Be on guard: Sojourners and Democrats for Life abortion reduction plans...leave out contraception

[madfloridian]

as a means to reducing abortion. I don't know all the details on each one, but they do not emphasize preventing pregnancies by birth control methods. They rely on legislation apparently.

They are the ones trying so hard to get our Democrats on board with reducing the rights of women to choose.

It is our job to see that our party does not sell out the rights of women to consult with their doctors on choices.

Salon has an article today about the topic.

Are Democrats backpedaling on abortion rights?

Frances Kissling is former head of Catholics for Choice, Kate Michelman is former head of NARAL.

Suddenly, almost unexpectedly, with many Democratic women restless and anxious, the concerns of women are once again important. So far the party's strategy in dealing with disaffected Clinton supporters, in particular, involves focusing on women's understandable fears that a John McCain administration would limit abortion rights and even overturn Roe v. Wade, and promising that Democrats will clearly do better.

That's why it's so remarkable that in recent weeks, Democrats, including Sojourners founder Jim Wallis, have suggested that the party may need to take another crack at tempering its strong platform support for abortion rights by making "abortion reduction ... a central Democratic Party plank in this election." In a recent interview with ABC News, Wallis said he planned to talk to his "good friend" Barack Obama about an abortion reduction plank, and said he had discussed the idea with party chairman Howard Dean and had the support of at least one member of the Platform Committee, the Rev. Tony Campolo. "Abortion reduction should be a central Democratic Party plank in this election," Wallis told ABC News. "I'll just say that flat out."

While a Wallis spokesperson quickly backpedaled and said Wallis was "not actively campaigning" for an abortion reduction plank, the idea of a Democratic "third way" on abortion is bound to come up again. This time around, party officials and Democratic candidates will be well advised to tread carefully.

Here's the interesting part...neither group advocates that much for birth control.

Let us be clear: Reducing the need for abortion is sound policy, and we have both worked in our careers to do so. The pro-choice movement has been promoting such an agenda for the better part of two decades -- often, and ironically, over the opposition of the very people who now claim to espouse it. In fact, Sojourners, the organization headed by Wallis, does not include contraception as part of its abortion reduction strategy, and Democrats for Life, the political group most vocal about abortion reduction, refused to endorse the family-planning provisions of the bill it initiated, "Reducing the Need for Abortion Initiative," also known as the Ryan-DeLauro bill.

Refused to endorse the family planning portions? Two groups with great access to our Democratic policy makers do not approve of going the route of contraception in reducing abortions?

I can not and will not get on board with that.

I am trying to find out if the Democrats for Life 95/10 initiative actually passed Congress. One place I might read will say that it did. Then I see something that shows it still might not have passed yet.

Talk2Action had something about it in 2006. Here is that article I found there.

Trojan Donkey

Democrats for Life of America is celebrating. After more than a year's delay, its 95-10 Initiative has finally found a sponsor in Congress. The 95-10 Initiative is becoming legislation in the U.S. House! Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN) introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act on Wednesday, September 20th at 10:00 am. We now have a comprehensive measure that will support pregnant women who don't want to have abortions by ensuring health care, child care, support to stay in school, and other important support for pregnant women and their families.

Gee, that all sounds just great, doesn't it? What's not to like? Why should such a compassionate program have had to wait so long for a sponsor?

And Talk2Left spares no words in explaining what's "not to like" about this bill.

Maybe it's because 95-10 calls for preventing pregnancy, but mentions contraception only in regard to failure rates -- anti-choice dog whistle code for "abstinence-only." Maybe it's because 95-10 also calls for the imposition of repressive legislation upon every physician in the country. Maybe it's because 95-10 mandates federal funding for a nationwide network to funnel unsuspecting women seeking information about abortion into crisis pregnancy center "ministries."

Maybe it's because most Democrats have scruples about crawling into bed with Concerned Women for America, Priests for Life, the March for Life, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, Lutherans for Life, CareNet, Heartbeat International, Project Rachel, the "abortion is genocide" Abortion in Black America, Life Issues Institute, LifeSite, Joe Scheidler's Pro-Life Action League, Americans United for Life, the American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood International, Human Life International, Feminists for Life, National Right to Life, and the same Life Dynamics that lists every provider of abortion care in the country as "American Death Camps" -- all of them directly linked from the DFLA site.

Maybe it's because DFLA opposes embryonic stem cell research. Maybe it's because DFLA is still spreading the discredited lie that abortion causes breast cancer. Maybe it's because DFLA officers publicly refused to support the Democratic presidential ticket in 2004, calling John Kerry the "Hitler of the Unborn."

