Pro-Life Democrats vs. Pro-Life Republicans

There seems to be some confusion on this board about what each group stands for.

This is taken directly from the Democrats for Life of America website
Empower Women

Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program

Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers.
*Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services.

Conduct a National Study & Update Abortion Data

National Institutes of Health will collect accurate data on why women choose abortions. Within five years of enactment, the NIH will present its findings to Congress.
*This will be compiled on a confidential and voluntary basis.

Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education

Provide grants to school districts that are in need of funds to administer effective, age-appropriate pregnancy prevention education.
Federal Funding for Abortion Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses

Provide grants for universities and colleges to support pregnant women; provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child.
*These grants will help universities establish an on-campus office for counseling, referral, and parenting services for pregnant women and daycare services for parents.

Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests.

Pregnant women who choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing should be provided with information on the accuracy of these tests.
There can be false-positive results, indicating a problem when the fetus is actually healthy.
Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent

Repeal the sunset on adoption tax credits and make them permanent.
Ban Pregnancy as a "Pre-Existing Condition" in the Health Care Industry

End the discriminatory practices against pregnant women in the health insurance industry by removing pregnancy from all "pre-existing condition" lists in health care.
Require Adoption Referral Information

Require pregnancy centers and women's health centers that provide pregnancy counseling and that receive federal funding to provide adoption referral information.
Women's Right to Know

Any women's health center or clinic that provides pregnancy counseling or abortion services must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman's health. Patients do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them.
Provide Ultrasound Equipment

Provide grants to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such services. This equipment will be operated by licensed professionals.
Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs

Offer additional federal funding for programs that have received grants by the Department of Justice for providing counseling and shelter for women and children in crisis pregnancies. The leading cause of death against pregnant women is murder.
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.)
Protect our Children

Fully Fund Federal WIC Program

Special Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is funded at about $4.9 billion, which advocates say is $268 million less than what's needed to serve the current 7.86-7.90 million participants.
The administration expects 8.2 million pregnant women, infants, and young children to be served by the program. Thus, this analysis assumes that an eight percent reduction translates into 670,000 fewer people being served (which is eight percent of 8.2 million).
The administration also proposes placing an overall cap on all non-defense, non-Homeland Security discretionary spending for the next five years. By 2010, those discretionary caps could force 660,000 recipients to lose WIC in 2010. Between 2006 and 2010, the WIC cuts could total $657 million.
In addition, it is estimated that every dollar spent on WIC results in between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers (Food Research and Action Center).
Parental Notification

Prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.
Requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws.
Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws

Forty-six states now have some type of safe haven legislation. (The following states do not have safe haven legislation: AK, HI (Vetoed 7/2/03), NE and VT.) Most of the laws designate hospitals, emergency medical services, fire stations and police stations as safe locations. One exception is New York, which stipulates that the baby may be left with a suitable person or may be left in a suitable location so long as an appropriate person is promptly notified.
Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes

Adoption counseling in federally funded maternity group homes and teaching of parenting skills.
Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women
HR 2268--Strickland (D-OH)/HR 4350--Dingell (D-MI)--108th Congress

Mandate SCHIP coverage for pregnant women.
Expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and to newborns through the first full year of life.

Now back to the differences between Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Life Republicans

It's obvious that Pro-Life Republicans pretty much want Roe v. Wade overturned which would give it back to the states, almost guaranteeing that abortion would be illegal in the Confederacy and some parts of the Northwest. What's not obvious is that Pro-Life Democrats do NOT want the same thing.
Namely most Pro-lIfe Dems don't want to make abortion illegal. They just want to have LESS abortions, namely reducing the number of abortions by 95% in 10 years.  The 17 points that the Democrats for Life are pushing for have NOTHING to do with making abortion  illegal.

The problem I have with the pro-choice folk on this board  is that they want the abortion arguement to start and stop with keeping it legal. period. They don't seem to care about making it 'safe,legal and rare' as Clinton put it. There are even some people on here who are quick to point out that abortions have increased over the last 5 years like it's something to be proud of. It's almost as if they don't care about the human side of the issue at all, as long as it stays legal.

The Democratic party is one that has a history of caring, and that is undeniable. From supporting free breakfast for children, to campaigning against vouchers so the maximum number of children  have access to the best education possible, to unions, and finally Social Security, the Democratic Party has been the Natural Party of the People, because we have always inherently stood for the greater good of the Society and it's inhabitants.  

Wouldn't the natural extension of this be for us to devote our energy to making abortions rare, as opposed to focusing all of our energy on keeping it legal?

*The Republicans don't really want to get rid of abortion, becasue half of their 'family value' lawmakers would get an abortion for their daughter in a heartbeat to preserve their image. Most Libertarians are pro-choice, anyway. But the real reason Republicans want to keep it legal is because they don't want to be responsible for the  thousands of botched abortions that will occur in the Southern States because of women not being able to afford to travel out of the COnfederacy to a state where it's legal. *

So for once, let's stop playing thier game. If Democrats put their time and energy into preventing abortions by funding alternatives for Women, we can unify our party, take the moral high ground and steal a LOAD of Republican voters whom this has been a defining issue for at least the last 2 elections.

Think of the irony of the Democrats stealing votes on an issue that the Republicans pushed front and center.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

51 Comments

Hello?
People, I'm looking for some feedback here. Yes, I know it's a book, but I seriously believe that the 17 points of the http://www.democratsforlife.org/ group may be the key to bridging the gap between the Democratic Party and the slew of one-issue Republicans that went the other way last time. At the same time we can unify the Party by perserving the right to keep abortion legal, yet strive to provide alternatives to abortion by pushing to fund the 17 points I discussed earlier.
We do this, then we really are the progressive party because we back up the talk with action and expose the fundamentally hypocritcal position of the Republican Party as the party that goes all out to get babies here, yet does nothing to support them afterwards.
by Bruticus 2005-06-15 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello?
Taking a position similar to the 17 points would put us in a very good position on this issue.

Pro-choice? Vote Democrat.
Pro-life? Vote Democrat.

Putting forth a plan to seriously reduce abortion by giving women better options, as opposed to criminalization, is not only a winning strategy, but the right thing to do.

by wayward 2005-06-16 03:03AM | 0 recs
Feedback
Democrats for Life

Dr. Lois Kerschen

This is the speech presented by Dr. Lois Kerschen, President of Democrats for Life of Texas, on January 25, 1997 to the Greater Austin Right to Life Rally. The rally was held on the steps of the Capitol in Austin after a walk by an estimated 1500 Pro-Life supporters.

So, my rallying cry for this rally is to call upon former Democrats who are pro-life to come back to the party, take your place, and make your opinion known. Democrats who are closet pro-lifers, I call upon you to stop being afraid to speak the truth. On Judgment Day you will not be asked if you are a follower of the Democratic platform, but if you were a follower of the word of God. A little political power is not worth becoming an accomplice to the murder of millions of babies.

Pro-Life Democrats, let's take our party back; let's work towards transforming all Democrats into Democrats for Life!

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 06:38PM | 0 recs
Feedback
Democrats for Life of America Calls for Immediate Action on PBA Bill

"Since this heinous procedure was brought to the attention of the American people, 30 states have enacted laws to ban partial birth abortions," said Kristen Day, Executive Director for DFLA. "The time is now for Congress to pass and the President to sign legislation to end Partial Birth Abortions. There is just no good reason -- medical or otherwise -- to end the life of baby - especially in this gruesome fashion,"
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 06:41PM | 0 recs
Feedback
Abortion and the Left
by Vasu Murti

In an article appearing in The Progressive entitled "Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life," Mary Meehan concluded: "It is out of character for the left to neglect the weak and the helpless. The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves-and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going."

Rosemary Bottcher criticized the left for its failure to take a stand against abortion: "The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother's unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent. The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before. The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

"Apparently, these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion," Bottcher concluded. "Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon 'reproductive freedom' and 'motherhood by choice' they forget that 'pregnant' means 'being with child.' A pregnant woman has already reproduced: she is already a mother."

A national poll by Wirthlin Worldwide on the evening of the 1998 elections found that 38 percent of all Democrats (and 40 percent of Democrat women) oppose abortion. A national poll released by the Center for Gender Equality (a women's think tank headed by former Planned
Parenthood executive director Faye Wattleton), in January 1999, found that a majority of American women do not support legalized abortion on demand. 53 percent of female respondents to the poll said abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, to save a mother's life or not at all, up from 45 percent in 1996.

A Zogby International poll in August 1999 found that the majority of Americans recognize that abortion destroys a new human life (52 percent versus 36 percent), oppose partial-birth abortions (56.4 percent versus 32 percent), are opposed to tax-funded partial-birth abortions (71 percent to 23 percent), and think parents should be notified if their minor child seeks an abortion (78 percent). On secular, human rights grounds, the left should take a stand against abortion.


by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 06:50PM | 0 recs
Other countries are more honest...
Are dealing with the birth dearth by giving workers more rights, and by improving services to families..  Other countries consider 'luxuries' like decent health care and education to be a right...

Instead, we take Nikolai Ceaucescu's path.. we try to make a woman's terminating her pregnancy if she can't afford an addition to her family illegal..

In Romania that resulted in a nightmare for millions of unwanted children..

If they want more marriages, more families, more children.. they need to STOP EXPORTING JOBS AND MAKE HEALTHCARE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL AMERICANS..

Idiots...

by ultraworld 2005-06-16 06:25AM | 0 recs
If you want a dialogue
quit making shit up.

There are even some people on here who are quick to point out that abortions have increased over the last 5 years like it's something to be proud of.

