Do ‘pro-lifers’ really care about babies?

WASHINGTON — Jobs are Job No. 1, right?

Independent voters swung to the GOP in last November’s elections because they were disappointed — or angry — with Democrats over a stubbornly-high unemployment rate, polls show. So you’d think that the new House Republican majority would devote its first few months to legislation aimed at creating jobs.

But since staging futile votes to repeal health care reform, Republicans have been most animated about firing new shots in the culture war. They’ve taken aim at reproductive rights, introducing bills to further curb women’s access to safe and legal abortions. Last month, House Speaker John Boehner told reporters that a ban on federal funding for abortions is “one of our highest legislative priorities.”

I’m surprised at Boehner, who had seemed to heed the lessons of the stormy tenure of one of his GOP predecessors, Newt Gingrich. The House Speaker from Georgia reveled in exploiting wedge issues and lobbing rhetorical grenades — to the detriment of his party. Boehner seemed to understand that he needed to avoid Gingrich’s mistakes.

Besides, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels — the dream presidential candidate of many centrist Republicans — has urged the GOP to “call a truce on the so-called social issues” and concentrate on righting the economy.  And, if that weren’t enough reason to discourage a GOP foray into the abortion wars, there’s this: a federal regulation — the Hyde amendment — already bans taxpayer funding of abortions except for a few exceptions, including rape and incest.

But Boehner’s base still demands fidelity to a host of hot-button social issues. Tea partiers, in fact, don’t represent a political force driven by new concerns but, rather, a coalition of ultra-conservatives tearing pages from a very old playbook. Last week’s huge gathering here for ultra-conservatives — the annual CPAC meeting — devoted a panel to “The Pro-life Movement: Plans and Goals.”

If those same activists were concerned about the welfare of children once they emerged from the womb, I’d be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are, certainly, some among anti-abortion activists who campaign dutifully on behalf of poor children — notably the clergy of the Catholic Church.

But, generally speaking, there’s a glaring contradiction in the ideology of anti-abortion proponents: They are passionate about the fetus but indifferent — if not hostile — to actual babies who need a generous social safety net. The same voters who protest Roe vs. Wade usually oppose traditional welfare for poor women, government-funded health care benefits for impoverished children and housing subsidies for poor families. Indeed, among the programs in the crosshairs of GOP budget-cutters is Women, Infants and Children (commonly known as WIC), which provides nutritional supplements to pregnant women and their babies.

That’s not the end of the illogic embedded in anti-abortion activism. Here’s where it gets really frustrating: Conservatives refuse to endorse the widespread use of contraceptives, which would lower the abortion rate. Republican budget-cutters have also targeted family planning programs, and conservatives continue to paint Planned Parenthood, which delivers a host of reproductive health services to women, as the devil’s handmaiden.

That simply makes no sense. Nearly half the pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and about four in ten of those unintended pregnancies result in abortions, according to the highly respected Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit dedicated to reproductive health and improved family planning. It stands to reason, then, that helping women to gain access to reliable contraceptives and to use them appropriately would reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions.

It’s no mystery why abortion rates are much lower in Western Europe. Those countries have adopted public policies that make birth control pills and other contraceptives cheap and widely available. If we did the same, abortion rates would drop sharply here, as well.

That’s one of those common sense solutions that social conservatives should embrace. So far, though, they’d rather keep fighting the same old battles.

339 comments Add your comment

John Daly

February 11th, 2011
5:48 pm

Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman then they can be charged with feticide but it’s okay for that same woman to have been on the way to an abortion. It’s only a child if the woman wants it?

So Safeway is okay giving a woman the wrong medication and potentially causing a miscarriage because it’s not a person anyway, just a bunch of cells?

Irony

February 11th, 2011
5:49 pm

retired early – modern science? I guess that modern science on global warming is really worth believing in huh?

Red

February 11th, 2011
5:53 pm

John Daly has a good point. It comes down to a “desire” to keep the child. If he is wanted, you can be charged with murder. If he is not, you can abort. We change labels based on want. It’s not a matter of a woman and her privacy. We have a standard on humanity and life no different than the Nazis. If they are undesirable, defective, etc. we just wipe them out. It’s “better” for society that we don’t have these “burdens” placed on us.

