Playing Womb Politics

LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

What does it really mean to be Pro-Life? What does it really mean to promote "Life?"
The inconsistency in people's views on this and the religious fervor surrounding it has interesting reverberations into public policy. But from a practical approach, there is a potential for greater common ground than the debate has shaped to date. Do the Republicans just want to hang on to this as a wedge issue that never dies, or can we really get serious about solving the problem? I choose that great American optomism that says that if we get real with a problem and face it head on, we can defeat it.
The Republicans have had about five years controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House and it is still legal to have an abortion, while incrementally more unavailable, and the statistics on numbers of people having them has not decreased appreciably. That is in spite of some of the nastiest campaign rhetoric and the loudest moral condemnations against anyone who disagreed with republican strategy on this issue ever.
We still have a national scandal in the fact that about three million abortions take place every year in America (over 40 million since Roe v. Wade) according to admitted Democratic statistics.
Three million a year. There are about six million people in the Greater Philadelphia area, including the city proper and surrounding suburbs, and there are just over nine million people in Los Angeles. Every two years, we abort a population the size of greater Philadelphia and every three years a population the size of Los Angeles. One way to destroy cities is to do it like they are doing it in the Middle East. Another way is to never let people be born in the first place. In either case, there is a proliferation of terror and appauling loss of life and limb.
Today at the Center for American Progress Harry Reed, Democratic Minority Senate Leader, who calls himself a "pro-life" Senator from Nevada, and John Podesta, Clinton's former Chief of Staff came just shy of declaring war on abortion- but not on women. It is fact that the numbers of abortions were lower under Clinton that they have been under Bush.
There is common ground between Democrats and Republicans in the war on abortion. Democrats want to focus on making them unnecessary-a goal that should be universal. Reed and Hillary Clinton are proposing a bill called The Prevention First Act which seeks to make abortions unnecessary.
Lest Adriana Huffington starts booing Hillary for floating toward the center, it should be noted that this Prevention First Act is just good common sense, morally, economically and every way for women. The socio-economic dynamics involved in poor women having abortions are here addressed as a huge number of women who get abortions are motivated by a belief in their inability to afford the child (or another child). The bill contemplates such things as allowing insurance or medicaid to provide for prenatal and post-partum care, finances comprehensive health care and abstinence education, particularly teen pregnancy prevention education, makes contraception available and other measures and takes care of families. It rejects intrinsically the idea that making abortions unavailable will reduce the numbers. That is a fallacy that has proven largely wrong in other countries where it is not legal; women resort to self mutilation and destroy themselves and their unborn self aborting when they do not want pregnancies and are driven underground in places where it is illegal. That was certainly the case prior to Roe in this country.
The goal should be for all women to want all their pregnancies. Legislation is never going to completely solve the fact that all women do not want all their pregnancies. Legislation is never going to make men or boys honorable all the time and never have sex with women unless they are sure they want to raise children and help pay for them. Legislation can't make people love each other and want to care for their offspring. But we can make a kinder gentler world more hospitable to Moms and their kids so that Moms feel so much better about wanting to bring a baby into the world that they choose life in spite of their circumstances by dramatically altering the socio-economic environment that women land in when they find themselves pregnant. That's a good start. If you think you can survive having a child you are more likely to risk it. If you are not thriving you can't see past your naval to contemplate bringing someone else in the picture whom you are singularly responsible for.

It is sometimes remarked that abortions don't hurt anyone- unless of course you are the Fetus.

Every Fetus conceived in America should have a shot at their American dream.
When Gabriel, as the story goes in the New Testament, the Angel of the Lord, visited a Jewish virgin teenager Mary he had an announcement to make. Mary- don't be afraid. This is good news. You are going to have a son.
Legislation can tell women, listen- don't be afraid. This is really good news. You are going to have a baby. There is nothing to fear because we are going to help you both survive. Its good news because we as a country value you and your child so much that we are going to take care of you even if the rest of your world has failed you. That can be the promise of America for every pregnant woman. The promise of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for everyone, including Fetuses. I would rather give women hope than condemn them. People respond better to love than restraint and condemnation.
There are no easy answers. But we all can and should agree- its high time we stopped playing womb politics and started playing with more children.