Could you identify the people who have said the increase in abortion is something to be proud of?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 06:52PM | 0 recs
OK....
Gary, I'm not advocating the actions of those people. What I am saying is that the Democratic Party look at the 17 points outlined by the group.
This isn't about Fristians dressed as Democrats.It's about creating a new platform integrating a two fold approach of keeping abortion legal, and fuly funding measures to make it as rare as possible, by providing alternatives to pregnant mothers and increasing access to contraceptives and abstinence education.

What's wrong with that?

by Bruticus 2005-06-15 06:52PM | 0 recs
Feedback
So for once, let's stop playing thier game. If Democrats put their time and energy into preventing abortions by funding alternatives for Women, we can unify our party, take the moral high ground and steal a LOAD of Republican voters whom this has been a defining issue for at least the last 2 elections.

Most of the platform is fantastic and absolutely nobody in the Democratic party would oppose it. When you look behind the curtain there seem to be rather dramatic differences between the 17 points and what Democrats for Life are saying.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Feedback
Why are the ideas fantastic? Democrats have been spending  money on social programs for years and Republicans have negated their impact. A comprehensive program to reduce the number of abortions nationwide gives the party an aggressive stance and a viable metric (actual number of abortions performed nationwide via some set of standardized criteria) to show effectiveness and give us a legitimate stick to hit the Republicans at election time.
We don't alienate the core Dem base who view this as a civil rights/privacy issue and we make serious aggressive moves to reach out to moderate Republicans.
by Bruticus 2005-06-15 07:11PM | 0 recs
Fantastic
Most of the platform is fantastic and absolutely nobody in the Democratic party would oppose it.

Fantastic - Wonderful or superb; remarkable: a fantastic trip to Europe.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Fantastic
I'm sorry, i thought you were being sarcastic:

Fantastic- Based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal: 'fantastic ideas about her own superiority.'

by Bruticus 2005-06-16 10:23AM | 0 recs
Feedback
Democrats for Life press releases

September 9, 2002 -- 8th District Democratic Candidates - No Endorsement from Democrats For Life of America

September 17, 2002 -- No Representation for Pro-Life Voters in Maryland 8th District

Could you explain why these two links are busted at the DFL website? What's the story?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 06:57PM | 0 recs
Hello? Are you reading?
It's not about the group, it's about the ideas. The DFLA maay or may not be closet Repugs. I don't care. But they have a platform that can give the American Democratic Party a new progressive breath in this rather divisive debate.
by Bruticus 2005-06-15 07:02PM | 0 recs
These "ideas"
are the same bankrupt "ideas" the anti-choice movement has been pushing for 20 years in an effort to make it harder and harder for women to have access to medical services.

They are the shortend of the wedge which seem totally reasonable, until you read the fine print.

And what you choose to ignore is the theocrats and those who what take away the privacy rights of all Americans have been totally upfront with regard to their strategy, which on social issues is make abortion illegal (which will probably not effect the abortion rate, just make it just incredibly more dangerous, and kill more women) and then go after birth control.  We have already seen the right making inroads into making it harder for women to get contraceptives.

After that we can expect more of the same, criminalization of adultery and sex between people who are single.  

How anyone can willing cooperate with such an obvious right wing agenda, while alienating our base is just another reason to reject the socalled "moderate" Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.  They simply can't be trusted to protect the rights of the majority of Americans.

by nanorich 2005-06-16 04:52AM | 0 recs
Feedback
What They Face by Mary Meehan

Earlier Senator Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, former two-term governor of his state, had told the group that his pro-life convictions represented "my belief, my feelings, my commitment for a lifetime before I ever decided to seek political office." His pro-life commitment was, he said in his address, "as natural to me as sunlight is in the morning . . ."3

The Democrats for Life are looking for more candidates like Senator Nelson

At this writing, all of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates support abortion down the line. Six of them, speaking at a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America last January, proclaimed their loyalty to the abortion cause. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said the candidates probably would disagree on many issues, "but not this one." Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, declared that "I'm running because I don't like extremism, and I think extremism is taking over this country." (He apparently didn't think he was being extreme when he said of partial-birth abortion: "This is an issue about nothing.") Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts summed up his own position with the following litany: "No overturning Roe v. Wade. No packing of the courts with judges hostile to choice. No denial of choice to poor women . . . No more cutbacks on population-control efforts around the world."7

The Democrats for Life also face a discouraging situation in Congress. They can count on only four or five Democratic votes in the Senate, and around 30 in the House (although they pick up more Democrats on issues such as partial-birth abortion and human cloning).9 Democratic leaders in Congress defend abortion with great vigor--and always, of course, under the banner of women's rights. Now they are working overtime to keep an abortion lock on the third branch of government, the courts.