Brother Lowell

February 11th, 2011
5:53 pm

Modern science had done a lot of proving the Bible is indeed true. I am tired of liberals. Send them to Egypt so they can “enjoy” freedom.

jimmie

February 11th, 2011
5:59 pm

abort cynthia

Darlene

February 11th, 2011
6:00 pm

I believe it is my right to do as I please with my body, right Ms Cynthia? So tell, Miss Michelle to lay off my school lunch and my restaurant portions, I can be as fat as I want. P.s. my boyfriend likes my big caboose.

dave

February 11th, 2011
6:01 pm

Here’s another CONtradiction for you. From my experiences, most of those who oppose abortion also oppose reasonable gun control laws. Apparently it’s wrong to kill a being that has yet to live among others and establish close relationships, but ok to allow 30 round magazines and assault weapons to freely circulate and kill off our beloved fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters (Tucson). Remember – Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. And for all you NRA types out there ready to give me a beat down with your second amendent, I am a gun owner.

Red

February 11th, 2011
6:05 pm

Dave on the flip side most who find it fine to kill in the name of abortion are against the death penalty. Why is it OK to kill the “innocent unwanted” but not the “guilty unwanted”? Aren’t these people are “burden” as well?

J Moore

February 11th, 2011
6:06 pm

Tucker is the best argument for legalized abortions I could EVER think of.
!

JesusFreak

February 11th, 2011
6:08 pm

Opposing “welfare for poor women” is actually a good thing. All that does – and this has been proven – is to create a multi-generational dependency on government handouts without lifting a finger. More children = more money. Killing babies in utero is no different from killing a toddler because he has become an inconvenience. The only difference is the location of the baby and the age. Oh, and the level of development. So it is justified to kill a baby in utero who is fully dependent but not okay to kill a five-day old baby who is equally dependent on a mother for survival? Justify that, in your mind, if you will. Murder is murder and no amount of justification will erase that. I pray one day God will soften your heart and open your eyes to the reality of your belief. How about the doctor that was pro-abortion until a little finger wrapped around his own finger while he was killing the baby in utero? He never killed another baby again after that. Abortion is an ugly industry that preys on women and does so much harm and mutilation, both physical and psychological, they are in it for the dollars they make, they hope you won’t know even half of what really goes on. They used to call the fetus “tissue” so the women wouldn’t feel guilt, until ultrasound came around to show just what a 7 week old “blob of tissue” looks like. Let’s not even get into what level of pain it feels. Our society is barbaric, and getting worse. If you’re going to kill a baby in utero, then it should be OK to kill toddlers too by the same standard. Oh, and the old and inform too, right?

kayaker 71

February 11th, 2011
6:09 pm

Read an actual case of a welfare mother in Chicago who is 24 and has 8 children. Her mother said that she was the breadwinner of the family. Here’s the scheme…… As each child was born, and added to the flock, the mother would petition the welfare Aid to Dependent Children in Chicago and tell the agency that she had too many kids to support and that she would have to release some of them to foster care. Then her mother would volunteer to place these kids in foster care with her being the foster parent. Each of them was worth 12K/yr. to the foster parent who was the mother’s mom. This mom was truly the breadwinner of the family until the scam was discovered. Wonder how many other scams of this type are going on using the children as pawns to make money? You just can’t make this stuff up.

Kamchak

February 11th, 2011
6:10 pm

I am tired of liberals.

Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out, sport.

reality check

February 11th, 2011
6:11 pm

Come on people, the Republicans have been whining about less government for 2 years, citizens complaining about the government telling them what top do. Let’s be rational and reasonable for a moment. Even if abortions were illegal, they would still be performed. Women with money or health insurance can check into a hospital for a d & c or any other procedure they want to call it. Poor women will have to visit back alleys and unsterilized procedures. People judging these women have rarely, if ever had to tell their child they had no food to put on the table. People judging need to leave judgement to God. Simply put, if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. However, it is nobody else’s business (especially a man) what I choose and that choice is my right.

Kamchak

February 11th, 2011
6:12 pm

Read an actual case of a welfare mother in Chicago who is 24 and has 8 children.

St. Ronnie of the Ray-Gun played the “welfare queen” card thirty years ago.

Time to get some new material.

Down in Albany

February 11th, 2011
6:13 pm

CT, you are a hysterical lunatic.

Moolah

February 11th, 2011
6:16 pm

Shove money at every problem and it all goes away….works for unemployment, welfare, education, etc. You gotta love the logic. “We can’t think of any other solution to the problem so here just take some money and hope all is right with the world.”

Rockerbabe

February 11th, 2011
6:20 pm

My reproductive abilities are none of your business and your reproductive abilities are none of my business. Keep your stinking, right-wing, women hating hands off of my body and my life. My reproduction is definitely none of the government’s business and neither is yours. All of the abortion business is nothing more than a power play against women in general. The old white guys and some crazy women seem to think they get to tell everyone else what to do, when to do it and then not pay for the priviledge. It seems that since the blacks cannot be ruled over any more as they have civil rights, and the GOP and its minions cannot keep the latinos out of the country, the old white male bridgate seems to think women are now the most easy target for their overlord tendicies. I think not.

kayaker 71

February 11th, 2011
6:22 pm

reality check,

I suppose that having an abortion is the only legal method of committing murder in this country. You have a right to murder your child if you want, by law. Over 1.27M people do it every year in this country and 92% are done because of “societal reasons”, that is, birth control. That’s the population of a not so small city. Every year. If some pox was killing people at the same rate every year, we would have a cow trying to root out the cause and put an end to this ” catastrophic event”. But it’s only a fetus, you know, something unwanted and unprepared for by mostly irresponsible people who just don’t give a good tinker’s damn about taking responsibility for their actions. It’s no secret what causes this. Correction….. there might be a few of our really unenlightened who really don’t know but I doubt it. Yeah, it’s your right to most anything you want within the limits of the law. But is it the right thing to do?

Kamchak

February 11th, 2011
6:22 pm

Shove money Shout “tax cuts” at every problem and it all goes away….works for unemployment, welfare, education, etc. You gotta love the logic. “We can’t think of any other solution to the problem so here just take some money just shout ‘tax cuts’ and hope all is right with the world.”

Fixed your typos.

quod erat demonstrandum

February 11th, 2011
6:26 pm

It is strange that CT is pro-abortion, when the majority of the aborted are not white?

With two adopted children, I detest this liberal hate speech.

Oh Please!!!

February 11th, 2011
6:30 pm

I am Pro-life as well as being anti-abortion. (I guess CT is Pro-abortion and anti-life to follow her logic).

…This just in…Humanity has survived for thousands of years without the W-I-C program. Public outcries for Obama to assign a committee to determine if it is true.

kayaker 71

February 11th, 2011
6:33 pm

Rockerbabe,

Put the race card to rest. Abortion is not a racial event, although black women represent only 6% of the population in this country and have over 40% of all abortions performed. Makes you think that irresponsibility is taking a rest in the black community at a greater rate than in any other venue, n’est-ce pas?

0311/0317 -1811/1801

February 11th, 2011
6:33 pm

ctucker @ 2:58

“But it’s ok to deny basic sustenance to that child who didn’t ask to be born?”

No it’s NOT !

I stated that even if that was not done ……. it’s no excuse for taking a life.

So I guess we are in agreement then? Killing an unborn child is wrong and denying it basic sustenance (if the parents can’t or won’t) is wrong !

IBAR

February 11th, 2011
6:35 pm

Why is it that abortion is legal, yet if someone kills a woman who is pregnant that person will be tried for double homicide? That is hypocrasy if you are looking for it Cynthia. That tells me right there our law makers understand or at least did at some point that a baby in the womb is a life.

Cynthia..how can you not see that the hypocrasy you are calling out is equal on your side? You are arguing that you can’t have one stance (pro life) without the other(care for poor babies) yet you yourself do not have both either!

SmittyATL

February 11th, 2011
6:37 pm

Rockerbabe: I don’t want to interfere in any way with your reproductive abilities. I agree completely: what you do with your own body is none of my business, nor anyone else’s. There are many important women in my life, and I highly respect women’s rights.

But one right you should not have is to snuff out an innocent life. No matter how you spin it, that decision affects another human life — not just your body. Don’t be so self-centered.

Oh Please!!!

