Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act hubbub

I was listening to the local Christian radio station when I heard an announcement about the introduction of a bill called the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents act. The announcement pointed me to this site, where I found a nearly word-for-word transcript of the radio broadcast. 

“Democrats in the U.S. House have introduced a bill purportedly aimed at reducing abortions, but which would, in fact, increase funding of sex education without a major abstinence component.

You can find the bill here.

Well yes, because comprehensive sex education works to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. I’ve never heard of a sex-education program that did not have a major abstinence component. All of them (and I’ve read the details of about 30 or so sex-education programs) promote abstinence as the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy. In Title I, the bill states explicitly that grants will give preference to those that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and provide information about contraceptives but are only available to programs that agree to provide age-appropriate, factually and medically accurate and complete, science-based education. Pardon my sarcasm, but how dare those evil democrats try to propose funding for sex education programs based on *gasp* evidence.

Also, this bill was introduced in 2006, so while reporters seem to imply this bill is new and sudden, it’s not as if it was produced last week.

“The bill, the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, also calls for increased access to contraceptives and expanded Medicaid family-planning coverage.

It seems fairly obvious that one would want to increase access to contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies. If you don’t have an unwanted pregnancy, you have a 0% chance of deciding to have an abortion.

"It's about death, and it's about spreading Planned Parenthood's philosophy and getting millions of dollars into their coffers," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League.

I fail to see why this bill is all about death, but let’s look through it and see what the bill actually intends to do:

1.    Gives preference to pregnancy prevention programs that are science-based.

2.    Reauthorizes after school learning programs. (to keep those kiddies busy with activities other than bonking)

3.    Gives grants to states that submit a plan to reduce teen pregnancy rates and actually accomplish reducing teen pregnancy rates.

4.    gives a grant to establish a national center to enlist parents in preventing teen pregnancy.

5.    Reverses the decision of the Deficit Reduction Act, which allowed states to avoid Medicaid coverage for family planning services.

6.    Expands family planning services for low-income women to include prenatal, labor, delivery and postpartum care by increasing income ceilings for funding.

7.    Authorizes increased funding to Title X of the “Prevention First Act”.

8.    Authorizes grants which require accurate and complete contraceptive information for teen and new mothers being visited by a nurse home visit program.

9.    If a woman seeks an abortion, the act requires that she receive informed consent, including nonjudgemental and science-based information about adoption or carrying her pregnancy to term.

10.    Provides states with the option to cover pregnant women under Medicaid.

11.    Close gaps in coverage of pregnant women by not allowing insurance companies to count pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.

12.    Grants for ultrasound equipment to offer pregnant women an ultrasound.

13.    provides for treatment and an awareness campaign of women who are pregnant and victims of domestic abuse.

14.    Provides grants to research pregnant students who decide to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students.

15.    requires that federally-funded group homes for pregnant women provide adoption and parenting skills counseling (on request).

16.    Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable.

17.     Increases support for new parents by providing support through food stamps and nurse home visits.

Saying that this bill is “all about death” is sort of like saying the pro-life movement is “all about owning women”. Your credibility is seriously diminished when you demonize your opponent like this. I would really like to see pro-life advotes use stronger arguments in support of their position.

“Sedlak described the bill as one that helps fund the wish list Planned Parenthood gave the Obama administration in its earliest days.

"And that wish list, if you added everything up, comes out to $4.6 billion going into Planned Parenthood and their friends," he said.

Ziztur said, "if you add up all the grants given out in the Faith-Based initiative, it comes out to $65 Billion. Isn’t the faith-based initiative all about spreading religious philosophy and getting billions of dollars into their coffers?" You could make this argument about any organization that receives any government funding. If the argument can be applied to all, it loses any validity.

"Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, noted the House Energy and Commerce Committee has rejected Title V abstinence-education funds from going to states and replaced it with a $50 million program for teen pregnancy prevention.

Yes, that’s because the abstinence education funds could only go to programs which, among other things, barred teachers from discussing contraception and required them to say that sex within marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity. The title was rejected because the program was not proven to be effective.

"And that ," she noted, "is just code for more contraceptive education, explicit sexual education in the schools across the country."

It’s not a “code”. We want sex education that has evidence of providing reduced pregnancy rates and increased contraceptive use without increasing sex among teens. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to be effective at this. Saying that it is a code implies some sort of deceit. Once again - demonizing your opponent only make you lose credibility.

Sedlak doesn't buy the claim that the bill has support from some pro-lifers. 

"There is no major pro-life organization in this country that would support this kind of a bill," he said, adding that the bill's mention of adoption promotion is simply the other side "throwing us a bone."

“Support from some pro-lifers” is not equivalent to “support by a major pro-life organization”.  The bill is also known as the Ryan/DeLauro bill, named for its sponsors by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) a nd Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Ryan used to be on the national advisory board of Democrats for Life of America, a pro-life organization. He is a strong pro-life advocate and was booted from his position on the board after sponsoring the bill. Apparently the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good organization doesn’t count as a pro-life organization because they support funding a common ground.