Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

"How Serious Are Democrats?"

Asks this Christianity Today editorial.. Answer: on abortion, there’s not much beyond some pro-life lip-service:

But beware. An ad from NARAL Pro-Choice America addressed to "the right-to-life movement" would be almost humorous if it weren’t for those 1.3 million killings annually in this country. "Please Help Us Prevent Abortions," says the ad, which appeared in The Weekly Standard and other publications. Actually, the headline is misleading: The text of the ad explains better its call for support of a bill "which would reduce unwanted pregnancies." The legislation, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s Prevention First Act (co-sponsored by Democrats with 100 percent ratings from abortion-rights groups and 0 percent ratings from pro-life groups), is a pro-life nightmare. It would double federal funds to "family planning" groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL while barring funds for programs that emphasize sexual abstinence. Hospitals that get any federal funds would have to provide the morning-after pill (which prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus) on demand, and companies that oppose contraception or abortifacients would be forced to provide insurance coverage for them.

Read the whole thing.

Discussions - 6 Comments

It is fun watching the liberals being both for and against issues, isn’t it? Good post.

John


Not "fun" so much as disgusting.

But, of course "there’s not much beyond some pro-life lip service." The Democratic party has become dishonest right down to the cellular level. This will not change anytime soon. Looking for straws in the wind is a waste of time. The Democratic party is fundamentally corrupt, so much so that it can barely open its loud mouth without uttering a falsehold or calling an ugly name.


Uh ... "uttering a falsehood," that is.

What’s dishonest? Preventing pregnancies will contribute to preventing abortions. What’s a more effective way to treat a problem--deal with outcomes or deal with the root causes? Likely it’s BOTH. As such, what’s wrong with one such strategy to preventing abortions being preventing pregnancy?

In addition, what is dishonest and/or corrupt about trying to prevent pregnancies? I can’t see the argument. Are you saying that pro-choice people can only speak to pro-choice people and pro-life people can only speak to pro-life people? Any co-opting of appealing arguments is wrong? Gee, it seems a rather common strategy to use... even among the righteous. (I’ll let everyone fill in his/her own blank as to what "righteous"is)

I used planned parenthood when I was a *24* year old graduate student, married, and of limited financial resources (read, not an irresponsible, immoral, and likely inhabitant of a low-income project).

Seems like a reasonable argument to me. Probably seems like a reasonable arguments to teens and many young women who don’t want to be pregnant and likely won’t among the best fit to be parents. (Please, don’t even bother with "they shouldn’t be doing it." OK, go ahead and bother if you want, but it won’t convince me and it won’t solve any problems in the least) The morning after pill is legal. As such, shouldn’t it be available?

It’s also a rather wide leap to say "pro-choice" = democrat. Yes, the democratic party is more likely to passionately adopt this plank, but many democrats are pro-life, just as many republicans (several women I know especially) are pro-choice too....

JC-

"What’s dishonest? Preventing pregnancies will contribute to preventing abortions. What’s a more effective way to treat a problem--deal with outcomes or deal with the root causes?" Actually, the morning after pill is considered a form of abortion. Therefor, it would not cut back on abortions. It would make the problem even worse. However, I do agree that preventing pregnancies will contribute to preventing abortions, that is simply common sense. Yes, the morning after pill is legal. But that doesn’t mean it should necessarily be available. Abortion (in the sense of going to a doctor) is legal as well, remember? That doesn’t really mean it should be available. Remember also, homosexual marriage is legal in some states as well. Should it be that way?

" In addition, what is dishonest and/or corrupt about trying to prevent pregnancies?" The argument is not that preventing pregnancies is dishonest and/or corrupt, the argument is that democrats as a party are dishonest and corrupt, for seemingly supporting two exactly opposite arguments, or trying to rather, at the same time.

"It’s also a rather wide leap to say ’pro-choice’ = democrat. Yes, the democratic party is more likely to passionately adopt this plank, but many democrats are pro-life, just as many republicans (several women I know especially) are pro-choice too...." All I hear is simply the typical democratic whine, "Don’t stereotype me! Even though the vast majority of democrats [meaning those associated with the Left] are pro-choice, that doesn’t mean all of them are!" Obviously they are not all pro-choice, but the fact remains that the vast majority of them are. Just like how the vast majority of those on the Right are pro-life.

