Preventing the Need for Abortions

(See here) where a NY Times piece by Celia W Dugger reports that both sides of the abortion issue seemed to have joined together in a reasonable, rational attempt to prevent the need for abortions.

Congress has passed a foreign aid spending bill that they believe would reduce abortions in poor countries through allowing the federal government to donate contraceptives to foreign groups that provide family planning services abroad, including those that offer abortions.

However the move is opposed by pro-life extremists and the entire bill might be vetoed by Dubyah Bush due to the inclusion of this aspect.

What motivated pro-life Democrats to support the bill?

Five of the anti abortion Democrats in the House, including Representatives Jim Langevin of Rhode Island and Henry Cuellar of Texas, wrote to leaders of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advocating that the committee keep the provision in the bill on the grounds that “it will help reduce the need for abortion, the number of unintended pregnancies, and the spread of H.I.V./AIDS.”

Let's give them a round of applause. They are motivated to prevent abortions and here common sense tells them by providing contraceptives, they might reduce the need for abortions. They are willing to work with pro-choice members of Congress when these members also signal that they desire to limit the need for abortions.

But what is the justification given for opposing the provision?

But in the impassioned debate in Congress earlier this year, Republicans said that giving contraceptives to such groups was the same as giving them money and would free up resources that could be used for abortions.

What is the hang up with "such groups"? If the pro-choice crowd is willing to help us decrease the need for abortions, aren't we a step ahead? Wouldn't the contraceptives be made available to pro-life groups and "free up resources" for them to pursue their agenda?

I think I know what part of the problem is. While some pro-life groups insist that "life begins at conception" they even oppose the use of condoms that would prevent conception. These extremists in Congress want us to sign on to their extremist viewpoint that it is wrong for even a married couple to use a condom for birth control (like the Pope thinks).

Well I say these extremists should not stand in the way of when opposing sides on the argument of abortion can find common ground. I describe myself as "pro-restricted choice" and I want to see the numbers of abortions decrease. Increased availability of birth control is a common sense method of decreasing the number of such abortions. I strongly stand against anyone who while claiming to oppose abortion opposes actions that could actually result in a decrease in the numbers of abortions performed.

Must we bow to the pro-life extremists (like the Pope) that feel recreational sex, even by a married couple, is a sin? That married couples must abstain from sex unless they want to have a baby?

What is the lesson here? The lesson is that if you really are pro-life and you really want to reduce the number of abortions you are better off voting for a pro-life Democrat then you are casting your vote for the pro-life Republican. If you cast your vote for the Democrat you might be rewarded with some progress. Pro-life Republicans have signed on with the Pope and seem to think it is sin to even prevent conception in the first place. By signing on with the pro-life Republican you might be signing on to his/her extremist ideology.

Now, I want to start searching for a little "truth" in the stance of these pro-life extremists who represent us in Congress. Just how many of them have families approaching a dozen or even more? My own father was a devout Catholic and he ended up with 11 children because he practiced what he preached. If our members of Congress who have an extremist pro-life voting record do not also have large families I smell a rat.

By the way... just how many children did Dubyah and Laura have?