Democrats for Life will introduce the 95 10 initiative on Sept. 20

[madfloridian]

This I think means to reduce abortions by 95% in 10 years. It is being done in conjunction with the Third Way's policy of appealing to the Abortion Grays. The ones who are sort of for womens' right and sort of not for them.

I am making no comment, just saying it is happening...the policy on abortion is coming to pass just as some of us predicted. I don't know all of what it contains. I will just say that Democrats for Life is getting their wish of setting policy for the Democratic party.

I do have one question. Who will in reality get the final say on what a woman wants to do with her body and her reproductive so-called freedom. Who gets to decide?

Democrats for Life of America Introduce the 95-10 Initiative

"Democrats for Life of America Introduce the 95-10 Initiative
The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.

While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality.

With bold new ideas, sound research and policy arguments, the 95-10 Initiative contains proven policy suggestions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America."

And Third Way announces it was their role in the initiative:

New Approach Scores with Voters, According to Third Way Poll

"Washington, DC – Third Way and a group of pro-life and pro-choice House Democrats came together today to introduce legislation intended to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America. The legislation, entitled the “Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act,” is the first to join together the most effective strategies, regardless of their identification with the pro-choice or pro-life side, to minimize abortions. The initiative reduces abortions through the comprehensive strategies of preventing unintended pregnancy and supporting pregnant women through to parenthood.

“There are 1.3 million abortions every year in America. No one is proud of that – it is simply too many,” said Third Way Culture Director Rachel Laser at the press conference. “We could reduce the number of abortions in America by more than a million over the next decade without twisting arms, banning abortions, or throwing people in prison.”

[ck4829]

1. This is just what we needed to help us win

I have long said we need to put a wedge in the Pro-Lifers, this may do just that. But politics aside, this is something I can support on personal grounds as well.

[madfloridian]

2. Yes, it only takes a few rights of women away...not all of them.

I am not sure that is a good compromise at all. But it is going to happen to many cheers.

I think we need to think of the implications of saying we can only give women some choices, not others.

That might carry over to other areas.

[Warpy]

3. If it means full coverage for birth control

on all health plans and subsidized birth control for women without health care coverage (if we STILL live in a barbaric country without single payer), it will be a good deal. Nobody likes surgical abortion. It's painful and expensive. It's always best to avoid it.

If it means chipping away at our rights and forcing poor women to bear children they don't want to satisfy the adoption market, to hell with it and to hell with those "Democrats."

[funflower]

4. What choices would be taken away by this proposal?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

12. Too soon to tell, really.

If you can reduce elective abortions without taking any rights away, that is a good thing.

I believe the Kristen Day who is putting forth this plan says that the 5% only covers incest, rape, and womens' health.

So I guess they think they can stop all other elective abortions.

I remember a time when our party would not have been happy with that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. Calm down...

There is nothing in their proposal (that I've read, anyway) that in any way restricts a woman's right to choose. It features comprehensive sex education (abstinence and contraception) and increased access to all forms of birth control. It also provides better maternity and child health care, in addition to incentives for adoption.

[madfloridian]

56. Then I think you assume good faith on their part.

Hey, as I have said, I am way too old to even want an abortion. Your name doesn't indicate you need one, and I really don't care about all of it.

I just don't like the Republicans using religion to make our laws, and I don't want our side doing it either.

[fasttense]

5. I'm not sure what this program includes?

"Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding programs as the Abandoned Infants Assistance."

What is the Child Custody Protection Act?

What is meant by Safe Haven laws?

What is the program Abandoned Infants Assistance?

I'm all for reducing the need for abortions but we need to support the mothers who are required to birth these unwanted children. Adoption can not be the only alternative.

[madfloridian]

46. Here's the Child Custody Protection Act.

http://democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=196&Itemid=0

S.403

Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John (introduced 2/16/2005) Cosponsors (43)
Related Bills: H.R.748, S.8, S.396

Child Custody Protection Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion and thereby abridging the right of a parent under a law in force in the State where the minor resides requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.

Specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this Act.

Makes it an affirmative defense to a prosecution for, or to a civil action based on, such a violation that the defendant reasonably believed that before the minor obtained the abortion, the parental consent or notification or judicial authorization that would have been required had the abortion been performed in the State where the minor resides, took place.

Authorizes any parent who suffers harm from a violation to obtain appropriate relief in a civil action. Defines "parent" to include a guardian, legal custodian, or person standing in loco parentis who has care and control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly resides, who is designated by such law as a person to whom notification, or from whom consent, is required.

Democrats who voted in favor of the bill (07/25/06):

Bayh (D-IN)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)*
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)

*denotes a co-sponsor of the legislation
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 26 July 2006 )

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. If it threatens a woman's right to choose, then

fuck that noise.

But if it's really about reducing the need for abortion by actually helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies and supporting them so they can have them if they want them, then I'd love to hear more about it.

[Greyhound]

53. Have you visited the linked page?

Even a cursory glance with a minimum of skepticism reveals what it is, another attempt by the churches and their minions to impose their false "morality" on all of us.

By couching their argument as an "alternative", is simply a diversion from the bottom line that this is another area of government intrusion into issues that are clearly beyond their purview.

[ProudDad]

73. I have a problem with the misnamed

"Child Custody Protection Act" making it a CRIME to help a minor get an abortion if that's what she wants.

This act is the camel's nose under the tent giving teeth to parental consent laws in know-nothing states.

[wyldwolf]

7. just as was discussed the last time you posted about this

The policies don't BAN abortion or legally LIMIT them. What do you have against education to PREVENT unplanned pregnancies and assistance to support pregnant women and their babies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1956633

[madfloridian]

11. Thsnks for posting that link. Over a year ago.

That was from a time when we would stand up and say it was taking away some of the choices that women have and turning so much over to the religious community.

But now we are all praising it. I hope people read the comments in that post I made over a year ago.

They will see the difference in how we speak and what we believe in.

But it will help us win elections. Won't it.

[wyldwolf]

14. it was the same then as it is now

MORE choices are being offered.

[madfloridian]

16. 95% of abortions will be stopped.

How does that equal more choices? That Kristen Day I believe said the only abortions would be for rape, incest, or health of women. That sounds like 95% less choice to me.

But it is a winning issue for sure.

[wyldwolf]

20. by giving women other choices

How does that equal more choice?

Education: If you're going to have sex, you have the choice of ALL THESE BIRTH CONTROL METHODS. If you get pregnant, you have the choice to get an abortion of KEEP YOUR BABY WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF AID.

[ieoeja]

31. Ideal versus reality.

The stated ideal is to give women a choice. But is the real intent to brow-beat and guilt women into not having an abortion?

We do not *know* that is the real reason. But in the past that is what these sort of initiatives have been used for. So it would be foolish to assume this time is different.

Also, that point about transporting minors across state lines has to *GO*. Our thirteen year old daughter gets knocked up in Alabama, and we, her parents, can not get her proper medical care because there are no longer any doctors in the state willing to perform aboritions and the federal government has decided it is illegal for us to cross a state line?

Surely you agree THAT is bullshit.

[skipos]

33. It sounds to me like everything in this proposal is a choice

I see no indication of forcing anyone to do anything.

Being a progressive is, to me, aiming for the ideal, and changing course if the ideal doesn't work out as well as we planned. This sounds like a progressive proposal.

[ieoeja]

50. EVERYTHING?

Their proposal (you have to click on the .PDF link to see it) includes a ban on out-of-state abortions for minors? How is that adding a "choice"? I suppose it gives you the "choice" of breaking the law if you want.

As for the choices will their laws be written making counseling "available" or "required"?? The choice I want is to have an abortion without sitting through an hour long lecture about me being a baby-killing slut.

And why are we even having this fucking conversation? Exactly how many medical procedures have we legislated out of existence? To the best of my mind, this is the ONE AND ONLY medical procedure that gets peoples panties in such a wad. Why is that? Why do you FUCKING CARE?!?

[Cerridwen]

71. There are several "required"s in this proposal...

they fall under the aegis of trap laws which "subjects abortion providers to burdensome restrictions that are not applied to other medical professionals" and which are discussed in depth at this link.

Pregnant women who choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing should be provided with information on the accuracy of these tests.

<snip>

Require pregnancy centers and women's health centers that provide pregnancy counseling and that receive federal funding to provide adoption referral information.

<snip>

must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman's health. (sic; see my post #68 for accuracy of the information which "must" be provided)

<snip>

link

[madfloridian]

8. Ok, this will help us win the elections.

If this plan passes the only abortions will be for health of the mother, rape, or incest. That is the 5% of abortions that will be done by the end of 10 years.

If that is ok, then ok with me. I am past childbearing age. It will be a winner for our side.

The core of this appears to be clinics which offer counseling. If they don't get religious in tone, and offer more fair advice than they have been doing, fine.

We used to believe that 100% of women had a right to choose what their health choices are with their doctors. Now we appear to believe that only 5% will have that choice.

It will help us win, and that is all that counts.

Two articles to read more....

http://www.prochoicetexas.org/s04politicalupdates/press/200602211.shtml

http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?abbr=usc_&page=NewsArticle&id=10490

"Their initiative, introduced last November, includes prohibiting the transport of a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion; fully funding the federal government’s Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children program; requiring insurance to cover contraception; providing grants to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations for ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women; making adoption tax credits permanent; and initiating a five-year study by the National Institutes of Health on why women choose abortions.

Day acknowledges that reducing the number of abortions by 95 percent is ambitious, but she notes that in Michigan, where one point of the 95-10 initiative was put in place—a public awareness campaign informing women of abortion alternatives—abortion rates have already dropped. Though many factors affect abortion rates, including the economy, Day and other prolifers credit the public awareness campaign and use the Michigan statistic to justify a nationwide public awareness campaign."


And this from Father Pavone of Priests for Life, a group which often allies with Democrats for Life:

"Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, a group dedicated to spreading the prolife message among Catholic priests and parishes, gave some parts of the Democrats’ plan cautious approval.

“There are many proposals in this package, like women’s right-to-know provisions, funding for promotion of alternatives to abortion, strengthening of adoption practices, and more,” he wrote in a column last May. “These are key goals for all of us to pursue. The precise way in which these and other proposals in 95-10 should be written into law will, of course, need to be carefully debated and refined.

“And in the end, we cannot be content to reduce the numbers of abortions,” he wrote. “We have to acknowledge that laws permitting even a single abortion undermine the very fabric of our freedom and our republic.”

This will take a weapon out of the hands of the other party. They can't use abortion as a talking point anymore if this passes. Which issue will be next, which only takes some rights away. I guess I should not think that way.

This is a good time to present it, because we are told daily not to be critical now as the election is nearing. It was a good move to do this at this time. Because we can't fight it without being told we are not being good Democrats.

[kwolf68]

9. I like it a lot

This is an idea I have thought about before.

#1-We must not over turn Roe. Abortion should always be a safe, legal medical procedure for women who want or need an abortion

#2-The idea of abortion as a form of “birth control” does NOT win in America and too often that is what it is for

#3-Should we outlaw abortion, the only people who would ever be able to get abortions again (at least safely) are rich people. Banning abortion is as much about class as it is about sex

We don’t need to argue about keeping Roe legal. We can take a new approach to this topic. Tell the people we will NOT ban abortions, but we WILL try to eliminate their need. Ultimately, what do the two sides want? One side wants no abortions and one side wants no infringement on the rights of women.

If we can figure out a way to make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past (or at least very rare) then guess what? No abortions…and no women being told what to do with their bodies.

I like the idea. NOW, how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies? There are some good ideas out there, but I don’t really have the answer to that one yet, but it’s worth a real look.

[madfloridian]

10. We will win on this idea for sure.

.

[TheFarseer]

13. Republicans fight abortion like they fight drugs

just make it illegal and the problem will go away. Clearly that worked with drugs. :sarcasm: You've got to get rid of demand and then abortion, drugs, whatever will decrease or go away by itself. Why is supply and demand the end all and be all except when applied to actual situations involving the lives of real people?

[AnnieBW]

15. Pro-Life After Birth

Ah... but the Dems are Pro-Life After Birth - they care about what happens to the mother and child after the kid is born. While I'm 100% pro-choice, I welcome this effort to reach out to those single-issue voters.

[madfloridian]

17. It is a winning issue. I just hope that more than 5% can get abortions.

if they need them. I find myself wondering who does the counseling and who makes the decisions about who gets one.

This is a religous group presenting policy. It bothers me.

But it will help us win, even if 95% of women have choices limited.

[Renew Deal]

18. Anything we can do to reduce the need for abortions is great.

And education is the place to start.

[madfloridian]

19. Jane Roberts, wife of John, and Patricia Heaton...Feminists for Life.

Feminists for Life is closely tied with the Democrats for life. I think to be sure we are consistent, we should no longer criticize the wife of Judge John Roberts who is the legal counsel of Feminists for Life. Not Patricia Heaton, not any more.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/index.htm
"Jane Sullivan Roberts currently serves as legal counsel to Feminists for Life of America (FFLA) on a pro bono basis.When her husband, Circuit Court Judge John Roberts was nominated for to the Supreme Court, FFL made news across the country. A biography appears separately.

Celebrity Activism:
Read about our two-time Emmy winner and Honorary Chair Patricia Heaton, Honorary Co-Chair Margaret Colin and other celebrity news.

Laci & Connor's Law:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act—also known as Laci and Conner's Law—passed the Senate on March 25, 2004. Feminists for Life's President Serrin Foster testified on the bill before the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee—read and watch her testimony."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And the Texas Democrats for Life president made a big statement in a speech, and if we are to be consistent we should not really be that critical.

"The Democrats for Life and Feminists for Life organizations are proof that all people can and should be pro-life. It is consistent with the root principles of both the Democratic Party and the feminist movement to respect life and to encourage the development of everyone's full potential. Freedom and equality are unattainable if there is not first life.

So, my rallying cry for this rally is to call upon former Democrats who are pro-life to come back to the party, take your place, and make your opinion known. Democrats who are closet pro-lifers, I call upon you to stop being afraid to speak the truth. On Judgment Day you will not be asked if you are a follower of the Democratic platform, but if you were a follower of the word of God. A little political power is not worth becoming an accomplice to the murder of millions of babies.

Pro-Life Democrats, let's take our party back; let's work towards transforming all Democrats into Democrats for Life!"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/kerschen.htm

It is a winning issue to stop abortions. I can see a big change here at DU in the last year or so. It just seems all right now that women can be told that in 10 years 95% of such procedures will be stopped.

So we will win on it, but we will lose as well. We are letting religious groups define our policy in the Democratic party, the very same thing we have been criticizing the Republicans for....there is no difference at all.

[wyldwolf]

21. more of the 2004 Primary season-like "guilt be association...

...six degrees of Kevin Bacon" style of reasoning.

[Clarkansas]

22. This seems really good to me. Is there something I am missing?

“We could reduce the number of abortions in America by more than a million over the next decade without twisting arms, banning abortions, or throwing people in prison.”

[madfloridian]

25. It is really good. It will limit abortions.

It will help us win. The only abortions in 10 years under this plan would apparently be rape, incest, and health.

Whoever thought a woman should be given such a choice anyway.

[Clarkansas]

27. Where does it say anything about "limiting abortions?"

I don't see anything about "requiring" women to do anything or making abortion illegal in anyway.

PLEASE PROVIDE QUOTES.

P.S. I like how you said "I am making no comment" and then have gone on to post a bunch of comments that seem to have no basis in reality.