There is nothing wrong with "planned parenthood." However, the fact remains that if one uses the morning after pill at all, that is considered abortion. Therefor, planned parenthood using the morning after pill is a bad thing. Planned parenthood is when the couple knows exactly when they can and cannot attempt to conceive a baby, based on the menstration cycle of the woman. It has very low success rates, unless combined with the morning after pill. Which, again, is considered a form of abortion. (This is the Roman Catholic view point, by the way). Catholics consider the morning after pill a form of abortion. Now, you may not be Catholic, but the fact is its an abortion because it is terminating the very chance of a baby developing. Ergo, abortion.

Christopher, as a matter of fact, I AM Catholic. Like a significant number of American Catholics I use birth control. In fact, I do not know of a single Catholic woman my age who does not use birth control. (not a generalization, but an anecdote from my experience as a practicing Catholic) so no need to lecture me on the differences between "Planned Parenthood" and "planned parenthood." Could that be any more condescending?

As for the first quote of mine that you pulled out---I was NOT referring to linking the morning after pill to abortion as being deceptive. I was referring to the argument that "preventing pregnancies will prevent abortions." That was the argument out forth by the headline. I do not think it was a deceptive argument. I think it a resonable one. One that everyone agrees with? No, my priest certainly doesn’t. But many, many people do believe it to be reasonable. THey are all corrupt?

Now, why not check the figures as to what is the exact break down of Planned Parenthood services. You might be quite surprised to learn that the staff isn’t posted at the doors ready to hand all those poor A) unsuspecting women, OR B) immoral women a handfull of morning after pills! Planned Parenthood has been providing a service for many, many years before the morning after pill was made legal. It nearly, if not literally, saved my life as it was the only place where I could get GYN exams for practically no money during my youth. And the exam spotted a problem that I was able to get immediate treatment for (just to be sure another generalization isn’t made, the problem was related to biological rather than reproductive health). But that’s an anecdote. Why not check the actual stats and see for yourself.


As you quoted from me:
"All I hear is simply the typical democratic whine, "Don’t stereotype me! Even though the vast majority of democrats [meaning those associated with the Left] are pro-choice, that doesn’t mean all of them are!"

What * I * hear is a pompous man, (geez, men, I hope you’re also seeking out some women’s perspectives before lecturing us all on the morals and ethics of reproduction)... MY point was not that to say "oh please don’t stereotype me, poor me!" I don’t have time to think/feel such things. My point is that it is illogical and unhelpful to argue that democrats, as an institution and a party of individuals, are "corrupt" on the basis of this article/introduced bill. What I heard is the seemingly never ending, unproductive stream of generalizations. All democrats are corrupt! (And the Republicans aren’t?) The headline is deceptive! Planned Parenthood is about abortions and abortions only! Lots of work will get done in this country if we keep thinking so simplistically of those with which we disagree.


Preventative plans need to be in place (especially considering the embarrassing discovery of how woefully BAD and inaccurate many of the abstinence only programs are). If health insurance won’t cover contraception, shouldn’t the at least be available at a reasonable cost at organizations like Planned Parenthood? In addition, frankly, not everyone agrees that the morning after bill is a bad thing. It is possible and even productive to disagree with this position, or to explain the ways that you think it morally wrong, yes it is. But it is a leap to say "morning after pill bad, democrats corrupt." The morning after pill is legal. Yes, it should be distributed unless the law is changed and hospitals should distribute it to those people wish it.

Why exactly is it "corrupt" to insist that 1) hospitals do what is allowable within the rule of law? What is "corrupt" about insisting that the law be followed? 2) why is it "corrupt" to deny funds to programs emphasizing abstinence? Now, I confess I DON’T agree with the latter. However, I note that there are several insistances--e.g., in Ohio, where the opposite was true. Money was denied to all programs except those promoting abstinence. So tell me, why is OK for one group of people to make this requirement--the opposite scenario, but it’s somehow "corrupt" for another?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/6189