My Plan for Common Ground on Abortion
August 26, 2009 - 8:00am (Print)
I am a pro-life member of Congress. I have voted in favor of parental notification laws, for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, against abortion in federally funded military medical facilities, for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, against partial-birth abortion, and against human cloning. I stand by all those votes and, in addition, I have explained to Speaker Pelosi my position that healthcare reform should prohibit public funds from paying for abortions (a provision which the House Energy and Commerce Committee added to the bill).
I believe that for elected leaders like myself who oppose abortion, it's not enough to say what we're against; we must say what we are for. That is why I came together with my pro-choice colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut to introduce the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act, which offers common-ground policy solutions to reduce abortions by addressing the root causes.
The act has two policy tracks: preventing unintended pregnancies and providing support for women who do become pregnant. The bill is backed by a broad coalition of pro-life and pro-choice supporters never before assembled. Together, we seek to reduce the number of abortions in our nation while reducing the rancor and acrimony that can too often lead to tragedy, such as the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller.
I remained convinced, and the data support, that for meaningful reductions in abortion, there must be a contraception component included to prevent unintended pregnancies. Four out of 10 unintended pregnancies end in abortion, and 57 percent of abortions are performed on women who live at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Thus, we can't reduce abortions without preventing unintended pregnancies and providing support for low-income woman. My legislation does both.
I understand the sensitivity and emotional impact this issue has had for many Americans, but I believe that with my fellow colleagues, Secretary Sebelius, and President Obama, we can find a common sense solution to solve this debate. It is obvious that no American is pro-abortion, and I plan on working to create a solution that works for every American.
I appreciate the representative's efforts. But I do have some questions for the author.
Why does the bill need to have so many different provisions? Why not put each of the titles in a separate bill so that each individual bill has fewer provisions that generate opposition?
Why the intense focus on teenage pregnancies? The first five titles all focus on reducing teenage pregnancies- especially pregnancies among minors. Fewer than fifteen percent of abortions are done on teenage girls and fewer than five percent are done on minor girls. As a result, such programs would miss the vast majority of the target audience.
Why would reducing the number of teenage pregnancies be more useful than reducing the number of pregnancies started by men who are not willing or able to become good fathers? The former can be quite healthy if carried out by married, adult teenagers while the latter situation is likely to result in abortion.
Why are you convinced that indiscriminate funding of contraception would reduce the numbers of abortions? From what I can tell, many methods of contraception are so unreliable that they do more to give the users a false sense of protection than they do to reduce the chance of pregnancy.
An interesting essay. But it looks like the Right to Life people see Ryan in a different light than the way he presents himself above. Check it out:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/RyanUpdate.html
On that page, there is a link to an article in which one anti leader suggests that Ryan is just trying to maneuver from one side of the issue to the other in order to position himself for a run for statewide office in Ohio.
...But where is your "common ground" after contraception fails and a woman becomes pregnant and she doesn't want to have the baby because she can't afford it? Are you going to help her get a job and health care and childcare so she can have the baby?
Where is your "common ground" when a desperately wanted pregnancy goes wrong and the baby is doomed to die and the woman's life is in jeopardy?
Respectfully Sir, "Pro-Choice" on abortion IS "common ground". Women who want abortions should be able to get them and women who want to have babies should be able to have them. Foisting your religious and paternal views on pregnant women is not "common ground".
Public support for women continuing their pregnancies is not enough. Women cannot achieve true reproductive justice until they are able to access all reproductive health care and family planning services including abortion.
Use of taxpayer dollars must not discriminate against women who choose abortion - disadvantaged and poor women will disproportionately suffer.
And in order to truly prevent unintended pregnancies, public funding must exist for those in need of family planning and contraception care. I hope this is included in your proposal.
Please direct me to a reliable source that proves that increased access to contraception will lead to a reduction in the number of unintended pregnancies and will reduce the need for abortion. Anyone?
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
"Please direct me to a reliable source that proves that increased access
to contraception will lead to a reduction in the number of unintended
pregnancies and will reduce the need for abortion. Anyone?"
"http://www.religioustolerance.org/pregadol.htm"
I think if anyone carefully analyzes the data available on the Guttmacher site they will conclude that epidemiological statistics are contradictory regarding a causative link between the availability of contraception and the number of unintended pregnancies and/or abortions.
If there was good evidence for such a link in the positive direction, someone would probably have provided it by now and the bill's "findings" section would list that evidence.
