Here is some more background on one proposal designed to achieve the goal of communicating more effectively on reproductive rights issues and broadening our base of support so that we may become a more inclusive party.

Thanks, Taz. I would have put it under healthcare, but at least we get the topic started.

And here are some of the other discussion points raised.

Maybe we can actually discuss whether this needs to be a civil rights issue or a healthcare one with regard to public policy. I believe it is now considered part of civil rights (right to privacy), but family planning is part of healthcare.

I know - I just thought it was really - from many of our points of view on this site an issue of reproductive rights...

I thought there are elements we are discussing which touch on labor and education including day care - sex education and providing educational assistance...so it really was more than health care -- so I put it here...

This is an interesting discussion.

My thought is that parents have legal authority to an extent --- children in my state can seek alcohol and drug abuse counselling without parental consent or knowledge...

I also believe that children can seek medical treatment without parental consent - though certain treatment may require such...

I recently had this discussion with someone at work and we had to agree to disagree...

The issue is not easy - because while we want parents to live up to their responsibilities - what about the child raped by a parent of family member that wants to have an abortion?

What about the child who wants to have an abortion because he or she is afraid about what the parent will do?

What about abusive parents?

Well, I'll start with my general view of abortion.

I believe in unlimited access to abortion in the first trimester, for whatever reason.

After that, I believe in more restrictions having to do with the health of the mother and the potential for having a deformed child, although I don't know when it is possible to determine that. In the last trimester, I think it's extremely difficult to justify an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger.

I have mixed feelings with regard to parental notification, and would be open to arguments pro and con. I would tend to think that parents should know about medical procedures being done on their child up to the age of 16 maybe.

As for the morning after pill, if it's over-the-counter, then I guess that eliminates the need for prescriptions, and therefore a doctor's notification.

I believe abortion clinics already do counsel on the risks of the procedures and how to avoid getting pregnant in the future.

I think someone also should be available to provide information on adoption, if the person would like it. And, I believe a counselor should be available to talk about possible emotional issues that may arise after the person has the abortion, and to suggest cost-free or low-cost counseling for the future.

Now look at all those issues we agree on...

On the counselling issues - I think many states provide it - but perhaps not all - and perhaps its provided through different venues so it is not uniformly available and this is why they have added it...

How about honest sex education in high school focused on personal responsibility - abstinence plus contraceptions - STDs - etc?

How about universal health care?

How about increased benefits to help employers provide and needy persons receive day care?

How about educational incentives for students who receive certain grade pouint averages?

How about educational incentives for single mothers on welfare to assist them in becoming more productive/independent members of society?

I thought I would post part of this paper from the Rockridge Institute site about abortion prevention versus punishment.




Find the complete article here:

http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/...ion/?forPrint=1

Taz?
Would you be willing to start from scratch and develop this with only prevention steps?

As some have said there are already programs that cover education for single parents, etc.

I'm thinking along the lines of something like prevention including more of a Talk to Your Kids kit for parents to encourage frank discussion with their kids (girls and boys).

In my considered opinion, it is not the role of politics or politicians to deal directly
with personal issues of physical and mental health nor the specific contents of
education. These are the responsibilities of Professionals. TThe role of politics and politicians is to provide community-based systems to deliver these services. This
role includes maintaining systems for keeping current consumer needs assessment, research and development for improving services, program
evaluation, funding, etc. A particularly important aspect of the role of politics and politicians is that of assuring access to quality education and health care.

The best way for the Democratic Party to address all of the issues mentioned on this thread so far and hundreds of important issues not yet mention is to
support universal education and training up to 4 years past high school and
universal health care including mental health The community doesn't need
pregnency prevention counseling any more than it needs alcholism counseling.
Every community needs easy access to professional counseling and orgainized systems of peer support

That seems pretty reasonable. Personally, I would like to see ALL alternatives, including abortion, presented in any couseling in which an adult chooses to participate, and that same couseling required for minors seeking an abortion for obvious reasons. Except in cases of incest, I support parental consent, but not parental notification; forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission, and in this case safer. Whether or not any of my tweaks are salable I don't know; I offer them as my ideal, and most, perhaps even all, are negotiable.

I do think a potential father should have at least some say; if he has custody of his sperm, he should have at least limited custody of his fetus, and if he has parental rights for his child, he should have at least some for his fetus. Not gonna hold my breath though. I'm still waiting to hear how you're gonna sell those second term trimester limitations that I like, but didn't wanna touch 'cos I have a morbid fear of death.

That's an interesting analysis of the left/right paradigm, and implies/explains a great deal. The implication is that the right has a kind of "political predestination" view; they may be wrong from time to time, but only insofar as they deviate from thier overall "right thinking," and are vindicated regardless by it whatever favorably disposed Being that granted it them. Meanwhile, the left takes the view that EVERYBODY screws up from time to time, and wants the same opportunities for redemption granted others that they also desire for themselves. Very insightful designations indeed; the left takes the view that everybody can be "saved" while the right reserves that to a select group and writes off everybody else.

He can do that, but treatment is at least as important as prevention, if we want to make that comparison. It's not fair to eliminate all but a few (or one) option(s) for poor pregnant women. There's nothing wrong with not forcing them to choose between an education that a single mother will need to provide for herself and her child and having that child. Innoculation is good, but if that's all you do, you lose a lot of patients....

