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.

39% of Pregnancies in NYC End in Abortion?!

I really, really, really hope this is a case of a statistic taken out of context and misunderstood. Because the idea that almost 40 out of every 100 fetuses in NYC are aborted is just monstrous. Whether you're Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, can we all agree that abortion should be a last resort and not commonplace?!

In 2009, there were 225,667 pregnancies in the City with 126,774 resulting in live births and 87,273 resulting in abortions. In addition to those abortion numbers, there were 11,620 spontaneous terminations.
Forty-six percent of all births in the Bronx result in abortions—the highest among the five boroughs, according to the report.
Blacks had the highest number of abortions with 40,798 with Hispanics having the second highest at 28,364, according to the report.

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.

Obama's Gaffe Provides Fuel for Pro-Life Attacks

Barak Obama recently made a comment that should spread like wildfire throughout the Pro-Life community. Here is the report as retold in a recent column by Pat Buchanan.

Near the end of a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pa., a woman arose to offer a passionate plea to Barack Obama to "stop these abortions."

Obama's response was cool, direct, unequivocal.

"Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. ... I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

I can't imagine any starker contrast than between this answer from from Obama and the response from Sarah Palin and her husband to the fact that their teenage daughter is pregnant. I'm sure this quote will be used to raise tons of money for Pro-Life causes and should cost Obama the support of those few Pro-Lifers who might have still planned on voting for him.

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?

A Happy Trend - Abortion On the Decline

The article pretty much speaks for itself.

The number of abortions in the United States fell to the lowest level since the procedure was made legal some 35 years ago, according to a national study released Thursday.

The Guttmacher Institute... said there were about 1.2 million abortions in 2005 -- 25 percent fewer than in 1990, when the number of abortions was about 1.6 million procedures.

In 2005, the US abortion rate was 19.4 abortions for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, according to figures compiled from surveying abortion providers. The 2005 figure represented an eight percent drop from the number of abortions in 2000.

The finding underscores a continued a downward trend that started after the abortion rate peaked at 29.3 procedures per 1,000 women in 1981, according to the institute.

Of course, it would be better to see even fewer. But the continuing decline of abortions is an encouraging trend, and gives hope that one day they may be essentially confined to the hard cases: rape, incest, and life of the mother.

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.