[Love Bug]

23. Janet Robert, owner of our local Air America affiliate, is the MN head of

Democrats for Life. She censors the local programs (she denies this but ex-on air personalities confirm it) to avoid this subject because she doesn't really want her listeners to know which agenda is more important to her. This is why I can't, in good conscience, financially support the local station. It frustrates me because I think it's important to have liberal talk radio, but this is a line I cannot cross.

I'm all for reducing the # of abortions as long as no one is limiting any woman's right to make her own medical decisions.

[stuartrida]

24. But that is what the proposal is about. Reducing, not limiting abortions.

[Love Bug]

41. Yes, and that's a good thing, but the overall agenda of Feminists for Life

and Democrats for Life is the overturn of Roe V Wade. Always has been, always will be. If they can work to reduce abortions without reducing women's rights, then fine. But I don't trust them to stop at that.

[madfloridian]

26. Another question ,why have we criticized GOP for religion and politics.

Why have we been so up in arms over the Republicans inserting religion into our politics? I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently we have been a little wee bit hypocritical about things.

It appears to be ok if we do it, because we plan to still allow 5% of the present number of abortions. And it's ok because they don't want to outlaw abortions.

Yeh, I know. I should not question this close to an election. And since almost everyone in this thread thinks this bill is good...then I accept that graciously and back away.

[w4rma]

28. This could potentially be very good. (nt)

[IronLionZion]

29. Yes, this is the right plan at the right time.

I can support this. Republicans always talk about reducing abortions but Democrats actually do it with socially responsible policies.

And I strongly suggest everyone read the links before jumping to any conclusions.

[sonroadera]

30. This plan makes good sense

And as the person above me said, read it before you comment.

[Cerridwen]

32. Here's another discussion on this topic...

Pregnant? Need help? Call 1-800-PROPAGANDA

The alarming erosion of any pretense of a wall between church and state here in Texas is evidenced by the state's diversion of $5 million in health care funds to evangelistic crisis pregnancy centers. Despite the standard restrictions on using public funds to proselytize, this lucrative contract is designed to funnel state money into both Protestant and Catholic CPCs, both of which have only two goals: stopping abortion and winning souls for Christ.

And now that movement is poised to go national.

The Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) is waiting in the wings with its 95-10 Initiative, a piece of omnibus legislation that, beneath a veneer of concern for women, provides federal funding for a nationwide campaign to herd women into CPCs -- in addition to imposing the so-called Woman's Right to Know laws that are shutting down access to abortion care from Minnesota to Mississippi upon every abortion-providing physician in the 50 states. (note: CPC is Crisis Pregnancy Counselling)

<snip>


much more at link above

[readmoreoften]

35. Do you really think 95% of women get pregnant 'cuz they're uneducated?

(I'm certainly not responding to you directly Cerridwen, I'm responding to your excellent link)

I can't believe that people here are politically desperate or naive enough to support this legislation.

Sorry to shout but let me say it again...

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT 95% OF WOMEN GET PREGNANT AND NEED ABORTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNEDUCATED?????

Yes, if you wanted to reduce abortions by say TEN PERCENT, then education might help. But the majority of women get pregnant for OTHER REASONS. Not because they didn't know how a fucking condom works. Here are some of the reasons why women get pregnant and might need an abortion:

1) They were planning a child, then both husband and wife lost their jobs and their second child got sick.
2) They thought they were told they wouldn't be able to have a child because of a previous abortion, they assumed that it meant they would be unable to get pregnant, but it actually meant that any fetus would die inside them, putting their health at risk (This is exactly what happened to a friend of mine. She was sick and vomiting from the fetus rotting alive inside her and a catholic hospital refused to help.)
3) A 16 year old girl thinks that if she gets pregnant, her boyfriend will never leave her. Now he's left her and she hates him. She's a sophmore in high school and realizes that she's made a mistake.
4) They were drunk and the rubber broke.
5) They were drunk and the rubber didn't break.
6) The rhythm method didn't work.
7) She had her tubes tied, but-- holy shit!--she's pregnant again (I know two people this happened to)
8) She's a junkie with HIV who prostitutes.
9) She's a crackhead without HIV who prostitutes.
10) She made a mistake in the heat of passion and doesn't want to drop out of college.

So do you really think that EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SUPPORT will help these women? No! They don't want to be pregnant and they want an abortion!

If you think they are going to get rid of 95% of abortions by education, then you are deluded. I'm quite sure that THEY know they can't. But they are trying to bamboozle the progressive wing of the party by couching their anti-choice agenda in terms of "education" and "care"-- terms rooted in humanism. I'm certain that they're goal is to end abortion.

There's no such thing as reducing abortion by 95% without curtailing choice.

[Cerridwen]

36. Thanks, readmoreoften

You made some great points here.

I also question the validity of the education this initiative will promote. Will it be factual and comprehensive? What do they define as age appropriate? Waiting until the senior year in high school to discuss STDs and contraception isn't going to do much good.

What will women dealing with a "crisis pregnancy" hear when they call the hotline?

What are the stats on the safety of abortion? I'd heard it was actually safer than carrying a pregnancy to term yet there's a provision to warn of the "health issues".

What happens as they "phase out" the availability of abortion then decide to cut funding for the other programs this initiative will fund?

I have too many questions and I've worked in politics too long to trust this initiative or the people behind it. Something stinks here.