I am not sure when enough is enough. Not sure how to handle it when our party leaders do this. Wallis did not say that Obama and Dean had agreed, he just said he had talked with them.

The Sojourners has had close contact with our Democrats since 2005. Our leaders have spoken at their summits. This group does a lot of great work, but dragging our party toward the religious right in this way is wrong. It needs to be avoided.

[Ian David]

1. Obama will televise a speech to talk directly to our sperm, asking them to behave.

When Barack Obama appears on the TV and tells you to drop your pants and press your testicles directly to the screen, please do what he says.

Our sperm will listen to him.

He's just THAT good.

[formercia]

21. Unfortunately, my sperm are single-minded

and have expressed no party affiliation.

[katandmoon]

2. It's all because the puritans came here

It's not about not killing babies, it's about punishing women for having sex.

[WCGreen]

7. Oh yea you got that right.

[Skittles]

3. you ain't seen nothing yet

you bought it, we own it

[LeftyMom]

4. I for one have had it with misogynist motherfuckers who don't support womens rights.

Either you believe that a woman has the right to control her own body or you don't. And if you don't, you are my enemy and the enemy of every woman, and every man who is worth a shit, and you have no place in this party.

[Solly Mack]

22. What LeftyMom said and said so well

Yep.Yep.Yep.

Sign me on to the above comment.

Just flat out fuck those people.

[MNBrewer]

24. Has anyone chimed in yet with the "I've had it with the calls for ideological purity"

line yet? We had a similar discussion over on the GLBT forum with respect to equality under the law for GLBT citizens. Either you're for equality or you're for inequality. Either you're for the right of a woman to control her own body or you're for the right of others to control her body once she gets pregnant.

[ehrnst]

26. Unfortunately, it's really difficult to get some people to distill it to that

Because they want to distill it to:

Woman wants to let a baby be born or woman wants prevent a baby from being born.

That public message has worked mightily for them, because they've used the "screw you, it's my body" response that many women have to support that message.

Framing the message is everything.

It's not about equality - there's nothing equal about the woman/fetus relationship.

I really think that the way to approach it on the public level is to portray the antis as reducing the profound, sacred responsibility of childbirth to something like a traffic ticket. Reducing the pregnant woman to boord mare. That will make those who took our pregnancy very seriously see the misogyny in the 'pro-life' message.

We should be the ones framing childbirth as a huge commitment - one that should only be undertaken if you are ready to do what it takes to ensure a healthy pregnancy. No one should wander into it because their contraception failed.

Let's portray the antis' attitude what it is - irresponsible. Show the public their "pregnancy is just 9 months, and isn't that much of a life changing event," message, and get responsible mothers pissed off at them.

[pleah]

27. I'm with you on that, LeftyMom!

Bravo! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[SidDithers]

28. K&R on this post!...nt

Sid

[sandnsea]

5. There were less abortions under Clinton

I've been hearing that on DU for years. Now that a religious person says we should push that information, and make it part of our platform, the exact same people freak out. :crazy:

[madfloridian]

6. Ok....I just posted that 2 religious groups don't include contraception..

So I don't understand your statement. Are you saying it is ok to put forth such plans.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

9. You posted one aspect

As typical with this board lately. Cherry-picking worthy of Bush, truly. Democrats for Life have a lot of good proposals, fully funded WIC, SCHIP for pregnant women, increased domestic violence funding, increased day care. That's a place to start having a rational conversation, but that just doesn't seem to be possible around here anymore. It's attack attack attack.

[aquart]

10. They need the SCHIP because they can't get contraception?

If contraception is out, there is nothing to talk about. Nothing.

[sandnsea]

13. That's a load of shit

It says right on their web site that contraception is already funded. They want to do the things that are always talked about on this site, help the women who get pregnant anyway so they can keep their baby or give it up for adoption. They certainly aren't right on everything, but what they're right on would be significant improvement for women.

[ehrnst]

61. I think that the shit might be elsewhere...

Is this the statement that you're talking about?

" he Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons. "

They conveniently leave out the fact that funding for Title X funding has been eroding and it has not kept up with inflation since the 1908s. Medicaid, not Title X is now the the primary provider of publicly funded contraception, and Medicaid does not have the same protections on the way it is used as Title X (for instance - prevention education and resources must be confidential and available even to adolescents). State funds continue to be the second largest source - because Title X is not adequately funded, rendering their claims mistaken at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3634/is_199607/ai_n8735289

Funding for contraceptive coverage could be stripped out of Medicaid at the state level, and out of state health budets in any given legislative session. Their ommission the fact that Title X isn't able to cover the need for of affordable contraceptives is the first clue that this plan of theirs may not be quite what they say. The statement that comprehensive pregnancy prevention funding is a "commitment" on the part of the federal goverment is not really true. But hey - they don't expect their audience to fact check, and they're apparently right.