February 11th, 2011
6:40 pm

For me, the real pro-life/pro-choice debate is two seperate debates. Pro-Choice is about a “woman’s right to control her own body.” Whereas the Pro-Life is about the right to life of the unborn child.
I believe that to honestly answer each question, the root of the question is whether the fetus is a life or not. For if the fetus is a living being, how can abortion possibly be acceptable? For by definition it would be the killing of a life.

kayaker 71

February 11th, 2011
6:42 pm

Rockerbabe,

One more thing. I am an old white guy by your definition and do not want to have anything to do with your decisions about what you do with our body. It’s none of my business. You can be as irresponsible as you want in this country as to reproduction and not pay the piper for a single thing. But as a female and a potential mother, do you think that taking the life of someone who didn’t have anything to do with your decisions is the right thing to do? Sort of like an innocent bystander getting whacked in a drive by shooting. Never saw it coming. Never had the right to grow up as you did because you tossed it aside as a body issue. It’s not a body issue. It’s a kid issue.

bob's your uncle

February 11th, 2011
6:49 pm

Implant an IUD at puberty, and don’t remove it until the mother and father can pass a parenting test! If you need a license to drive a car, you should have a license to have a kid!

Moolah

February 11th, 2011
6:55 pm

No need to fix kamchuck. No typos. Just take money from people and throw it at others. We know money makes problems go away. It’s worked so well since the Great Society. Jack taxes up on the rich and just shove it into the poor areas. Forty acres and a mule right?

SmittyATL

February 11th, 2011
6:56 pm

“So I guess we are in agreement then? Killing an unborn child is wrong and denying it basic sustenance (if the parents can’t or won’t) is wrong !”

I agree with those statements. But — returning to the premise of CT’s post — the question then becomes HOW we pay for the children’s basic sustenance. Cynthia seems to think that using taxpayer funds, and hiring federal bureaucrats to administer government programs, is the only solution. My view is that the job can be done more fairly and efficiently by charitable organizations.

Middle of the road

February 11th, 2011
7:00 pm

I am female and personally would not have an abortion. But I also believe in individual liberty. It is not my place to tell another woman what she can or can’t do to her body and it is no one’s job to judge her for her choice.

HL

February 11th, 2011
7:00 pm

Killing of people is wrong – so get rid of the death penalty….hypocrites. I am not pro abortion, but also not a woman. Therefore – let the woman choose. What would the men say if a mainly female congress would pass a law that men that have unprotected sex and impregnate a woman need to get castrated…:) lol….

Irony

February 11th, 2011
7:01 pm

Rockerbabe says for me to keep my hands off her body. Perhaps if she said that before she got pregnant we wouldn’t be discussing abortion. Perhaps if she ran down to the quickie mart first before getting pregnant we wouldn’t be discussing it either.

Perhaps you need to keep your hands and decisions off the baby you abort. Instead of being selfish, make wise decisions ahead of time. Don’t take your irresponsible choices out on another human being. Your rights extend until they interfere with another. And that baby’s rights are being infringed.

As for keeping my hands off your body, you can keep your hands off my paycheck as well. Hands off goes across the board. Pay for your own birth control. Can’t afford it? Don’t do something that risks getting pregnant. Don’t make me pay for your choices. If I’m paying for your care and your well being, I have a say in the rest of your life choices as well. Or does your logic only work in certain instances?

SmittyATL

February 11th, 2011
7:06 pm

Middle: it’s not about her body, it’s about a baby’s life.

If a woman wants to dye her skin blue, insert jewelry in her eyebrows, or cut off her hand, it’s fine by me. Her body is her own business. But if she wants to end another human life, that’s not okay.

SmittyATL

February 11th, 2011
7:09 pm

If a woman wants to have a sex change operation (commonly called an “addadictomy”) that’s okay too. It’s her (his???) body.

ltruks

February 11th, 2011
7:10 pm

Wonder what the the health care cost are that are the result of the birth of those unintended babies.
Why complain about health care costs and it’s availability when the unborn’s right to life is paramount? Can’t have it both ways.

If abortion is murder, what is the denial of all the necessities of life that a child needs considered to be?

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t recall that murder was considered be a greater sin then lying, stealing or any sin in Bible.

Do you think that God will not forgive a woman for having an abortion, and have a different view of any other sin committed?

Winfield J. Abbe

February 11th, 2011
7:11 pm

A corollary issue is the fact that women who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol while pregnant (not to mention use illegal and some legal drugs) impair the intelligence of the fetus. This is a very serious but controllable problem. This activity is the likely cause of many behavioral problems in schools and later in society. Women simply do not have the right to impair the intelligence of an innocent child by negligent, selfish, foolish personal behavior which can and must be prevented. If necessary their privacy must be invaded to stop this unconscionable behavior.