Ellen McCormack, a pro-life activist and mother of four from New York, ran in the 1976 Democratic presidential primaries "in defense of unborn babies." While abortion was McCormack's main concern, her positions on other issues suggested what is now called the consistent ethic of life. She opposed the death penalty and was critical of war. Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, she charged, "sends military aid to both Israel and Egypt and then says `don't shoot each other'. . . . I really think we can do better than that." Her comment on abortion for the poor was particularly effective: "Abortion is put forth as a solution for the poor, but I think the poor want better housing, more jobs and food on their tables. I don't think aborting their babies makes them any happier. I think it probably contributes to their misery."18
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 07:09PM | 0 recs
I don't trust Democrats for Life
It looks to me like Democrats for Life have a hidden agenda and they sound an awful lot like Republicans.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't trust Democrats for Life
SO what? That's not my point.
by Bruticus 2005-06-15 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't trust Democrats for Life
Then leave them and their anti-abortion platform out of it. I have no problem with the health care portions. Adequate health care for all women, rich or poor, should not be used as a trojan horse for legislation that intrudes into private medical decisions.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 05:13AM | 0 recs
You say the 17 points are fantastic?
Why are the ideas fantastic? Democrats have been spending  money on social programs for years and Republicans have negated their impact. A comprehensive program to reduce the number of abortions nationwide gives the party an aggressive stance and a viable metric (actual number of abortions performed nationwide via some set of standardized criteria) to show effectiveness and give us a legitimate stick to hit the Republicans at election time.
We don't alienate the core Dem base who view this as a civil rights/privacy issue and we make serious aggressive moves to reach out to moderate Republicans.
by Bruticus 2005-06-15 07:13PM | 0 recs
I think what Bruticus is basically trying to say:
Pro-life Democrats have many goals incommon with Pro-choice Democrats.  

I think this article pretty much sums up Republicans pposition while talking about Rick Santorum.

Mr. Santorum’s blind support of the Presidents Bush’s policies supporting the killing in Iraq, the withdrawal of support for health care programs like the Ryan White Act, and the gutting of food aid programs for the world’s poorest countries indicates a record characterized by an indifference to life issues while proclaiming himself to be “Pro-Life”. The reality is that he is better described as “Pro-Birth”, based on his support for some abortion-related legislation that itself has had no effect on the abortion rates nationally. Santorum turned his back on many of the Bishops requests to Congress and voted against measures concerning Mercury exposure, Medicaid, Child Care, Gun Control, Housing for the poor, just wages, just war, nuclear weapons, Global AIDS funding, and immigration.

It is vital that Catholic candidates like Mr. Santorum stop treating human life as a "wedge" issue for political gain, and start voting in a manner that supports the value and dignity of all life. A Catholic candidate should stand against cutting off 300,000 poor kids from after-school programs. One can not be "pro-life" and leave one American in six without health insurance. The "dignity of life" is not defended while also permitting millions to fall out of the middle class. Catholic teaching is a “seamless garment” of consistent theology, not a buffet. Therefore, we cannot endorse Mr. Santorum.

by Painter2004 2005-06-15 07:29PM | 0 recs
Nicely summarized
I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, it appears that I didn't.
Excellent article. All we have to do is continue to expose the 'pro-life' hypocrisy that Mr. Bushit has so eloquently laid out for us.
But, we have to be proactive and fund alternatives!

And I can assure you that Democrats funding  these 17 points for pregnant women,(which include safe havens for battered pregnant women among other things) will come across as a lot more sincere and genuine than that 'pro-life'( but  kill the soldiers and  kill death row inmates whose lawyers fell asleep in the courtroom)  crap that illiterate cowboy is pushing.

by Bruticus 2005-06-15 07:46PM | 0 recs
GOP is not pro-life
I recently did an informal survey of GOP positions on the issues to try to find some that were not based on money, one way or another...

Guess what I found..

None.. Not a single GOP 'issue' that was real - not one that was not taken because of some underlying financial issue.. some big contract, or some long-cherished goal, like keeping US wages down..

It's all about looting America... Stealing our futures.. They are on this jihad to line their pockets as well.

They couldn't give a dammn about life...yours, mine or anybody's but their own...

Its all an act...

Do it yourself, if you don't believe me..

by ultraworld 2005-06-16 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: GOP is not pro-life
They don't care about Terri Schiavo's autopsy:

The Schindlers said through a spokesperson they don't believe the results of the autopsy. They maintain their daughter wanted to live and that she could recover.

Bob and Mary Schindler say they plan to discuss the results with medical experts and may take further legal action, but they didn't specify what type.

They don't care about mercury vaccines killing our children. Republicans are sick, evil, twisted monsters. They are all disgusting, vile creatures.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 06:28AM | 0 recs
Economic reasons...
I think that almost all of the reasons women terminate pregnancies are economic. I myself was an unwanted child and was told this on many occasions, by everyone I knew in my mothers family, including my mother. This meant that i was basically treated like a pariah for something I had nothing to do with. The same people tried to cover the more obvious things up, making it worse.. meanwhile, the 'legitimate' kids in my family went to Stanford, etc..

The adoption industry can go to hell, too.. thats also a big part of what this is all about, church groups being afraid that their supply of babie$ is drying up..

Oh, and don't forget the military.. where would the military be without ex-unwanted children..

We can't all be officers now.. some of us have to be there to be drafted and make 'the ultimate sacrifice for their country'...

