileen R at Apr 25, 2005 5:25:58 PM
Silly gloating?
Actually, a warning.
A growing chorus I've noticed.
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway at Apr 25, 2005 5:55:13 PM
Thanks to God that someone is trying to do something to actually reduce the number of abortions.
The "pro-life" Bush administration cares not one whit about abortion or women. Proof of this has come in the last week or so, during which time we have the re-legalization of silcone breast implants and the contraceptive sponge. It shows their true feelings. Women are objects whose health can be imperiled if it serves the profit of large corporations and the lust of men. Their only concern about pro-life is as a political issue to get votes.
peace
Posted by: catholic at Apr 25, 2005 6:24:17 PM
David, since it's the Democrats who are pushing for this, and the bulk of Americans want something like this. Oppose it to hard, and PP/NAF/NARAL, etc., will be committing PR suicide.
Posted by: Christina at Apr 25, 2005 7:02:13 PM
Jack, if it bombs, then they'll have to try new things.
Posted by: Christina at Apr 25, 2005 7:04:08 PM
Peggy, Dems for Life are sincere in their goal of reducing abortions to the bare minimum (those women who are so infatuated with abortion that they'd pursue abortions anyway, even if it were illegal). And I think they're basing their strategy on the research Frederica Matthewes-Green did in "Real Choices." We shall see.
Posted by: Christina at Apr 25, 2005 7:06:27 PM
I don't know much about Project Rachel, but I don't see a moral difference between it and the protection of the confidences told to a priest during confession/penance/reconciliation. There may be a legal difference--I believe that there is a legal priest/confessor privilege that would not apply to lay counselor. But there may be a form of doctor/patient privilege for therapists and counselors.
But in general--logically, if abortion is murder, the woman should suffer the same legal penalties as someone who commits murder while under "Extreme Emotional Distress". This reduces the charge to manslaughter in many states. But even that seems cruel to me.
Perhaps it's because that there's a possibility of genuine, good faith, objectively reasonable mistake of fact? But the Church unambiguously teaches that there isn't such a possibility.
It's a question we should come to terms with. People are more likely to outlaw abortion if we show them it can be done in a way that is not cruel to women in painful situations. At the same time, they are more likely to take our convictions seriously if we adhere to them consistently.
Posted by: maura at Apr 25, 2005 7:11:46 PM
Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing. What will result in this proposal is cover for democarts to continue to support abortion on demand. Hilary already is saying that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.
Lets say we had a proposal to stop child abuse and one party was saying lets lock them up to insure no more children are injured and the other party said no, lets form a commission and study the issue, set a goal to reduce the number by 70-90% in ten years, fund therapy support for the child abuser and insure they are not treated with ill will in prisons, etc. Who would by that? What you see is the supposed pro life wing of the democratic party still not saying that abortion is murder of life. Until we name the crime, does anyone believe that the democratic party in general will actually try to end abortion in anywhere near these "goals". I predict that if the American people buy this foolishness, that we will look back and find abortion levels about the same and find a bunch of government money going to the aboriton industry and religious organizations handicapped with tighter restrictions on protest and forced to furnish things they do not believe in as part of their insurance plans under tax and employer expense. WAKE UP AMERICA.
Posted by: jh at Apr 25, 2005 7:58:01 PM
"There isn't one mainstream pro-life leader who holds the view women should be put in jail for having abortions."
Yeah. And see how effective those "mainstream pro-life leader[s]" have been?
Abortion will not be stopped in this country until pro-lifers stop tolerating it. If it is murder, then we should treat it that way.
Punishment (jail time) for doctors, mothers and the boy-friends who pressure women into murdering their children.
Posted by: fbc at Apr 25, 2005 9:10:37 PM
Christina, I do not doubt the sincerity of pro-life Dems. I doubt the effectiveness of social government programs to change--almost any--undesirable behavior. The success rates of such endeavors have been quite low. Changing behavior is a societal, not governmental, problem.
Daniel, I would like to see info on income & education levels of women who've had abortions to know more. I am convinced intuitively that I am right, however. I doubt that most women, mostly white, over 25 would be eligible for social welfare programs if they were to become pregnant. We also know that fatherless children is a huge problem in black neighborhoods. The pro-life Dems posit a statistical relationship between abortions and economic condition of the pregnant woman. I agree there may be one. I say that relationship is positive (both go up together), while the pro-life Dems say it's negative (income goes down, abortions go up). I noticed black share of abortion going up, so is black prosperity. [I'm willing to posit that minority abortion rates are lower b/c of the existence of social programs. But will more programs eliminate more abortions? I don't think so b/c we need to look at higher income levels and different races and age groups than the stereo-typed lower-income teen (of any race, really) pregnancy situation.
My point is they're socialists and statists, even if pro-life. Moreover, their ideas are quite wrong. Those facts disqualify them to me.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 9:33:24 PM
"I doubt the effectiveness of social government programs to change--almost any--undesirable behavior. The success rates of such endeavors have been quite low. Changing behavior is a societal, not governmental, problem."
Peggy, I've always thought that the purpose of social government programs was not to usurp society's role in encouraging behavioral change, but simply to ensure a measure of economic and social justice. The Papal Encyclicals on Social Justice, as well as the US Catholic Bishops' Pastoral on Economic Justice for All, have always assigned an obligation to the state to fill in where societal institutions fail and thus to ensure the rights of the ignored and marginalized poor to a dignified human life. You may call this "socialist" and "statist," but I prefer to think of it as Catholic Christian.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 25, 2005 9:47:06 PM
Frankly, I do doubt the sincerity of soi-disant pro-life Democrats. When pressed, the great majority of them make exceptions (in my experience) and they are adhering to a party whose platform, for over thirty years, has flatly stated that abortion is a constitutional right just like free speech, free exercise, bearing arms and not having soldiers quartered except in time of war.
The Republicans have not done as much as I would like. They are not, however, committed as a matter of principle to doing nothing.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Apr 25, 2005 9:58:17 PM
In a healthy democratic society, "the state" and "the community" should not be thought of as entirely separate. I am sure they were not thought of as separate in Ancient Athens, where the community of free men WAS the government to a large extent.
There are times when it is best for individuals to make decisions for themselves, times when it is best to make them as a family, times when it is best to make them as part of a larger community, and times when they should make these decisions together as a country (or city, or state) through their democratically elected representatives, and we should all bind ourselves to them as a matter of law.
There is an obvious need for laws that say "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not bear false witness", "thou shalt not rape". But I see nothing wrong with also making laws that say, "we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers", provided we do not take it too far. Ideally we would not need to be legally compelled to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick--but in a country as large and diverse and complicated as this one, it is much too easy not to see people in need at all, to see them as something less than our brothers and sisters, to forget our obligations to them.
I think the idea that this bill would reduce the number of abortions by 90% is just wildly overoptimistic, but I think it would help, and I think to publicly declare that goal is worth something even if this bill will not attain it. Because that raises the question: what would?
I also think it would help new mothers who would not have had an abortion in any case--and that is a worthy thing in itself.
And as I'm constantly telling people--I prefer that politicians choose based on what is right and not what will get them re-elected, but if someone can do well by doing good--I call that "democracy working the way it's supposed to work".
Posted by: maura at Apr 25, 2005 10:10:23 PM
Jimmy,
Maybe the New Deal was intended as primarily a social justice program, but ever since and through today, augmentations, ie, additional benefits and expanding the eligibility requirements are done with the intent to change behavior. Johnson had "Great SOciety" "War on Poverty" etc to change behavior. The tax code is replete with behavior-encouraging/discouraging provisions--ie, child tax credits. [My husband & I enjoyed numerous credits b/c we adopted 2 boys from Russia last year.] These pro-life Dems have been clear that their objective is to change behavior by these programs, not just to help the poor.
Further, the justice of such programs beyond those in real need and their expansion are questionable to me. Raising (to higher income levels) eligibility bars to include more folks creates a tension in which families who remain ineligible b/c of their income level are further penalized b/c they must pay transfer payments to help those with less. The families (just) above the eligibility level are directly harmed, and their ability to afford their expenses is inhibited by their obligations to pay taxes to fund the lower income levels. It is a conundrum. The least the policy-makers could do is to get at the root of the problem rather than just take money from some families and give it to others, claiming victory and feeling proud of their own good hearts.
***
Gotta crash for the night.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 25, 2005 10:21:56 PM
"The least the policy-makers could do is to get at the root of the problem rather than just take money from some families and give it to others, claiming victory and feeling proud of their own good hearts."
Peggy - Maybe I'm missing something here, but it sounds to me that you are now advocating that policy makers should actually engage in behavioral changing action as opposed to simply keeping people out of poverty by some kind of state-led redistributive charity. Which is it? What is the state's moral obligation to its most vulnerable and helpless of citizens?
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 25, 2005 11:03:10 PM
Skeptics of the fairness or effectiveness of affirmative social programs to reduce abortion nevertheless appear to rather stupidly assume that the social program known as the criminal justice system would be any fairer, more successful, or less expensive in reducing the number of abortions. But the same criticisms and doubts can be leveled against the Demo initiatives can be leveled against a "let's police 'em, prosecute 'em, and throw 'em in jail" program in the present mileu.
