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 DonkeyDemocrats 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.