So no, Title X funding is not keeping up with the increasing number of women who need the services that are increasing in costs. And this means that the statement "The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them." is the pile of shit.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/1/gr080104.html

For more on how Title X, as well as contraception access, is being undermined at the federal level:

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/contraception-matters/

[LeftyMom]

11. They want to curtail the right of a woman to control her own body.

I don't care what else they want to do as a means to that end, that end is inherently wrong.

[sandnsea]

12. No, they don't

And they certainly don't want to end contraception. I'm sick of the hysteria around here.

[LeftyMom]

14. They're anti-abortion. Womens' right to control their bodies includes abortion.

There's no bullshit third way here. Either they support a woman's right to control her body, or they do not.

[sandnsea]

15. They support the right to an abortion

You can work to reduce abortions without worrying at all about the law. Every time there's an abortion thread, the majority of DU women say they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but support the right of other women to decide for themselves. This is no different. They're just working to address some of the reasons women have abortions, which is what I also see people complain about all the time. Anti-abortion people don't care after the baby gets here. Well these people prove just the opposite, and it still isn't good enough. I don't like parental notification and the like, but they aren't as radical as fundies so maybe we can make some progress to help women who don't want to get an abortion.

[LeftyMom]

16. They're still coming at the issue from a misogynist, paternalistic standpoint.

"Abortion is bad, so we need to create circumstances which discourage abortion." Bullshit. Abortion is a legal, safe medical procedure.

If we want to work to reduce unplanned pregnancies (because they harm women) or increase economic opportunities for women, or increase childcare funding to help women and kids out, great. But we should be doing those things to help women, not as the velvet glove on the iron fist of paternalism and limited choices.

[sandnsea]

18. Some women do think abortion is bad

What about them? That's the point. Everybody does not have to have your values. This group, in part, is helping to create an environment that eases the burden of pregnancy. I thought Democrats cared about people who need help.

[eShirl]

19. seriously?

If they are against abortion, they shouldn't have one.

[MedleyMisty]

23. Then they shouldn't have an abortion.

There are values and there are rights. And I don't give a fuck what other people's values are, I have the right to choose if I want a kid or not. And I use contraception, but should it ever fail my husband and I know what our choice will be. And no one else's values should have anything to do with that choice.

[LeftyMom]

31. Then they shouldn't have one. They don't get to make medical decisions for others. nt

[ehrnst]

53. There are also people that think divorce is bad

But you don't even see the Catholic Church trying to criminalize it.

I think that most people view abortion like they view divorce - as a sad thing, but that forcing the alternative is even more distructive.

I also don't know of anybody that thinks abortion is "good." Any more than anyone thinks divorce is "good."

Just because you think that it's harmful to criminalize it doesn't mean you think that it's "good" or encourage it.

[sandnsea]

58. This group isn't trying to criminalize it

They're trying to reduce abortions through more social programs, primarily. The few abortion laws they support are understandable, although misguided. I understand parents not wanting their daughter's to get medical care without their knowledge, unfortunately that's not realistic. I understand people being upset about 8th and 9th month abortions, I wish this group understood that they only happen for medical reasons and consequently don't need regulating. At least we can talk to these people, if we address these issues instead of getting into a pissing match with them and putting words and ideas into their mouths that they never said.

[ehrnst]

59. To clarify -

My post was pointing out that no one thinks abortion is 'good,' in reponse to a post that was titled, "Some women think abortion is bad."

This was tangental to the original post, and was not stating that the group in the original post was trying to criminalize abortion.

I was pointing out that just because you *don't* support criminalizing something, does not mean that you approve of that thing, or think that it's good.

Does that make more sense?

[ehrnst]

62. Motives and intentions can be described in terms of "good" or "bad" - but not medical procedures.

And even then "good" and "bad" differ wildly in their definitions depending on the person.

My Grandmother veiwed my waiting until I was 40 to give birth as "bad" - that I was selfish to wait so long, and that I would not have the energy to properly raise the child.

She also felt that giving a baby up for adoption was "bad" because "you play, you pay." And keeping a baby, no matter if you were ready for it or not is "good."

