(Some) Democrats and abortion
By Heraclitus
To paraphrase the lead character at the end of Trainspotting, the truth is, I'm a bad blogger. My last two posts came directly from Jill at Feministe, and I'm going to do the same here (here's Jill's post). Here's the news item:
That's right, an attempt to lower the number of abortions by giving better health and child care to pregnant women who couldn't otherwise afford it (as do those "godless Europeans," which is why their abortion rate is only a fraction of ours), and require even abstinence-based sex-ed programs to give instructions on birth control. In short, it's an attempt to drastically reduce the number of abortions without outlawing abortion (and, as Jill notes, it also gives women more choices).
Of course, this reminds one of Bill Clinton's dictum that "abortion should be legal, and as safe and as rare as possible." Neither side's beliefs or sensibilites need to be spat upon. This is a clear chance for the Democrats to take the lead and give the country what it really wants and what would be best for it, rather than another round of the usual shrill-a-thons. Some Democrats are already leading the way; will the rest of the party catch up to them?
To paraphrase the lead character at the end of Trainspotting, the truth is, I'm a bad blogger. My last two posts came directly from Jill at Feministe, and I'm going to do the same here (here's Jill's post). Here's the news item:
Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who opposes abortion rights, on Wednesday is scheduled to announce he is introducing a bill that would aim to reduce the number of abortions by establishing health care- and child care-related programs to support pregnant women, Roll Call reports. The measure -- called the Pregnant Women Support Act -- is modeled after Democrats for Life of America's "95-10 Initiative," which aims to reduce the U.S. abortion rate by 95% over the next 10 years. According to Roll Call, another bill (HR 6067) -- which was introduced last week by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who opposes abortion rights, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who supports abortion rights -- also is modeled in part on the 95-10 Initiative (Yanchin, Roll Call, 9/20). Ryan and DeLauro's bill would require states to cover contraceptives for women with incomes of up to 200% of the federal poverty level, establish grants for sex education programs and require programs with a focus on abstinence to include thorough instruction on contraceptives. The measure, which includes 20 initiatives, also would increase funding for health care for low-income women with children, provide no-cost visits from nurses to teens and women who have given birth for the first time, expand a tax credit for adoption and fund child care services for parents in college (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/15).
That's right, an attempt to lower the number of abortions by giving better health and child care to pregnant women who couldn't otherwise afford it (as do those "godless Europeans," which is why their abortion rate is only a fraction of ours), and require even abstinence-based sex-ed programs to give instructions on birth control. In short, it's an attempt to drastically reduce the number of abortions without outlawing abortion (and, as Jill notes, it also gives women more choices).
Of course, this reminds one of Bill Clinton's dictum that "abortion should be legal, and as safe and as rare as possible." Neither side's beliefs or sensibilites need to be spat upon. This is a clear chance for the Democrats to take the lead and give the country what it really wants and what would be best for it, rather than another round of the usual shrill-a-thons. Some Democrats are already leading the way; will the rest of the party catch up to them?
posted by . at
1:23 AM
3 Comments:
OK, this has nothing to do with the post, I just didn't know where else to put this message.
I've just been over to Ann Althouse's blog, which "The Reaction" files under "Moderate."
Really? Moderate? Has anyone over at The Reaction read it recently? An while I would describe myself as left of center, I really don't think this is a case of simple bitterness. The whole site seems to be devoted to liberal and democrat bashing. I could not find anything approaching a similar attitude towards republilcans or conservatives.
By
Anonymous, at 10:10 AM
Hi, anonymous, thanks for reading. I have nothing to do with the blog roll, and I'm certainly not an admirer of Althouse, as you can see from my belated-but-still-intemperate "Harangue-o-rama," posted below. I think she's disqualified herself from any serious conversation, regardless of how you want to describe her. The few times I've been to her website, I've found no content at all, just lame put-downs that an intelligent 16 year-old would find banal. I think people just don't notice this, or think there's more there, because she's a law professor at Wisconsin. After all, professors in law schools are always really learned, careful, intelligent and serious, right? You know, like John Yoo.
By
., at 1:51 PM
Good post. I think Dems, regardless of the likelihood of gaining the House in Nov., need to take advantage of as many opportunities as they can to shed their image of being finger-pointing malcontents. It would serve them well for the coming pendulum swing away from the neo-con right.
By
O' Tim, at 1:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home