Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-3rd District) is trying to find middle ground on what has been the stickiest and most controversial issue in American politics for a generation: abortion. Her approach, which she is undertaking with pro-life Democrat Tim Ryan of Ohio, is to reduce the need for abortions:
“For years the discussion has been around the legality of abortion,” DeLauro said. Now, she and Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat who opposes abortion, are “determined to get beyond that discourse and say, `How do you reduce the need for anybody to have an abortion?’”
The 3rd District Democrat and Ryan have persuaded the House to approve a $647 million measure called “Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative.”(Lightman)
Provisions in the bill include more money (for the first time under the Bush administration) for family planning, a focus on preventing teen pregnancy which includes a focus on contraceptives as well as abstinence, an increase in funding for Child Care Development Block Grants, after school centers and adoption awareness and more funding for in-home nurse visits and maternal health programs.
This is absolutely the right way to go. The focus on contraceptives and family planning is sensible instead of being ideological, and the expansion of after-school care, in-home nursing visits, child care and adoption awareness will hopefully make abortion a less attractive option. Child care is an especially urgent need, as this article from the Norwich Bulletin points out.
The article cites a poll showing Americans closely divided between pro-life and pro-choice, but a look at abortion polling over time shows that Americans by and large do not want Roe v. Wade overturned. Many favor some sort of restrictions on abortion, but relatively few want it banned outright. This has long been the case, and it’s why Republican-controlled Congresses never moved to ban abortion outright or even to roll back abortion rights as much as they might have. So, to borrow a phrase Democratic candidates have been using of late, to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” with a few more restrictions, would seem to be in step with mainstream American views.
Kudos to DeLauro for trying to find a way to help blunt one of the nation’s most divisive and bitter debates, and for trying to steer a course away from the toxic politics it has produced for a generation. I hope the bill is successful, and that it passes largely intact.
Source
Lightman, David. “From Both Sides, A Bid To Change Abortion Debate.” Hartford Courant 31 July, 2007.
64 responses so far ↓
I don’t think block grants will help reduce Abortion man.
All the remedies for reducing abortion — condom awarness in schools, etc. — have been with us for some time. They have not reduced abortions, leaving most people to assume that the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce abortions. Rosa DeLauro is not there yet.
[quote comment="16658"]I don’t think block grants will help reduce Abortion man.[/quote]
Why not? I would think that more money to support day care would help make motherhood a more attractive (and financially possible) option.
[quote comment="16660"]All the remedies for reducing abortion — condom awarness in schools, etc. — have been with us for some time. They have not reduced abortions, leaving most people to assume that the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce abortions. Rosa DeLauro is not there yet.[/quote]
Actually, a review of the evidence suggests that abortion rates do in fact fall as contraceptive use rises when fertility is constant. That’s the way to go.
Sex education in this country has been dreadfully half-assed, largely thanks to ideology-driven campaigns to limit it.
There’s your answer right there GC. While some folks can finally see the wrongness of abortion and the absolute value of efforts to reduce the number of abortions there is an element on the pro-life side who will not accept anything short of criminalizing abortion and forcing women to give birth under any circumstances.
These are the people who would scuttle any effort that does not involve a reversal of Roe v Wade simply on the grounds that any effort to reduce abortions without outlawing abortions is a tacit approval of any remaining abortions. And that they cannot abide.
For them it’s all or nothing.
And there goes the baby. Out with the bathwater.
5 comments so far – all from men about abortion. interesting.
[quote comment="16664"]5 comments so far – all from men about abortion. interesting.[/quote]
That might be half of the problem right there.
[quote comment="16665"][quote comment="16664"]5 comments so far – all from men about abortion. interesting.[/quote]
That might be half of the problem right there.[/quote]
LOL. Yep.
GC: With great respect, this is one of your most erroneous posts. For one thing, you really cannot be for Roe v. Wade AND restrictions on abortion. Rather, if Roe were overturned that would allow the states to regulate abortion as they see fit. Put another way, Roe does not really allow for distinctions to be made (e.g.: no abortions except for life of the mother in the third trimester) but if it were overturned the legislatures could make such distinctions. The problem, too, with this so-called “third way” is that it largely embraces the premise of the pro-choicers. Note that DeLauro refers to the “need” for abortion. To pro-lifers — who believe that babies in the womb have the right to life — no conversation relating to this issue should be about the “need” for abortion.
Overall, the way to “blunt” (your term) the issue would be to allow the people to have their say on this issue, something that is not allowed via Roe.
Conncon,
Okay, but let’s be practical. Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere–and by and large Americans don’t want it to. We have to work within that framework. Also, I think that DeLauro is being realistic: abortion isn’t going anywhere, even if it’s made illegal. It’ll just go underground. So let’s do what we can to reduce the number of abortions.
DeLauro is being disingenuous here. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why should she or anyone care whether there are few or a lot? If abortion is wrong, why permit it at all?
[quote comment="16670"]DeLauro is being disingenuous here. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why should she or anyone care whether there are few or a lot? If abortion is wrong, why permit it at all?[/quote]
DeLauro is working to find common ground. While I don’t necessarily agree with how this is being framed I applaud any law that increases both awareness of and access to contraception. If you are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions support for contracpetion is the best way to go about that.
Ghengis,
“RESULTS: In seven countries–Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerland– abortion incidence declined as prevalence of modern contraceptive use rose. In six others–Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea–levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously. In all six of these countries, however, overall levels of fertility were falling during the period studied. After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea.”
As Disraeli once said: “There are three kinds of liues: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” You can tweak a statistic to make it say anything you like. There may be no profound correlation between a drop in births and the use of condoms, for the simple reason that too many other variables enter iunto the equasion. We were promised that the prevalence of condoms HERE IN THE UNITED STATES would result in a reduction of BIRTHS OUT OF WEDLOCK. We just don’t care about a reduction of births in family households that can, if they so choose, raise children without seeking help from social service programs. That has not happend. The relationship between the use of condoms and any decrease in abortion rates HERE IN THE UNITED STATES is even more tenuous.
Once again, you decrease abortion by decreasing abortion. If DeLauro has a program to do this, I have not heard of it.
[quote post="792"]We just don’t care about a reduction of births in family households that can, if they so choose, raise children without seeking help from social service programs.[/quote]
Do you mean social service programs like public education?
toucan,
Public education is a general, not a targeted social program. Everyone pays for and consumes general social programs. You are not attacking the thrust of my remarks: You reduce abortion by reducing abortion; what programs offered by DeLauro will do this? Just answer the question. Has anyone even asked DeLauro the question? If someone tells me they wish to reduce the number of bananas in supermarkets, I want to know how they propose to do this. That’s an honest OBVIOUS question. It is only after the qestion is answered that I can decide whether the proposl is serious. I assume everyone here, not merely DeLauro, is serious about reducing the incidence of abortion. So go ahead, tell me how you propose to do this.
[quote post="792"]you decrease abortion by decreasing abortion[/quote]
That sounds great, Don, but just exactly how do you plan to do that? Make it illegal? First, good luck with that. Second, that guarantees nothing except that abortion will go underground.
Pesci: you don’t like DeLauro’s answer and that is certainly understandable given your perch, but Rep Ryan who has teamed up with her on this does like her answer and he happens to oppose abortion like you. Ryan has a blog so maybe you should adress your question to him since you do appear to be of like mind in part on the issue.
Here’s some other questions for you: In so called “developed” countries — Spain, France, England, Italy — the replacement rate, the number of births necessary to replce but not increase the population, is declining to a point below zero. Population increases in these countries are do to immigration. At what point will DeLauro, and others writing about the desirability of small managable families, begin to worry about a below zero reproduction rate? Is it a problem?
Gengis,
We are really down to basics here. If your point is: We cannot decrease abortions by decreasing abortions, my point is — we cannot decrease abortions. That being the case, what’s all the fuss about? Why are we about to begin praising DeLauro’s misbegotten attempt to reduce abortions? Your asking ME how to reduce abortions? I’m a male, therefore not fit, according to some abortion proponents, to speak on the subject; and furthermore, unlike some who write here, I’m not a politician. Besides all this, I was the one who asked the question you now propose I answer. What’s up with that? I’m a seeker of knowledge, like you. I just can’t get no satisfaction.
[quote post="792"]I just can’t get no satisfaction. [/quote]
That’s what Mcik jagger said but he was getting plenty all the while, Pesci.
Don,
I think we can reduce abortions with better education and accessible contraceptives. Statistics do suggest that it’s possible, and I think it’s worth pursuing.
Ghengis,
You can reduce births with accessible contraceptives. That no doubt is being done, although cultural perception have done more to reduce the numbers of births per family. But abortion is a subset of unwanted births; an abortion occurs when contraceptives have failed the job. And it is not necessarily true that conraceptives reduce the incidents of abortion. The reason is that the subset has been enlarged. The citation you produced said that in the United States the incidents of abortion rose with an increase of contraceptive use and it cites Korea as an example of a country where abortion fell as contraceptive use increased. Then it says in its summary: “After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell.” But the United States, where contraception has been available longer than in Korea, is not one of those countries.
So, here we are again. The way to cut down on the incidents of abortion is to cut down on the incidents of abortion.
Accepting your premises, that should be possible, because the subset would be so narrow that fewer people would object to a provision that reduced the incidents of abortion.
For instance, very few people object to a restriction on partial birth abortion. So, perhaps we can begin there. It certainly would madke abortion more rare. Is that what DeLauro has in mind, do you think?
Here is the distinction: You cannot abort a fetus that contraceptives have made it impossible to bring to term. Abortion occurs only on fetuses in the birthing process. So, if you improve contraception you will not necessarily cut down on abortions; you may — or may not — cut down on the possibility of abortions. The only way to reduce abortions is to reduce abortions. I still want to know how you plan to do this.
Yeah that’s pretty much what I said would happen.
Don if you accept the posit that abortion availability will not change, and work not to reduce availability or circumstance but rather to reduce the need and desireability by trying to educate those who may make the choice, and supply them with the contraceptives to avoid the pregnancy, then logically the number of abortions would decline. At least that seems to be the thinking here.
Has this been proven a false theory. I don’t think it can be proven false. Too many affecting, unquantifiable factors. Just the cultural difference from state to state could make a huge difference. Economy, education quality, religion, right on down to the person who actually teaches the sex ed in the local high school.
So what we have left is a mostly unprovable theory and hope that these logical assumptions might reduce the number of women who a) have to make the choice or b) women who do have to make the choice make an informed one and hopefully choose life, adoption, foster care, whatever.
And between railing about something that isn’t and shouldn’t change and proactively working to find a way to reduce it then I choose to hope that these theories will work and I do applaud DeLauro and her Republican counterparts for cutting through the rhetoric, recognizing reality (not a DeLauro strong point and worthy of praise on it’s own) and trying something.
The Democrats for Life have proposed a plan called the 95-10 Initiative designed to reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent over the next 10 years.
The problem is that many women view abortion as their only option. This should never be the case. There should be universal access to pre-natal care, counseling for pregnant women, and a place for young women in high school or college to make sure they can continue their education. Adoption should also be a much more welcoming process. Bill Finch had some great ideas for adoption reform, and he’s right that it’s all about the kids. Steps should also be taken to make it a less intimidating option for mothers.
Additionally (This is where I lose the most friends), there should be a ban on late-term abortions, and ultimately a ban on abortions with the exception of rape, incest, and when a mother’s life is in danger. The backlash this would cause today would be overwhelming and disastrous, which is why it should wait. For this to ever happen, it’s important that we move away from the idea of abortion as birth control. It should only be available when absolutely necessary.
Sorry that link didn’t work. Here is the URL.
http://democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=45
Why shouldn’t men have opinions on abortion?
I used to be a baby. Maybe I sympathize more with the children than with BOTH parents who want their unplanned baby to disappear?
If throwing money at the problem really had a chance of working I would be all for it but really. Please. Be real.
This is feel good legislation and that’s all it is.
You’re absolutely right, John. Unborn children are both male and female. They’re probably killed in about equal numbers.
Sometimes there is debate over the labels pro-life and pro-choice. The terms pro-abortion and anti-choice, used always as attacks, are unfair to the entire debate. The question is which do you value more – the right of the parent to make a choice, or the life of the child? If you’re pro-choice, then yes – it’s a women’s issue. If you’re pro-life, it affects both genders equally.
Don,
You have less abortions by having less unwanted pregnancies, you have less unwanted pregnancies by either by stopping people from having sex, or providing them with other options, the best being contraception. You seem to be saying the only measure that counts is if we stop mothers from having abortions that are already pregnant with their unwanted child. By your measure we could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies a year to one, and if that one person gets an abortion the whole program is a failure.
You said also “But the United States, where contraception has been available longer than in Korea, is not one of those countries.” The study you were quoting lumped Korea and the US together. Also, I think you were failing to realize that abortion became available in this country the exact same time contraception was also first starting to become available. Naturally they both rose, because neither was available before.
adamcs,
The data is all soft because, here in the United States, we have made it very nearly impossible to gather the data. For that reason, we do not know precisely how many women who have had abortions within the past couple of decades are — just to pick some data at random –unmarried, married, poor, rich, middleclass, under the age of consent, over the age of concent, etc, etc. That is why RobertCTracy — and all the rest of us — have to reason by the seat of our pants. It is also why the connection, if any, between abortion and contraceptive here in the United States must be inferred rather than deduced from solid statistics.
So then, is it a part of DeLauro’s proposal to sweep away all obstacles to gathering such data? Personal data — names and such like — need not be a part of information gathering. That would be a start. Then, we just might fashion programs that would make abortion rare — which is what we all want, isn’t it?
Yeah, what could contraceptives have to do with preventing pregnancy and abortions? Do they put a condom on the stork? I don’t get it.
adamcs95
Where I think Don and I disagree with you is that we don’t think throwing federal money at the problem will be an effective use of that money.
Prove to me that federal money = contraception.
As it appears I am the only one that reads the primary sources, Don, apparently the bill does exactly what you want it to in regards to collecting statistics.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:3:./temp/~bdwYT6::
Also, there is a fair amount of effort that has gone into figuring out how best to prevent pregnancies. These seem to largely suggest that government programs aimed at directly getting people to use contraception works. While NCSL admits the scholarship is not perfect, I have found no credible source that would refute the suggestion the Federal Money can help in preventing pregnancy, assuming that the money is used correctly on contraception education and programs and not on Abstinence only programs and the like.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/forum/teenrhs.htm
http://www.doh.wa.gov/PHIP/documents/Standards/BestPractices/LHJ/Prevention%20&%20Promotion/PP%203.5.3/Spokane%20Unintended%20Pregnancy%20Final%20report.pdf
Also, the CDC maintains statistics every year for abortions. While it may not contain all the criteria you asked for, it does include age and ethnicity. It is admittedly imperfect because the reporting is voluntary, but you can not suggest those numbers don’t exist.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
While imperfect I think there is enough evidence out there to reach a consensus that what is being proposed would be good policy, especially since I am not hearing any alternatives from the naysayers
MikeCT
Funny Mike. But it’s really simple. It is not the pregnancy that is unwanted; the issue is unwanted. Women who want children want pregnancies. Now — follow me, okay — contraceptives prevent pregnancies. An abortion occurs AFTER a woman has become pregnant. Contraception and abortion are essentially different. Those who argue that education (propaganda?), and condoms in kiddies breakfast cereal may prevent abortions are wrong. The way to prevent an abortion is to prevent an abortion. Are you following?
Now then, lets take education as a propaganda instrument. If an abortion occurs because a woman does not want a child, there are two ways – propaganda wise – to prevent the abortion. You can instruct, convince, and persuade the pregnant woman to want the child. Is that what DeLauro has in mind. Or you can instruct, convince persuade the pregnant woman to carry the child to term and give up the issue – which she dos not want anyway – for adoption. It that what DeLauro has in mind?
Just curious.
Don,
Read the CRS Bill Analysis at least, Its on one of the links I posted above, it would answer your questions.
Also, I stand by my statement from above that preventing pregnancy prevents abortion. Any world where the number of abortions is down is a good one, for whatever reason, be it the fact that less women are getting pregnant or otherwise.
Also, Just following your flawed logic, would you say that anti-smoking ads should only be directed at people that already smoke?
Cause it seems to me the best way to reduce the number of people from doing something is to stop them before they would take an action that would lead them to do it.
Adamcs95,
Here is the section of the bill you are referencing: “(a) In General- The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Institute of Medicine to study the reasons why women choose to have an abortion. The Secretary shall ensure that a report from the Institute describing the findings of the study is submitted to the Congress not later than January 10, 2011. Names may not be collected for purposes of the study.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- To carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011.”
The primary source of the information needed so that the institute may compile an accurate fact based report can only be provided by abortion providers. I don’t even know that they collect the information that would be useful to the study. Do you? If they do collect the information, do we have the assurance of DeLauro that they will surrender it when asked?
And why should anyone settle for imperfect information when perfect, ungathered information is available. If you wanted to travel from Enfield to Stamford and did not know the way, would you be satisfied with a mapping provider that relied on only the information that some people would voluntarily supply?
Preventing pregnacies prevents pregnancies. If you want to prevent an abortion, you must terminate the pregnancy — not the same thing. You prevent abortions by preventing abortions. I don’t see the flaw in this mode of thought.
Most the language set to implement the provisions of any Bill are most often set up in regulation. Obviously in order to set up this study, necessary regulations would have to be in place to ensure that the information is collected and accurate. Judging the CDC report, a good deal of data is already collected and given voluntary by most abortion providers.
OK, let me explain it like this.
Say in some country 4 people a year get pregnant. For the longest time half of those had abortions, so two abortions a year. Then one year, there is only 1 abortion. That is a “decrease” in abortions (or depending on what post I’m using to quote your language, one abortion has been “prevented” from happening.) Does it matter if that one person either didn’t get pregnant or just decided to have their baby? No it doesn’t, because you have less abortions, and that is the goal. The goal here is less abortions, not necessarily more births. As long as the goal remains less abortions, and not more births, then contraception is a perfectly acceptable way in which to go about achieving said goal.
What Adamcs95 said. In short, the goal should be that every child should be wanted and cared for.
adamcs,
Sorry, we cannot say the abortion was prevented unless we know it was prevented and why. We may make an inference that it was prevented. Our knowledge can never be more complete than our information.
Why is it so difficut in this instance to observe the distinction between preventing abortions and preventing pregnancies? When it was a question of forcing Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B to raped women, the distinction between preventing abortions and preventing pregnancies was, I might say, religiously observed by the pro-Plan B folk. But now that a legislator has promised to make abortion – not pregnancies – rare, that distinction is altogether lost. I am not reasoning here from my premises, but from yours. And this is what I say: You cannot prevent abortion except by preventing abortions. And you cannot prevent abortions unless you know why people get abortions. That information in the pipeline ungathered. Will DeLauro facilitate the gathering of that information from abortion providers? Will you insist that DeLauro put pressure upon abortion providers to provide that data?
[quote comment="16692"]
Sometimes there is debate over the labels pro-life and pro-choice. The terms pro-abortion and anti-choice, used always as attacks, are unfair to the entire debate. The question is which do you value more – the right of the parent to make a choice, or the life of the child? If you’re pro-choice, then yes – it’s a women’s issue. If you’re pro-life, it affects both genders equally.[/quote]
I use anti-choice because those who want to outlaw abortion want to take away a woman’s right to choose. It is absolutely a fair term.
[quote comment="16715"]
I use anti-choice because those who want to outlaw abortion want to take away a woman’s right to choose. It is absolutely a fair term.[/quote]You say anti-choice because it sounds much scarier and more intimidating. I call myself pro-life, because that is what I consider the debate to be about. You are pro-choice, because that is what you value more. I don’t believe that I am hostile to choice because I want to defend an unborn child – in fact I support the right of anyone to choose who he or she marries or to choose where their children go to school. I would never say that someone who believes that reproductive choice is more important than the life of a child is pro-abortion. What DeLauro and Ryan are trying to do is get beyond this hostile treatment of the issue and try to make some progress.
[quote post="792"]What DeLauro and Ryan are trying to do is get beyond this hostile treatment of the issue and try to make some progress.[/quote]
Actually DeLauro and Ryan are attempting to get practical measures that benefit women funded and using the abortion issue to do it. It’s a reframe.
[quote post="792"]You are pro-choice, because that is what you value more. I don’t believe that I am hostile to choice because I want to defend an unborn child – in fact I support the right of anyone to choose who he or she marries or to choose where their children go to school.[/quote]
You do not support reproductive choice. Again, I use the term because it’s accurate. And the idea that those of us who are pro-choice don’t value life is just silly.
I didn’t say, and wouldn’t say, that anyone who is pro-choice doesn’t value life. It is very clear, though, that the choice of a mother to have an abortion is more important and more valued than the life of the unborn child. That’s where we disagree.
I just posted that and want to apologize for veering back into the kind of debate I don’t think should surround this issue. Rosa DeLauro and Tim Ryan are working together to reduce abortions, and I couldn’t be happier about that. I think these kind of solutions are something everyone should work towards together, instead of fighting between the two sides.
Ryan and DeLauro are working to — in this order – 1) get re-elected. The dialogue on the street about abortion has changed, largely because the speakers, especially in large cities, have changed; and 2) prevent unwanted pregnancies on the assumption that such measures will result in fewer abortions. This is like banning all apples in a grocery store in an attempt to get rid of the bad apple. A more successful approach to reducing abortions would be to reduce abortions.
I would ask people here to beware of those bringing statistics. A few years ago, a couple of scientists found in their study a correlation between abortion and crime among the lower orders. They concluded that as abortion increased among the poor, crime decreased. That study has been overturned because the “scientists” who conducted it never ran the figures. When two other scientist ran the figures they found a really dramatic increase in crime as abortion became more widely available to poor people. This is what happened. The availability of abortion (as a last resort) made the set under study less inclined to use contraceptives – which increased single family households, which increased criminal activity; single family households in areas where drugs are rampant are easier targets for ever younger criminals.
If you are ideologically minded, you can make statistics sing your song. DeLauro’s husband is a noted pollster. My guess is – and this is merely an intuition; somewhat like the guess of another commentator posting here that contraceptives and better propaganda in schools will reduce abortions – that DeLauro has seen polling that reflects an altered street dialogue, and sh’e ducking for the flowerpot. Just a guess.
[quote comment="16717"][quote post="792"]And the idea that those of us who are pro-choice don’t value life is just silly.[/quote]
To draw a parallel argument, do you think that those of us who are in favor of the death penalty don’t value life?
[quote post="792"]Ryan and DeLauro are working to — in this order – 1) get re-elected. [/quote]
Good thing Rosa did this then, otherwise she might have had trouble getting re-elected.
[/quote]Don I really think you are being deliberately obtuse. Just my opinion.
It’s simple math. If there are 10 unwanted pregnancies in a year and half result in abortions then reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies to 0 should reduce the number of abortions to 0. Do we know for sure that’s how it will work? No. Are we saying that it is good that someone is trying something. Yes.
And for all your obfuscation and semantics about reducing the number of actual abortions and demanding that someone prove it is viable I’m a little surprised you would go on ad nauseum about several studies that you didn’t bother to link and just expect everyone to believe your interpretation of whatever it is you read.
Studies aren’t considered scientific law until they can be reproduced hundreds, maybe thousands of times with the same end result and even then science recognizes that there is room for things that may not be considered and accepted law has been overturned.
You basically just took an extremely complex study based upon Sociology, Crime Statistics, Economic Statistics, and religion/morality and boiled it down to “one group of scientists said more abortions equal less crime among the poor, but another group reinterpreted the data and found a dramatic increase in crime with more access to abortions.”
Talk about oversimplification. You want to question DeLauro’s motives? Who cares? It’s like questioning why a stranger opens a door for you. Maybe they want you to buy them a cookie later but it doesn’t change the fact that the door got opened for you.
I’m all for cynacism in our electoral process but don’t you think we should at least reign it in for when our elected officials are being slothful, crooked or arrogant? Goodness knows we have enough of that to go around. It’s like fish in a barrel around here. Why go after someone for trying to do some good?
[quote comment="16706"]Also, Just following your flawed logic, would you say that anti-smoking ads should only be directed at people that already smoke?[/quote]
Yes you are correct. I think such sanctimonious ads make people want to do the things the ads are telling them not to do.
Anti-Smoking ads make we want to light up a cigarette and blow smoke into the faces on the TV that are telling me how to live my life.
And I have never smoked.
RobertCTracy,
Would you think me obtuse if I said that it would be impossible to reduce pregnancies to zero expect in a totalitarian state like, say, China, where education is hardly distinguishable from propaganda? There will always be unwanted pregnancies, for which abortion may be an option. I think you missed my point. Maybe it’s me. The DeLauro-Ryan bill has been presented here as a measure that will reduce abortions. In fact, it is a measure that will reduce unwanted pregnancies through artificial birth control methods. If these measures fail and woman gets pregnant she may elect to choose to abort the fetus. This bill, I do not think, will reduce those abortions. That is what I am saying. If you think that this bill will reduce those abortions… well, I will not say you are obtuse…
Also, concision is necessary when summarizing studies. If you want a fuller description of what I was referencing, it may be found here: http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MjIzZDNjYjI4YjVmOTYzYTc2OWJjOGQyZjYyOWMwOTY=
The Bill would provide ample support for the mother, if she does get pregnant, to either give the child up for adoption, or provide her with better resourses to raise the child herself.
Also, I don’t think anyone ever said or thought that the abortion rate could be zero, simply greatly reduced.
John,
I’m sorry, when they showed me a blackened lung and some of the other stuff smoking does to you, there was no way I was going to take it up.
>>I’m sorry, when they showed me a blackened lung and some of the other stuff smoking does to you, there was no way I was going to take it up
The worse the anti-smoking (or “better” depending on one’s outlook) movement; the higher the price and the more restrictive the regs – the MORE young people take it up. Witness western Europe where young people are lighting up far more than here in the US despite substantially higher prices and in some countries, packages that carry a picture instead of a printed warning.
[quote comment="16807"]>>I’m sorry, when they showed me a blackened lung and some of the other stuff smoking does to you, there was no way I was going to take it up
The worse the anti-smoking (or “better” depending on one’s outlook) movement; the higher the price and the more restrictive the regs – the MORE young people take it up. Witness western Europe where young people are lighting up far more than here in the US despite substantially higher prices and in some countries, packages that carry a picture instead of a printed warning.[/quote]
Part of that’s cultural, I think. The Germans, for instance, do love their smoking, and it’s really embedded in culture. When I was over there, I remember that every place where teens would gather was absolutely littered with cigarette butts.
adamcs95,
I was responding to RobertCTracy’s theoretical remarks. We do not possess the hard information to judge who is getting abortions and why. That information, as I said, is more or less ungatherd in the pipeline. Do you not think that it might be profitable first to get real time information of this sort from abortion providers before we design effective programs to help reduce abortions? The remedies you mention are available now, but imperfect information makes effective targeting less likely.
>>Part of that’s cultural, I think.
Undoubtedly, but only to a small degree as it doesn’t explain the increase in youth smoking post price hikes, pretty gory ads and packaging, etc. (10 per-pack cigarette packages are quite common in much of Europe due to the wildly high price)
The fact is, current data from the UK and western Europe indicates that anti-tobacco movements have a counter intuitive effect, particularly as it regards young people.
However, it has converted many of those smokers to RYO/MYO (roll your own / make your own) customers. Even here in the US, that segment of the market has grown in excess of 30% a year for almost a decade – and here in CT thanks to our new tax, that area has jumped (and noticeably) already.
>>where teens would gather was absolutely littered with cigarette butts.
George Carlin has it right – the two things that absolutely should be capital crimes are littering and vandalism. No excuse **ever** for either one.
You must log in to post a comment.