So to say that abortion is always "bad" is a sweeping statement, just as saying that giving a baby up for adoption is always 'bad.'

[madfloridian]

30. I think Democrats should stand for the right for women to have birth control. Period.

Bottom line. I can't believe you would disagree with that.

It is a dangerous thing to do, to ally with groups that don't place great importance on it.

Now you, sandnsea, are saying it is an attack. NO, it is not.

[sandnsea]

36. That group does not oppose birth control

They support the funding that exists. They're talking about other actions to reduce the number of abortions. I don't agree with all of them. I do agree we need to do more to support mothers, which is about half of their work. They also oppose the death penalty. They aren't all bad. I would rather deal with them than the groups who really don't want there to be any birth control. You're wrong to lump them all together.

[madfloridian]

38. I did not say they "opposed" it, just that they are more into "controlling" the situation.

And that is just not enough anymore.

[sandnsea]

44. No they are not

They're into creating an environment where women don't feel forced into an abortion. For all the women on this board who say "I'd never have an abortion", and that is quite a few, there should be a better support system. That's a starting place in reducing abortions that we can all agree on. We can talk rationally with these people. We can explain why some of these other laws about parental notification and late term abortions are unnecessary or unwise. But it won't happen as long as people stick their feet in cement and refuse to talk or even be respectful.

[madfloridian]

45. Then why isn't contraception a major part of both platforms?

[sandnsea]

47. It's Already Funded

It says that at their web site. They support that funding. They want to do MORE than just birth control. There's nothing horrible about that.

And it is good that Obama said he opposes "mental distress" (not mental health) as a reason for third trimester abortions. That's what the right loves to say, the left support a nine month abortion on any emotional whim of the mother, which is just not true. So he dispelled that myth of theirs. But some people are apparently too stupid to get it.

You have to create a place for rational people to go, or they will go with these right wing groups.

[madfloridian]

48. Thank for saying I am not rational.

.

[sandnsea]

51. I was referring to pro-life Democrats

Is that you? No. It isn't me either. But I'd rather have them with this group than some right wing nutballs.

[ehrnst]

54. If you are carrying a brainless fetus - does that count as mental distress?

If you find at 7 mos that your fetus will not live even a week past birth, but will be born live, and your physical health will not be endangered by that condition - you would support forcing that woman to carry for two more months.

Forcing her to listen to questions from people about the nursery colors, or what the name will be?

Then going through labor, knowing that the baby will die gasping for breath.

Really? Because that's what it would mean for women of anacephalic fetuses.

[sandnsea]

55. That's a medical condition

that has nothing to do with the mental distress of the mother. However, if the mother CHOOSES to carry that fetus, shouldn't we support her in that decision?

[ehrnst]

60. A doomed pregnancy has nothing to do with the mental distress of the woman?

I beg to differ.

No one said that we should not support a woman who chooses to a pregnancy (any pregnancy) to term.

My posts have clearly stated that the policies put forth by the group in the OP are positive, UNLESS they are a stealth SUBSTITUTE for policies that support all choices, including access to contraception.

The point is supporting informed, healthy, medically approved reproductive options for all women, not just for those who choose full term pregnancy and childbirth.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. This is very scary stuff!

We must make it abundantly clear to Obama that back-pedaling on contraception and the right to abortions are completely NON-NEGOTIABLE ...

I am furious at the thought that these topics are being bandied about with such abandon.

There is no place in the Democratic Party for such talk!

We will not go back into the dark ages, ever again.

[Echo In Light]

29. Funding the occupation, FISA, now this. With friends like these...

[undeterred]

17. Stinkin' thinkin'.

[eShirl]

20. HOW can a strategy to reduce the number of abortions NOT include contraception?

sounds about as well-thought-out to me as abstinence-only education

[ehrnst]

25. When it's not really about reducing abortion at all - it's about increasing consequences for sex.

Any time a group says that they're all about reducing abortion...and it doesn't include contraception access, then it's not about abortion at all.

It's about modifying - reigning in - sexual activity in women.

"We now have a comprehensive measure that will support pregnant women who don't want to have abortions by ensuring health care, child care, support to stay in school, and other important support for pregnant women and their families."

This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing - but when it REPLACES responsible public health policy where contraception and timely access to abortion is concerned, then it's going to do harm. They are only addressing the concerns of women who want to have children, and reducing the options for women who don't want to have children, (but still have the gall to have sex).

These Dems know that neocons want and need the threat of unplanned pregnancy and STDs to be a deterrent to sex. In the event those things fail to keep women chaste (as they have for centuries), and unwanted pregnancy occurs, they want to take away "excuses" not to give birth.

