Related articles and links |  1 of 2

There's much to cheer in some leading Democrats calling their party to change course on abortion rhetoric. There's John Kerry proclaiming in January, "I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world." There's Howard Dean leading off a speech to women Democratic leaders, "We are not pro-abortion! There is not anyone I know who is pro-abortion." Most notably, there's Hillary Clinton describing abortion as "a sad, even tragic choice."

In short, we have congressional agreement on both sides of the aisle that abortion is tragic. The abortion landscape has changed in this country, and the culture of life has gained significant ground. There is hope for legislative movement as we haven't seen in years.

But beware. An ad from NARAL Pro-Choice America addressed to "the right-to-life movement" would be almost humorous if it weren't for those 1.3 million killings annually in this country. "Please Help Us Prevent Abortions," says the ad, which appeared in The Weekly Standard and other publications. Actually, the headline is misleading: The text of the ad explains better its call for support of a bill "which would reduce unwanted pregnancies." The legislation, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's Prevention First Act (co-sponsored by Democrats with 100 percent ratings from abortion-rights groups and 0 percent ratings from pro-life groups), is a pro-life nightmare. It would double federal funds to "family planning" groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL while barring funds for programs that emphasize sexual abstinence. Hospitals that get any federal funds would have to provide the morning-after pill (which prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus) on demand, and companies that oppose contraception or abortifacients would be forced to provide insurance coverage for them.

Essentially, NARAL's pitch amounts to: Help us reduce unwanted pregnancies by helping us end pregnancies. No thanks. If abortion-rights supporters want to join pro-life groups in areas that match both groups' rhetoric, there's already plenty on the table.

First, abortion-rights supporters who claim the "pro-choice" moniker should embrace initiatives to make abortion choices informed choices and true choices. One bill on this point simply awaits a vote: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would require doctors to inform women that, after 20 weeks of pregnancy, "an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain," and offer (but not require) anesthetic for the unborn child. NARAL recently announced that it was dropping its opposition to the bill, but it still needs a push to get passed.

South Dakota is taking the idea of informed choice a laudable step forward under a bill passed by a 58-10 margin in the state House. The bill requires that women seeking abortions be provided information about abortion alternatives and risks, including emotional trauma following the abortion. (Georgia is considering a similar law, and other states already have implemented such legislation.)

"There's a new and mounting body of knowledge and evidence out there that most abortions are uninformed and involuntary," South Dakota state Rep. Roger Hunt explained to the Associated Press.

Indeed, one of the abortion industry's lies is that the women who have abortions "choose" abortion. In fact, untold scores of these women are pressured or forced into the procedure by boyfriends, husbands, or others. Texas is countering a long trend of silence on this subject by considering a bill that would forbid anyone from coercing a woman into an abortion.

next page... |  1 of 2

April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4