Cannon fodder, as they used to call us..

Hey, at least we aren't ALL killed..

(like in China which claims to have NO 'illegitimate' children!)

by ultraworld 2005-06-16 06:33AM | 0 recs
Mind your own business
Drop the anti-woman planks. Keep the pro-woman health care planks. No problem.

Nobody has the moral authority to intrude into the private medical decisions of my family.

George Bush doesn't. Tom DeLay doesn't. The Republican party doesn't. The Democratic party doesn't.

What part of "mind your own business" confuses you?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 05:10AM | 0 recs
I will never--NEVER--vote
for an ANTI-CHOICE candidate.

Period.

And I will actively support PRO CHOICE candidates with money and time.

People working to limit access to abortion and contraception are anti-female and anti-child.

The only happy children are WANTED children.

by Coral 2005-06-15 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I will never--NEVER--vote
And who is limiting access to contraception?

"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.) "

*Please read before posting. *
And the only discussion of limiting access to abortion itself is dealing with transporting minors and even that has a clause for the health of the minor...

"Prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.
Requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws."

by Bruticus 2005-06-15 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I will never--NEVER--vote
And I will support best candidate - i.e. candidate with the best chances of winning. I don't care  - whether they are pro-choice or pro-life. Period. There are lot of other important issues that must be taken into consideration, and i will gladly support pro-life candidate with good program and experience over inept candidate whose only credential is of being "pro-choice"
by smmsmm 2005-06-15 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I will never--NEVER--vote
"The only happy children are WANTED children."

For somebody who believes in choice, that's an interesting way to tell a child that she won't have a happy life because she was unplanned.
Or even telling a parent that they can't love a child who came from an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.  
Interesting indeed.

by Bruticus 2005-06-16 04:56AM | 0 recs
One big problem
Most of the health initiatives are outstanding. No problem with anyone except Republicans. The fundamental problem is that the Democrats for Life agenda also includes the imposition of anti-abortion morality on people who do not agree.

You can argue until you are blue in the face and 110 years old. You will never convince people who do not agree with your moral values to let you run their life. Is it OK with you if I make moral and ethical decisions for you and your family?

Any women's health center or clinic that provides pregnancy counseling or abortion services must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman's health. Patients do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them.

Patronizing bullshit. There are no "adverse side effects" that women who get abortions do not already know and receive information about.

Prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.

Prohibit how? Make it a felony? Manslaughter? Accomplice to murder? Whatever form the "prohibition" takes will be discriminatory, poorly enforced and ineffective.

Requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws.

What's up with that? Are there millions of parents who do not know about statutory rape laws? Many states have abominable statutory rape laws.

For example, one case decided by the California Supreme Court involved a man convicted of having sex with a woman who was 17 years and nine month old. He met her in a pub where she was tending bar. She also had a fake I.D.

In spite of the fact that there was absolutely no way for the man to know or even suspect that she was underage, the California Supreme Court let the conviction stand. The law is the law.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 09:11PM | 0 recs
Another problem
with these so-called informed consent laws, is that as written, they continue to suggest that there is a relationship between abortion and breast cancer(when there is no credible evidence that such a relationship exists.)

Additionally, where these informed consent laws are written, they don't compare the risks between a fullterm pregnancy and abortion.  

Women who continue their pregnancy to term have at least 10 times the risk of death of those who choose abortion,9 as well as a significantly higher risk of morbidity--including a 20% risk for abdominal surgery (i.e., cesarean delivery).

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3503703.html

To assume that accurate information regarding the risks of abortion is not being provided to patients flies in the face of standard medical ethics, and is deceptive in hiding the real agenda of such lists, which is strategy calculated to discourage women from by lying about potentional side effects.  Dr. Koop, who is prolife,  was forced out his job as Surgeon General for having the intregrity to refuse to promote "post-abortion trauma syndrome" as a side effect of abortion.  Why?  There was simply no data to back up such an assertion in any credible research.  

This "Democrats for Life" is made up of a laundry list of solutions for which there is no problem.  And I fail to see how jailing men who sleep with underage young women is going to do anything but create a new class of sex criminal. That an 18 year old could become a sex offender, and have to register as such for sleeping with a 17 year old, when statutory rape statutes are applied arbitrarily, is a waste of the taxpayers money, especially when these laws are not applied when such a union results in a baby.  Do you put this guy behind bars and hurt his ability to pay child support?  

by nanorich 2005-06-16 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Another problem
I don't really understand where you're comming from. My point is adding abortion prevention to the Democratic side of the issue.
You're talking about linking abortion to breast cancer. Where did that come from? Repeated use of teh abortion procedure has a negative impact on the reporductive capacity of the woman, as well as many women who have had abortions have a hard time comming to terms with the proceudre. THese are facts, and if you don't beleive me ask a close friend who had one.
That pro-abortion website youposted is real cute, and I won't even discuss much of that, especially that "Women who continue their pregnancy to term have at least 10 times the risk of death of those who choose abortion" statistic, since it undoubtably uses skewed data. I mean, come on pregnant women are 10 times more likely to die than women who have abortions? What third world country is that? Look at the footnote for that statistic, it's worldwide, NOT THE U.S.
by Bruticus 2005-06-16 04:52AM | 0 recs
Just for the record
>I don't really understand where you're comming from.

