Congressional Democrats “softening” on abortion?

But not because they’re sincere about it, but because, you guessed it, they’re interested in your vote:

Sensing an opportunity to impress religious voters β€” and tip elections β€” Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail have begun to adopt some of the language and policy goals of the antiabortion movement.

For years, the liberal response to abortion has been to promote more accessible and affordable birth control as well as detailed sex education in public schools.

That’s still the foundation of Democratic policies. But in a striking shift, Democrats in the House last week promoted a grab bag of programs designed not only to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also to encourage women who do conceive to carry to term.

The new approach embraces some measures long sought by antiabortion activists. It’s designed to appeal to the broad centrist bloc of voters who don’t want to criminalize every abortion β€” yet are troubled by a culture that accepts 1.3 million terminations a year.

“It’s not as exciting as arguing,” said antiabortion activist Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life. “But it’s the best possible thing for women.”

The Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative provides millions in new funds to:

Ò€’ Counsel more young women in crisis to consider adoption, not abortion.

Ò€’ Launch an ad campaign to inform needy women that they can receive healthcare and other resources if they are “preparing for birth.”

Ò€’ Expand parenting education and medical services for pregnant women, in some cases by sending nurses to their homes.

Ò€’ Offer day care at federal job-training centers to help new mothers become self-sufficient.

The initiative, part of a broader appropriations bill, passed the House with solid bipartisan support. A separate measure, still pending, calls for funding maternity and day-care centers on college campuses so pregnant students won’t feel they must have an abortion to stay in school.

Such efforts are aimed at alleviating the concerns women often cite to explain why they’ve turned to abortion: financial strain, fear of raising a baby alone, disruption to work and school.

“We are willing to talk about anything that helps women make good choices,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Pro-Choice Caucus. Preventing unplanned pregnancies, she said, “is not the whole story.”

Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, a Democrat who opposes abortion, goes even further. For the first time, he said, his party is sending a forceful message to conflicted women: “Bring the baby to term, and we’ll provide for you.”

Being the anti-abortion person that I am, of course I’m on board with counseling women to keep their babies. All the same, this pandering effort by the Democrats is just another version of the Great Society welfare programs rolled out back in the 60s: You ‘accidentally’ get pregnant? No problem. “We’ll” pay for it. Same ol’ song and dance, as always. What’s worse is where most of the family planning funding will go:

Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana, sees hypocrisy in the fact that much of the new family planning funding will go to Planned Parenthood. The money can’t be used to terminate pregnancies β€” it’s for birth control and gynecology services. But Pence says it’s ludicrous to send tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider in the name of reducing abortions.

“That’s not a common ground I can accept,” Pence said.

And we all know that Planned Parenthood will work hard to ensure that that money doesn’t go to paying for abortions. Not. So, in light of this information, this newfound ‘respect’ for life that Democrats have is somehow supposed to impress me? I don’t think so. They’re not doing anything differently than they’ve done in years past – except now, they’re putting window dressing on the ‘counseling’ aspect of a woman’s pregnancy.

If these people were really sincere about trying to stop abortions and if they really cared about the children involved, they’d advocate a plan that encouraged women to, at the very least be in a serious, long term committed relationship – preferably marriage – before having sex, so that any child conceived could ideally grow up with both a mother and a father and learn the benefits of having a loving, financially independent two parent family.

I’m not saying that mothers can’t raise kids on their own. They can. But it’s a lot easier for the mother emotionally and financially – and a lot more beneficial for the child – to have the stability of a two parent household. Not only that, but it’s not fair to not include the pregnant woman’s partner in the process. What if he wants a say so in the child’s welfare? More often than not, and contrary to the popular myth spread by the various man-hating radical feminist movements out there, most men care about unborn children that may be theirs as much as the woman carrying the child (hopefully) does. It’s not surprising to see that the Democrats still refuse to embrace those simple yet vital factors.

Yes, encourage women to keep their unborn children. But also encourage them to raise them in an emotionally and financially independent two parent household. The importance of that cannot be overstated.

Comments are closed.