On the "redefining rape" story...

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice blogs are going bonkers over claims that Republicans are trying to "redefine rape" in the name of limiting abortion funding. Pro-Choicers are claiming it an attempt to force victims of rape to prolong their suffering. First, the relevant quote.

"This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible," Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote recently.

He continued, "For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion."

If the bill becomes law, parents of minors would also be banned from paying for pregnancy termination for their daughters with tax-exempt health savings accounts. Also, the cost of the private health insurance that covered the treatment would not be able to be deducted as a medical expense for tax purposes.

Second, a few Mod-Blog middle-of-the-road reality checks. Please note, I am ardently Pro-life, but am also a reasonable person.

1. This bill DOES NOT limit the RIGHT of women to get an abortion. It merely limits the ability of these women to have FEDERALLY-FUNDED abortions.

2. These limits would do LITTLE to stop the VAST majority of abortions, at the expense of the MOST controversial kinds of abortion cases. This is like trying to stem the tide of obesity in America by limiting Happy Meals for teenagers.

This bill is clearly overreaching by a newly-elected zealous House. It is time to put this one back on the shelf and examine ways to reduce the really horrible abortions happening out there - those done for no other reason than birth control by mature adults. And to ensure alternatives are easy and cheap to find - especially adoption.

Abortion Issue may derail Health Care Reform Bill

Most supporters of the Democratic Health Reform Bills would claim their concerns are purely practical - budgetary savings, expanded coverage, and improved survival rates. But it appears that the Bills' passage may instead come down to a single moral/ethical/philosophical issue - abortion. While the House was willing to compromise in the name of practicality, the Senate is not ready to do the same.

Efforts to find such a common ground failed in the House.

Women's rights groups were caught off-guard by the provision that passed the House and are now vowing to keep similar language out of the Senate bill. Hundreds of activists organized by Planned Parenthood and other groups rallied Wednesday, holding signs reading "Listen up senators: Women's health is not negotiable."

Several House Democrats spoke, vowing to oppose final passage of any health bill with the tough abortion restrictions already approved by the House. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., called it "a devil's bargain" that she couldn't accept.

But the House language is just what Nelson wants to include in the Senate bill.

In reality, for all of President Obama's talk about this being a practical choice, these debates prove this is all about philosophy. Which is why they are happy to pass ANY bill - however flawed - so long as it is ideologically pure.

Why can't there ever be a DISCUSSION on abortion?

A "eureka" moment for me on the issue of abortion came on a high school trip to a museum. I sat with a good friend who shared my interest in model rocketry, and somehow our conversation turned to Roe v. Wade. We disagreed on the topic, and I carefully laid out the Pro-Life arguments that I had found so convincing. His response? He actually agreed with me, but "It is a woman's right to choose." OK. I laid out an argument for why I felt that particular argument was specious. He agreed 100%. But "It is a woman's right to choose." We spent the whole 3 hour trip having a "discussion" where he would not answer any of my points with a reasoned, logical, or even emotional response. It was simply the mantra "It is a woman's right to choose" with literally no intellectual backing.

This post on Digg.Com has the same ring to me, and reminds me that for much of the abortion argument while the Pro-Choice side accuses the Pro-Life side of being "ignorant and unreasoning", they themselves are not interested in a dialogue. Maybe it is the radicalism that has emerged on both sides, maybe it is the rise of political correctness, or maybe it is something I truly am not seeing. But I am still waiting for a GOOD Pro-Choice argument based on solid philosophical ground. I understand the concerns about rape/incest/life-of-mother. But most Pro-Lifers are willing to compromise on this. In fact, my own Pro-Life position is that this is a morality issue that should be decided on the STATE level and NOT the Federal level.

Is there any hope for a discussion on Abortion instead of an endless stream of invective and recrimination?

Seeing the other side: Why one abortion doctor does her work

It is important in any debate to truly understand the other side, so that you can (1) properly defend against their arguments, and (2) truly understand if you are right. This morning I came across this article which lays out one Canadian doctor's reasons for being an abortion provider. Frankly, I find some of her justifications disturbing, but others make some sense and are worth considering and understanding. Warning, there are a few sections which those with a weak stomach may find difficult.

The first month of my internship was spent on Ward 41, the septic obstetrics ward. Yes, it's hard to believe now, but in those days, they had one ward dedicated exclusively to septic complications of pregnancy.

About 90% of the patients were there with complications of septic abortion. The ward had about 40 beds, in addition to extra beds which lined the halls. Each day we admitted between 10-30 septic abortion patients. We had about one death a month, usually from septic shock associated with hemorrhage...

Today, in Canada and the U.S., septic shock from illegal abortion is virtually never seen. Like smallpox, it is a "disappeared disease."

This article did not change my mind at all, honestly, but it gave me a window into the Pro-Abortion movement and its proponents. And it reminded me yet again that the crazies who attack abortion doctors or bomb clinics do nothing to end abortion, and usually wind up creating even more dedicated proponents of the practice.

Abortion rates the same, regardless of legality

Part of being a "moderate" blog means posting stories you don't like. Take, for example, this one which cites a new World Health Organization study on abortion.

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

Readers know I am ardently Pro-Life and Anti-Abotion (choose your label, as you will). Honestly, I suspect this study is flawed as it is extremely counter-intuitive to me. However, I admit counter-intuitive does not always mean wrong. Quantum mechanics and man-woman social interactions prove that quite easily. And I wonder how different this study would look adjusted for moral and social outlooks.

I guess the next question IF the study is accurate is, does this support the Pro-Choice position? It certainly lends credence to the practical argument of those looking to never return to the coat-hanger days. However, it means little to the moral argument. And less to te spiritual argument. After all, it seems like adultery is a constant, despite legal or moral controls on it. But still, we recognize the detrimental effects of adulterous interactions upon society.