Where I am coming from is NOT from ignorance, and frankly, anyone who is arguing about abortion, and doesn't know what the Alan Gumbacher Institute is needs to go back and do the research.

If you are going to start a thread, attempt to control the debate, and display not even the most basic knowledge of the history and strategy of the antiabortion movement....even to the point that you don't know something as basic as what is appearing on out of the state houses with regard to informed consent, I am afraid that it is waste of my time and resources to even bother.

I have been involved in this dicussion for thirty years, and it my observation that even engaging with those who would consider taking another person's rights away to promote a religious agenda is not worth bothering with.

And it is even a bigger waste of time to talk to people who don't know anything about the issue.

by nanorich 2005-06-16 05:07AM | 0 recs
Excuse me I misspoke
It is the Alan Guttmacher Institute

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. AGI publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.

by nanorich 2005-06-16 05:10AM | 0 recs
How could anyone argue with that?
The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.

That sounds very pro-life and extremely pro-family to me. Freedom of conscience trumps self righteous moralizing every time.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: How could anyone argue with that?
How can anyone argue with that?

Dunno.  

How can they argue with this?

Values

The Institute's program is guided by six overarching institutional values:

Attention to methodological rigor and accuracy as fundamental to the integrity and credibility of the Institute's research;

Commitment to publish and disseminate results of the Institute's research regardless of the political or program ramifications and to evidence-based public education and advocacy;

Openness to multiple perspectives of outside experts to enrich the Institute's program and enhance its understanding of the issues;

Anticipation and study of emerging issues to equip the Institute to inform public debate when such issues gain prominence;

Balance between new and continuing priorities to ensure that the Institute is both on the cutting edge of scholarly and political thought and fully committed to core issues of ongoing importance; and

Collaboration with others to expand the reach and sustainability of the Institute's efforts.

http://www.agi-usa.org/about/mission.html

by nanorich 2005-06-16 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record
YOu see that's it. I don't attempt to 'control the debate'. I started this thread with the sole intent to initiate discussion. A discussion to expand the Democratic Party Platform to be more inclusive of the growing number of Democrats who don't want to make abortion illegal, but are quite happy withe the party's stance either.
You however, introduce skewed facts to 'control thhe debate' like the '10 times more likely to die' statistic , knowing full and well that number is from a worldwide study and not the US.

As long as Republicans frame abortion in terms of life and death, and Demcrats respond with facts, figures and wordplay, we will lose every time.

And if Democrats can't understand how the subtle idiosyncracies of Religion plays into the debate, (and always have) then they derve to lose the NEXT 6 out of 9 elections as well.

 

by Bruticus 2005-06-16 05:34AM | 0 recs
Correction
I meant 'Democrats who aren't quite happy with the Party's stance either'
by Bruticus 2005-06-16 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: One big problem
"Patronizing bullshit. There are no "adverse side effects" that women who get abortions do not already know and receive information about." ?
Oh Really? What's wrong with information, Gary? You are going to speak for every woman between the ages of 18-35 that gets an abortion, knows the possible long term effects of the procedure?
If they don't want to read the brochure they don't have to. What are you afraid of, The woman may decide to change her mind? Are you aware of the post abortion mental trauma that these women carry through life?
Are you more concerned with keeping the number of abortions down or making sure that NOTHING stops a woman from having a abortion, the least of all being a second thought?

Your last example about the statuatory rape is poor. That's based on a worst case scenario because a few years ago a football player had sex wit ha minor that he met in a club. Not only was the conviction overturned, the law in that state was changed, because his lawyer sucessfully argued that the player could assume she was over 18 by virtue of being in a club that served alcoholic drinks.

by Bruticus 2005-06-16 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: One big problem
The case I discussed was a California Supreme Court decision that upheld the man's conviction. It was from the late 90's and involved consensual sex. In California and many other states eighteen is the legal age of consent.

I couldn't find the case with a quick google search, but under California law a 20 year old man who has consensual sex with a female bartender, even one month short of being 18, and who showed him a fake ID, would be guilty of statutory rape. If I recall correctly, the young woman's parents were politically connected and pushed the prosecution.

I do not believe that decision has been over turned.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: One big problem
Your facts are wrong. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime.

There are no factors that excuse having sex with a woman under the age of consent. If the man is over 18, or the age of consent in that state, and the woman is under the age of 18, a crime has been commited.

There may be a few states that treat statutory rape differently. In most states it is a strict liabiity crime. No exceptions. No excuses.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 05:45AM | 0 recs
Most people don't know the law on statutory rape
The defendant's only hope is the kindness of the prosecutor. I'm not certain, but I believe the prosecutor has discretion to file a civil charge or a criminal charge on the same facts in California. Of course, they can always refuse to prosecute and probably often do.

However. There was a case about five or six years ago where the couple was engaged to be married and were waiting for the young woman to graduate from high school. The parents approved of the relationship. The couple was living together in her parents' house!

Marriage is the only defense in most states and perhaps in all states. The only part I am not certain of is whether some states are more "liberal" than California. I think California's statutory rape law is barbaric in how inclusive it is.

I will go a little bit out on a limb and even say that if a young woman agressively seduced an older man he would still be guilty if the prosecutor wanted to charge him. The judge could even instruct the jury that seduction was not a defense.

To go a little bit further, I don't believe if she bought him drinks and got him drunk he would have a defense. The only legally relevant factors are the respective ages of the couple. We couldn't build prisons fast enough if the law was rigorously enforced.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 06:13AM | 0 recs
Raise your hands
Everybody who wants me to make the moral and ethical decisions for them and their familly raise their hand.

While assuming absolutey no responsbility for the consequences of the decisions I make, I will have complete authority over all of the important moral and ethical decisions that affect you and your family.

Sound like a pretty good deal? That is exactly what so called "pro-life" legislation is all about. Letting Tom DeLay make the moral and ethical decisions for you and your family.

No thanks.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-15 09:19PM | 0 recs
I just finished reading
"The Plot Against America" in which Philip Roth envisions an America which in 1941 slips quickly into fascism.

Particularly enlightening is his portrait of some Jewish enablers (the book is told from the point of view of nine year old Jewish boy in Newark) falling all over themselves to prove to elected Lindberg Regime that they are good Americans. So they actively cooperate and promote policies which appear on the surface reasonable, but hide a sinister agenda.

One thing which is observable by the promotion of any agenda which further erodes Reproductive Rights of American Women, is that it appears on the surface reasonable, except that those promoting these "discussions" don't seem to have much respect for the truth.

This particular topic in attacking abortion as a "divisive" issue is by it's very nature, divisive.  It misrepresents abortion as a national issue, when a very small minority of the electorate represent "single issue voters" and ignores completely that fully thirty percent of Republicans identify themselves as prochoice.

It is the very definition of the short end of the wedge, and is the creation of those who would further enable and embolden those who would limit the rights of women.  

Abortion IS a clash of absolutes, and the mindset believes that some magical compromise will somehow make it less divisive. Feminists have long known that this battle will never end...and neither will the treachery of appeasers who think you can reason with those of "bad faith."

There is an excellent compromise for those who personally oppose abortion.  Don't have one.  And before you intrude into the relationship between a woman and her doctor, and bring the state into the most private of decisions, it is a good idea to look at who is promoting this agenda....and why.

The people promoting a AntiChoice agenda for Democrats are the same people who assume women have abortions for trivial reasons, and can't be trusted with managing their own lives.  

by nanorich 2005-06-16 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Raise your hands
exactly. I have been thinking about this issue quite a bit lately with the rash of diaries around the blogosphere.

My view is that even if you believe abortion is immoral you can still find a way to support those of us who do not. I spent a lot of time discussing gun control with advocates on Usenet and they basically won me over. I will never own a gun, never shoot a gun, never go hunting or skeet shooting, and I believe guns should be outlawed. But I won't try and take a gun owner's right to bear arms away from him or her. The more I thought about it, the more I came to believe that their rights are as important as mine.

The right to privacy is such a hazy area and so difficult to protect but we perhaps these abortion discussions will result in more importance being given to our right to privacy. Let's face it, Big Brother is watching now.

by misscee 2005-06-16 08:10AM | 0 recs
Not this again
Old news.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-16 06:14AM | 0 recs
Have you digitized
your embroidery yet?
by catastrophile 2005-06-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
This has been done.
You know, Parker has already done a pretty sweet analysis of this group and their points.

"Any women's health center or clinic that provides pregnancy counseling or abortion services must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman's health. Patients do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them.  Provide Ultrasound Equipment"

Isn't that special?  Will they also counsel women on the many complications which may arise if they choose to take the pregnancy to term?  And what exactly is the ultrasound equipment supposed to prove?  That she's pregnant?  Pretty sure she knew that to begin with.

"Prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.
Requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws.
Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws"

Yeah,  This one just sucks.  "Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor."  How the hell do they know if her "life" is in danger.  What do they know about her?
Nothing!  They want to sacrifice young girls for votes and this will go over well in the next election,  I'm sure.  Nothing more to say here.  

"Provide grants for universities and colleges to support pregnant women; provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child.
*These grants will help universities establish an on-campus office for counseling, referral, and parenting services for pregnant women and daycare services for parents."

What country do you live in, anyway?  Who is going to pay for these girls to continue their education and keep their kids fed?  I have yet to meet a conservative, a libertarian, or even a self-described liberal who wants to pay for someone else's education or someone else's kid.  This would never gain traction.  Not in this country, anyway.   Not now and probably not ever.

