New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Fact and fiction on the abortion-reduction bill
 
Opinion: Fact and fiction on the abortion-reduction bill Print E-mail
By David Gushee, Joel Hunter and Ronald Sider   
Monday, September 14, 2009

(ABP) -- We are pro-life evangelical Christians with long records of ministry and scholarship in which we have stood up for the unborn and for a society in which every child is welcomed into life and provided the opportunity to flourish. But we also recognize the legal and cultural realities in our nation right now in relation to abortion law.

We believe it is appropriate for us as Christians to support practical strategies that can reduce the demand for abortion even as we continue to hope and work for broader legal and cultural changes. And we feel compelled by our faith in Christ to look for the best in other people, to seek common ground where we can, and to be open to the surprising winds of God's Spirit that sometimes blow us into common effort with surprising partners.

David Gushee

Policies that support pregnant women and families, encourage adoption, and decrease unintended pregnancy embody compassionate pro-life values, and if enacted will ensure that fewer abortions occur and more children grow up in loving, healthy homes. A bill recently introduced in Congress, the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act (H.R. 3312, referred to as the Ryan-DeLauro Bill) advances this common-ground vision. Not surprisingly, it has gained support from numerous pro-life leaders, including the three of us.

We believe that this national effort to find common ground on abortion-reduction strategies fits with our commitments and hopes. We don't expect everyone to agree with us on these strategies. But we do think it is legitimate to expect at least our fellow Christians to portray such efforts accurately. That is not too much to ask.

However, some commentators have made inaccurate claims about the Ryan-DeLauro bill, and it is essential to clarify the facts. A recent article from Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Convention’s in-house news agency, included several statements about the bill that do not reflect its content. Similar inaccuracies have been repeated in other conservative religious publications.

The BP article, among other things, cited claims by unnamed “major pro-life leaders” that the Ryan-DeLauro bill will expand federal funding for abortion.

Joel Hunter

This is false. As pro-life advocates know, the Hyde Amendment, which has been federal law for over 30 years, prohibits federal funding of abortion, except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Ryan-DeLauro bill does not repeal, revise or bypass the Hyde Amendment. In fact, the bill intentionally does not even address the issue of abortion funding. The bill does expand access to family-planning services for low-income women, but it does so by increasing funding for programs that in turn prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion -- namely, Title X and Medicaid. Under Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy, abortion "may not be claimed as a family-planning service" under any circumstances and the Department of Health and Human Services states that, “by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

The BP article also claims that the Ryan-DeLauro bill will broaden access to Plan B, the “morning-after pill.” As with abortion funding, this bill intentionally does not include any mandates one way or another with respect to Plan B. Under Medicaid, the decision to distribute or cover Plan B is left to states. Under Title X, the decision is left to individual clinics.

The BP story also alleges that the Ryan-DeLauro bill will result in more, not fewer, abortions. However, the bill contains a litany of policies that address key documented factors affecting the incidence of abortion -- both through prevention of unintended pregnancy and support for pregnant women. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which pro-life and pro-choice leaders alike cite as a credible source, half of all pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Thus, the many prevention policies in Ryan-DeLauro -- including sex education with an abstinence emphasis, increasing access to contraception for low-income women and enlisting parents in communicating with their teens about their values concerning healthy relationships -- are essential to decreasing unintended pregnancies and abortions in America.

Ronald Sider

In addition, three-fourths of women who obtain abortions say they cannot afford a child, and three-fourths say having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. The huge number of support policies for mothers in the Ryan-DeLauro bill -- such as assistance for pregnant and parenting students, expanded health care for pregnant women and children and increased child care for low-income families -- are also crucial for reducing abortions throughout our country.

Common-ground efforts to reduce abortion by addressing the circumstances that lead to it are consistent with the conviction that all life -- the unborn, pregnant women, infants and children -- is sacred. Honest dialogue about this innovative approach is imperative for those of us who aspire to protect life in concrete ways.

Plainly misrepresenting the content of the Ryan-DeLauro bill, and asserting in defiance of logic and evidence that it will increase rather than reduce abortion, does nothing to protect life. In fact, it does the opposite.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights. He also writes a regular column for Associated Baptist Press.

Joel Hunter is senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, based in suburban Orlando and a former president-elect of the Christian Coalition.

Ronald Sider is a professor director of the Sider Center on Ministry and Public Policy at Palmer (formerly Eastern Baptist) Theological Seminary and President of Evangelicals for Social Action.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (8)Add Comment
...
written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , September 14, 2009
David, Joel and Ron,
Thank you for writing this piece. I know your commitment to end abortion in America.

Our association runs 5 crisis pregnancy centers and I can attest that many women who come to our centers feel that they have to have an abortion because there is no way for them to provide for a baby. We're trying to help as many as we can by providing for them when their baby is born, but there are many more who need help.

I do believe there are some pro-choice people who are willing to work to reduce the need for abortions, even as they remain pro-choice.
Carl Nelson
...
written by sbcer?, September 14, 2009
Gentlemen

I do not question your commitment to life and the sincerity of your efforts to end this practice that is the greatest stain upon humanity, but I feel you are blinded by your good intentions and find your naivete concerning the radical left unnerving. To insist that Federal funds are not used to support infanticide as a viable family planning method (not to mention that these funds are in fact used to perform these "surgeries") reveals the blind spot that exists in your argument, rhetoric and admirable intentions.

On January 23, 2009, when our president rescinded the Mexico City Policy, once again the Federal Government of the United States of America, on behalf of the American people and using American tax dollars, began indirectly funding abortions around the world. Not to mention the $349.6 million in federal grants and contracts awarded to that insidious organization Planned Parenthood in FY 2008. Such evidence concerning the questionable moral center of the present administration and most liberal politicians cannot go ignored. I know it is fashionable in the political center, where dialogue and ecumenicism reign, to seek common ground and to reach across divisions but such dialogue has not worked in the last 36 years. Why would it work now? Have you gentlemen Ascertained such previously unknown/unrevelaed insight/gnosis that you will now led the charge to eradicate abortion through dialogue and working together "to reduce unintended pregnancies?"

Certainly man's total depravity is most evidenced by this most heinous "right" many have claimed on behalf of women and their health. Gentlemen, common ground cannot be found with individuals who find no value in human life. Focus your efforts on immediately ending this despicable practice. Do not waste your time, breath, resources or considerable intellect on dialogue and bridge building. Instead you and we should pray. Pray God's mercy upon those murdered before they see the light of day. Pray for those men and women who have so much blood on their hands. Pray for our country and for Christ's soon coming.
Yesssssssss!!
written by bclaytor, September 15, 2009
I cannot add a thing to sbcer's comments other than a loud AMEN!! The approach outlined by the above 3 men, while very intentioned, has not worked for millions who have died at the hands of abortionists. Through Planned Parenthood, abortion is a grizzly business funded almost entirely by our tax dollars.
Well intentioned, but not well considered
written by BillSamuel, September 15, 2009
I agree that the authors are well intentioned. But I don't think they have thought this through thoroughly. To the best of my knowledge, not a single pro-life group supports the Ryan-DeLauro bill. Might there be a good reason for that.

One of the reasons is that most of the funding provided by the bill is likely to go to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and a group whose "educational" efforts go against everything the three authors of this article stand for. Yes, Planned Parenthood does other things than abortions, but it is all done through a world view that is very friendly to abortion and not consistent with Gospel truth.

I would also point out that both principal authors of the bill have 0% pro-life voting records (in earlier years, Ryan had a pro-life record but in recent years he has consistently opposed the pro-life position) and high marks from "pro-choice" groups. So what we have is common ground among supporters of abortion, not between the pro-life and pro-choice movements.

What Ryan-DeLauro serves as is the pro-choice alternative to the Pregnant Women Support Act initiated by Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), a group which is committed to responsible common ground efforts. The practical effect of pushing Ryan-DeLauro seems to me to undermine the PWSA, which has a variety of measures to help make life seem like a viable choice to poor and disadvantaged pregnant women without filling the coffers of Planned Parenthood.

I think these gentlemen are championing the wrong bill. The reason may be that the pro-choice movement has the resources to reach out and try to enlist people like them, while DFLA has very few resources.
Excellent commentary from 3 respected evangelicals
written by Common Loon, September 15, 2009
Conservative culture warriors can continue their all-or-nothing strategy to overturn Roe, but it just ain't going to happen any time soon. I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans controlled congress for over a decade and it didn't even come close to happening, even with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

If we are truly concerned about the tragic reality of abortion, we should be willing to study the contributing factors and reduce the practice as much as we can, little by little. If we are truly concerned with saving the lives of pre-born children and not just scoring political points for the GOP, we should take a good look at the Ryan-DeLauro bill and other realistic ways to reduce unintended pregnancy.

There will always be those who say, "If Roe is not overturned, we'd rather have nothing." Be careful what you wish for. You may end up getting nothing. Actually, if overturning Roe is your only goal, it's already been 36 years of getting nothing!
umm...no
written by robber, September 16, 2009
This country, for decades, has tried to legislate morality. It doesn't work. In fact it always makes things worse. To suggest that government has the ability to repair the moral fabric of our society is ridiculous. Government can, by its very nature, only make things worse; because it is led by human beings. That's why we need God. If government really wanted to make things better, it would try to restore the Christendom that it has helped destroy over the last four decades. Again, these writers, as I have seen before with at least one of them, is trying to mix politics and Christianity and that simply is impossible.
...
written by Common Loon, September 16, 2009
Robber,

Are laws that forbid child abuse, drug trafficking and armed robbery examples of "legislating morality"?

Is it immoral to sexually assault someone or steal their identity? Should we not support laws that deal with these immoral behaviors?

Are laws that require longer waiting periods or parental consent before an abortion examples of "legislating morality"?

If laws have no effect on people's behavior, why do we have laws against certain things (theft, assault, vandalism etc)?
to loon
written by robber, September 16, 2009
The point of my statements has not changed, and nothing you have asked me changes any of it. My point is we need more God, not more laws. God changes hearts, not laws.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.