Even that decision is a political one, no? That being said your first point is a valid one, and a fair assessment so long as we can insure the involvement of a representative cross-section of professionals capable of objectivity and freedom from bias. To use the educational field you cite as an example, no, I don't think we should have any teachers teaching Creationism and that anyone who believes Darwin is going to hell, but I don't think we need them to teach that evolution is an incontrivertible fact and that anyone who believes otherwise ('cos I still don't see the conflict) is a braindead simpleton. Maybe that's a bad example because theology or (other) metaphysics has no place in science class because not subject to verification; science class should remain mute on such matters. It suddenly occurs to me that a metaphysics class in public schools would be no bad thing (the dead Greeks would agree with me,) and would allow the "alternate view(s)" purportedly desired by Creationists, which would include, among others, the Bilblical.

I know a lot of drunks who would insist the community needs alcoholism counseling, but on that basis I agree with your penultimate statement and think this should be at least subsidized by the state even if they are not administrating and/or staffing it.

Prevention First Act

How about something to the point and simple;
1. No restrictions on pre-viability abortions
2. Post viability abortions only if the mother's life is in danger, or severe physical health issues of the mother are an issue. If the fetus is viable all efforts should be made to use a procedure, unless those efforts jeopardize the mother's life or physical heath, to protect the fetus's life.

Pre -viability issues about when life begins can be respectfully argued and differences of viewpoint can be accepted by most Americans, IMO. Post viability abortion arguments, unless the mother's life or physical health is in jeopardy, really do not hold up well and are not accepted by the majority of Americans, IMO.

I like it, PROVIDED we have a working definition of "viability." Did we ever get one of those? (I just noticed I need fourteen posts to tie rla, so off I go.)

I would be willing to start anywhere...

But I think that the most important thing is that an innovative and comprehensive plan be established that is focused on prevention - this is a great place to start - but I do not think we can stop there...

You see - if we stop there - the response is going to be - the Democrats are living in a dreamworld - they refuse to acknowledge in their program the reality that despite all efforts at prevention - there will still be unwanted pregnancies - and what do we do then with those unwanted pregnancies...what is our strategy then?

Then we have to focus on health care, day care and other initiatives wich are necessary for empowerment...

So I agree - the first element of the strategy must be preventing unwanted pregnancies - and the second element - when the unwanted pregnancy occurs which is - granted - the most difficult issue ---what do we do then?

We support the right to choose...

But we make the right to choose more meaningful through empowerment...by eliminating

I have to get an abortion because of my parents - because they don't understand...I think education of parents is important too

Because I am young and will have no future or I will be ridiculed or talked about behind my back and onstracized...

Because do not think I can afford a child or another child
-and go to school
-and support that child

Because my career/employer will not support me bringing a child to term to put up for adoption...

Would honest counselling be helpful at this level?

I think it would..counselling plus an option - a more meaningful adoption option...

How do we deal with these issues?

I support it...

But this can't be everything - there are two issues....

I'll search around for the medical position on viabilty-however, as we all know, very premature babies have been "saved" by intensive medical intervention, so this is a difficult area. Maybe viable means survival outside the womb without extraordinary medical measures-a tough one.

Just found this article in The Nation. It basically says that the Christian right is opposed to a vaccination against the human papilloma virus, which is a widespread sexually transmitted disease that is responsible for at least 70% of the cases of cervical cancer. This would tend to support evidence that the Christian right's opposition to abortion is less about life and more about sex.


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=pollitt

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_defn.htm

Another interesting website:


US Constitutional Cluster

Below are the idea elements used to construct this cluster.
190 PROTECTION owed fetus varies w/ stage of development (213)
- There is a period of time (Frist) in which abortion is acceptable, not wrong, not MORALLY same thing as later
--(the Supreme Court said) states did not have the right to bar abortion until the point of viability, which it set at approximately 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy...the state's interest in in the life of the fetus becomes "compelling" after the fetus is viable.
## -- early abortion is better than late abortion
## -- the effort here is to insure that abortions are done as early as possible
## -- the fact that few abortions are done late is clearly good
## -- the issue is how early or late the abortion has to be performed
## -- early abortion is less morally troubling for women and is better for all concerned
cross reference 213: when mothers rights weighed against fetus, see 213. Moral nature of fetus and morality-based fetal claims for protection gets coded in this series. Note that logic would make 190 the more general claim about the nature of the fetus, but that is 192. When issue is rights, and rights being given more or less weight depending on stage of development, code 213.

192 NATURE of fetus differs depending on stage
-- personhood as progessive, incremental, not dichotomous
-- miscarriages are common and not noted or mourned like a death, are "natural"
-- (viability) is a relevant issue, since Roe v. Wade essentially defines life at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
## -- presenting a late-term model of the fetus as if it were "the" fetus is a distortion
## -- "they show these pictures of late-term fetuses, but reall only a small percentage of abortions are done so late"
## -- "viability is that stage of development in which ..."
## -- "situation that exists a few days after sexual intercourse" contrasted with a known or knowable pregnancy
## -- [right after a rape is] before the actual forming of a life. And [a D&C then] has nothing to do with abortion.
suggestions that early abortions are less upsetting, better than late abortions should be coded here; CLAIM that an EARLY ABORTION (e.g. menstrual extraction or morning-after-pill) IS NOT AN ABORTION should be coded here; if some later abortions should be forbidden code 190 (moral reasons) or 213 (shift in balance of rights toward fetus and potential life).