There is good evidence indicating that greater use of long-acting forms of contraception results in fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions. For example, a Guttmacher study found that while 40.5 percent of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy used long-acting forms of contraception, only 1.1 percent of women obtaining abortions had relied upon long-acting forms of contraception in the month they became pregnant.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html
Another study found that while twenty-five percent of teenagers in Georgia and North Carolina who chose a contraceptive method other than Norplant experienced an unintended pregnancy, none of the Norplant users became pregnant. Another study found that while seven percent of women and girls 18 years of age and younger who were using oral contraceptives became pregnant, the number who became pregnant while using Norplant and Depo-Provera was too low to precisely estimate (zero to two percent). In addition,a Colorado state demographer determined that the Colorado Medicaid program's approval of the use of Norplant implants was a large factor in a 25 percent drop in overall repeat fertility rates in that state.
I'll check it out.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
I don't challenge the stats but would point out that they apply to an age group, 15-19, for which practically all pregnancies are unwanted. I wouldn't extrapolate the figures to the 20-45 age group. Still looking for a meaningful study to support the basis for the proposed act and will look into any that you suggest.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
It seems to me this study is particularly apt in that stats would be most pure in an age group in which practically all pregnancies are unwanted and would be most convincing when they are comparing the inexperienced to the inexperienced. I have other things to do and don't want to devote time to multiple rounds of whack-a-mole where you ask for further studies and then reject each as not being 'meaningful' to you personally. You might want to try googling around yourself for scientific studies involving multi-country comparisons or of course you could make contact with the bill's sponsors and ask them for the information upon which they based the bill.
John Dunkle
Prophylactic Soda
by Aaron Pidel
Here’s an observation about the law of unintended consequences—a law that prevails wherever deeply human problems are given a purely technical solution. For some years now studies have correlated diet soda with weight gain. Though counter-intuitive, the claim has provoked little opposition.
Diet soda has 5 calories or fewer per serving, of course, but emerging research seems to suggest that drinking sugary-tasting beverages, even artificially sweetened ones, appears to develop a preference in the human body for a whole range of other sweet things. And when we consume sweeter cereals, snacks, breads and desserts, we tend to consume more calories,
The article additionally claims diet soda can give a false sense of security: People who are starting to put on weight think choosing diet soda alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is false logic, because it ignores the true cause of weight gain – overeating and poor eating.
As a rule, when the technical solution of “safe” consumption replaces the human solution of disciplined consumption, the human person nonetheless finds his way to harm. Animal desire usually finds its limit in pain, and always presses its case with urgency until it butts up against a disincentive of the same order. As a thought experiment, let’s apply this rule to an issue of greater moment: AIDS in Africa. The rewritten statements would look something like this:
Prophylactic sex greatly reduces contagion, of course, but emerging research seems to suggest that pursuing sexual pleasure for its own sake, even artificially protected sex, appears to develop a preference in the human body for a whole range of other sexual pleasures/partners. And when we have sex more often with more partners, we tend to be more exposed to contagion, and eventually contract HIV/AIDS.
People who are starting to worry about HIV/AIDS think choosing prophylactic sex alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is false logic, because it ignores the true cause of HIV/AIDS – sexual excess and infidelity.
As it turns out, experts who follow the problem of AIDS in Africa most closely do claim to see this sort of false logic operative in Western prevention strategies. The false security that condoms provide creates a powerful “disinhibition” to the human libido, thus “disproportionately erasing” any public health benefits of condom use. Note that perspective here is only one of public health – though it does confirm some of the age-old insights of Christian moral psychology.
If the Washington Times blog, applying the same logic, had expressed as much skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of condomitic sex as it had about the long-term effectiveness of diet soda, I wager it would have generated at least a comment or two. Just ask Pope Benedict.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who are starting to worry about HIV/AIDS think choosing prophylactic sex alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is false logic, because it ignores the true cause of HIV/AIDS – sexual excess and infidelity.
I think I know what you MEANT to say but this comment is not true. The true cause of HIV/AIDS is being infected with a virus. This can happen by eating monkey meat, by being transfused with infected blood, by being exposed to the virus on a dirty needle (legally or illegally used) or it can happen by having sexual contact with someone else who has the virus.
If two people who do not have the virus indulge in "sexual excess" and "infidelity" they will not get HIV/AIDS at all. Two people who do not indulge in "sexual excess" and who have been faithful since their marriage may both get HIV/AIDS if one of them received a penicillin shot with an unsterilized needle previously used for someone with HIV.
I think what you MEANT to say was that people should avoid risky behaviors that might expose them to the virus, that they should stay virgins until they're married and then be faithful to their partners. It's great advice, advice that the church has been giving people for almost TWO THOUSAND YEARS, except that, of course, people never followed it in the past and aren't going to now because the urge to have sex has no connection whatsoever with 'being logical'. Considering that only 15% of Africans are Catholic, what the Pope has to say is pretty much irrelevant.
Persisting in choosing to behave in a way that puts them at risk of infection, people are far better off to use condoms than they are to persist in the behavior without them.