As though giving birth is a duty, not a thought out, responsibly made decision.

[karynnj]

32. Here's some help on the Ryan-DeLauro bill - Note Kuchinich is a sponsor!!!

As are other people usually trusted on this issue - Sherrod Brown (2006 when a Congressman), Obey, Patrick Kennedy, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Looking at the summary, this does not seem what your web-sites are calling it - so it may require more investigation. At any rate, it is still in committee.


This is from 2006:
.R.6067
Title: To provide for programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents.
Sponsor: Rep Ryan, Tim (introduced 9/13/2006) Cosponsors (24)
Latest Major Action: 11/2/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
9/13/2006--Introduced.

Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies.

Provides for: (1) grants to prevent teen pregnancy; and (2) a national center for parents of adolescents to support parents in preventing teen pregnancy.

Amends title XIX (Medicaid) of Social Security Act to expand coverage of family planning services.

Sets forth requirements for primary care clinics that receive federal financial assistance and provide abortion services.

Expands state options to provide health care coverage to low-income pregnant women.

Title X Family Planning Services Act of 2006 - Authorizes appropriations for voluntary family planning projects.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit individual health insurance coverage from excluding pregnancy as a preexisting condition.
Provides for: (1) grants for ultrasound equipment and prenatal testing for pregnant women; and (2) programs to better identify and treat pregnant women and mothers who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Allows the Secretary to make grants to public institutions of higher education to assist students who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students in continuing their studies and graduating.

Requires the Secretary to require that federally funded group homes for pregnant and parenting women provide, upon request, adoption counseling and counseling on parenting skills.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) increase the tax credit for adoption expenses; (2) make such tax credit refundable; and (3) increase the exclusion from gross income for employer-paid adoption expenses.

Provides for: (1) education of teen and first-time mothers through home visits by registered nurses; and (2) the collection and reporting of abortion surveillance data.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

ALL ACTIONS:

9/13/2006:
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
9/13/2006:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce

10/2/2006:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

9/13/2006:
Referred to House Education and the Workforce

11/2/2006:
Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
11/2/2006:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

9/13/2006:
Referred to House Ways and Means

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

***NONE***

COSPONSORS(24), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 12/8/2006
Rep Brown, Sherrod - 9/20/2006
Rep Carson, Julia - 9/27/2006
Rep Clyburn, James E. - 9/13/2006
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 9/13/2006
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 9/27/2006
Rep Emanuel, Rahm - 9/13/2006
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 9/13/2006
Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. - 9/13/2006
Rep Herseth, Stephanie - 9/13/2006
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 9/13/2006
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 9/29/2006
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 9/20/2006
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 9/29/2006
Rep Langevin, James R. - 9/13/2006
Rep Larson, John B. - 9/13/2006
Rep McCollum, Betty - 9/27/2006
Rep Miller, George - 11/15/2006
Rep Obey, David R. - 9/13/2006
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 9/27/2006
Rep Price, David E. - 9/27/2006
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. - 9/20/2006
Rep Strickland, Ted - 9/13/2006
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie - 9/20/2006

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Energy and Commerce Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Health Referral
House Education and the Workforce Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness Referral
Subcommittee on Education Reform Referral
House Ways and Means Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

IT WAS REINTRODUCED THIS CONGRESS, here is the info (the bill number will make it easier to follow, but it looks like it is buried in committee - it has more sponsors than it did in 2006, but not that many - given it is the House

SUMMARY AS OF:
2/15/2007--Introduced.

Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies.

Provides for: (1) grants to prevent teen pregnancy; and (2) a national center for parents of adolescents to support parents in preventing teen pregnancy.

Amends title XIX (Medicaid) of Social Security Act to expand coverage of family planning services.

Sets forth requirements for primary care clinics that receive federal financial assistance and provide abortion services.

Expands state options to provide health care coverage to low-income pregnant women.

Title X Family Planning Services Act of 2007 - Authorizes appropriations for voluntary family planning projects.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit individual health insurance coverage from excluding pregnancy as a preexisting condition.

Provides for: (1) grants for ultrasound equipment and prenatal testing for pregnant women; and (2) programs to better identify and treat pregnant women and mothers who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Allows the Secretary to make grants to public institutions of higher education to assist students who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students in continuing their studies and graduating.

Requires the Secretary to require that federally funded group homes for pregnant and parenting women provide, upon request, adoption counseling and counseling on parenting skills.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) increase the tax credit for adoption expenses; (2) make such tax credit refundable; and (3) increase the exclusion from gross income for employer-paid adoption expenses.

Provides for: (1) education of teen and first-time mothers through home visits by registered nurses; and (2) the collection and reporting of abortion surveillance data.
MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

ALL ACTIONS:

2/15/2007:
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2/15/2007:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce

2/16/2007:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

2/15/2007:
Referred to House Education and Labor

6/5/2007:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities.

2/15/2007:
Referred to House Ways and Means

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

***NONE***

COSPONSORS(39), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 10/23/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 2/15/2007
Rep Capps, Lois - 3/12/2008
Rep Carson, Andre - 5/7/2008
Rep Courtney, Joe - 2/15/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph - 2/15/2007
Rep Davis, Artur - 2/12/2008
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 2/27/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 2/15/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 2/15/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 2/15/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm - 2/15/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 2/15/2007
Rep Farr, Sam - 5/8/2007
Rep Herseth, Stephanie - 2/15/2007
Rep Hill, Baron P. - 3/26/2007
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 2/15/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 2/15/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 2/15/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/15/2007
Rep Lampson, Nick - 11/13/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. - 2/15/2007
Rep Larson, John B. - 2/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 2/15/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty - 2/15/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. - 2/15/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. - 2/12/2008
Rep Miller, George - 2/15/2007
Rep Moran, James P. - 2/15/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. - 2/15/2007
Rep Obey, David R. - 2/15/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 2/27/2007
Rep Price, David E. - 2/15/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 3/26/2007
Rep Smith, Adam - 2/15/2007
Rep Stupak, Bart - 5/1/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty - 2/12/2008
Rep Udall, Mark - 11/13/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie - 2/15/2007

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Energy and Commerce Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Health Referral
House Education and Labor Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities Referral
House Ways and Means Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

[madfloridian]

33. Thanks a lot for the info...this part jumped out at me. "abortion surveillance"

Provides for: (1) education of teen and first-time mothers through home visits by registered nurses; and (2) the collection and reporting of abortion surveillance data.

It just sounds odd that they have so much time to "surveil" abortion data.

They need to mind their own business.

[karynnj]

40. I did not extensively look at it - I was just trying to answer

your question on status - then saw the list of co-sponsors - so put in the comments that this may be less bad than implied.

I would take that to mean that they would monitor the people who are doing the "abortion surveillance" outside clinics etc. If so, it's a good thing. The word "surveillance" precludes many other definitions. Abortions are already reported or we wouldn't have the data we do. The only other possibility is to capture the number of times where counseling or help precluded an abortion that otherwise would have occurred. (I think this will defy calculation.)

[madfloridian]

43. I never thought of that.

.

[madfloridian]

34. Your info mentions Title X....its head is a foe of birth control.

I don't think our Democrats want to go that route with Orr in control.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/health/main3380290.shtml

"CBS) Family planning advocates denounced President Bush’s appointment of a contraceptive critic to be head of the federal program responsible for providing birth control and other family planning services to the poor.

Dr. Susan Orr, an associate commissioner at the Department of Health and Human Services, was named by Mr. Bush to be the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA). She would oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program. Orr is currently on the board of directors of Teen Choice, a non-profit groups advocating for abstinence in lieu of contraception."

....Orr has been criticized for public statements which have indicated an anti-contraceptive view in areas of education, public policy and health insurance. In 2000, while working as a policy director at the Family Research Council, she objected to a Washington, D.C., city council bill requiring health insurers to pay for contraceptives. By not including a “conscience clause” allowing employers to withhold contraceptive coverage, Orr said the council would force employers "to make a choice between serving God and serving the D.C. government.

"It's not about choice. It's not about health care. It's about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death," she said."

[madfloridian]

35. From karynnj's link: list of the sponsors of the present bill

COSPONSORS(39), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 10/23/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 2/15/2007
Rep Capps, Lois - 3/12/2008
Rep Carson, Andre - 5/7/2008
Rep Courtney, Joe - 2/15/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph - 2/15/2007
Rep Davis, Artur - 2/12/2008
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 2/27/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 2/15/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 2/15/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 2/15/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm - 2/15/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 2/15/2007
Rep Farr, Sam - 5/8/2007
Rep Herseth, Stephanie - 2/15/2007
Rep Hill, Baron P. - 3/26/2007
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 2/15/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 2/15/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 2/15/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/15/2007
Rep Lampson, Nick - 11/13/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. - 2/15/2007
Rep Larson, John B. - 2/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 2/15/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty - 2/15/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. - 2/15/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. - 2/12/2008
Rep Miller, George - 2/15/2007
Rep Moran, James P. - 2/15/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. - 2/15/2007
Rep Obey, David R. - 2/15/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 2/27/2007
Rep Price, David E. - 2/15/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 3/26/2007
Rep Smith, Adam - 2/15/2007
Rep Stupak, Bart - 5/1/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty - 2/12/2008
Rep Udall, Mark - 11/13/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie - 2/15/2007

[karynnj]

37. A simple search of articles on the Soujourners site find

many that applaud measures like better birth control use as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies - thus fewer abortions.