[Clarkansas]

37. The 95% is unrealistic, but so is claiming that we can "eliminate poverty"

or "eliminate homelessness" or have "world peace." It shouldn't keep anyone from trying.

[readmoreoften]

44. It should stop people from trying if by eliminating poverty you know

that the person might mean putting poor people into "work camps" or "eliminate homelessness" by starving homeless people to death. Thanks, but when an anti-choice groups says they support a 95% reduction-- but don't worry: I worry.

What makes us think we can trust their rhetoric? Sending women who want abortions to an anti-choice counseling clinic is undue burden. Sex education information at a young age is a nice way to cut down abortions by 5-10%, but the cons will never be satisfied by this. Have 95% of abortions become pregnancy-through-ignorance since abstenance education became the standard in schools? I doubt it.

[Clarkansas]

54. Well

"What makes us think we can trust their rhetoric?"
If John McCain came up with a proposal that was good, I'd support it. If Russ Feingold came up with a proposal that looked was shit, I wouldn't. I don't reject proposals just because I don't trust the person person proposing it.

"Sending women who want abortions to an anti-choice counseling clinic is undue burden."
Where does the proposal say that women must be sent there?

"Have 95% of abortions become pregnancy-through-ignorance since abstenance education became the standard in schools? I doubt it."
So it isn't worth trying to increase education?

Please answer these two questions. I have asked the naysayers questions and they get ignored.

[readmoreoften]

78. Interesting.

"I don't reject proposals just because I don't trust the person person proposing it." Well you may want to start. Because if George Bush annonuces a pro-choice initiative that sounds good on it's face-- it's not. Not maybe not; not possibly not; not "let me look more into it"-- it's not. Period. End of story.

Politics is all about spin. If you don't want to get caught up in some lie that calls itself a "third way" in order to seduce you into supporting terrible policy, then you'd better be on guard. Sounds like you just want to trust this organization because they call themselves Democrats. If they called themselves Republicans-For-Life, would you still think it's a good idea. If not, then you argue with the basic premise of the above post. If so, then you're not really pro-choice and you're just here to argue.

[Straight Shooter]

34. This will mean nothing to the "my way or the highway" anti-choice fundies.

They don't want ten years from now, they want now, dammit, so get out of the way and let them bulldoze everything in their path. Doesn't matter how many young women's lives are ruined, it's anti-choice 100% right now.

I'll have to read more on this legislation before I can form my own opinion on it. At first glance it appears to be a positive thing. I just don't want to see a slippery slope of erosion of women's rights.

[Clarkansas]

38. Or "my way or the highway" pro-choicers

Look at all the defeatism in this thread. "Education won't work," "it is a slippery slope" etc. This proposal sounds like common ground to me, and is very much worth trying as long as it doesn't limit the availablity of abortion (which it doesn't) and as long as no one is forced to do anything they don't want to do (they aren't). The slippery slope argument is as weak as Republicans arguing that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pets.

on edit: I am pro-choice. Abortion should always be legal.

[Straight Shooter]

39. Don't misquote me. I did not say this proposal *is* a slippery slope.

I said I don't want it to *become* a slippery slope of erosion of women's rights.

I also indicated I would need to read further before forming an opinion about this specific proposal. Not all that glitters is gold.

[Clarkansas]

42. I wasn't quoting you ,so relax.

I was saying that -the- argument, not -your- arguement that it is a slippery slope is silly.

[readmoreoften]

45. If you think that lack of education is what causes the need for abortion..

you are living in a dream world PERIOD. It will certainly reduce the need by some percentage in certain demographics, but it is insulting to women to say that the need for abortion stems from ignorance.

There's no "slippery slope" here. Either these people are going to chip away at women's rights or they are going to fail and this initiative is nothing but hot air. If it's nothing but hot air, I'm all for it. But considering the source, I doubt it.

[Clarkansas]

63. If you think education has nothing to do with it

you are living in a dream world PERIOD.

"these people are going to chip away at women's rights"
How does the proposal chip away at women's rights? I know there are plenty of people who want to chip away at it, but how does this actual proposal do it?

[readmoreoften]

77. People aren't responding to your questions because the questions

are somewhat politically naive. When a group such as "Democrats for Life" make a proposal such as this, but then leave out specific information as to exactly HOW they are going to reduce abortions by 95%, you can bet that there will be "more to come"-- usually under the radar. I can't point to any specific initiative in the proposal because it doesn't GET SPECIFIC. That's what scares me. This is not a matter of "slippery slope". It's a matter of "giving up ground."

Education is great. Reducing unwanted pregnancies by even 10% is a wonderful and worthwhile health initiative. But this is not being packaged as such an initiative. Aiming to reduce pregnancy by 95% through education alone POINTS TO future initiatives to back up this policy of 95% reduction. Since 95% of unwanted pregnancies are not due to "ignorance", 95% cannot be corrected by education. DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE IS A PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATION WITH PRO-LIFE GOALS, NOT ABORTION-REDUCTION GOALS. They are not putting this initiative forth to "gain a little of what they want", they are doing so to "gain a little of what they want and hijack the terms of the debate to get a little more of what they want." Even their tagline is DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE "Advocates a pro-life position within the Party."

With this type of legislation, we are particularly giving up ground in a battle that is a WINNING ISSUE FOR US. Sorry, but abortion is a WINNING ISSUE. We are not going to out-conservative the conservatives. We are not going to win their base. We are going to lose our own. If we continue to buy the lie that traditional democratic platforms are "the radical left" and current conservative platforms are "the traditional right" and that the median of those positions is somehow "the middle" then the debate will continue to go to the right until we are only the democratic party in name. It is already happening and it is due to this sort of idiocy.

An American public that goes along with every politician's newest proposal based on its ahistorical face value without analysis of the political motivations behind the legislation is a large part of why we're in the mess we're in.

So the answer is SURE. If "Democrats for Life" really have a proposal to reduce 95%-- or even a significant amount of abortion-- by education and support for women, of course I'm all for it. But as Cerridwen's post shows, this legislation has pro-life motivation. And of course it does-- it is being advocated by an organization that is staunchly anti-choice.

[madfloridian]

40. You are right, some are already rejecting it because of birth control.

A couple of articles that show that there will be no compromise from some. These point out that many will not support the bill because it allows birth control.

One thing about their extreme right....they never give up, they never give an inch. They stand firm on what they believe.

Do I admire that? Not really. But they are succeeding in making our party move to the right really quickly on such issues as this. I mean we are marching along to their beat.

They won't accept compromise, while we just keep giving up more issues to them.

Actually I have given up on this issue, getting my money back from NARAL. Not going to fight it anymore. Cause I don't want an abortion, I never did, I never needed one.

Here are the articles. Interesting. They will not compromise. We will.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2586.html

http://www.cantonrep.com/printable.php?ID=307941

[Clarkansas]

43. Some are rejecting it because they claim it will limit abortion and

take away women's rights, but then they aren't backing up their claims with anything that is in the proposal.

[madfloridian]

47. Priests for Life"s Father Pavone was at the DNC for the presentation.

Priests for Life, Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life...pretty much overlap and connected in many ways as I said above.

I don't expect you to accept anything I say, because I am aware of some things going on...so whatever I say, someone will be here to question. That's ok, part of posting on forums, isn't it.

Anyway, after the DNC finally broke down the barriers with the Dems for Life, and let Roemer and the others present the 95 10 at the DNC last year.....Father Pavone gave a good indication that this is only the start.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2005/05-06-06democratsforlife.htm

"Recently, I was with some of the pro-life Democratic members of Congress at a press conference led by Democrats for Life and held at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington. The topic was the "95-10" Initiative, which contains numerous legislative proposals aimed at reducing the numbers of abortion by 95% in the next ten years.

There are many proposals in this package, like women's right-to-know provisions, funding for promotion of alternatives to abortion, strengthening of adoption practices, and more. These are key goals for all of us to pursue. The precise way in which these and other proposals in 95-10 should be written into law will, of course, need to be carefully debated and refined. For example, we always have to avoid the trap of thinking that access to contraception is a solution to the abortion problem. The opposite, in fact, is true.

And in the end, we cannot be content to reduce the numbers of abortions. We have to acknowledge that laws permitting even a single abortion undermine the very fabric of our freedom and our republic. Abortion is an act of violence that no nation has the right to permit. But when anyone in our great nation, Democrat or Republican, wants to advance the Culture of Life to any degree, that deserves an "Amen!" from us all."


Father Pavone is a pretty powerful man, and I think this is just the beginning if we let religious groups start legislating for our side. If we let them legislate for us, we can not criticize them for doing it on the Republican side.

I think Governor Dean made a mistake by allowing this group to get its foot in the door.

Do I want an abortion? No. I am too old, had many kids already. Would I want to safeguard that right from people like Father Pavone who visited the DNC last year and then said it was not enough. You bet I do.

Now what was your question?

[Clarkansas]

51. You still dodge

I would like criticism that references the actual proposal. You claimed it will limit abortion, where does it say that in the proposal? You said it will make abortion illegal except in the case of rape and incest, where does it say that in the proposal?

[madfloridian]

55. I KNEW that was coming.

I knew you would say that. You can not present a compelling argument for allowing religious groups to do this, so you keep saying the same thing to me over and over and over.

I wanted to be very sure, so I did a DU search, and a find search on this thread. I can not find where I used the word illegal, where I said they would be illegal.

[Clarkansas]

59. My mistake, you never said "illegal."

You said "If this plan passes the only abortions will be for health of the mother, rape, or incest. "

Where does it say that in the proposal?

[madfloridian]

60. I just posted Kristen Day's statement. Find it for yourself.

I just posted Father Pavone's statements with links and all. Can you say Father as in Pavone? But no.....he is not pushing his religion.

Just my over active imagination.

[Clarkansas]

62. We agree then.

It DOESN'T say it in the proposal.

[madfloridian]

64. Doesn't say what she said....it is her plan but it is not IN her plan

They plan one thing, but they don't specifically say it.

[Clarkansas]

65. But don't you see what I am saying?

Look, I don't enjoy fighting with everyone over this, but the proposal itself sounds pretty good to me and no one wants to talk about the actual proposal. I am not going to shit on it just because people I don't like had a hand in writing it. I see this as no different than a legal contract. If a shitbag offers me a contract in which I benefit from and am fully protected from being screwed over, I would take it. If someone wants to point out negatives in the actual proposal, I am all for it.

I have said all I can say, and I have asked a bunch of questions that no one wants to answers. If we are just going to go around in circles, and no one is learning anything, we should just stop the debate. No hard feelings. :)

[madfloridian]

66. Actually it amounts to about the same thing...

that Republicans have been doing. They have been letting religious groups set policy. Add to this the Faith Based strategies, and the political preaching going on in many churches..especially here in the South. Then you have the beginning of the end of the separation of church and state.

Southern Baptists, some of them, are trying to stop birth control entirely. I don't want them setting policy.

So they are actually just going to be ones controlling who gets abortions through advising and counseling that often pressures.

[Cerridwen]

72. See post #68 n/t

[madfloridian]

49. Couple of interesting paragraphs, another point of view on this.

http://www.prochoicetexas.org/s04politicalupdates/press/200602211.shtml

"The alarming erosion of any pretense of a wall between church and state here in Texas is evidenced by the state's diversion of $5 million in health care funds to evangelistic crisis pregnancy centers. Despite the standard restrictions on using public funds to proselytize, this lucrative contract is designed to funnel state money into both Protestant and Catholic CPCs, both of which have only two goals: stopping abortion and winning souls for Christ.

And now that movement is poised to go national.

The Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) is waiting in the wings with its 95-10 Initiative, a piece of omnibus legislation that, beneath a veneer of concern for women, provides federal funding for a nationwide campaign to herd women into CPCs -- in addition to imposing the so-called Woman's Right to Know laws that are shutting down access to abortion care from Minnesota to Mississippi upon every abortion-providing physician in the 50 states.

" The stated goal of cutting abortions by 95 percent is not an arbitrary aim born of ambition, Ms. Day said, as she stated that 5 percent of abortions are performed due to rape, incest, or maternal health concerns, and that eliminating those in a decade is not realistic."

[Greyhound]

52. Utter crap! A typically shoddy, half-assed, attempt at halting the

modest progress that has been made lately in restoring The Democratic Party to it's progressive roots and to keep it the re:puke:-lite loser it has been since the 80's.

Other's in this thread have gone through the painful process of disseminating the blatant flaws in this Tax money to the churches scam. The bottom line remains, however, that the anti-freedom forces cannot be appeased, they are like the Terminator in the movie, singular in purpose. How we can justify, let alone try to accommodate, such a complete contradiction in philosophy is beyond comprehension.

[Clarkansas]

57. Where is this tax money to the churches scam

Could you provide me with quotes from the proposal that show this?

[Greyhound]

58. Read Cerridwen's reply #32.

As I said, others have gone through this painful process, so I'm not duplicating their efforts.

Keep your false religion away from the rest of us, if you please.

[Clarkansas]

61. NO ONE has gone through the process of looking at the proposal

and showing how the proposal will do all these horrible things. All the criticism is based on assumptions. If someone can criticize the ACTUAL proposal, I am all for it. There is a way for two opposing groups could find some slight common ground to get things done that both groups like. I would like to see a minimum of abortion without twisting arms.

My religion is facts not assumptions.

[Cerridwen]

69. Bullshit! I've been through the the proposal several times

and I've responded to what is in the proposal. At least all of the proposal they care to put online.

I've also provided a link (#32), to which you were directed, which included another discussion about this proposal and what it looks like in the states where several pieces which will be included in the initiative have already been activated. The fact that the concerns addressed do not meet with your approval, does not mean that those here expressing concerns are doing so through ignorance.

And my religion is dealing with how the so-called facts are implemented, when politicised, based on experience from within the ugly game of politics.

[ProudDad]

75. From the "proposal"

"Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers. Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services."

More GAG RULE!

"Provide grants for universities and colleges to support pregnant women; provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child. These grants will help universities establish an on-campus office for counseling, referral, and parenting services for pregnant women and daycare services for parents."

How about GRANTS for every student not just this "SPECIAL CLASS"?

"Repeal the sunset on adoption tax credits and make them permanent."

Why not abortion tax credits for poor women who can't afford to get one? Special class of people again.

"Require pregnancy centers and women's health centers that provide pregnancy counseling and that receive federal funding to provide adoption referral information."

But NOT abortion referral -- GAG RULE!

"Any women's health center or clinic that provides pregnancy counseling or abortion services must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman's health. Patients do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them."

Isn't this a MAJOR repuke fundie talking point???

"* Parental Notification
Prohibits transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion but makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor. It requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws."

SHIT, pro-parental notification, eh?...

"* Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women
Mandate State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage for pregnant women. Expanded coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the SCHIP and to newborns through the first full year of life."

How about fully funding it for ALL KIDS!!!

----------------------

Again, my problem is the injection of one peculiar religious view of pregnancy and abortion to the exclusion of comprehensive secular approaches to the (alleged) "problem" -- this is unConstitutional...

Wait a minute, since when is voluntary termination of a pregnancy a "social problem"? What bullshit!!!

This one's just like "gay marriage". As Al Franken says, "If gays get married, how does that effect my marriage".

Just 'cause some women chooses an abortion don't mean I (or you) gotta get one?????!!!?!?!?!?!!!?

If there really is separation of church and state as the founders intended, that's the only issue. All the rest of this is the fundie-camel's nose under the tent...

[Cerridwen]

76. Thanks, ProudDad...more good points

and observations.

:hi:

[Greyhound]

70. "My religion is facts not assumptions."