The true prolife position is to use any means available to the government to reduce abortions, and using the criminal law may not be the best and is certainly not the only way to do so. To oppose use of means other than the criminal law to save lives is no more "prolife" than to oppose use of the criminal law.
Posted by: Celine at Apr 25, 2005 11:46:06 PM
FBC - It's not a question of what's effective, it's a question of what's right. Women have abortions, very often, because they think it's the only way out - they're badly informed. And a large part of the reason they think there is no way out is because their families/fathers of the baby/friends make damn sure to point out how very *reasonable* is this solution compared to the tediousness, expense, and mess of actually going through with having the baby. Remember that story of a week or two back, the story of the couple who were having a baby that was destined to die at birth, and how the hospital counselors pushed for abortion and recommended that the husband maybe keep his wife away from her pro-life family a little while? A lot of women don't even have the pro-life family to back them up.
Why do so many people do this to pregnant women? I would guess it's because they've been brought up in an an atmosphere of vague distaste towards abortion but never with the admonishment that it's evil - just that it's one of those unpleasant things but still necessary to do sometimes, like a root canal. They honestly cannot understand why a woman would want to insist on having a very inconvenient baby when there's a perfectly well-established, perfectly legal way out which will cause much less bother to her (and them). They see it as their RIGHT not to be inconvenienced if there's a legal way to avoid it. You have to have a very strong character to hold out against this sort of pressure.
So if you want to throw the women in jail, to be consistent you should be ready to throw in their parents who never taught them very well, the friends who in the name of "openmindedness" and lack of knowledge could only say "If it's right for you, you should do it," the asshole boyfriends who think they have a right to have sex without running any inconvenient risk of reproduction - hell, everyone who even KNOWS about the decision. Prosecuting the doctor I'd be fine with, since he's the one making money off of this, and also the one most likely to know what it is he's really doing.
But nobody else. You did mention prosecuting boyfriends - well, good luck finding them, and proving furthermore that they were in fact responsible for the pregnancy. And even if you prove that, how do you prove that their psychological pressure was the deciding factor in the abortion? You can't - it'll be he-said, she-said. (I'm not saying it doesn't HAPPEN - the only girl I've known who had an abortion had one because her boyfriend threatened to throw her out of his apartment if she didn't, and she had nowhere else to go. Two days afterwards, he threw her out anyway. Top-notch sleaze. But just try prosecuting). Inevitably it will all come back on the woman's head, since she was the only one involved who provably had something to do both with the pregnancy and with the killing of it. A terrible irony, since often she was the one who was most abused and who wanted the abortion least.
Posted by: Sonetka at Apr 26, 2005 12:57:16 AM
Women's ignorance and panic levels at the time of abortion cannot be underestimated, even now. See Amy's ref to After Abortion on abortion counseling, which, sadly, informs me that my 30 year old experience with abortion "counseling" is still relevant. Small group counseling as I experienced it is designed to provide you with contraceptive services (another profit for the clinic) and that's about it. One reason for prosecuting the doctors as criminals is that they are the ones who know EXACTLY what they are doing and are not emotionally overwrought. As a practical matter, the legal system needs the women (and maybe the staff?) as complaining witnesses. I agree that there are women who DO know what they are doing and do it callously (one woman doctor I know had an abortion because she thought she wouldn't pass her specialty board examinations if she were pregnant); but these are, out of ten years of crisis pregnancy counseling, the exceptions. I'm not trying to get myself off the hook (I have to live there), I'm just thinking about the realities of the situation.
Posted by: scotch meg at Apr 26, 2005 2:21:08 AM
This is directed at the jail-the-abortion-ladies people here: so, you want abortion to continue on its merry way, right? Because if you keep talking like that, you will never make one little dent in the pro-abortion mentality in this country. Not. One.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Apr 26, 2005 6:32:39 AM
Celine,
Applying the reasoning in "To oppose use of means other than the criminal law to save lives is no more 'prolife' than to oppose use of the criminal law" to a crime like bank robbery would leave one's competence in doubt. It implies treating the action as not really, unambiguous wrong.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Apr 26, 2005 7:10:45 AM
Andrea,
The pre-Roe laws did not jail mommy. They jailed Dr. Death.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Apr 26, 2005 7:11:38 AM
Jimmy,
I re-examined my last post. I don't think I advocated that government SHOULD engage in behavioral modification. I said that the government HAS been doing so--like it or not. It's a fact. It's also a fact that the pro-life Dems we're talking about here are explicitly proposing to use government programs/incentives to modify behavior. I think I have been quite clear that I disagree with all of this use of government policies (beyond general economic incentives to boost economic indicators or help for the truly needy, though I don't agree with all such efforts--another topic). Read again, please.
