We are pro-life evangelical Christians with long records of ministry
and scholarship in which we have stood up for the unborn and for a society in
which every child is welcomed into life and provided the opportunity to
flourish. But we also recognize the legal and cultural realities in our
nation right now in relation to abortion law.

We believe it is appropriate for us as Christians to support practical
strategies that can reduce the demand for abortion even as we continue to
hope and work for broader legal and cultural changes. And we feel compelled
by our faith in Christ to look for the best in other people, to seek common
ground where we can, and to be open to the surprising winds of God’s Spirit
that sometimes blow us into common effort with surprising partners.

Policies that support pregnant women and families, encourage adoption, and
decrease unintended pregnancy embody compassionate pro-life values, and if
enacted will ensure that fewer abortions occur and more children grow up in
loving, healthy homes. A bill recently introduced in Congress, the Preventing
Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting
Parents Act (H.R. 3312, referred to as the Ryan-DeLauro Bill) advances
this common-ground vision. Not surprisingly, it has gained support from
numerous pro-life leaders, including the three of us.

We believe that this national effort to find common ground on
abortion-reduction strategies fits with our commitments and hopes. We don’t
expect everyone to agree with us on these strategies. But we do think it is
legitimate to expect at least our fellow Christians to portray such efforts
accurately. That is not too much to ask.

However, some commentators have made inaccurate claims about the
Ryan-DeLauro bill, and it is essential to clarify the facts. A recent
article from Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Convention’s in-house
news agency, included several statements about the bill that do not reflect
its content. Similar inaccuracies have been repeated in other conservative
religious publications.

The Baptist Press article, among other things, cited claims by unnamed “major
pro-life leaders” that the Ryan-DeLauro bill will expand federal funding for
abortion.

This is false. As pro-life advocates know, the Hyde Amendment, which has
been federal law for over 30 years, prohibits federal funding of abortion,
except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is
in danger. The Ryan-DeLauro bill does not repeal, revise or bypass the Hyde
Amendment. In fact, the bill intentionally does not even address the issue of
abortion funding. The bill does expand access to family-planning services for
low-income women, but it does so by increasing funding for programs that in
turn prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion — namely, Title X
and Medicaid. Under Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy,
abortion "may not be claimed as a family-planning service" under
any circumstances and the Department
of Health and Human Services states that, “by law, Title X funds may not
be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

The Baptist Press article also claims that the Ryan-DeLauro bill will broaden access
to Plan B, the “morning-after pill.” As with abortion funding, this bill
intentionally does not include any mandates one way or another with respect
to Plan B.  Under Medicaid, the decision to distribute or cover Plan B
is left to states.  Under Title X, the decision is left to individual
clinics.

The article also alleges that the Ryan-DeLauro bill will result in more,
not fewer, abortions. However, the bill contains a litany of policies that
address key documented factors affecting the incidence of abortion — both
through prevention of unintended pregnancy and support for pregnant women. According
to the Guttmacher Institute, which pro-life and pro-choice leaders alike
cite as a credible source, half of all pregnancies are unintended and four in
ten unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Thus, the many prevention
policies in Ryan-DeLauro — including sex education with an abstinence
emphasis, increasing access to contraception for low-income women and
enlisting parents in communicating with their teens about their values
concerning healthy relationships — are essential to decreasing unintended
pregnancies and abortions in America.

In addition, three-fourths of women who obtain abortions say they cannot
afford a child, and three-fourths say having a baby would interfere with
work, school or the ability to care for dependents. The huge number of
support policies for mothers in the Ryan-DeLauro bill — such as assistance
for pregnant and parenting students, expanded health care for pregnant women
and children and increased child care for low-income families — are also
crucial for reducing abortions throughout our country.

Common-ground efforts to reduce abortion by addressing the circumstances
that lead to it are consistent with the conviction that all life — the
unborn, pregnant women, infants and children — is sacred. Honest dialogue
about this innovative approach is imperative for those of us who aspire to protect
life in concrete ways.

Plainly misrepresenting the content of the Ryan-DeLauro bill, and
asserting in defiance of logic and evidence that it will increase rather than
reduce abortion, does nothing to protect life. In fact, it does the opposite.