The Breakup of the Pro-Life Movement

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan, "is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"

Ryan is committed to preventing abortion so much so that he, unlike every other pro-life legislator in Congress, spent the last few years working to identify the policies proven to reduce the need for abortion. This work, which he undertook with The Third Way, a center-left think tank, resulted in the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." It's also called the Ryan-DeLauro bill, named for him and his co-sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.) As thanks for his outspoken leadership in trying to make abortion less prevalent, Congressman Ryan was removed from the board of Democrats for Life of America, and with it, disowned by the pro-life movement at large. Pro-life publications have taken to qualifying his pro-life status as "allegedly" pro life or referring to him as someone "who claims to be" pro-life. Because of his support of prevention in 2007-2008 congressional session, Ryan received a "0" rating from National Right to Life Committee. According to the pro-life establishment's new standards, his support for prevention means he no longer qualifies as "pro-life." And that means very few pro-life Americans will either.

It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As Congressman Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.

Ryan's legislation increases funding for contraception, expands supports for poor women who wish to carry to term, backs comprehensive sex ed programs that have been proven to work, and creates more incentives for adoptive families. His bill is supported by many prominent pro-life individuals including, Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis, and many pro-choice groups including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Not one leading pro-life group signed onto the bill.

Lucky for Congressman Ryan, his support for contraception places him in a good position with pro-life voters. He is a pioneer in this rich common ground frontier. The vast majority of pro-life Americans, 80%, support contraception. Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception. Of evangelicals, including the most vehemently anti-abortion, the born-again, only 28% support abortion rights, yet 88% support contraception. Indeed, among all religious groups, support for contraception is off the charts: 94% of Baptists, 99% of Presbyterians, 95% of Methodists, 95% of Lutherans, 97% of Jewish want greater access to contraception. And have you ever seen a poll to report 100% support for anything? You can count on the easy-going Episcopalians for that unanimous support for contraception. (Support for puppies and goodness score lower.) Even a cozy majority, 70%, of Republican and Independent voters are strong supporters of expanding access to contraception. What percentage of these voters supports the pro-life establishment's agenda to restrict access to contraception? 2%.

Pro-life Americans favor expanding access to contraception because of the undeniable pro-life results. Unintended pregnancy is the root cause of abortion. We know, when used properly, contraception works. Two thirds of American women on contraception are using it correctly. And from this group comes 5% of the nation's unintended pregnancies. Compare this to the 16% of women who are sexually active, at risk of getting pregnant and not using any form of contraception. That group, though much smaller, represents 52% of nation's unintended pregnancies. Then there's the 19% of women who are using contraception but incorrectly or inconsistently; from that group comes 43% of unintended pregnancies. The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple: address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception. (Article continues below graphic.)

1. Gold RB et al., Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System, New York: Guttmacher Institute 2009, Figure 1.2.

To his credit, Congressman Ryan did his best to try to convince pro-life groups of this. I spoke with Congressman Ryan last week after his press conference to announce his bill. He explained, "It was really frustrating to try to convince people that just didn't want to hear it. I went to the Democrats for Life of America's national board meeting that they had in DC a few years back and there were 50 board members or so and I gave them my pitch: If you're really for reducing abortions you've gotta be for contraception. I gave them all the statistics on unintended pregnancy and that most abortions take place for women within 200% of poverty and all this stuff and it just didn't resonate with them at all and so we had this stark disagreement and I got the boot."

The anti-contraception minority, which represents just 20% of pro-lifers, has disproportionate influence and, with it, hopes to derail common ground efforts the public has longed for. It's time for the disagreement over contraception to be addressed by the pro-life community at large. We will have no chance of making a real impact on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates without dramatic, informed strategies on prevention. The pro-life public must demand accountability and representation for their pro-contraception values. Considering that 80% of pro-life Americans support contraception, isn't it time to establish at least one pro-life organization in support of it too?

Congressman Ryan thought that would be a great idea. He predicted such a group would expose those who really aren't interested in reducing the need for abortion. "We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress and pro-life legislators a common sense approach to this and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it."

For breaking news and perspectives on common ground in the abortion conflict visit OnCommonGround or follow us on www.twitter.com/commongrnd

 

 

 

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[Ghost803]

06:51 PM on 08/02/2009

Constantine and the council of Nicea in the 3rd century A.D. compiled and made the "Bible". The divinity of Jesus was decided by a vote of the council of Nicea, and one by 5 to 4. 11 of the 12 Apostles were supposedly illiterate.

Baal "the lieutenant of Satan" was a competing monotheistic god in the Fertile Crescent to the tribes who followed Yahweh.

"During the English Puritan period, Baal was either compared to Satan or considered his main lieutenant. According to Francis Barrett, he has the power to make those who invoke him invisible"

This is the kind of rubbish the religious used to believe. And as science has illuminated and given us insight into almost all the "miracles" of the natural world, the religious now resort to the God of Gaps. What's gonna happen when there aren't anymore Gaps?

[RenoSage]

06:50 PM on 08/02/2009

I applaud Congressman Ryan for promoting contraception.

I resent anyone who deigns to dictate to all women what they should choose to do with their
reproductive life.

Next they will try to dictate end of life decisions through guardianships for old folks.

[WilliePilgrim]

03:13 PM on 08/02/2009

Their absolute refutation of birth controll reveals them for their motivation, and it is all about the politics of the bedroom which cements this amalgam of crazies into a fractious block who's goal is to legislate a kind of morality at the expense of individual freedoms and societal expression in favor of theirown. Improved medical science and enlightened understanding in public health is the carborundum that will wear down this illegitimus.

[saltpeter]

08:06 PM on 08/03/2009

It's actually motivated often by people who don't want to share power with women. The movement has it's roots in the expansion of neo-conservatism. These are the same people who often hate affirmative action and many of them belong to the birther movement. It's the same sentiment, that we HAD ways of keeping women and minorities in their place until the Great Society came around and changed the social politics of America. Now white men have to SHARE power with others and it kills them to do so. They want to return to what, in their little la la land imagination, was a much simpler time and reverse these social programs and ideas that afforded opportunites to all kinds of people that were once only afforded to mainly white males. These are people who believe there is a FINITE amount of power in the world and to spread it around means that they somehow lose some of their "God-given" rights. This is a movement motivated by fear of FACTS. So-called "right to lifers" who also accept contraception are people who have been shown to allow SOME LOGIC enter into their thinking. This poses a threat to the movement that is purely driven on emotion alone.

[saltpeter]

11:51 AM on 08/02/2009

At some point the so-called right to life movement needs to learn that the traditional conservatives who actually set the agenda for the GOP have very little interest in ending abortion as a right. They use the issue as a wedge to get the neo cons to the polls but have no inclination to wage the political battle needed to bring about the will of the "right to life" movement. The abortion issue, just like gay marriage, are to be used to stir up the base using emotion instead of logic (for there is very little logic to a group who espouses the santity of life but who often advocate for war and who do safeguard children AFTER they're born). The two branches of the GOP (the corporatists and the reactionary neo cons) have been dancing this waltz for decades now. The corporatists pay lip service to the neo cons concerns and then that gets people to the polls and then, once elected, the GOP as a whole drops the issue(s). Any and all so-called requirements placed on those who participate in the pro-life movement only serves make sure that NO LOGIC (ie people who can sense that contraception is a good alternative) enters into the trenches of the "right to life" movement. The last thing the traditional conservatives want is a once easily manipulated neo con base to start to think for themselves and use LOGIC and not EMOTION to inform their beliefs.

[BarryS]

10:38 AM on 08/02/2009

years ago I saw a letter to the editor in the Albany NY newspaper saying that the solution to abortion issue is contraception and why didn't anyone think of it. I couldn't stop laughing. Yes it is. but the anti-abortion industry is anti-contraception too. This representative was just drummed out of it because he realize the dissonance. but, that was his problem.

[angrydove]

11:05 AM on 07/30/2009

In an article on the C Street House it was mentioned that some of its members feel that we are not having enough children and falling behind Islam in populating the world. Perhaps this is what is behind some of this anti-choice agenda.

I'd rather have two children and give them a really good start in life than ten or more and then send them all off to war.

[Oldsop]

04:36 PM on 07/30/2009

Huh...the two choices in your last paragraph are not the logical opposites? What are you talking about?

[Romeover]

09:01 AM on 08/02/2009

I don't see where AngryDove is implying that the choices are "logical opposites" (do you mean "mutually exclusive"?)

Personally, I'd rather be slapped in the face with a dead fish than have ten children and send them all off to war.

[Ipanemagirl]

10:57 PM on 08/06/2009

or use them as suicide bombers!

[S1m0n]

06:34 AM on 07/30/2009

If you judge North Korea on its aspirations, the nation is a workers' paradise.

Is this accurate? No, because in the real world, causes have to be judged on their consequences, not on their aspirations. And for it's citizens the consequence of North Korean communism is closer to a hell-on-earth than to paradise.

A similar reality-test shows that the anti-contraception 'pro-life' movement is actually pro-abortion, despite its eagerness to pretend otherwise.

[Nosmanic]

04:40 AM on 07/30/2009

There is no pleasing people behind the pro-life movement. I think that most people that say they are pro-life just say they are so they don't get harassed. But the moderates will help the movement.

North Dakota completely no lawed abortion and Colorado is going to vote to out law it completely next election.

I always suspected that the abortion issue is just cover for anti-contraceptive.

[SonofLiberty1]

09:12 AM on 08/02/2009

There is the "old guard" and the "new guard". You are talking about the "old guard".

[ohdem]

03:55 AM on 07/30/2009

The anti-contraception pro-lifers "need" unwanted pregnancies and abortions to continue. Otherwise they will have no purpose. So, the minority wants a self-perpetating cause they can rally around, to fire up their base.
I am Pro-choice, but I am also pro-contraception. I ascribe to the philosophy "Abortion should be legal but rare."

[BillSamuel]

09:28 PM on 07/29/2009

Please note that this is an opinion article not a news story. The author clearly did not research the facts. Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) has no position on contraception. Rep. Ryan was not removed from their Advisory Board because he supports contraception. He has always supported contraception, and DFLA added him originally to their Advisory Board knowing that. And other members of the Advisory Board who have not been removed are also supporters of contraception.

They removed him because his voting record on abortion-related legislation has changed greatly over the years. At first, he was a reliable pro-life vote. But in recent years, he has received higher ratings from pro-choice groups than pro-life groups -0% from Right to Life on his voting record the last two years. This year, he has voted against the pro-life position repeatedly. He was removed from the DFLA Advisory Board simply because he no longer votes pro-life.

[Cristina Page]

02:00 AM on 07/30/2009

Bill, please read posts more carefully before commenting. As you'll see upon rereading, I clearly state that "there is not one pro-life organization in the United States that supports contraception." Having "no position" on contraception means the group does not support contraception. This is a questionable, to put it mildly, position for any pro-life group to take for the main reason that access to contraception is the only proven way to reduce the need for abortion. Also, it would seem the 80% of pro-lifers who support contraception deserve to be represented by an organization that does as well.

NARAL gave Ryan a '0' rating in 2006, there were no ratings in 2007 (at least not on their website) and since there were no votes scored for the House in 2008, he did not get a ranking that year. So, can you please provide evidence for your claim that "in recent years, he received higher ratings from pro-choice groups than pro-life groups." Providing proof of your claims would be fitting since you're so quick to question other people's credibility. also...

[Cristina Page]

02:00 AM on 07/30/2009

(continued from above)
Ryan received a "0" score from National Right to Life in 2008 and nearly all of the votes were on contraception or stem cell, not abortion. (There was one vote on abortion which was in keeping with the anti-abortion Hyde amendment which bans federal funding for abortion but allows states and municipalities to use their own funds to fund abortion care for the poor.) On his votes supporting stem cell research, why should he be stripped of the pro-life qualification because of that position when pro-lifers like Bill Frist and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who held the same position, were not?

Natl. Right to Life gave him a "0" score because of of his work on prevention. Or they create different standards for different politicians. Which is it?

Here are where NARAL's congressional rankings can be found: http://prochoiceamerica.org/search.jsp?query=congressional&x=14&y=9
Here's where Natl. Right to Life committee's congressional rankings can be found: http://nrlc.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/30639

[SonofLiberty1]

08:23 PM on 07/29/2009

Now a lot of folks say that abortion is not in the Bible..but as I posted before ..
Consider this...

Gianna Barreta Molla was a Doctor in Italy. She married in 1955 and became a mother in 1957. She was a working woman and a loving wife and she led a holy life. In 1962 while pregnant, she found out that she had uterine cancer and pleaded with the doctor for the life of the still unborn child. Her cancerous tumor was removed but she did not have any chemo or radiation. She wanted her child to live even if she couldn't. On April 21, 1962 her child was born by C section and Dr. Gianna Baretta Molla died on April 28, 1962

On May 16, 2004 Dr. Gianna Baretta Molla was Cannonized by the Roman Catholic Church.

She is now and forever Saint Gianna Baretta Molla.

Know what?

God just told us what he thinks but I guess many probably won't believe it.

[Surreal2me]

11:12 PM on 07/29/2009

AS I have tried to post 3 other times and the moderator seems to have an issue with me posting a reply to this particular message about a Catholic Saint - I will say it a different way.. who cares! I know women who sacrifice everyday for the children and no canonizes them. Hopefully putting it this way will be okay with the Mod.. since you are able to throw saints in our face..

Who cares.

[SonofLiberty1]

08:48 AM on 07/30/2009

And I can say the same to you...why is your opinion carry any more weight?

It doesn't.

But you don't know that because you are from the tribe of...

"I don't believe and therefore I know everything about everything and am always right and never wrong"

Try explaining a miracle...

You can't.

[Surreal2me]

11:13 PM on 07/29/2009

And BTW.. Abortion is Still NOT in the Bible.

[SonofLiberty1]

08:19 AM on 08/02/2009

So what?

There is more to Christianity than just the Bible.

[Ipanemagirl]

11:10 PM on 08/06/2009

my point exactly. maybe we dont believe in saints and are therefore not interested in hearing about them, this is something to be discussed in your church with like minded people,

[juliaizen]

07:00 PM on 07/29/2009

Abortion is a for-the-most-part, unnecessary, preventable tragedy. If you don't get pregnant, you don't need an abortion! Therefore, how to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Support organizations, like Planned Parenthood, i.e., who EDUCATE, and who provide CONTRACEPTION to women, for whom abstinence is unrealistic. Then the few women with unwanted pregnancies, should be given the opportunity to have a safe, legal abortion. Forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy is another tragedy that often results in poverty and child abuse. Illegal abortions endanger womens' lives.

[VinceTeeter]

04:50 PM on 07/29/2009

It isn't PRO-LIFE, it's PRO-HATE. If they didn't hate others, especially women, they wouldn't exist. Also it's PRO-RICH, because even if we had an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion, the RICH, and many of the PRO-HATE crowd, would still get their abortions and they could take a tour of the French wine country on the same trip.

The Bible says absolutely nothing about abortion, but it clearly defines the soul as the spirit, or ghost, or breath, which does not yet exist in a fetus and has left a dead person.

[Oldsop]

05:08 PM on 07/29/2009

What?

[Roseberry]

06:33 PM on 07/29/2009

Absolutely correct.! The biblical truth is, life does not start until the breath does. Man if they'd just believe that and shut up, it would end a lot of trauma...

[mercury613]

07:10 PM on 07/29/2009

I recently heard someone (can't remember who) ask why, if life begins at conception, born-again Christians don't call themselves conceived-again Christians.

[SonofLiberty1]

08:24 AM on 08/02/2009

And the Bible was written down some 3,000 to 5,000 (old testament) years ago.

What did they know then?

But of course, today we have the conclusion that you might still be breathing but your brain could be dead?

[dsws]

04:48 PM on 07/29/2009

One of the roots of abortion is the belief that women are people. That's the only aspect of the issue that the movement cares about.

[cobraxus]

04:41 PM on 07/29/2009

rational arguments don't work with these people.

[Oldsop]

05:05 PM on 07/29/2009

not true; pro-abortion people are rational sometimes; at least when not blinded by personal paradigm.

[RainbowPhoenix]

05:24 PM on 07/29/2009

No one is "pro-abortion". Pro-choice people also want to minimize the frequency of abortion. We only want to keep it legal so women will have safe means to decide for themselves.

[mercury613]

08:00 PM on 07/29/2009

Please. Religion is personal paradigm, and it blinds many an anti-choice person.