95-10... an Idea Whose Time Has Come?

[txaslftist]

WASHINGTON – Standing with Pro-Life Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee), talked about the 95-10 initiative, which would reduce the number of abortions in America by 95% over 10 years through a number of proactive solutions to provide information, support, and alternatives to abortion.


“The Republicans continue to point fingers at who is to blame for allowing abortions to occur in America. In the meantime, nothing is being done to provide people with the education and support to prevent abortions from happening. I stand with my fellow Democratic Pro-Lifers to say that we have practical solutions,” said Stupak. “This 95-10 initiative focuses on health care opportunities, educational programs and alternative options for women considering an abortion.”



Many women turn to abortion because of financial circumstances, peer and family pressure, or concerns about health related issues. The 95-10 initiative, which will eventually be presented as legislation before Congress, provides funding for programs that focus on the parents and children involved in preventing abortion.



In order to educate and help support women in their decision, the initiative provides public awareness programs, pregnancy prevention programs, abortion counseling and education on University campuses, informational programs to pregnant patients, tax credits for adoption, health care opportunities and domestic violence programs.



The 95-10 initiative also provides a means to protect the children who are potential victims as well as potential recipients of an abortion. The 95-10 initiative would fully fund the WIC program, special nutrition for Women Infants and Children (WIC), as well as require the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover pregnant women. It would also enforce parental notification and prohibit transport across state lines for minors seeking an abortion. This initiative would promote safe haven laws which would designate hospitals, emergency rooms, fire and police stations as safe locations for women. The program would also provide for adoption counseling in federally funded maternity group homes and teaching of parenting skills.



“The 95-10 Initiative is an aggressive and comprehensive plan to bring down the rate of abortions in this country. By instituting these programs we can reach out to young parents to offer the information and assistance they need to make the right decision of keeping a life and then help them foster that life by teaching parenting skills and providing adequate healthcare,” Stupak said

[Zynx]

1. I'm not sure that 95% is possible, but it is worth shooting for.

What's more, it actually would give the Democrats a positive message on the issue.

[lostnfound]

6. Yes, and the message that it's possible to be a Dem and be

pro-life (in the broad sense of the word).

GOP has proven how 'prolife' they really are in Iraq and in New orleans and with the assault on the environment.

[Walt Starr]

2. Education will do more to reduce the number of abortions than any law

Seriously, and educated citizenry is a responsible citizenry.

[mccoyn]

7. What is the education?

Teach people that sex can lead to babies. I think the general population is aware of that. Teach about protection. Again this is already common knowledge. Teach women that they should have a baby they can't support and the state won't support because abortions are bad?

I got very skeptical of the "education will fix the issue" concept when I did a survey that showed just that. I was asked, at the beginning of the call if I supported affirmative action. After I answered I was given an educational blurb and then asked the question again. The education was very one sided and I could see it turning people who didn't much care about the issue. The result of the survey was that people who were educated about the issue were more likly to support a given position.

[Seansky]

3. unfortunately, as one of my friend says, fundies only care about

people before they are born and after or while they are dying. They will be incapable of envisioning/embracing anything that takes cares or improve life in between, including preventive measures of any sort.

[ourbluenation]

4. Since non of us are advocates of more abortions (right?) I like this.

The right likes to portray the left as abortion hungry baby killers. They can't, or won't, face the fact that being pro choice does not equal wanting everyone to have abortions. Safe, legal and rare....I like this initiative.

[Darkhawk32]

5. Now this is a pro-life position I can handle....

Making abortion illegal will not eliminate abortions, it will only sweep them under the rug and into the basement.

It may make today's "pro-lifers" feel like they've accomplished something, but ultimately they're only fooling themselves.

As a man, husband and a father of two young girls, I support this type of plan wholeheartedly.

This thread made my day.

BTW, got a link?

[txaslftist]

12. I don't really know how to link stuff...

I found this by googling ("95-10 abortion").

I especially favor the stuff about adoption support. I actually think it should go farther, even to the extent of paying childbirth expenses and waiving legal costs of adoption.

It has been my experience that with newborns, there is no lack of adoption resources, and in fact there is a high demand for adoptable infants regardless of race.

I would rather see children adopted than aborted. I am biased, because my brother in law has been trying for years to get his wife pregnant. They've considered adoption, but the financial hurdles are pretty steep. I'd like to see the hurdles eliminated.

By the way, I am pro-choice. I just think there is room for a reduction in abortions. This is a plan I favor.

The Republicans, by contrast, have NO PLAN beyond 'let's cross our fingers and hope Roe v. Wade is overturned...'

[Darkhawk32]

17. Just enter in the url I suppose in the message area...

http://www.crooksandliars.com for example. It'll make it's own link for you.

[ComerPerro]

18. its a pro-life position you can handle

because its actually pro-life.

Not just the hypocritical bullshit that gets labled as "pro-life"

[Darkhawk32]

22. That's what I said. ;) n/t

[Crowdance]

8. You left out the bad parts---except for the part about forced

pregnancy for minors. (Why you wouldn't find that offensive is beyond my understanding.) Here's the rest of it:


Women’s Right to Know
Any women’s health center or clinic that
provides pregnancy counseling or abortion
services must provide accurate information
on abortion and the adverse side effects to a
woman’s health. Patients do not have to
accept the materials if they do not want
them.

Provide Ultrasound Equipment
Provide grants to nonprofit, tax-exempt
organizations for the purchase of ultrasound
equipment to provide free examinations to
pregnant women needing such services. This
equipment will be operated by licensed
professionals.

Parental Notification
Prohibit transporting a minor across a state
line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception
if the abortion was necessary to save
the life of the minor.
Requires states that have parental notification
to inform parents of state statutory
rape laws.

If Democrats for Life was SERIOUS about reducing abortion they'd put forward a bill including:
1. Universal Health Care
2. Equal pay for work of comparable value
3. Required proportional legislative representation

But it's so much easier to moralize than to do something concrete. This is NOT an innocuous bill. It is one intended to intimidate women into following a religiously-prescribed path in life, and offers not one iota of substance to support them.

[ourbluenation]

9. Playing devils advocate here I have a personal story...

In regards to providing all information to the patient. When I was in college and newly married I became pregnant, confirmed by the clinic on campus. This was a campus in Northern California (Chico State). Anyways, the staffer called me at home to give me the (assumed) bad news...right away there was an assumption that I would want to schedule an abortion. I was not provided with any other options like adoption.

I told the gal that I was married and allthough the timing wasn't so great, my husband and I were thrilled. Our son is now 17.

I guess my point is that I think these patients should be given all options, free of bias in either direction. To only provide abortion as an option is wrong, imo.

For disclosure purposes I should say that I am adamantly pro choice and I am also adopted.

[txaslftist]

10. I fail to see what is "Bad" about the three issues you mention.

1. Providing accurate information about the possible adverse side effects of an abortion... Shouldn't they be doing that anyway? And if accurate information deters someone from having an abortion, what's the problem? They've made an informed choice.

2. Ultrasound equipment... the legislation does not require ultrasounds, it just provides incentives to obtain them... Again, what' the problem? If a woman sees an ultrasound she's going to be less likely to abort? Why is this a bad thing?

3. Parental notification... You may not like the fact that in some states parents of minors are required to be informed of a minor seeking abortion. As a father of minor daughters, I think it is a good thing, and a minor shouldn't be able to avoid the law by going to another state. If my daughter of 12 years old is pregnant by some eighteen year old pedophile, and he takes her across state lines to get an abortion so he won't face my (and law enforcement's) wrath, what is the good of that? This law does not give me the right to override my daughter's wish to get an abortion, but I think I have the right to know if my minor child is getting major surgery.

To me these aren't negatives.

[ComerPerro]

19. Well, number one seems ok on the surface

if you actually use an honest approach.

But the problem is, right wingers aren't honest.

Who knows how accurate this information will be.

They say that abortions lead to suicide.

Hell, this is the same crowd that said HIV can be spread through tears.

[Crowdance]

20. I'm not at all surprised that you fail to see.

It's dismaying that you choose to push this legislation while remaining ignorant of the history and social reality of this issue. Of course, you've never been, and never will be, in a position to suffer under the law you so blithely support. If you had, you might know:
1. The anti-choice side has been active and successful in foisting false and misleading information about the so-called adverse side effects of abortion on women. By frightening women with tales of bad effects, women are frightened into carrying to term--which is statistically more likely to endanger their lives and health. Not to mention the lifelong negative financial and social consequences some women are subjected to as single mothers, society's outcasts.
2. Ultrasound equipment is used to intimidate women into carrying to term by unscrupulous antichoice organizations. See above for negative effects.
3. I am the mother of teenage daughters, and I guess I care more about their lives and health than I do about retaining control of their bodies. You propose to eliminate these young women's rights in order to trap pedophiles or rapists. I won't even say it's ok to use your own daughters as bait; it's not. In fact, what happens when you prevent young women from reaching the reproductive services they need is that they resort to unsafe, illegal means of abortion. That's not good enough for my daughters, and it's not good enough for yours.

[Ravenseye]

11. financial circumstances

That's the biggest one.

A young girl gets pregnant. She works at a minimum wage job that doesn't provide health care. Going to the Hospital and having the baby may cost more than she makes in a year (If she gets a c-section the cost can be well over 16,000 dollars for simply giving birth).

Meanwhile she makes 1,500 a month, before taxes. The cheapest daycare she can find is 500 month, which she simply can't afford.

She can't pay to have the baby, if she had the baby she won't be able to work because she'll have nobody to care for the baby. She won't have the work to pay for the rent, and all of a sudden we have an 18 year old girl with a baby on the street and homeless. Not good for her, not good for the baby.

She thinks about this and chooses abortion.

If people say they are pro life, they need to spend less time stopping abortions, and more time helping the actual people.

[txaslftist]

14. If she could have her birthing expenses covered...

...as well as a guaranteed right to return to her job; and if an adoptive couple was permitted to pay her living expenses during the last three months of her pregnancy...

...then what choice might she make?

She gets her expenses covered, an adoptive couple gets the child they've longed for, who loses?

Well, the Republicans lose because the Democrats proposed the legislation, I suppose...

[Ravenseye]

15. Well there should be other things as well

The goal should be to allow an option to keep their child, not "Well if you can't afford the kid you can give it away." Though it's an important step.

First of all Universal Health Care, so that the care for the baby and the childbirth itself is totally covered and not a question.

Second of all comprehensive child care credits. Under a certain salary level there should be provided child care credits to put the kid in day care so the parent can still work.

That would help.

[txaslftist]

16. Agreed. Although this has to go one step at a time.

[MsTryska]

13. oh don't be silly.....

the Democrats have no ideas, remember?


:sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Stupak should be replaced with a pro-woman progressive.

Abortion is, and should remain, a decision for the woman to make. Not the government, not her parents, not her priest, not her boss, not her husband or boyfriend.

This proposal is a sugar coated poisen pill that would require parental notification, and prohibition for minors to cross state lines to get a legal abortion.