Even further, they're not targeting the real behavioral problem, which I posit (not sure if I've done so yet; but I will here & now) is sexual activity outside of marriage. It's interesting that most abortions are by white women, unmarried women, and women over 25. To me that suggests that the careerism and economic ambition of women (rather than poverty) MAY very well be a major culprit and cause of abortions--at least more recently. Women are delaying marriage, but are sexually active and killing the inconvenient consequences of such activities--children, that is. If politicians are going to pursue behavioral modification through tax or other policies, then for goodness sake at least target the behavioral problem correctly.
More data would be desirable to pin down the theories I am claiming here. I do believe I am right, however.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 26, 2005 8:10:23 AM
Ed the Roman: I know that. I also know that a lot of people here are saying "jail the mommies! jail the mommies!" Well heck, if grandstanding your moral superiority is more important than actually changing hearts and minds (which is all that's going to make a change in abortion laws at this point), then by all means keep on with your bad selves, people.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Apr 26, 2005 8:21:13 AM
I agree with the posters who assume that the post Roe laws will jail the abortionists and leave the mothers alone, as was done in practice pre-Roe. The goal is not to punish mothers, the goal is to save babies.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 26, 2005 8:33:45 AM
Jumping way upthread, I see: Domestic violence? What???
OK, now I completely don't get it. Are you figuring a woman's choice to get an abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with how what the father of the baby is doing? That even though there are tons of women stuck in violent, abusive relationships, none of them would ever, you know, be motivated to get an abortion for that reason. That even though women are beaten while they are pregnant, those beatings have no effect whatsoever on whether they get abortions? Surely domestic violence is one of the reasons women want abortions, one that holds true for at least some women, right?
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax at Apr 26, 2005 10:05:12 AM
"Kristen Day, director of DFLA, said the plan was "a legitimate policy initiative that will actually reduce the number of abortions"
This policy initiative will reduce abortions and change attitudes the way McCain Feingold got special interests under control and cleaned up campaign financing.
Posted by: Dudley at Apr 26, 2005 11:09:46 AM
Andrea,
"Ed the Roman: I know that."
Good!
"I also know that a lot of people here are saying 'jail the mommies! jail the mommies!' Well heck, if grandstanding your moral superiority..."
First, if you 'know that', then what's this 'you' stuff, Kemosabe? Is it too much to ask for a 'they'? Second, how many is 'a lot'? I haven't seen very many, myself, unless you're counting everyone who doesn't specify 'providers only' as wanting to jail mommy.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Apr 26, 2005 11:39:29 AM
My guess is that few victims of domestic violence get abortions for that reason. There would have to be hard evidence to support my guess or the guess of the poster above.
But victims of violence are usually pretty cowed. Very often, their husbands want them to have babies as this makes them more dependent. Sometimes the women get pregnant during the "honeymoon" phase of the abuse cycle. They don't dare challenge the husband by having an abortion even if they wanted one. (a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.) Anyway, after all, the baby will love them and make them feel important, giving them something they are not getting from their husbands. They get to leave the house for prenatal care and have someone pay some attention to them then, and when they are in the hospital giving birth. So they usually do not want to have an abortion, since they expect a positive benefit from having a baby.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Apr 26, 2005 3:58:31 PM
There seems to be somewhat of a consensus here on prosecuting abortion doctors as murderers and punishing them to the full extent, but giving all others involved in the abortion process (the woman, the boyfriend/spouse, the advising friends, etc.) a pass of sorts regarding criminal responsibility.
I would like to put forward another thought for discussion: why would not the doctor, as a human being, be also caught up in mitigating circumstances that may lessen his or her culpability in the abortion? After all, when a distraught woman comes begging and pleading for an abortion because "daddy raped me" or what have you, I can certainly imagine the doctor, even one who considers abortion to be morally wrong, really being conflicted about this situation. When I saw the movie "The Ciderhouse Rules," I could not help but feel sympathetic to the abortion doctor who did what he did not because he liked it or thought it morally correct, but because the alternative to turning distraught women away from his services had even more horrific consequences for which he felt responsible and was unable to live with.
My point is that I can see how Doctors, fallible human beings that they are, much like any other actor in the abortion tragedy, can get caught up in similar emotions or tensions that MAY mitigate culpability.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Apr 26, 2005 10:18:49 PM