213 Women take PRIORITY BEFORE A CERTAIN TIME, then fetus (190; 312).
--Roe v. Wade defined fetal viability at 24 weeks and as such fetal rights outweigh women's rights at that point (but not before).
## -- The court said that up the fourth month of pregnancy, a mother's right to privacy... transcends that of the embryo.
## -- The Courts ruling in Roe astutely accomodates the shifting interest of the woman, the fetus and the state as pregnancy proceeds.
## -- In the 1973 ruling, the justices said that... pregnant women [have] the right to choose abortion in consultation with a doctor... at least until late in pregnancy when a fetus is capable of living outside its mother's womb.
crossreference: 190 makes a moral distinction about wrongfulness, not legal one. The claims for protection in 190 are based in the different moral status of the fetus at different stages, not a shifting balance of rights. If the woman is visible in the statement in relation to the fetus, it is certainly a 213 rather than 190 (do not combine 190 + 3xx to get the same effect!). Note that 312 is about women's rights being limited by anything OTHER THAN the gestational age of fetus.

214 BECAUSE OF DISAGREEMENT WHEN LIFE BEGINS, WOMAN HAS PRIORITY
## -- "As this court noted in Roe, where there is widespread disagreement in both a philosophical and religious sense about when life begins, this Court cannot sanction one view to the detriment of women's lives and health"

314 Women's right to decide is a constitutional right (410; 412)
-- The right to decide of a woman is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.
## -- the law violates the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which established that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion ... the 14th Amendment, which holds that no state shall deprive a person of life, liberty or property, is "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
## -- A three?judge federal panel ruled Wednesday that New Jersey's law permitting abortions only to save the mother's life was unconstitutional because it violated a woman's right to privacy.
## -- was in full accord with the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. "As an elected official,"... "I believe I have the duty to do all I can to ensure that women have the opportunity to freely exercise that right [the one in RvW] if they so choose."
## -- securing the "equal protection of the law" for women (means the 14th Amendment is being invoked to justify abortion rights)

CROSSREFERENCE: 314: Explicit references to both women AND the constitution (the 14th Amendment, "the constitution," "the right secured by Roe v. Wade") fall here, general references to constitution and rights go in 410 and assertions of women's fundamental rights, without reference to the consitution go in 412.

410 PRIVACY AND FREEDOM FROM STATE INTRUSION/GOVT VS INDIV (31x)
(ABORTION LAWS VIOLATE PRIVACY, FREEDOM, FUNDAMENTAL VALUES) -- Laws restricting abortion infringe on personal freedom; privacy and freedom from state intrusion are chief issues (not further specified)
--THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO LEGALLY REGULATE PEOPLE'S PRIVATE AFFAIRS
--forbidding or making abortion difficult is an offense against liberty and freedom
-- this was, after all, the anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that gave practical voice not to abortion or its foes but to tolerance and liberty
## -- this Court has recognized that the rights of autonomy, bodily integrity, and equality are central to our notions of ordered liberty. Roe lies at the heart of those interests.
## -- Abortion, while not necessarily a favored method of preventing an unwanted pregnancy, was viewed by many as a private decision.
## -- "Quite simply, I believe that government should not interfere with the right of a woman to choose ... on the question of abortion.... This is a matter of utmost privacy and touches the deepest part of us. Government and politics should be far removed."
## -- The genius of Roe and the Constitution is that it fully protects rights of fundamental importance. Government may not chip away at fundamental rights
CROSSREFERENCE: GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (NO REFERENCE TO WOMEN) go in 410; women-and-the constitution in 314; and fundamental rights that women share (but no reference to constitution) go in 412. DO NOT OVERUSE 410 TO GET CATCHPHRASES OF 'CHOICE' OR 'PRIVACY' IN OTHER ARGUMENTS.

411 Issue is PRIVACY OF FAMILY AS A WHOLE
-- families have a right to make contraceptive decisions, including choice to abort, without government interference
-- Sexuality is a matter of personal privacy. Government out of the bedroom.
-- Participation of husband and wife in making a decision for their families' good should be respected
-- families know best how many children they can afford to raise and care for
-- The government should not be in the bedroom; should not be involved in private decisions about reproduction.
-- I believe in the right of married couples to make this decision for themselves

412 Issue is PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUAL WOMEN (31x; 320)
- Physical examination of women suspected of abortion, enforcing laws against abortion by medical exam is unacceptable
- Providing reasons/justifications for abortion violates women's rights to privacy.
- Enforcing a law that requires reasons be given makes government intrudes into questions that are not its business.
## -- The right answer, regardless of how the question is framed, is no, women's liberty may not be so encumbered. If the Supreme Court cannot say that much, it may not matter when or even whether Roe is formally overruled. American's determined to protect women's liberty will have to turn to the ballot box, and lobby the legislatures even harder.
## -- Taking abortion out of the purview of government and thus out of politics seems an insurmountable task. But the effort must go on. As it does, it is reassuring that the majority of Americans polled and the weight of the law remain firmly on the side of a woman's right to make up her own mind.
## -- This shouldn't be an issue in the political arena, "...When a woman has to make this kind of decision, she should see her doctor not her lawyer."
## -- said Wednesday that the bill "is about who makes a most personal, intimate decision: politicians or a woman with her family, her doctor, and her God."
##crossreference 412 frames conflict between government and the individual woman, 31x series asserts rights SPECIFIC to women, rather than a share in a general right to privacy or liberty. 320 raises women's responsibity as decision-makers, rather than privacy, as what should keep state out. EXPLICIT REFERENCES TO BOTH WOMEN AND THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE CODED 314 (AND NOT ALSO 412). EXPLICIT REFERENCES LIMITING WOMEN'S RIGHTS BY AGE OF FETUS GO IN 213 (NOT 41X + 190).

