Healthcare Prof:
“A new fault line has opened in the abortion debate,” and the “fight is no longer between pro-lifers and pro-choicers” but between “militants and pragmatists,” Slate national correspondent William Saletan writes in an opinion piece. He continues, “While some extremists have been raising hell and shooting doctors, pragmatists have been hashing out common ground legislation” in the form of the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act (HR 3212), which was introduced last week.
Saletan writes that “a lot of bargaining” went into the legislation. He explains that abortion-rights advocates “got money for contraception and sex education,” while abortion-rights opponents “got abstinence-friendly curriculum, a bigger adoption tax credit and financial support for women who continue their pregnancies.” According to Saletan, each side of the abortion debate “faced the other’s truths.” He provides comments from bill sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who said that “‘we all want to see fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions’” and that “‘we must also foster an environment that encourages pregnancies to be carried to term.’” According to Saletan, “Such statements are forbidden among pro-choice groups,” who support “reducing the ‘need’ for abortion, not abortion itself.” He adds, “But DeLauro blurted it out. That’s what happens when you open your mind.”
Saletan continues that the “militant old guard of the pro-life movement” — led by the National Right to Life Committee — does not support the legislation, calling it a “scam.” He writes that it is difficult to take seriously NRLC’s argument that the bill’s real goal is to achieve financial gains for the abortion industry. According to Saletan, the “militants extend their objection to abortion ‘advocacy’” because “none of the bill’s money can legally be used for abortions.” By these standards, “the government can’t fund contraception programs run by anyone who thinks abortion should be legal. Which rules out nearly every contraception program in the world,” Saletan writes. These opponents also condemn the bill for providing funding for “‘sex education without a major abstinence component,’” despite that the bill requires grantees to “‘encourage teens to delay sexual activity,’” Saletan writes. He adds, “Abstinence has become a code word for blocking any discussion of birth control.”
According to Saletan, “Ultimately, the militants don’t care what’s in the bill. The mere fact that some pro-choicers support it is, by their reckoning, grounds to oppose it.” He continues, “Pro-life pragmatists take a different view” because they “sought, won and commend the bill’s emphasis on abstinence and parental involvement in sex education,” and they “welcome its voluntary approach to abortion reduction even as they seek the procedure’s abolition.” He adds, “And while some of them oppose contraception or doubt it will help, they think the bill is still worth supporting because, on balance, it will lead to fewer abortions.” Saletan concludes, “I prefer the pragmatists. How about you?” (Saletan, Slate, 7/27).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Recent Comments