Common Ground on Reducing Abortion?
- Jul 14, 2009 - 7
Each year, more than a million unborn babies are aborted, many of whom are denied birth simply because their mothers feel they have no alternative. This is nothing short of tragic. The need to slash this deplorable figure is real, now as ever.
But a question remains: Can pro-life and pro-choice people find agreement on how to reduce the number of abortions in a way that honors the sanctity of all human life? The answer lies in the Pregnant Women Support Act. The bill addresses the sad reality of widespread abortion by encouraging pregnant women and girls to bring their babies to term. It was crafted with a specific goal in mind: reducing the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years.
The Pregnant Women Support Act would make grants available to adoption centers and establish a toll-free telephone number to direct women to organizations that provide support during pregnancy, including information on adoption centers. It would also make adoption information available to women whose babies are prenatally diagnosed with conditions such as Down syndrome. Additionally, it would increase and make permanent the adoption tax credit. Women and girls who intend to keep their babies would be helped in many similar ways, such as assisting pregnant students with child care through colleges and universities.
What’s more, the bill crosses party and ideological lines. Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) is the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, while Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) is leading the bill in the House, joined by 24 other Democrats and 12 Republicans, including Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), one of the chamber’s most vocal champions for protecting life.
At the same time, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), a supporter of the bill, is also pushing a competing bill that would send more money to groups that support abortion like Planned Parenthood. The Reducing the Need for Abortion Act is no less than an abortion bill in disguise. Another bill innocuously named but equally harmful, the Prevention First Act, would also funnel untold amounts of money to abortion providers as well as require hospitals that receive federal funds to dispense the morning-after pill, which can cause an abortion. Both should be rejected. It is nonsensical to try to reduce the number of abortions by increasing funding for them.
While we continue to press for the day when the law protects all unborn children, the Pregnant Women Support Act offers a common ground solution to reduce the number of abortions today. If you believe that we should provide a pro-life safety net so that pregnant women can have the assistance they need as they commit themselves to give life to their babies, please tell your representative and senators to cosponsor the Pregnant Women Support Act (H.R. 2035/S. 1032) and to oppose the Reducing the Need for Abortion Act and the Prevention First Act.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. Our free, downloadable Impact resource on the sanctity of human life is now available at iLiveValues.com. Additional resources are available for purchase on our online bookstore and erlc.com.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Life, Abortion
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Jul 15th, 2009, at 8:00am, Buck Golden wrote:
Here’s an idea: If those in the anti-abortion movement put one millionth of the effort into promoting pregnancy prevention as they do railing against the right to choose maybe abortion would be such a big problem. But that’s not really the issue is it? It’s a moral/family values issue for the anti-abortion movement. Just look at all of the good Christian hypocrite politicians in the news lately.
When you guys get serious, get back to me.
2 On Jul 15th, 2009, at 10:54am, Matt wrote:
RE: Buck
Ah, the ole “hypocrite-by-association” charge. So the logic goes:
IF “Person A” engages in hypocritical behavior than all other Persons “associated” with that person (by politics, by religion, etc.) must therefore also be hypocrites.
A parallel example would be if a vegetarian (we’ll call him “Person A”) faltered in his diet and ate meat. According to Buck’s logic, all other vegetarians would therefore also be hypocrites.
The deceit of a politician does not make hypocrites of his voters if those voters were also deceived. Now, if the same identical voters vote for him again, you may have a case.
Pro-lifers need not “get back” to challenges which are not reasoned.
3 On Jul 15th, 2009, at 1:39pm, Buck Golden wrote:
Matt,
Sorry I offended you. I understand your point but you still had nothing to say about preventing pregnancy which is the best way to prevent abortion.
My point about the hypocritical faith and family political leadership is, as they have so beautifully illustrated, that while we can’t prevent sin, we can prevent pregnancy. And we can do that through abstinence-based comprehensive sexuality education and through the availability of contraception for anyone old enough to have sex.
You have said nothing about that and neither does your movement.
Be for something instead of simply being against abortion.
And FYI: Not all family planning is Planned Parenthood. It’s a brand name and not the leader in a lot of states.
4 On Jul 15th, 2009, at 3:11pm, Matt wrote:
Buck,
I said nothing about it because you yourself said it wasn’t the issue.
“But that’s not really the issue is it? It’s a moral/family values issue…” - Buck, post # 1
... so I addressed what you declared was the issue. I’m not sure how I can be faulted for that, but moving on…
Now, if you truly seek thoughtful discussion on this, Steve Waldman has a post today on this debate within the pro-life community. “Our” thoughts on the subject may not get much play in the media, but it’s not true “we” haven’t had anything to say about it.
Also, while I wouldn’t have described myself as “offended” by your comments, (merely identifying flawed logic) I only suggest sticking with your primary concern in the future and mute the accusations of hypocrisy. That is, if you truly seek a “common ground” discussion.
P.S. On Planned Parenthood: In most (perhaps not “all” but “most”) cases “family planning” is a euphemism for abortion-on-demand. To believe otherwise is naive.
5 On Jul 15th, 2009, at 4:57pm, Buck Golden wrote:
I’m all for “common ground”. I read the Waldman position paper. Some of it makes sense to me and some of it doesn’t. I’ve already said I support abstinence-based, age appropriate, comprehensive sexuality education. To restrict giving information to youth younger than “older minor” is reckless. The genie is out of the bottle and I don’t think we can get it back in. Like it or not, sex has caught on with our society. I’ve seen too many pregnant 13 year olds.
Call me naive if you want but there is a difference between family planning and abortion on demand. If you want to join in on “common ground” how about giving me that one?
6 On Jul 23rd, 2009, at 11:38pm, Kenton Hunt wrote:
Hey Buck,
I oppose the relaxing of sexual standards and the pro-abortion/pro-choice stance on purely moral/ethical grounds. I believe that a “fetus” is a human being created in the image of God. To suggest that abortion would not be a problem if Christians rallied behind contraceptive education is turning a blind eye to what has happened in the last four decades. If contraceptives were the solution to abortion, then we should have seen dramatic reductions in both unwanted pregnancies and abortions since 1969. The opposite has happened. The availability of abortion and the promotion of contraceptives has only contributed to the moral/ethical disasters we are facing today. I’d be very interested see your thoughtful response . . . or you can just call me a hypocrite.
7 On Jul 24th, 2009, at 12:28pm, Buck Golden wrote:
I don’t think I said that abortion would not be a problem if Christians rallied behind contraception. I said that if the anti-abortion movement wanted to reduce the number of abortions its leaders would focus on pregnancy prevention. Why not arm kids with facts and decision-making skills. Parents have proven themselves to be pretty lacking as teachers of morals or sex education. I believe that the correct and consistent use of contraceptives can play a major role in reducing unintended pregnancy. I also said that abstinence-based comprehensive education is important. Burying one’s hand in the sand and wishing our society was something different is a luxury we can’t afford. While working to change that world by how you live is a positive thing, making decisions for other people isn’t. By the way, I didn’t catch your idea of common ground? Is it no sex? No abortion? My way or the highway?