The debate over the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the lack of debate over the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act show how both parties are only half-way towards understanding the abortion crisis in America. We can and should protect both unborn children and their mothers.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans abortions after 20 weeks, should be passed. A majority of countries in Europe prohibit abortion after 13 weeks. Given that information, a 20-week ban seems very reasonable.
It is not enough to simply ban abortion after 20 weeks. Congress should consider providing legal support for mothers by passing the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. As John Oliver so wisely observed on Last Week Tonight, this is the best way to honor our mothers.
Abortion-rights groups have pushed the notion that the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is some radical infringement to trample the rights of women. However, limiting abortion after 20 weeks is not a radical position, but very much mainstream. What is radical is the Democratic Party’s official position against the legislation and the party’s advocacy for abortion up through the ninth month of pregnancy. Polls consistently indicate overwhelming opposition to abortions after the first trimester. A majority of women, even Democratic women, millennials, and Hispanics support a 20-week ban over a 24-week ban.
by Mary Ann Chimera
Writing letters for publication is a dicey gamble, but also a great tool for educating the public. It’s dicey because before your letter is published it has to meet criteria set by the editorial page editor and staff. These vary from not only from publication to publication but from editor to editor.
Nevertheless, editors are aware that a diversity of opinion, especially by local readers, sells newspapers. Readers are very interested in what friends and neighbors have to say.
Especially with hot issue topics like ours, we often find ourselves in opposition to the beliefs of today’s media people. Our letters accordingly must be crafted to overcome antilife biases. Here are some of the criteria I impose on my own letters before submitting them.
Smart take on the culture of life and vulnerability from Kimberly Baker:
The pro-life perspective does not fear vulnerability in the human condition – it embraces it. A culture of life does not pressure people to live up to an artificial standard of health or physical perfection in order to feel a sense of self-worth and purpose. Rather, each person is regarded as special and unique, as a gift to the community in a profound way, no matter their state of health and mental or physical abilities. A society that reaches out to and accompanies its weaker members in their suffering and vulnerability is a truly strong and courageous one.
Our acceptance of our vulnerability, individually and as a society, is the measure of our humanity.
Read the full post here.
*** The following was published in The Hill. You can read the article in its entirety by clicking the link below.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) recently publicly shared that he is no longer pro-life. Why tell us something we already know? His pronouncement is a symptom of a larger problem within the Democratic Party – the abortion litmus test.
Democrats once held a 292-seat majority in the U.S House with 110 pro-life Democrats. Today, we are in the minority and there are only a handful of pro-life Democrats. The number of pro-choice democrats has remained about the same over the last 30 years – around 180 give or take. It is the number of pro-life Democrats that can win in pro-life districts and states that propel us to the magic number for the majority.
The truth is you cannot get funding from national Democratic spigots unless you pass the pro-choice litmus test. Tim Ryan, former champion of pro-life and common ground initiatives, former Advisory Board member of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), offers the latest evidence. That litmus test, more than anything else, continues to undermine the Democratic Party’s development of candidates who can contest red-leaning and purple states and districts. In so doing, it cedes control of Congress to the GOP.
by Janet Robert
Published in The Hill on January 22, 2015
Progressives are pro-science, right? From clashes over climate change to school text books, the common refrain from progressives is that we stand on the side of the most credible and advanced scientific evidence. Yet on abortion, we see far too many progressives closing their eyes to the breakthroughs that have occurred through technological innovation in understanding development in the womb.
For those who oppose any further restrictions on abortion, the motives seem clear. The Roe v. Wade decision used trimesters to provide guidance for laws regulating abortion. Restrictions on abortion were not to be permitted until the child was viable—capable of surviving outside the womb—and viability was linked with the third trimester of pregnancy.
(From Tom Berg:) The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Young v. United Parcel Service, the case involving accommodations for pregnant workers under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (the PDA). As I’ve mentioned in a prior post, Peggy Young had sought and been denied the same sort of light-duty accommodation that had been given to workers with similar work limitations from other causes, such as on-the-job injuries, disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and conditions or circumstances (medical problems, drunk-driving convictions) that led to a driver-employee’s loss of a Department of Transportation commercial truck-driving license. And as I’ve detailed, 23 pro-life organizations, including Democrats for Life, filed an amicus brief arguing that the PDA should be interpreted to require pregnancy accommodations when the employer made accommodations for other such categories of workers who were (in the words of the statute) “similar in their ability or inability to work.”
Many media outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, remarked on the convergence in this case of pro-life groups and pro-choice feminist groups. It was indeed striking, at the press conference after the argument, to see Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals followed by Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, both expressing support for strong protections for pregnant women. Democrats for Life’s own Kristen Day was one of the two featured pro-life speakers (DFLA played a key role in bringing the pro-life brief to fruition). And Kristen nailed it:
As a pro-life advocate, I am proud to stand here to support Peggy Young. In our movement, we are often accused of caring only for the unborn child and ignoring the needs of the women. The fact that I am joined by 22 other pro-life groups is a testament to our commitment to the value of life and of raising children. Denying benefits and not providing reasonable accommodations for a pregnant woman is not pro-life.