Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 16, 2007 in abortion, Democrats, Harry Reid, Prevention First Act

Democrats Seek To Reduce Abortions

Democrats are seeking to govern from the Middle on social issues according to The New York Times. Check it out.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — The promise may not outlast their political honeymoon, but Democratic Congressional leaders say they are committed to governing from the center, and not just on bread-and-butter issues like raising the minimum wage or increasing aid for education. They also hope to bring that philosophy to bear on some of the most divisive social issues in politics, like abortion.

In their first days in session, Senate Democratic leaders reintroduced a bill that they said was indicative of their new approach: the Prevention First Act, which seeks to reduce the number of abortions by expanding access to birth control, family planning and sex education.

In September, I blogged about this bill sponsored by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid. As Christians we should be committed to reducig the number of abortions in America. Governing from the middle requires that politicians start listening to the wishes of their constituents not voices from the Religious Right. According to this poll, 89% of adults in the United States favor more access to birth control options and 81% agree that those options should not be limited by income.

The Democrat’s Prevention First Act is the first step towards creating a society in which the desperate realities that entice women to abort are reduced in severity.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Comments

  1. This isn’t new. Clinton’s campaign slogan about making abortion, “safe, legal, and RARE,” was scoffed at by the Right. But Clinton actually followed through and abortion rates dropped all through his presidency–as he created jobs, pushed for strong sex education, etc. Abortion then rose again under Bush.

    A merely punitive approach doesn’t work. One has to ask why most women who seek abortions do so and try to eliminate those causes. Democrats have always done this better than Republicans ever since abortion became a major political issue in the ’80s.

  2. I hope it comes to pass.

  3. Michael,

    I can’t believe that you really believe that horribly unsubstantiated rumor perpetuated by the far left. There is no data to support the idea that abortions declined during the Clinton administration due to anything they did and they certainly have not risen over the tenure of the Bush administration. Actually the opposite is true. According to official data from the Centers for Disease control (latest report accessible here), abortions peaked in 2000, after a continual rise from 1970 until then. Since 2000 abortions have decreased continuously, though the total number of abortions during the Clinton administration is higher than those recorded during the Bush administration (and the ratio of abortions per female is also lower during Bush’s term).

    Many other factors play into this, including a lack of reporting in previous years and new abortion pills. But certainly we have nothing to support your conclusions. But then again it doesn’t seem like anything you said in your comments was supported by studies or facts, but mere opinion. And yet I am the one that is supposed to be against science?

    As for the bill, I have no problem as long as parents are allowed to opt out of certain aspects of education they deem to be against their religious views, and as long as tax payer money is not going to pay for abortions in any way – nor money for morning after pills.

  4. D.R.,

    I believe this goes back to an op-ed by Dr. Glen Stassen in a Sojourners article before the 04 election. Stassen relied on data from only 16 states. A handful of politicians repeated his findings from those states. As a result, the Alan Guttmacher Institute studied 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Stassen later admitted that the Guttmacher study was “significantly better” than his study of 16 states. To Stassen’s credit, he was honest in his article about only studying 16 states. A handful of politicians took his study and twisted it.

    Nonetheless, the abortion rate has been on the decline during both the Clinton and Bush presidencies. Now Folks like Hillary used the Stassen piece to show that the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states (and it is). However, the abortion rate has not gone up nationally. Kerry did not make that distinction during a Meet The Press interview. Cherrypicking Data. All politicians do it, unfortunately.

    The number of abortions have decreased nationwide (not every state) by .8% in 2001 and another .8% in 2002. However, the abortion rate (number of women having abortions relative to the total population) decreased by 1% in 2001 and .9% in 2002 which is not as rapid a decrease as was seen in previous years (aka Clinton Presidency).

    Another statistic I read (no link) states that 84% of Americans desire a middle ground when it comes to abortion. I’ll look for the link. I believe this legislation will pass with a significant amount of support from Republicans (even if the morning after pill is funded, I don’t know if it is). I understand you term the morning after pill to be an abortion pill. But I would suspect that those 84% likely see the morning after pill in a different light. Maybe not. Either way, we need a middle ground to help reduce abortions. This means more FAMILY PLANNING.

    http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *