So-Called Pro-Lifers Should Stop Promoting Abortion

While the level of teenage sexual activity across developed countries is nearly identical, the teenage pregnancy rate is 14.1 per 1,000 teens in Belgium, 20.2 per 1,000 teens in France, 12.0 per 1,000 teens in Italy and 12.3 per 1,000 teens in Spain. Stop right here and ask yourself before reading on: what is the teenage pregnancy rate in the U.S. per 1,000 teens? Have that number in mind? If you said anything less than 83.6 per 1,000 U.S. teens, you were wrong.

U.S. teenagers have higher pregnancy rates, birthrates and abortion rates than adolescents in other developed countries. The primary reason is that those nations don't allow political extremists to dictate reproductive health policy. In countries with the lowest abortion rates, women's health and well being do not take a back seat to politics.

The consequences of right-wing reproductive health policies are devastating not only to women, but also to children and families. If you rate every country in the world starting with whether each provides full access to family planning, emergency contraceptives, pays for abortions and provides comprehensive sex education, and compare those to rates for countries where these policies are opposed, you will see that those who provide full access to EC, abortion, family planning and sex education have the LOWEST abortion rates, lowest STD rates, lowest infant mortality rates, lowest teen pregnancy rates, lowest maternal death rates as well as the best indicators for EVERY measurement of women's health.

On the other side of the spectrum where abortion and family planning are illegal, the worst indicators for women's health are found including the highest (and most dangerous) abortion rates in the world. Right now, today, as you are reading this, ½ the hospital beds in every large city hospital in Central and South America are taken by women suffering from illegal abortion attempts. And all these countries have the highest abortion rates in the world.

We know how to immediately decrease the abortion and teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S and Illinois. If you have any doubts, get on an airplane and meet with the leaders in France, Spain, or Italy and ask for some pointers. Or save yourself the time and fully fund family planning, pay for ALL emergency contraceptives, fund all abortions and comprehensive sex education -- all dramatically cheaper than the financial and social consequences of not doing so.

The big question here is why do those who claim to be "pro-life" and are so adamantly against abortion provide the greatest opposition to those very policies that would bring down the abortion rate? Because they are not really "pro-life." They have a different agenda. What they are really against is you, dear reader, using birth control and, very importantly, against your engaging in sexual expression within your marriage to enhance intimacy. They believe you should never have sex with your wife or husband except for the purpose of procreation. That is the white elephant (or donkey if you are an anti-choice Democrat) sitting under the Capitol dome.

The use of contraception reduces the probability of having an abortion by 85%. In states which allowed emergency contraceptives without a prescription prior to the FDA's move earlier this year, the abortion rate dropped by over 1/3. Some 70% or 42 million American women today of reproductive age are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant. Only 5% of women aged 15-44 in the U.S. use no contraception during sex and they account for 50% of the nation's abortions. In light of this overwhelming evidence that unfettered access to contraception causes the abortion rate to plunge, it is stunning that NOT A SINGLE anti-abortion group in the United States supports the use of birth control. The best a few do is say nothing about birth control, but many so-called pro-life organizations lobby vigorously against it. The nation's largest anti-abortion group, American Life League says "A.L.L. denies the moral acceptability of artificial birth control." These are the very groups that say abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control yet they oppose every type of birth control that would prevent unintended pregnancy.

Now the anti-abortion crowd has decided to "medicalize" their narrow views about birth control with false information that has been widely discredited in the medical community. They have taken to calling the most common forms of contraceptives "abortifacients," despite the pesky little detail that in order for an abortion to take place, conception needs to occur. Barrier methods and oral contraceptives work by preventing conception. American Life League says "damn the facts." They are not alone. All over right-wing websites and from the pulpits throughout the nation, birth control is now portrayed as abortion and, of course, murder, and, well, you know the rest! In the make-sure-they-are-born-but-don't-feed-them-department, the 113 members of Congress who had the lowest Children's Defense Fund ratings were all "pro-life" on abortion.

Parenthood is sacred, and perhaps the greatest responsibility, which is why forcing someone to be a parent against her will and better judgment should be the first definition of insanity in the dictionary. The second definition should be opposing comprehensive sex education because it will entice young people to have sex. Does installing smoke detectors encourage teens to burn the house down? Does insisting they wear seatbelts encourage them to drive 100 mph up the driveway? Numerous studies of abstinence only education find a higher pregnancy rate among teens whose only sex education was abstinence only.

The policies promoted by the pro-choice movement dramatically reduce the abortion rate here in Illinois, across the U.S. and around the world. The policies promoted by those who call themselves "pro-life" or anti-abortion drive up the abortion rate everywhere. The results are devastating to the women, children and families of our great state. Those who are against abortion for whatever reason shouldn't have one which is why Planned Parenthood has The Cradle adoption agency at its Chicago medical facility. Personal PAC helps elect candidates who believe giving women and families all their choices is good public policy. In our great democracy, personally held religious views should be cherished by all and kept out of our policy making. If you don't believe, re-read the first paragraph and make that plane reservation.

Comments

[rh654]

I will believe the Pro-Life movement is really sincere when they are outside Fertility clinics protesting and educating people who want to have children that many, many, many children are discarded (killed) as part of the process.

Until then - they are only a group who wants to keep women under their collective thumbs.

[Mormondude]

If you want to prove your hypothesis, it would be easy to do. Just revoke Roe and allow states to decide whether or not to ban abortion.

Then you could compare their pre-ban rates with their post-ban rates. Or you could compare South Dakota with North Dakota instead of comparing Belgium with Brazil.

[ihavenobias]

Except that a lot of women will go to a neighboring state where abortion *is* legal, skewing the numbers to make it *seem* like banning abortion made much more of a difference than it actually did.

PS---You never responded to say if you'd be willing to pay my proposed Pro-Life tax.

In your scenario, people in states that ban abortion can pay more taxes to be put toward adoption services, foster care, pre and post natal care and health care as well as education funds.

That way we don't have to burden pro-lifers by actually forcing them to adopt the unwanted children, rather we simply make the reasonable request that they shoulder a greater burden for conditions their personal beliefs helped create.

theyoungturks.com

[GawdFraud]

This issue makes my head hurt. The only way it will ever be resolved will be to get the religious fanatics out of the equation. I’m older than Spam and younger than dirt and can remember the years long before Roe/Wade became a reality. To think that abortions were uncommon before this decision is to demonstrate an idiot’s grasp of reality. And the difference between those who got abortions and the rest of the population was money.
Birth control was difficult. Long before medical contraceptives were developed, only condoms existed and they were expensive, not always of good quality, and available only behind drugstore counters.
The town where I lived had a small maternity hospital catering mostly to an upscale clientele. However, most women going there went for D & C’s (disguised abortions???) rather than for births. It was pretty common knowledge that this was its principle reason for existence. In fact, several years after Roe/Wade the hospital went out of business.
Also, a couple blocks from where we lived there was a large, nondescript looking two-story residential building that had an abnormally large parking lot in the rear, - the local abortion mill owned and operated by a politically connected family. Traffic of women wearing head scarves or veils, in and out, was relentless.
These were also times when it was not uncommon for women to be dumped unceremoniously at the emergency door of local hospitals suffering complications from botched abortions. Since this was before antibiotics, death and sterility were the most common results.
The thought of a reversion of Roe/Wade is horrifying to me. Yet all of the above is exactly what we will revert to if the act is ever reversed.

[mimo70]

I've read many, many arguments of this type on a whole host of other topics - Iraq, fighting terrorism, health care, taxation, ecetera, ecetera...
The unavoidable and unassailable truth is that, like the neo-cons, these "pro-life" groups and their supporters are not interested in the facts. They have a belief and nothing, not even the truth - the plain objective truth -is going to change that.
It's sad and ridiculous that your great country is dictated to by these foolish people. How many months left???

[Kungfublood]

I wish that these people would put their self righteous and hateful yapping to the test and speak to me of anti abortion only after they have adopted a child and demonstrated personal commitment to some of the Christian Love and Compassion for Others that Jesus was living.
Then when they talk meaningful words can come out.

[Colin742]

Anti abortion laws were originaly passed in some states, not on religious grounds, but in Pioneer days when children on farms were a great asset, not an expense. Babies were highly valuable.
Now, the opposition to abortion is on religious grounds. Some religious groups want the state to prohibit abortions and thereby force the whole Nation abide by their religious beliefs. For the Supreme Court to rule that the State can pass a law that requires all citizens to accept the religious beliefs of others is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Any Justice voting in favour of making abortion illegal in the present circumstances would face Impeachment and criminal charges for Purgury. Roe vs Wade may be rewriiten but it will not be overturned. Those working to overturn Roe vs Wade are wasting their efforts. They should work to reduce abortions as outlined in this article.

[wolfgangmo]

There is a world of difference between being pro-life and being pro-birth [which is what the "pro-life" movement is].

Pro life, as many have pointed out, would be for the human treatment of all, not just the unborn or just-born.

If it takes a village to raise a child, it must take the villiage idiot to raise certain pro-lifers. At least they could be consistent.

[WireDolly]

Excellent, excellent article that drives home all the points about this issue more succinctly than the others out there.

My mother paid the mafia for an illegal abortion in the 60s, and had to resort to paying off some cops too. Instead of "freedom", mom got blindfolded and driven to a secret location to "take care of business".

THIS IS WHAT THE WOMAN-HATERS' ACTIONS REALLY MEAN, in case you've not figured it out yet.

Those claiming "religion" as the reason for this obvious disregard and hatred of women are one reason why I think that religious extremism should be declared in full as the mental illness that it is. What the fetus farmers are doing is nothing short of terrorism and stalking, both of which we're supposed to rally against.

[elkabong]

Conservative leaders can ill afford to make the problem of abortion go away or even to ameliorate it.

[click212]

Thanks for the stats, jaw dropping. Intelligent article.

[chinohillster]

This is yet another issue where there is a major disconnect between those in leadership positions and people 'in the pews', as it were.

I am a Roman Catholic convert; my local parish church is part of the 12th largest Catholic diocese in the United States (the Diocese of San Bernardino [which also includes Riverside County] in California) - I don't have any hard statistics, but my impression is that (a) most of my parish really do not concern themselves with anyone in the Catholic hierarchy above the Bishop (if even that high) and (b) the vast majority of the women use some form of contraception - there are some 4500+ families in my local parish, and most of them have 2-3 children or less.

Catholic families have to concern themselves with the practicalities of feeding, clothing and educating the children - realities which Pope Benedict XVI and the cardinals do not.

I suspect the same is true for Southern Baptists and other conservative Protestant evangelical/fundamentalist denominations - the Dobsons, Bauers, etc may thunder about contraception, etc - but the women and men in the churches by and large, do what's best for THEMSELVES and THEIR families...

[eddieinc97]

I am a liberal and a loyal Democrat, but until we stop speaking of abortion as if it's as simple as deciding to get a boob job, we are contradicting all the other life stances that we as liberals hold close. We need to take the lead in reducing abortions. We need to hold males just as responsible for the abortion problem. And we have to admit that it is the taking of a life just like a decision to kill in war. You may not want to make that choice, but the alternatives are limited.

[lisakaz]

Sorry, it's hardly the same as a "decision to kill in war." You're going to compare a fetus dependent on a woman at 10-12 weeks or less to an 18-20 yr old soldier? Not comparable. It's not a boob job but it's not eliminating an adult either. You don't even know how that pregnancy will turn out, if it would result in live birth.

That being said, there is a far more pernicious reality and it is where these anti-abortionists are really anti-birth control -- probably for other (lesser) families than themselves. They want to reduce the competition for being upwardly mobile probably by creating a far more vast underclass incapable of providing basic necessities for themselves. And forget government help since SCHIP can't even get passed.

Being anti-abortion is part of a program to recreate a Victorian Scrooge-like reality frankly and to anyone who's read Dickens it isn't all that great.

[ihavenobias]

According to a study I read on Medline, about 48% of all pregnancies are terminated "naturally", due to miscarriage, improper implantation of the fertilized, egg, etc.

Apparently people should be picketing God instead of Planned Parenthood.

theyoungturks.com

[sigrid13]

"And we have to admit that it is the taking of a life just like a decision to kill in war."

No, we don't, because it isn't.

[JD-28]

eddieinc97,
First of all, what do you mean the abortion problem? If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, which I grant you for most all women has to be a heart-wrenching, highly-emotional decision, then she can do so, no problem. If you were truly a liberal, which I highly doubt you are, you would have come to this topic with that idea, or one similar to it, already firmly implanted in your psyche. Secondly, what good will it do to "hold males just as responsible..."? For what? If a woman is in charge of her own body, which she is, and she engages in consentual sex, what is male responsible for? I certainly understand that if a woman gets pregnant or gets an STD, the man should stand with her and not run away. But, for what sort of culpability are you looking? When are men NOT held accountable for their actions by women? Do you ever watch daytime TV? You sound a lot like a backward-thinking, conservative, evangelical in liberal's clothing.

[eddieinc97]

I don't need to get into a "who's more liberal" contest with you. I am far beyond a one issue liberal. In fact I do support a womens right to choose. But as you say this is a heart-wrenching, highly emotional decision that a woman has to make. We as Democrats should turn some of the dialog away from abortion itself and take an aggressive role in encouraging contraception. When we stand there yelling about a womens right to choose. We need to also attack the right wings unwillingness to support contraceptive measure. Liberals should take the lead in reducing abortions by demanding better education and access to contraception. Stop their religious posturing on birth control in our schools. And I would like males in our society to be he more responsible for their role in this. When he's not held accountable why should he care. Maybe even at the least if he had to pay for it, he might think twice about protection.

[maddogbitesback]

We - we don't have to think contraception is wrong. We - don't have to think abortion is like going to war. We - have to realize the world is overpopulated. We- have to realize that if a fifteen year old has an abortion to-day she will probably have a healthy baby she can look after when she is twenty five. If the abortion hadn't happened the child she had and was able to care for would not have been born. We - have to realize women do not want seventeen children which is what my great grandmother had. We - have to realize women do not want eight children which is what my grandmother had. Really what women want is to have a good education and a good job and one or two children. We - have to realize that it is madness to preach what we- do not practice. We - have to grow up and think for ourselves. Gerry Falwell was a fat dictator who manipulated words. The Pope will never ever have a child. He will never care for a child, sitting with it when it is ill, dealing with tantrums, helping with homework and worrying about buying food clothing and shelter. The Pope will not have morning sickness or experience labor pains. Neither will the Protestant fanatics. They should worry about the beam in their own eyes and forget about the mote in other people's eyes. They should pressure the compassionate conservative decider guy to stop vetoing medical care for children. That would be Christian. We- should get people who fight contraception and abortion to take and raise the many children who are now in foster care and pay taxes for better schools and housing. I could go on but why bother. Everyone knows that to have sex for any other purpose than to conceive a child is a sin. So stand up those of you who are without sin.

[iPaul]

I don't know how many of your are familiar with the Quiverfull movement. Essentially, this is a conservative christian movement that equates each child with as an arrow of God in the quiver, and a good christian family should have a full quiver. The 17 child Dugger family is reportedly a Quiverfull family. As you point out, they view contraception as being on par with abortion. Ignorance of reproduction, denial of contraception, and repressive attitudes towards sexuality are their primary weapons.

[TheOtherMaven]

It's time for the rest of us to change the label and the framing. Instead of referring to the anti-abortion forces as "pro-life", call them what they are and what they advocate: ANTI-SEX.

[eddieinc97]

I'm not sure if the anti-sex label works. Ask Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

[eddiestardust]

Maybe we should change it again:

Pro Lifers are Responisible, Pro Choicers are
irresponsible.

[CountryBeforeParty]

Ummm no...that's what you've been trying to pass off on the public for years. Obviously that hasn't been the case.

[KristenfromMA]

did you bother to read the post? or have you simply decided to ignore the evidence?

[Yukon Jack]

By the same token, the so-called pro-abortion crowd should be called, instead of pro-choice, call them what they are and what they advocate: ANTI-LIFE.

[ihavenobias]

Right, because programs to help kids, young mothers and the elderly (and the poor in general) are all incredibly "anti-life", and all on the democrats agenda.

Voting for republicans who take us into wars killing *at least* hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children (and yes, surely some pregnant women are included) not to mention 4,000 or so Americans is "pro-life"?

So war is ok because we're ending lives now to save more lives in the long run...you know, if that were true, I would agree (WWII was justified in that sense for example).

But how do people get off being against stem cell research (life begins at conception?) because apparently it's WRONG to end "life" (of zygotes in a petri dish) even if it means potential cures for cancer, diabetes and other life threatening and debilitating conditions in the long run?

It it just me, or does stem cell research fit the perfect description (assuming you belive life begins at conception, which I don't) of "taking life" now in order to potentially save many more lives in the long run?

And using the excuse that stem cell research isn't "proven" doesn't work, because clearly the Iraq War was never a lock to to save any lives in the long run...but we know how many lives it has ended in the short run.

And who talks about potential and actual cancers and birth defects caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels (apparently mercury in fish is "pro-life")?

Maybe if you would greatly broaden your scope to extend from age 0-death instead of from conception to birth I could take the "pro-life" term seriously.

Besides, abortion is still legal, so aside from making it a little harder to obtain in some states, all you've done is enable republicans to enact lots of other *anti-life* laws (again, as I mentioned previously) that directly and or indirectly contradict your supposed moral foundation.

theyoungturks.com

[kindofblue]

Why?

Is there a problem with giving reasons for your attacks? It's really not that hard.

How bout the question posed in another post: if a very large proportion of conceptions result in natural miscarriage, why isn't "god" considered "anti-life"?

[eddieinc97]

So called Pro-Lifers should stop promoting war.