Azazel

February 11th, 2011
7:12 pm

I got the knitting needles and coat hangers stock tip from John Boner.

0311/0317 -1811/1801

February 11th, 2011
7:12 pm

Oh Please!!!

25% of the 58,000+ names on the “Vietnam Wall” were male draftees who did not have the right to control their own bodies. As a matter of fact, against their will they were sent to a place where other men would try to kill or maim them for life.

Registering for the draft is still the law of the land but the Supreme Court has said women are exempt.

I served in Vietnam (volunteered) but you won’t get much sympathy from me about a woman “controlling her own body”.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmmmm, mmmm, mmm! Just sayin...

February 11th, 2011
7:17 pm

Enough not to take the scissors to them, airhead.

Nothing Is Free

February 11th, 2011
7:18 pm

Rockerbabe

I’m pretty sure that no one cares what you do. This entire discussion is about women that men would want to have sex with.

Azazel

February 11th, 2011
7:19 pm

Men should have the capacity for pregnancy; and then have their lives and behaviors controlled by squads of draconian bull-dike inquisitors.

Irony

February 11th, 2011
7:26 pm

Itruks – denial of the necessities of life? Who is denying it? I’d say the woman having the abortion is doing that. Are you saying that every child needs to be supported by some common state pool? And what does God’s forgiveness have to do with it? If lying and murder are in the same category, I guess you would overlook and forgive a family member killed? Someone killing you would be no different than my 4 year old lying about taking a cookie out of the jar?

MAMA SAYS

February 11th, 2011
7:31 pm

Hey GOP lies,

Did kennedy care about babies when he started putting troops into Vietnam ?
Supported the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba
Threatened to go to war over Soviet Missles in Cuba

Did Johnson care about babies when he increased the troop level to 500,000 in Vietnam

How about Roosevelt and WW II

Truman and the A Bomb

Clinton and Bosnia ?

your devoid of one thing—a true knowledge of history . The deadliest times in U.S history beside the civil war were under Democratic presidents

Cynthia you’re are void of many things, like the memory of democratic “leaders” pandering to the lefts base but as a conservative I agree 100% on your birth control issue. It’s not in the bible that one must not take birth control and the right would accomplish a lot by relenting on that one issue.

but for the most part Liberals arre fruit loops who are more concerned about the criminals rights than those of the lawful.

DebbieDoRight

February 11th, 2011
7:31 pm

Rockerbabe: . All of the abortion business is nothing more than a power play against women in general. The old white guys and some crazy women seem to think they get to tell everyone else what to do, when to do it and then not pay for the priviledge. It seems that since the blacks cannot be ruled over any more as they have civil rights, and the GOP and its minions cannot keep the latinos out of the country, the old white male bridgate seems to think women are now the most easy target for their overlord tendicies.

AMEN girlfriend!!!

It is strange that CT is pro-abortion, when the majority of the aborted are not white?

And? Your point is……..?

kayaker: But as a female and a potential mother, do you think that taking the life of someone who didn’t have anything to do with your decisions is the right thing to do?

it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.

NIF: Rockerbabe – I’m pretty sure that no one cares what you do. This entire discussion is about women that men would want to have sex with.

You are soooo bad!!

ltruks

February 11th, 2011
7:32 pm

Irony – I simply posed the question. The question remains does God judge sins differently?

DebbieDoRight

February 11th, 2011
7:34 pm

Men should have the capacity for pregnancy; and then have their lives and behaviors controlled by squads of draconian bull-dike inquisitors

Ooooooo that was goood!! Scary. A bit frightening. But really really good. Congrats!

0311/0317 -1811/1801

February 11th, 2011
7:36 pm

Azazel :

“Men should have the capacity for pregnancy; and then have their lives and behaviors controlled by squads of draconian bull-dike inquisitors.”

See my 7:12

Draftees called them Drill Instructors.

DebbieDoRight

February 11th, 2011
7:37 pm

Women simply do not have the right to impair the intelligence of an innocent child by negligent, selfish, foolish personal behavior which can and must be prevented. If necessary their privacy must be invaded to stop this unconscionable behavior.

I laughed at first when I read your post, but now I’m not sure you were kidding……..

0311/0317 -1811/1801

February 11th, 2011
7:37 pm

DebbieDoRight :

See my 7:36 ……………………. :o