413 ISSUE IS PRIVACY OF DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP (713; 815)
-medical records deserve special confidentiality
-doctor/patient relationship is sacrosanct
-doctor requires privacy to provide good care
-- gag rule, or required counselling, or other limits on doctor's communication with patient interfere with good care-giving and trusting relationship
CROSSREFERENCE: code references to VIOLATION OF RIGHTS inherent in a doctor-patient relationship here, code the NEGATIVE EFFECTS on the quality of medical care for the woman herself in 713 and the UNFAIRNESS to the doctor (disrespect, interference with his judgment) in 815.

433 FEDERAL MANDATES VIOLATE STATES'/HOSPITAL'S RIGHTS (to be anti) (410)
## note that TWO levels of government are involved: this is "states' rights" (or local gov. AND/OR local hospitals vs. state government), not individual actions guided by conscience
--Forcing states or localities to permit or pay for abortion is forcing lawmakers, citizens to violate their consciences (when they pay taxes).
-- Federal government should not coerce states to do what they think is wrong.
-- Federal government should not require state hospitals or clinics to permit abortions if they have decided they don't want to
(note that the issue of states rights is raised, explicitly or implicitly, because more than one level of government is involved).
##--must/should give states the latitude to regulate abortion
##--negative about not giving states latitude to regulate abortion
## -- if a state has a "rational basis" for making a law, the court should not intervene
## -- upholds the "rational basis" standard

CROSSREFERENCE: 433 frames state level regulation positively (as "latitude" or "freedom" to regulate), in contrast to negative view of states' "efforts to restrict abortion rights" in 410

456 STATE'S ROLE LIMITED TO ESTABLISHING REASONABLE STANDARDS
-- the state has a legitimate role in establishing safety standards for abortion
-- state must not use its legitimate role in protecting women's health to discourage her from having an abortion



http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/abortionstudy/vars...sters/uscon.htm

This is the type of hypocrisy we really need to combat more forcefully...

How can you suggest you support a culture of life when you advocate positions that are so irresponsible?

This is more of a framing issue, but I wanted to bring it over since it's more relevant here than in the more general discussion. The adamant insistence on "NO restrictions on abortion" was elsewhere mentioned, yet the above seems to indicate pretty clearly that such restrictions already exist. What changes, if any, are needed in law are minor, at best. The issue then becomes how to address general health issues including abortion, and how to promote the approach. A couple observations:

On the phrases alone, I suspect 95% would be opposed to "partial BIRTH abortion" and in favor of "parental CONSENT." I also supect the same numbers woul oppose "abortion committees" and at least view "mid-term abortions" more favorably than "partial birth." Apart from that, I still see nothing objectionable about the 95/10 proposal. If it involves subsidized education for single mothers, well, aren't Democrats and other progressives in favor of that for EVERYONE? Means testing might be a good aspect of that part, though, and should help discourage charges of "rewarding promiscuity." Similarly, I think all forms of birth control and sex education should be available over the counter (where applicable) but it should also be stressed that only one of these methods is 100% effective against STDs and pregnancy. Abstinence should be the first line of defence, because the best, but that doesn't mean we surrender when that bulwark is breached.

TRB FROM ANN ARBOR
Morning-After Sickness
by Jonathan Cohn
Post date: 04.27.05
Issue date: 05.02.05

It is no great secret that Democrats have been losing political fights over abortion for a while. And it's no great secret why. Although a majority of Americans agree with liberals that abortion should be legal, the right has succeeded in starting political debates that end up making liberals look like extremists. One method has been to focus on partial-birth abortion, a practice that most Americans oppose because it seems cruel. Another successful strategy, as William Saletan explains in the book Bearing Right, has been to push parental consent laws, turning the argument about abortion into a referendum on public attitudes toward sex and the rights of parents. But cultural conservatives have never ceded the more extreme elements of their agenda--something that will become apparent if a new controversy gets the scrutiny it deserves.

At issue is Plan B, a drug manufactured by Barr Laboratories and better known as the "morning-after pill." Plan B is a very high dosage of progesterone, the hormone that promotes pregnancy when produced naturally by a woman's body but prevents pregnancy when taken in a standard birth-control regimen. The problem with birth-control pills is that they only work when taken before intercourse, which is where Plan B comes in. It turns out that an elevated dose of progesterone taken soon after intercourse also prevents pregnancy, though its effectiveness diminishes quickly with time. Women can get this large quantity of progesterone simply by taking several birth-control pills together rather than over several days, as they would normally. Women's Capital Corporation, since bought by Barr, eventually got the idea of producing and marketing a single dose of progesterone designed specifically for use after intercourse, to be made available by prescription. In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the application.

The move got little attention amid the controversy over RU-486, the chemical compound that induces abortions even weeks into pregnancy (something Plan B can't do). But use of Plan B remains infrequent, partly because it can be difficult to obtain the drug quickly enough. As a result, women's health advocates have embraced a Barr proposal to make Plan B available "behind the counter"--meaning pharmacists could dispense it without a prescription--to women over 16 years of age.

This time, conservatives are making noise. A year ago, 49 Republican representatives wrote President Bush, urging him to block approval of Barr's FDA application. And, while the FDA's own scientific advisory panel endorsed the application by a vote of 23 to four, the Agency has withheld approval. Early this month, Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray announced they would place an indefinite "hold" on the nomination of the FDA's acting director, Lester Crawford, to become its permanent director until the Agency issued a ruling. (Unrelated issues have since stalled Crawford's nomination.) Meanwhile, stories of pharmacists refusing to fill Plan B prescriptions are cropping up. Early this month, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an emergency rule requiring pharmacies, as publicly licensed health care providers, to dispense the medications, even if employees object. Conservatives there are trying to overturn the order.

Plan B's most outspoken critic, the right-wing Concerned Women for America, insists it is actually worried about safety, given the lack of studies on the pill's long-term effects. But the vast majority of medical experts say Plan B is completely safe, in part because birth-control pills have such a well-established safety record themselves. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Plan B was available in 2002 without a prescription in 26 countries, including Switzerland, Israel, and Congo.

A less flimsy argument against Plan B is that it is tantamount to abortion. While science has demonstrated that Plan B works, it has not shown definitively how Plan B works. And, although most researchers believe that it acts by postponing ovulation or preventing fertilization, it could also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus--which, according to some pro-life groups, is murder. That's a perfectly respectable, intellectually consistent position for people who believe life begins at the instant when sperm meets egg. But it's also a very severe standard, given that fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant 40 to 60 percent of the time. This is one reason that the medical establishment defines pregnancy as beginning only when a fertilized egg has implanted.

The other serious argument against Plan B is that it will increase risky sexual activity by young people. But peer-reviewed studies published in mainstream medical publications (like one just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association) have repeatedly found no such link. Of course, conservatives argue that making emergency contraception available sends a broader cultural message about the acceptability of premarital sex. But, even if that were true, there are the likely benefits of Plan B to consider. James Trussell, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, has estimated that, if emergency contraceptives were widely available in this country, they could reduce the approximately 1.3 million abortions that take place yearly in this country by half. If a culture of life is so sacrosanct, shouldn't that trump the issue of premarital sex?

When conservatives talk about Plan B, they conjure up images of lust-crazed college girls engaging in one-night stands, then reaching over empty beer bottles to grab their supersized Plan B jars. But the one group to whom emergency contraception would make the greatest difference is rape victims. According to Trussell, who studied statistics from 1998, about 22,000 of the 25,000 women who became pregnant from rape could have prevented pregnancy with emergency contraception. Unfortunately, the new federal hospital guidelines for rape treatment released in January mysteriously omitted Plan B, even though a previous draft had included it. In Colorado, conservatives have fought efforts to impose a guideline that includes emergency contraceptives. Apparently, elements of the right are so committed to their stark definition of life and so concerned about hypothetical cultural signals that they would prefer rape victims become pregnant than inform them about emergency contraception. Who are the extremists now?

JONATHAN COHN is a senior editor at TNR. He is currently writing a book on the U.S. health-care system.

I have no problem with the original pro-choice message, brief and to the point.

Yes, but is ther eonly one way of framing that message.

Are there other more effective ways that can advance the interests of many more Americans while respecting the right to choose?

In fact, are there ways of not only securing the right to choose, but also empowering women so that they have the means to choose exactly what they want unconstrained by health care, economic and other concerns?

Excellent article.

A look at some facts --- not necessarily unbiased but just the same...

Putting abortion behind us
Georege Bush will apppoint a judge who protects life from conception to natural death, reflecting the consistent view of all major religions (and a majority of Americans).
Tony Perkins [AlwaysOn] | POSTED: 07.03.05 @09:00

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.p...d=11017_0_5_0_C

In light of the inevitable battle over the next Supreme Court nominee – where the right to abort an innocent child will be a central issue of contention, I thought it is important to note that there is not a single major religion on this planet that I can find that supports abortions (except when the mother’s life is at risk – which they all agree on).

Also, when you really examine the facts, most Americans agree that abortion is morally wrong.

I am fully confident that President Bush will choose a nominee that will protect life from conception to natural death. With this new appointee, we will finally put this horrendous chapter in our history behind us where we have averaged over 1.3 million abortions a year in the America alone. To use an eastern expression, this will put our “karma” back on track.

Hindu
The practice of abortion is negatively referred to in the earliest Hindu scriptures, the Vedas. These texts comprise the sruti, those scriptures considered to have primary authority in Hindu thought. In the Rg Samhit, possibly originating from before 1200 BC, Visnu is called "protector of the child-to-be", implying that the fetus was deserving of even divine reverence. In the Visnudharmasutra, killing either fetus or mother is equated to the worst crime possible in Hindu society,

Buddhist
If life begins at conception then any termination following this is seen to be morally unwholesome. To have an abortion is to break the first precept - to abstain from harming or killing livings beings. This - as any unwholesome act does - carries negative karmic consequences which will bear fruit either in this life or future lives. It is also to deny the precious opportunity that human life affords for the attainment of enlightenment. Out of the six realms that make up Buddhist wheel of life or samsara - the realms of hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, human life, Titans and heavenly beings - the human realm is seen to be the most precious. The basic position taken by Buddhism, therefore, is that abortion is wrong.

The Dalai Lama says “abortion is as a sin against non-violence to all sentient beings.” He opposes contraception and criticized proponents of euthanasia - much as the pope has done.
New York Times Magazine

Islam
Islam does not permit abortion under normal health conditions, and considers it an elaborate act of killing an innocent person, which is heinous crime under any law. Abortion or even prevention of conception for fear of economic hardships, is the negation of the basic article of Islamic faith that God is sole Provider and Sustainer of every living soul. That being the reason, the act will be un-Islamic.

Catholic
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

The tide has already been changing in America:
• According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest, whereas only 16% of Americans believe, as Roe vs. Wade has dictated, that abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy.
• According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.
• 60% of Americans now believe abortion should be illegal in most cases. (Coral Ridge Ministries poll, January 2005)
• 72% of Americans now believe abortion to be wrong. (Coral Ridge Ministries poll, January 2005)
• 51% of the people in America now believe abortion to be murder – only 35% don't. (Zogby poll, Jan 2001)
• There has been a 13% increase in those identifying themselves as pro-life since 1995. (Gallup Poll, August 2001)
• Teen pregnancy rates have declined in all 50 states. ('National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy' poll 2000)
• Teen pregnancy, birthrates, and abortions have declined each year since 1991. (Center for Disease Control [CDC])
• Support for Roe v. Wade has plummeted 13% among entering college freshmen since 1991. (LA Times poll, June 2000)
• The number of medical schools teaching the abortion procedure has dropped 57% since 1987. (American Medical Association)
• The number of abortions performed in our nation dropped by 40% between 1991 and 2001. (Life Dynamics {LDI}, Jan 2001)
• There were over 2,000 free standing abortion mills in 1990 – today there are 726. (LDI)
• Over 500 free standing abortion mills have closed in the past six years. (Alan Guttmacher Institute [AGI])
• The three individuals most instrumental in ushering in the Roe v. Wade era are today anti-abortion – Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe), Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) , and Dr. Bernard Nathanson (founder of NARAL).
• The number of abortionists killing children has declined almost 40% since 1991. (LDI, 2001)

Courageous Billy Graham shows the potential that is there for the Democrats if they would seize the day and make their actions stand for more than the words of conservatives.

June 30, 2005


Billy Graham Supports Pro-Choice Senator and Ex-President
Nathan Tabor

Over the years I have appreciated and admired what Billy Graham has stood for and against. His integrity has been near perfect. When most evangelists have slipped or stuck their foot in their mouth Billy Graham has stood on the Word of God, without wavering.

During the past six decades, his message of Jesus Christ has been heard by over 210 million in 185 countries. He has been counsel to presidents, a passionate evangelist, a loving husband, and a caring father.

This past weekend in New York, it was Graham’s much-anticipated last revival. Instead of focusing on his revival, Graham used it as a launching pad for something else: The Clintons.

Graham and the Clintons?

Pro-Life meets Pro-Choice? Pro-Family meets Pro-Gay?

Yes, you read it right. It took me several minutes to digest the thought and I still haven’t adjusted to it. Billy Graham had my admiration and respect for his foundation in morality and values. What is he doing?

Graham allowed Bill Clinton behind his pulpit to sing his praises. Clinton spoke about how he admired Graham for standing up against segregation and how he and Hillary attended a Graham crusade in 1971.

I don’t think the Clintons took Graham’s message to heart and applied it to their lives.

OK, no big deal. Bill Clinton admires Graham and appreciates the front row stage seats. Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator from New York,
but it’s befitting for her to be there. Wait, it does get worse.

After Bill Clinton sat down, Graham had a few things to say.

The Clintons are “a great couple," he said. "I told an audience that I felt when he left the presidency he should be an evangelist because he has all the gifts and he'd leave his wife to run the country."

Evangelist? Gifts? Wife?

No offense, but Billy Graham has either memory problems or he is truly a Democrat at heart.

Let’s assume it’s memory problems and he has forgotten about the Clintons’ positions on killing babies, homosexuals marrying, and keeping God out of school.

In 2001, EMILY's List, the radical pro-choice group, endorsed Hillary Clinton and in 2003 NARAL gave her a 100% ranking. In 2004 Bill Clinton said Roe v. Wade was the right decision.

In 1992, then President Clinton promised homosexual and lesbian groups that he would push to make homosexuality a constitutionally protected civil right. In 2003, Hillary Clinton said she would oppose a constitutional amendment protecting marriage between a man and a woman.

We won’t even go into the proven and rumored affairs of Bill Clinton.

What if it isn’t memory problems?

Howard Dean probably doesn’t like this “white Christian” in his party. However, Billy Graham admitted to Katie Couric that he has been a registered Democrat for a majority of his voting life.

Southern Democrats before Jimmy Carter were evangelical, Bible-believing individuals. They didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democrats left them. These Democrats stood for life, for family, and for God.

I am not upset that Graham “endorsed” a Democrat. Zell Miller is a fine Democrat. I am upset that Graham endorsed a NARAL, GLAAD political couple.

Please be aware this is NOT a party issue. This is based on principle. If Graham would had said those things about the Schwarzenegger. I would be writing the same thing.

This past Sunday morning, many were exceedingly disappointed in a man they truly admired. They believed that Graham stood on principle and conviction. However, when Graham blatantly endorses persons who have openly fought against what the Bible stands for, you lose your credibility.

My prayer is that Billy Graham will undo what he has done. His career for God doesn’t need to bear this black spot.

Copyright © 2005 by Nathan Tabor

Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in psychology and his MA in public policy. He is the founder and editor of TheConservativeVoice.com. Contact him at Nathan@nathantabor.com.

I think this reporter is misreading the evidence...but democrats are ready to make a move on abortion --- the time is ripe...

I do not agree with the tenor of this article --- I think it is time for the Democratic party to demonstrate that it has a much more effective constitutional strategy which is inclusive and empowering for individuals ---a strategy which relies on common sense and respecting individual rights while empowering those same persons to do what they truly want ---

Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion

Gaby Wood in New York
Sunday July 3, 2005
The Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1520138,00.html

Last autumn, in the midst of a presidential election, America's Democrats were fighting furiously to protect what they described as a constitutional right - to have an abortion.

But in an extraordinary turn of events, some argue that it is the single issue standing in the way of their election prospects. They are daring to say what once was regarded as heresy - that it is time to let the argument go.

Abortion may still be the most divisive issue in the US, but in a move indicative of creeping conservatism, Democrats now seem happy to amend - even relinquish - their position on it.

On Friday pro-choice campaigners received another blow - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women to serve in the US Supreme Court, announced her retirement. Her crucial pro-choice vote has now gone and George Bush is likely to replace her with a conservative .

There has been unprecedented discussion about 'letting go of Roe' - meaning Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that decriminalised abortion. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that 'unless Roe v Wade is overturned, politics will never get better'. Liberals, he believes, have lost touch with working-class Americans because they rely on the courts to impose their views and have never had to debate 'values' with those voters.

But it is not only conservatives making this case. Cynthia Gorney, author of A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, says she has 'heard it coming from people who you certainly wouldn't have heard it from three or four years ago. It's people who are ardent Democrats, fed up with the vacillations and ineffectiveness of the party. One aspect of that was: we've hung on too long to things that are destructive to us ultimately and clinging to Roe is costing us more than it's gaining us.'

The reason for the debate is the very real prospect of new conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, and whether they are likely to vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

A deeply contentious case, the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act' is expected before the Supreme Court soon, by which time its pro-life Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, will have retired (he is suffering from cancer). This is the longest-serving Supreme Court; eight of the nine justices are over 65 - and Day O'Connor and Rehnquist could be replaced with pro-life justices this year.

In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the pro-choice majority.

But if Roe v Wade is overturned, women will lose what was judged in 1973 to be a constitutional right. Many argue that this is akin to relieving black people of their civil rights, and fear the return of back-alley abortions.

According to the Centre for Reproductive Rights, if the right to an abortion is again decided state by state, 21 are very likely to ban it altogether. Others, which legalised abortion before Roe, would continue to protect it.

Gorney believes there is not necessarily as much to fear as some suggest. The Supreme Court line-up has remained the same for 10 years, a period in which Roe v Wade has been upheld by those very same justices. Seven of the nine have been appointed by Republicans.

Even the pro-Roe count is open to interpretation. Anthony Kennedy is considered to be the most crucial swing voter. His personal views on abortion are unknown, though he is a conservative on other issues.

For this reason, some put him in the anti-Roe camp, and consider the pro-Roe vote to be 5-4. With the vote so close, losing one pro-Roe justice could bring down Roe v Wade. But Kennedy's actual record shows his to have been the swing vote in support of upholding Roe in 1992 and for this reason others put him in the pro-Roe camp, making the vote a less risky 6-3.

Last month, the debate over stem cell research reached a peak of moral simplification when antagonists publicised their use of the phrase 'embryo adoption', instead of 'embryo donation', used by clinics. To protest against a bill supporting the use of embryos for stem cell research, Bush appeared holding a baby who had been 'adopted' as an embryo.

William Saletan, author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War, thinks pro-lifers are 'on a collision course' with IVF.

'Embryo adoption' is not unlike 'partial-birth abortion', a term given by anti-abortionists to a particular procedure,' he said. 'What's happening now is they're fighting at the wrong end of pregnancy. There is no pregnancy. They are going to try to dress this up as "embryos are people". But it's just too hard to sell.'

I'm not ready to abandon my rights. Democratic leadership needs to poop or get off the pot. This IS a partisan issue. Either you agree with Roe v. Wade or you don't. Republicans who agree with Roe v. Wade are rare. Democracts that want to overturn Roe v. Wade should be even rarer. Where is the litmus test? The elections in 2006 and the next appointment to the Supreme Court will be determined by this issue. Civil rights for gays and lesbians will be used to divide us and deter us. But the real issue will be Roe v. Wade. The polls, articles and arguements about who we are and what we want are just another tactic that the Republicans will use to scare the democratic party into compliance. It does not matter and should not matter what they determine to be the majority wants. Civil rights protect all of us and most importantly the minority. Show me the articles and polls by and for the democratic leadership that say screw the majority I am here to protect the minority and I will cheer! I can't see a common ground that the democratic party can take on this issue that will not take away my right in some degree. The common ground should be that the Supreme Court has ruled....next issue...civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Well said, Anita.
In addition, I believe that the majority of Americans support a woman's legal right to first trimester abortions. The viability issue can be and is being worked out in the state legislatures. Protection and expansion of individual rights should be the backbone of the Democratic platform, IMO.

"The common ground should be that the Supreme Court has ruled....next issue...civil rights for gays and lesbians. "

Well said Anita, we'll (choice and queers) just watch each others back, and the Democrats who falter or fail us this season, we'll treat you with more DISDAIN than that we dish out to Republicans, because we expect more from Democrats.

are you Listening Mary Landrieu?

Respectfully, I think the position you are taking is both naive and unproductive.

It is naive because it continues to look in the world in the black and white tones that teh Bush Administration sees. You are either with us or agin us...

Well, I am sorry. That is too simple and I should think a progressive site like this could do better -- in fact we have. We have discussed this topic at length and many agree that there is merit to the Democratic party making more clear its position.

I believe your position is also unproductive (no pun intended) because it fails to acknowledge a truth that exists in America --- a truth which has existed for the Democratic party...namely that the Republicans have been successful -- exceedingly successful at depicting Democrats as pro-aboriton "baby killers".

I believe this is an inaccurate portrayal. Do you?

I also believe that there are ways through empowerment of the indivdual and the family to provide tax breaks and other opportunities to allow persons (families) who become pregnant the opportunity to bring the child to term and either raise it or give it up for adoption.

The Democratic party has always been about such empowerment and there is nothing contradictory in advancing this point of view.

We need to stand tall and proud and articulate an apprroach which is inclusive.