Looking at what they are attempting to do is interesting and frustrating. I know I had the same desire that abortion be out of the political world. It hurt that there were people, who on all other issues were with us and who even liked our candidate better, but voted against him because of this issue. The problem is that I am way less convinced that the problem was the position or the words of any of our candidates.

One good article to see this is Abortion: A Way Forward, which recommends depoliticizing the issue. In essence, it calls for changing the Democratic position to being pro-abortion to pro-abortion-rights. (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0604&article=060410 )

"Recognizing this, some leading Democrats set out following the 2004 election to make clear that pro-abortion-rights doesn’t have to mean pro-abortion."

But, there is NO mainstream politician who has ever been pro-abortion - what does that even mean? This is the Republican frame of the position of people who are pro-abortion-rights. As she puts this change as after the 2004 election, she is ignoring that that new definition fits Kerry, a religious Catholic married to a religious Catholic who clearly that position.

She clearly missed John Kerry's answer in the second debate - he said he was personally against abortion and he spoke of work Teresa had done helping women who opted to keep babies. His answer was pretty much what she considers the new compromise to be - which in fact shows that they may be naive in thinking that words and even actions (like Teresa's) to make abortions less likely will change the opinion of people to whom this is a non-negotiable issue. To them Kerry's votes were his position - he (and any Democrat likely to be nominated) has voted consistently for abortion rights. His explanations of the more controversial ones were reasonable - including on partial birth abortion where he refused to vote for it with no exceptions for the mother's health.

Now, Obama has moved subtly, excluding mental health as part of "a woman's health", but the question is whether this will be enough to gain even one person for whom a candidate voting for abortion rights is a major issue. (This is ignoring whether that is reasonable)
I honestly don't think that it will help Obama with them that much. The question is whether Obama will be able to change the framing as the author speaks of to being perceived as pro-abortions- rights, not pro abortion.

The real issue for them is who the next Supreme Court Justice will be. That was why it was more an issue last time (that Kerry was a church going Catholic simply provided them another way to hit him personally). Now when they need just one more and where it is very very likely that this coming President could determine if Roe vs Wade is overturned, I don't see them not making an all out effort.

Obama needs to get enough votes that he wins without needing those for whom ending abortion is non-negotiable.

[madfloridian]

39. I think it is a matter of religion wanting to control women's lives and bodies.

And we need to be stronger as a party in trying to speak out on it.

Karl Rove is already using it as an issue against Obama. The religious right as a whole will not accept his views as being enough.

[karynnj]

42. I agree that Rove et al will still use abortion against Obama

Though I suspect that on a personal level, Rove is not concerned with the sanctity of life. (How's that for an understatement.)

I suspect that what Wallis et al are trying to do is to find a way that reframes the Democrats on this issue. For those for whom this is a black/white issue it likely can't be done. They point out that a huge percent of America is in the middle on this issue. The point is to make people see that that is really where Obama/Dean/Kerry/Clintons et al are as well. The problem is that the most strident voices, some genuinely pro-abortion end up being used by the RW to define far more thoughtful people - ie all our leaders. Not doing this has the effect of some people thinking the candidate not moral - where a clearer picture would let them see that that he or she is. (and yes , it hurts my brain and heart to think that some people voted for Bush because they saw him as more moral than Kerry - and will do so with McCain vs Obama.)

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Is anyone really surprised? Anti-choice = Anti-Contraception. Almost always.

What it's really about is waging "war" on non-procreative fucking.

[LeftyMom]

46. It's not about abortion, really. It's about controlling women's sexuality and their lives.

Women can't be equal in education or the workplace if they spend much of their adult lives out having and caring for babies. Ultimately, anti-choice people, whether the rank and file realize it or not, are working to return women to second class citizenship and dependency on men.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

49. Bill Clinton's formulated position on abortion is still the best one out there IMHO

Safe, legal, and rare (with increased emphasis on family planning and COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION!!!!)

[madfloridian]

50. Sojourners spokesman: "we are not publicly commenting" on contraception.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=more_on_wallis_and_the_democra

MORE ON WALLIS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.

"This morning I caught up with Jim Wallis' spokesperson, Jason Gedeik, who tells me that Wallis is "not actively campaigning" for the inclusion of an abortion reduction plank in the Democratic Party platform. Gedeik added that Wallis and Barack Obama have known each other for ten years, and that Wallis has tried for a number of years "through backdoor channels," including in discussions with Obama, to get the Party (and the Republicans as well) to address "abortion reduction."

I asked Gedeik if Wallis, or his organization, Sojourners, had a position on any proposed legislation, including the Democrats for Life 95-10 bill that Dana referred to below. He said that Sojourners supported 95-10 in 2006, but has not taken a position on any other proposed legislation, and is not supporting any particular proposal right now. And what about contraception as an element of any "abortion reduction" proposal? Gedeik said that "we are not publicly commenting" on contraception."

That is creepy that they have no comment publicly. There should not even be any questions as to a woman's right to use birth control.

[sandnsea]

52. No. It means they won't be sidetracked

by the right wing fanatics who want to get tied up in moment of conception arguments. They want to stick to their strategy of reducing abortions by helping women.

[crimsonblue]

57. Nor should there be a question of a man's right to use a form of birth control

be it condoms, spermicide, vasectomies, or one of the new fancy methods currently being developed (among them, a pill, a remote controlled device that closes off the sperm, different drugs and therapies to make the sperm unable to attach to an egg, etc). ALL people have the natural right to prevent the propogation of their DNA, just as every person has the right to pass on their DNA (excluding those that have been determined by the courts to have abused their rights)

[crimsonblue]

56. how do you stop abortions?

The way I see it, there are two ways:

1) Stop having sex.

2) Stop unwanted pregnancies.


Let's examine these two different choices, shall we? In the former, sexual activity would be highly discouraged for all individuals. Since sex is known to have a side effect of pregnancy, stopping sex would therefore stop pregnancy. In the latter, stopping unwanted pregnancies would prevent abortions because only women that desired or whatever other reason a child would become preganant. The methods in the former are: chronic masturbation in all of society, anal-only sex between heterosexual couples, or complete abstention from sex. The methods in the latter are: adequate education on the mechanisms of baby production, adequate access to contraceptives (including but not limited to condoms, dental dams, birth control, spermicide, vasectomies, tubal ligation, among others). The former removes sexual responsibility and freedom from the individual, while the latter gives the individual the tools to make an informed decision. Will every choose to use contraceptives? No, just as not all individuals will abstain from sex. Is sex something that has only just recently been discovered by mankind? Nope, as it is the means by which humans repopulate themselves.

Sex is here to stay; it just feels too damn good to give up. Let's give Americans adequate access to contraceptives, and provide them with good education so that they value their bodies and can make the decision that is best for them.

Will unwanted pregnancies persist? Yes.

Will abortion ever be fully eradicated? No.

Should it be legal? Yes, if but only for the medical reasons. Legalizing abortion brought it into the exam room and allowed for trained professionals to ethically and safely administer the procedure. In countries where safe access to abortion is not available, the mortality rates of pregnant women are astonishingly high.

But what if I don't want some woman I never met getting an abortion? Too fucking bad for you. We live in a free society, and an individual's actions are none of your business (as long as their actions do not violate your rights as a free person).

Does abortion violate the rights of those that oppose it? No. Any pregant woman is eligible to receive an abortive procedure, without discrimination due to race or ethnicity (and after 16 in most states, age is not relevant either). The Bible is not a valid argument against abortion, because our Country was not founded on the Bible, it was founded on the Constitution, which grants everyone the freedom of privacy and the freedom to make personal chouces about their bodies and lives.

Does anyone want to see more and more abortions? No. Nobody likes killing babies.


So in conclusion,
What is the best choice to reduce the number of abortions? Comprehensive education and adequate contraceptive access, because it: a) reduces the chances of an unwanted pregnancy and b) it gives responsibility to the individual for the sexual choices and desires they may want.

[Rhythm]

63. Any "abortion reduction" program that doesn't have poverty relief

as its primary, intense focus is nothing more than a bone to appease the Hounds of Conservatism.

Poverty (or the fear of it) is the root cause of the VAST majority of abortions. Until we acknowledge and do something to REALLY address it as a serious social issue, there will be no meaningful "abortion reduction."