The New Abortion-Reduction Proposal

      A few comments on the most recent exchanges over abortion and the Democrats:

      We have been debating again whether the Democratic proposals (there are two—more on that in a second) are a sufficient move against abortion.  That’s an important question.  But it should not cause us to lose sight of another important question, whether safety-net proposals like these are a good and necessary move against abortion (sufficient or not).  The proposition I'm talking about is that a variety of social supports—like increased funding for women’s and children’s health and nutrition, increased restrictions on pregnancy discrimination in insurance, increased funding of adoption and of child-care on college campuses, and so forth—will stop many abortions by increasing alternatives for women who face difficult situations of pregnancy.

      This Wednesday, the Pregnant Women Support Act (PWSA), formulated and endorsed by Democrats for Life, will be introduced in Congress.  The bill provides for the increased social supports above and others.  Unlike last week’s Democratic proposal, the PWSA omits the funding of contraception as a means of preventing pregnancies and thus abortions, based on the division over the morality of contraception.

      I cannot imagine why any pro-life member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, should not wholeheartedly support this bill.  The only reason to oppose it from a conservative side would be on the basis of a knee-jerk hostility to government spending and regulation, overriding—in a telling and disturbing way—a commitment to preventing the deaths of some unborn children.  Therefore, I hope and expect that large numbers of pro-life Republicans will join pro-life Democrats in support of the bill.

      While some folks (including, I’m sure, some fellow MOJers) believe that Democrats for Life are engaged overall in a quixotic and counterproductive endeavor, I think we should note that it took this group to put forward a comprehensive package of safety-net measures to reduce abortions.  Even though many pro-life conservatives support such measures, to my knowledge no such package ever came forth from the conservative side of the political aisle, probably because there’s a congenital suspicion of safety-net measures on that side.  I’d submit that this tells us that—notwithstanding all the problems with the current Democratic Party on Roe and abortion restrictions—there is substantial value in having a pro-life voice working within the Democratic Party instead of bailing out (even leading aside whether Democratic positions are morally preferable on other issues).  With respect to my friend and co-worker Rick, I think it would be unfair to diss Democrats for Life's work as "repackaging longstanding policy goals as efforts to reduce the number of abortions."  CLARIFICATION AND UPDATE:  After personal conversation, I understand that Rick's dismissal of the first Democratic proposal was not meant to include the safety-net funding elements that Democrats for Life's proposal will champion, but only the contraception funding because some would go to Planned Parenthood.

   

      A few further comments:

      (1) Note that the PWSA, like the Democrats for Life’s proposals in general, does not simply mean more central government.  Many of its provisions support mediating institutions addressing abortion: for example, increased funding for sonograms at crisis pregnancy centers (which studies show convince many women not to abort), for adoption organizations, and for child care on college campuses.

      (2) To support safety-net measures does not let Democrats off the hook on the abortion-restriction questions.  (Democrats for Life, BTW, has not done so; it includes informed consent and parental notice in its proposal, and it has even applauded the South Dakota ban that many other pro-life leaders opposed as mistimed.)  I understand the worry that some will use these measures to claim to be pro-life while they still support Roe or public funding of abortions.  But it would be unfortunate to resist a measure that can reduce abortions—and help women in difficult circumstances—because of considerations about how it will be used politically.  In fact, one can argue the other way too: strengthening the safety net may make it easier, in the long run and in swing states, to enact and (equally important) sustain legal restrictions on abortion because the collateral consequences on women will be cushioned.

      (3) Those collateral consequences of legal prohibitions have to be acknowledged, because--do I have to do these reminders?--abortion does frequently arise in very difficult circumstances, especially for impoverished women who have a disproportionate share of abortions.  Although there were exaggerations of pre-Roe back-alley abortions and deaths, certainly some occurred and some would occur again, disroportionately to the poor.  Economically vulnerable women who give birth will also have real health and nutrition problems, may drop out of college permanently (thus heading toward economic dead-ends), and will risk losing whatever chance they had at health insurance—all problems that the safety-net proposal addresses.  These consequences do not mean giving up on protecting the unborn.  But they do demand a sober, honest recognition of the need for a strengthened safety net to address the increased needs.

   The proposal will be on the table this week.  Can anyone fail to support it?

                                                         Tom