The Republican party is the party of hypocrisy --- they talk a good game on abortion but they do absolutely nothing but tout judicial appointments as the cure...

Hillary Clinton has the right approach on this...we have to keep it legal, safe and rare...

This is why Bill Graham has endorsed her candidacy for the presidency...

This is the kind of reaching out we need to do as a party...

Why are we so afraid to get beyond our comfort zone and embrace progressive ideas?

The Democratic party will never support the elimination of abortion rights...

That being said, why can't we engage in activities which encourage individuals to do what they want to do?

If they would really want to have a child, but do not have health insurance --- why can't we help them to get it...if they really would like to have a child --- but economically can not afford it -- why can't we provide an incentive to give the child up for adoption...etc.

This is what the Democratic party is known for and this what we need to do...lead with practical solutions to problems facing the day...

Is it really a problem for us to empower persons who might want to have a child?

I am not advocating taking away your rights at all. Show me once on this thread where I advocated anywhere removing your rights or reducing the present rights available in the US?

You can not.

I am only speaking about informing the electorate nationwide that our policies are more conducive to reducing abortions than those of the Republican party...and articulating those policies -- packaging them if you will --- in a different way.

This is what the Democratic party is known for and this what we need to do...lead with practical solutions to problems facing the day...and in so doing you get independents and moderates saying...hey now that is what I'm talking about...I am personally against abortion, but I too believe in the right to choose---but I also believe there is a role for government in empowering the individual to make the choice they need to make eliminating barriers which might preclude bringing the child to term and/or putting it up for adoption...

I agree with you that the Dems need to talk about policies that will lead to fewer abortions. And I like the way Hillary is approaching this subject.
But, I believe other approaches are are of paramount importance when discussing fewer abortions.
1.Comprehensive and realistic sex education and family life education(marriage, childrearing, etc.) for teenagers
2. Teens better educated and trained so that they can get decent paying jobs. Jobs for those teens to have!
2. Planned Parenthood and all women's health agencies should provide counseling to pregnant women which would include three options; raising the baby, adoption and abortion and what services are available for each option. (I think most places already do this).

Better education and vocational training: sex and family life education: decent paying jobs. That's the Dem agenda-all they have to do is point out how all of this would help to reduce the abortion rate to "rare".

I agree absolutely and we have to get the morning after pill widely distributed.

The article below highlights the headway that the Democrats could make on this issue.

Pat Robertson is lauded for saying that condoms should be promoted to prevent the spead of AIDS...well if it can be promoted for that --- why not for contraceptive purposes?

But we agree the way we talk about aboriton has to be changed.

We are not the pro-abortion party.

We are the pro-life pro-choice party which believes that every woman has a right to choose about whether to have an abortion, but we as a party can assist and empower that woman, and/or that family by providign them the means to have that child or put that child up for adoption if they so CHOOSE....

This is the right thing to do --- this is the moral thing to do....

Abstinence plus education is a must...

As Democrats we have to be willing to demand more than the status quo from ourselves on issues like abortion. We can do better.

Dr. Dean sees this. I just hope the party can buy into it at every level.

July 6, 2005
A Pat on the Back
By SARAH VOWELL
NEW YORK TIMES

Since I have been hired, temporarily, to write about the news, here's some: seeing Pat Robertson on television cheered me up. Until recently, about the nicest thing I would have said about this televangelist is that he isn't boring. Remember when he wanted to boycott the "Satanic ritual" that is Halloween? Or when he said, "The husband is the head of the wife"? Or when he warned the city of Orlando that the flying of homosexuals' upbeat rainbow flags might incite divine retribution in the form of hurricanes or "possibly a meteor"? Yep, good times.

Nevertheless, when I spotted Robertson in a lineup of celebrities including Brad Pitt, Bono, George Clooney and the also-never-boring Dennis Hopper, I was delighted to see him. He was in the One Campaign's television ad asking for help in the crusade against poverty, starvation and AIDS in Africa and elsewhere.

In the commercial, Robertson says, "Americans have an unprecedented opportunity," and then Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, of all people, finishes his sentence, concluding that "we can make history."

On a recent "Nightline," Robertson showed up with his new best friend, Clooney. When asked if his group Operation Blessing would promote "the responsible use of condoms" along with abstinence in its AIDS education program in Africa, Robertson answered, "Absolutely." Pat Robertson!

"I just don't think we can close our eyes to human nature," he continued, adding that with regard to teaching proper condom use, "you have to do that, given the magnitude." I could have hugged him.

Robertson is one of the people in this dream I've had for 20 years, a nightmare I call "the handshake dream." In it, I am attending some G.O.P. all-star party. (A girl can dream.) And I have to decide whose hand I deign to shake. Bob Dole and John McCain: of course (war heroes). Orrin Hatch: fine (stem cells). But Robertson? He's always been a solid "No way!" as he sulks by the punch bowl with Strom.

Seeing Robertson in that commercial with Bono - and Bono's hair - is a little like listening to Paul Anka's new recording of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit." At first, it's jarring to hear the guy who wrote Donny Osmond's "Puppy Love" sing Kurt Cobain's lyrics: "a mosquito, my libido." But listen hard and you can hear what Anka hears. He doesn't hear the ranting of weirdos. He hears the poetry, the architecture of a justifiably standard song like "Autumn in New York," like "Fly Me to the Moon."

My soft spot for strange bedfellows aside, I am a capital-D Democrat who still believes in the value of partisan politics. And I hold onto that belief despite the fact that I belong to a party whose only true talent is writing exceedingly eloquent concession speeches.

On Monday, anticipating an epic dust-up regarding his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President Bush said he hoped