These people are full of crap.  Rather than take on the GOP as they should, they appropriate their issues.  And you are sugarcoating their agenda.  Why don't you mention all the rancid anti-choice legislation they are already celebrating.  Oh, they couldn't be happier that our female veterans don't get the same freedoms than women here at home.  

http://www.democratsforlife.org/Legislation/davis_amendment.htm

Why isn't this mentioned in your diary?   And why isn't this:

http://www.democratsforlife.org/National/prolifedemocratscelebratehistoric.htm

This piece of hard fought legislation basically says women are just too stupid to make up their minds on their own, silly women!!!  They need time and re-education (and probably an ultrasound).   And, of course, you may want to take a close look at Gary's earlier post on their late term abortion position.

Bruticus,  you may want to discuss how Dems can reduce abortion without making it illegal, and, if so,  that's just great, I'm all for it.  But you are referencing the wrong group of people.  "Democrats for life" is GOP light and little more.

by bellarose 2005-06-16 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: This has been done.
Bellarose, I am not as supporter of the group per se  but I sincerely beleive that their 17 points is an excellent starting point for Democrats to make some serious inroads on the abortion debate without sacrificing the Party's  'indentity' or it's base.
I mean, out of the 17 points listed you only have a problem with 3. However, as I'll concede the "minor traveling across state lines" point, I must contest the other two.
First, thousands of women get pregnant and have babies every year. Provided that  the woman has acess to proper healthcare, "the many complications which may arise if they choose to take the pregnancy to term" is a non-issue in reality. In fact, there are some health conditions (My sister had one) that can be improved if a woman becomes pregnant. Nanorich's quote about a woman being 10 times more likely to die than if she had an abortion was a statistic skewed by the global population, not the U.S. The idea that a preganacy is some kind of health condition that can kill you is a myth, because it just doens't happen enough for people to be sad or worried when they get pregnant (provided they have access to proper health care) . And before we start that discussion, understand that there are a LOT of programs out there to help unwed mothers.
On the other hand, repeated abortions will have a detrimental effect on the life of the mother, and that's an undisputed fact, as well as the emotional tramua that many women expierence months and years afterward.
According to these stats, http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
(Most from the Gummacher  Institute)
 only 22% of women who have abortions claim, it's for financial reasons. So obviously, women are aborting for other reasons. What's wrong with the sonogram? If their mind is made up then it shouldn't matter. Why  is everyone so afraid of giving these women a second chance to think about this life -changing decision?

And as far as grants for single parents, that program is already in place at some private schools, because I went to one. Pro-choice folx want federal tax dollars to pay for abortions, but not for additional financial aid so some women can afford to stay in school and not have one? Are these the same federal tax dollars that go toward illegal  immigrants being able to go to public universities at the in-school tuition rate?
Or are these the tax dollars that allow illegal immigrants to have access to the healthcare system?
The money is ALREADY being spent. Let's put it to better use.
 

by Bruticus 2005-06-16 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: This has been done.
Bellarose, I am not as supporter of the group per se  but I sincerely beleive that their 17 points is an excellent starting point for Democrats to make some serious inroads on the abortion debate without sacrificing the Party's  'indentity' or it's base.
I mean, out of the 17 points listed you only have a problem with 3. However, as I'll concede the "minor traveling across state lines" point, I must contest the other two.
First, thousands of women get pregnant and have babies every year. Provided that  the woman has acess to proper healthcare, "the many complications which may arise if they choose to take the pregnancy to term" is a non-issue in reality. In fact, there are some health conditions (My sister had one) that can be improved if a woman becomes pregnant. Nanorich's quote about a woman being 10 times more likely to die than if she had an abortion was a statistic skewed by the global population, not the U.S. The idea that a preganacy is some kind of health condition that can kill you is a myth, because it just doens't happen enough for people to be sad or worried when they get pregnant (provided they have access to proper health care) . And before we start that discussion, understand that there are a LOT of programs out there to help unwed mothers.
On the other hand, repeated abortions will have a detrimental effect on the life of the mother, and that's an undisputed fact, as well as the emotional tramua that many women expierence months and years afterward.
According to these stats, http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
(Most from the Gummacher  Institute)
 only 22% of women who have abortions claim, it's for financial reasons. So obviously, women are aborting for other reasons. What's wrong with the sonogram? If their mind is made up then it shouldn't matter. Why  is everyone so afraid of giving these women a second chance to think about this life -changing decision?

And as far as grants for single parents, that program is already in place at some private schools, because I went to one. Pro-choice folx want federal tax dollars to pay for abortions, but not for additional financial aid so some women can afford to stay in school and not have one? Are these the same federal tax dollars that go toward illegal  immigrants being able to go to public universities at the in-school tuition rate?
Or are these the tax dollars that allow illegal immigrants to have access to the healthcare system?
The money is ALREADY being spent. Let's put it to better use.
 

by Bruticus 2005-06-16 07:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads