 |
Congressional bills eye reducing abortion rate
By Cynthia Dailard, Senior Public Policy Associate, Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC
In the final days of the 107th Congress, Congressional Democrats introduced two competing bills with a common goal: to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Proponents of both bills claim their respective initiatives stake out the new middle ground in the abortion wars. The bills, however, adopt very different approaches, which highlight major philosophical divides among Democrats about how to ensure that fewer women turn to abortion and the importance of contraception in achieving that end.
Legislation designed to help women avoid unintended pregnancy and, by doing so, reduce the need for abortion, has been around for some time. These legislative efforts have focused on improving access to contraceptive information and services, particularly among low-income women. The high-water mark of these proposals remains the Prevention First Act, introduced by Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), which would increase funding for the Title X family planning program, expand Medicaid eligibility for family planning services, improve contraceptive coverage in private insurance, require medical accuracy in federally funded abstinence and sex education, and promote access to emergency contraception.
The idea for a bill with the primary goal of reducing the number of abortions, however, emerged more than a year ago when a small organization called Democrats for Life America began seeking congressional sponsors for its "95/10" initiative — so named because it promised to reduce the number of abortions by 95% over 10 years. Its policy plank consisted of a combination of abortion restrictions (such as parental consent) and a hodgepodge of initiatives designed to provide women with social supports that would purportedly prompt them to choose childbirth over abortion, as well as initiatives designed to "promote" adoption among pregnant women. In contrast to the Prevention First Act, the 95/10 proposal sidelined the proximate cause of virtually all abortions — unintended pregnancy — giving only lip service to efforts to promote contraception.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), who describes himself as "pro-life," agreed to introduce the 95/10 package. But over time, he became increasingly convinced that a meaningful emphasis on preventing unintended pregnancy through contraception had to be an essential component of the bill. And due to his desire to bring pro-choice members on board, such as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), he agreed to drop the abortion restrictions from the bill.
Unintended pregnancy 'prevention agenda'
On Sept. 13th, Ryan, DeLauro, and several of their House colleagues finally introduced the package, renamed the Reducing Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act. The bill contains a number of initiatives at the heart of the unintended pregnancy "prevention agenda" — including significantly increased funding for the Title X, expanded Medicaid coverage of family planning services, and new programs to prevent teenage pregnancy. The bill also would expand the adoption tax credit, require women having abortions to give informed consent, provide grants to community health centers to purchase ultrasound machines, fund home nurse visitation programs for teen parents, support child care centers on college campuses, and increase funding for child care and the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program (WIC), among many other issues.
Ryan has touted the approach as a way for Democrats, whether pro-choice or antiabortion, to appeal to the "abortion grays" — people who want to protect the legality of abortion but would like to see fewer of them. Some on the left are not so enamored of the bill, however, because it would not go far enough either to help prevent unintended pregnancy or to really support parents. On the other end of the political spectrum, Congressional Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chair Chris Smith (R-NJ) denounced the bill because it could "lead to more abortions, not less" since it would increase funding for contraceptive services to clinics that might also provide abortions.
Democrats for Life, for its part, does not support the Ryan legislation because it wishes to focus only on women who already are pregnant.1 It instead supports competing legislation introduced on Sept. 20 by Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), which more closely approximates the 95/10 proposal. The Davis legislation, known as the Pregnant Women Support Act, promises to "empower women" during and after pregnancy and to "encourage them to choose life." It includes many of the same provisions from the Ryan bill designed to provide social supports to pregnant women and to promote adoption, but contains no pregnancy prevention interventions. The bill is cosponsored by mostly anti-abortion Democrats and has been endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and CARENET, which is the umbrella organization for crisis pregnancy centers.
While the 107th Congress has drawn to a close, the public policy question of how best to reduce abortion will certainly endure, and this of course has great relevance for women and their families. But underlying all of these competing proposals is a battle among Democrats for the winning political message. How all this plays out in the coming Congress is likely to have implications, at least for Democratic candidates, in the 2008 presidential election. And in this respect, the stakes are very high indeed.
Reference
1. Kaiser Family Foundation. House Democrats introduce bill that aims to reduce number of unintended pregnancies, abortions. Daily Women's Health Policy 2006. Accessed at: www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=39819.
In the final days of the 107th Congress, Congressional Democrats introduced two competing bills with a common goal: to reduce the number of abortions in this country.You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content