You closed with a false assertion and that makes the rest of your query suspect from the very beginning.

No religion is fact-based, the very definition of faith is;
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no corollary in the pro-choice side to the anti-choice advocates position that abortion should be prohibited, IOW there is no one advocating forced abortions. The fact that one group wishes to impose it's will on all others through the threat of violence (the law), however, precludes any common ground, that is indisputable.

The evidence of what this tired re-tread of previously attempted mis-directions has been shown to you, and anyone that cares to read it, in other replies in this thread. Again, read Cerridwen's replies and follow the links. I would also ask you to post a link to the actual proposal, as all I'm able to find is the websites synopsis.

The bottom line in this argument is that no Government has any business legislating this entirely private issue!

[Bjorn Against]

67. They are not setting a realistic goal

There is absolutely no way in hell anyone can reduce the number of abortions by 95% in ten years, even if they completely overturned Roe and provided free birth control to everyone they could never reduce the number that sharply.

I think it is important to emphasize ways to reduce the number of abortions without limiting a woman's right to choose, but the goals need to be set at a realistic level. Reducing the number by 25% in ten years is possible, 95% is not.

[Cerridwen]

68. This is a stealth campaign, plain and simple...

"Democrats for Life" uses the same rhetoric as many rabid anti-choice organizations, e.g. pro-life versus pro-abortion, unborn rather than zygote or fetus, pro-choice="radical", stem cells are people, and wrap their message in religious terms.

If all pro-life people shunned the Democratic party, who would then speak up for the unborn?

<snip>

It is too dangerous to allow a group with that much power to be totally under the influence of the pro-abortion mentality....serve as a buffer against the more radical elements in the party.

<snip>

The party has sent out such a strong and pervasive pro-abortion message that many pro-life people have felt silenced or alienated.

<snip - more at link accessed from this page

This is the speech presented by Dr. Lois Kerschen, President of Democrats for Life of Texas, on January 25, 1997 to the Greater Austin Right to Life Rally. The rally was held on the steps of the Capitol in Austin after a walk by an estimated 1500 Pro-Life supporters.

They are anti-stem cell research:

Because embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) doesn't have the starkness of other pro-life issues, some people may not realize what an urgent issue it is. My wife, a former AIDS and cancer-research technician at Johns Hopkins University, put it simply: When it comes to ESCR, "the problem isn't the cells, it's the person you have to kill to get the cells."

<snip>

You have to be able to see and understand that your debate partners really are trying to do what they think is right, and appreciate that they might not have been presented the truth in a way they can understand. You have to love them as Jesus did when He wept for them—to see them with His compassion when He said they were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Mk 6:34).

link accessed from this page

Supporters of the 95 10 initiative include, wow, a token woman beyond the ED, /sarcasm who'd have guessed? /sarcasm:

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL)

Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN)

Dan McConchie, Americans United for Life

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. Assistant National Director of LEARN (Life education and resource network)

Tom Atwood, President and CEO, National Council on Adoption

Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote

State Representative Mark Miloscia (D-WA)

Kurt Entsminger, President, CareNet - who stands to profit quite handsomely from "Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program - Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers. Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services."

Through our phone and internet services, we have been able to educate men and women on the risks of abortion as well as provide them with resources and information about abortion alternatives. But more importantly, through the Option Line and the work of affiliate centers, these men and women have been exposed to the message of the Gospel, and by the grace of God, we have seen many make decisions for Christ. Care Net's "Option Line"

CareNet also opposes emergency contraception for women.

The 95 10 initiative also presents, as fact, that abortion (has) adverse side effects to a woman's health in spite of the fact that there is no valid proof of detrimental effects to a woman's health, mental or physical despite years of anti-choice activists who insist on proving otherwise.

Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman's long-term mental (or physical, read the article) health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.

So, to summarize to this point,

- the federally funded "informational" hot-line is bait-and-switch and removes abortion from the choices offered
- women's "right to know" will include false and disproved information
- college women will be given the option (bribed?) to receive help to carry a pregnancy to term but removes abortion from her federally funded choices
- requires women's clinics to provide "adoption referral information" to further complicate a difficult decision during a stressful time and is part of a collection of trap laws which are used "to subject abortion providers to burdensome restrictions that are not applied to other medical professionals"
- provide additionally confusing and distressing information should a woman choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing; will they cover a second opinion? Is this another trap law?
- federally funding to "collect accurate data on why women choose abortions"?! There are several studies already available; here's one. Why do they need more studies and research? Do they not like the answers they've received to date?


This initiative is a "beard". The more I research the more it looks like the anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti-women people have infiltrated the Democratic Party. /sarcasm Gee, what a surprise. /sarcasm

[ProudDad]

74. Bottom line for me

religion has NO place in governence.

There should be a high, insurrmountable wall between church and state and this is STILL the f*ckin' church getting involved in OUR business. It's NONE of their damn business.

To paraphrase the racist, anti-immigration bigot, "If you don't like separation of church and state, why don't you go back where you came from!" Or go to the Taliban, they don't believe in separation of church and state.

----

In the political sense, I understand what they're trying to do. In the Constitutional sense, they're still sticking their noses, and their damn legislation, into something that's a religious issue.

As an American Citizen who hates organized religion (:puke:), that's offensive to me and an infringement of my rights...and I have the Constitution on MY side!