Abortion in the United States has been legal for 35 years, and the debate still rages today.
One of my biggest frustrations about the rabidly anti-abortion crowd is that I’ve always felt their efforts could be better focused on the education & prevention side of the equation.
In my opinion, the two sides aren’t as far apart as it appears at first glance: both could probably agree that they’d like to reduce the number of abortions. The difference is in the method. As a pro-choice woman who nevertheless finds abortion very sad, I’d like people to be educated about sex, its consequences, and options before they become pregnant. I’d like contraception to be more widely available, discussed and encouraged. I’d like adoption to be an easier road to travel down, and I’d like it to be better supported and publicized. I’d like pregnancy to become something we don’t hide or shame people about.
But I don’t think the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to make it illegal, or to picket abortion clinics in order to shame women out of having them.
And finally, it appears that some “pro-life” groups are understanding that as well. Granted, it’s not because they have decided that making abortions illegal is a bad idea; it’s because recent efforts to restrict them and Obama’s election to the Presidency has made them pause to regroup. But I think that motive may not matter in this issue if the end result is positive. From the Washington Post:
Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.
Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education — services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies.
…
“If one strategy has failed and failed over decades, and you have empirical information that tells how you can honor life and encourage women to make that choice by meeting real needs that are existing and tangible, why not do that?” said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Kmiec, a Catholic who opposes abortion, was criticized by some abortion foes because he endorsed Obama.
I think I just fainted.
Seriously, this represents a huge step forward. Not only are they likely to see more positive effects, but it represents a chance for us all to find common ground.
Of course, there are detractors.
The new effort is causing a fissure in the antiabortion movement, with traditional groups viewing the activists as traitors to their cause. Leaders worry that the approach could gain traction with a more liberal Congress and president, although they do not expect it to weaken hard-core opposition.
“It’s a sellout, as far as we are concerned,” said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League. “We don’t think it’s really genuine. You don’t have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions.”
This is the kind of attitude I don’t understand. If the end goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then why is rigid adherence to old strategies the only acceptable answer? That sort of stubbornness seems counterproductive.
I’m glad to see at least some activists are allowing logic to dictate their course of action.
Snoop Dogg has some advice for the President-Elect on fatherhood:
