The ’95-10′ initiative makes its move

December 2, 2005

There’s a subtle but significant debate among Dem leaders about how best to deal with abortion rights as a political issue. With this in mind, the “95-10” initiative should spark a pretty interesting discussion.

Democrats in Congress are preparing a bill they say will reduce U.S. abortions by 95 percent over 10 years by preventing “unwanted pregnancies” and providing “social support” for pregnant women.

Supporters hope to soften their party’s abortion-on-demand image and attract evangelical Christian and pro-life Catholic voters who have been voting Republican in recent years.

“I would worry if I were the Republican leadership, because we are going to provide the true, long-term solution to reducing the number of abortions,” said Rep. Tim Ryan, a pro-life Democrat from Ohio.

How one views this proposal depends entirely on one’s willingness to compromise on abortion rights. Pro-choice liberals will find a lot to like — the 95-10 plan expands women’s health care programs, emphasizes contraception equity in health care plans, and makes adoption tax credits permanent. Better yet, it would demand full funding for the federal WIC program.

Then, there’s the flip side. The “95-10” initiative also bans late-term abortions and requires parental-notification laws. That might be a little more problematic.

To be sure, the idea of focusing on prevention isn’t new, especially for congressional Dems. Harry Reid and 22 Dem senators put their collective weight behind the Prevention First Act (S. 20), which aims to reduce the number of abortions by focusing on a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. NARAL offered enthusiastic support for the idea, but the far-right rejected the plan out of hand, saying they’d support reducing unwanted pregnancies, so long as it doesn’t include contraceptives, family-planning programs, or comprehensive education on sexual health.

But 95-10 takes the “compromise” approach to a far different level.

Dems who oppose abortion rights seem to think this is the solution they’ve been waiting for. Back in April, Democrats For Life of America joined Dem Reps. Tim Ryan, Bart Stupak, and Lincoln Davis at a national press conference at the Democratic National Committee to unveil the idea. Since then, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has signed on as a supporter, as has Reps. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.). Former congressman and 9-11 Commission member Tim Roemer has not only endorsed the policy, but is going to help lobby for it.

Recently, the support has expanded, and even includes some pro-choice Dems.

Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, a pro-choice Democrat, said he is ready to climb aboard.

“We as Democrats have made it very clear that we do have a big tent and that people who are very pro-choice are welcome and those who are pro-life are welcome,” he said. “I have never spoken with single Democrat who is pro-abortion — they are pro-choice.” […]

A spokesman for Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, said she agrees with Mr. Ryan that “the number of abortions can and should be reduced.”

Sen. Mark Pryor, Arkansas Democrat, will support a bill that “finds ways to reduce abortion, but he hasn’t seen the [Ryan] legislation yet,” a spokesman said.

Ryan, the chief sponsor of the bill, said the legislation will be shown to Democrats in both houses after the Senate returns Dec. 12 from the Thanksgiving recess. Stay tuned.

I always catch crap from the very pro-choice folks in the party for saying Demos should adopt positions such as this. I sometimes go further and say we should really look at the actual time period most non-health related abortions occur within, and agree to roll back the “second trimester” standard accordingly–i.e. if the vast majority of “choice” abortions occur before the 18th or 20th week of pregnancy, then maybe we should take a position to roll-back the second trimester to say 18 or 20 weeks. I have never met a woman who has said they would abort after carrying a child past the 4th month of pregnancy baring serious health issues for the mother or child, exc eptions which should always be supported (but I am always reminded of those relatively rare instances where a woman “did not know she was pregnant” until the 20th week or so, which gives me pause but also requires me to consider personal responsibility isses as well). Regardless of the above, I support any initiative that increases education, awareness, birth control usage, abstinence, reduces unwanted pregnancies, reduces abortions and which would help reduce this issue on the political stage.

  • My guess is that this will be yet another blown opportunity for the Democratic Party. The Party needs to quit trying to pander to eveyone in the focus group. By the same token it needs to tell the ideological purists that they don’t own our political apparatus, that we refuse to let ourselves become a one-issue party.

    We should be the party of the future, the party of science and technology, the party which realizes that fair markets don’t spring out of the will of the Intelligent Designer but are products of human intelligence and regulation, the party which uses public resources to better people’s lives.

    I have no objection to limiting (not outlawing) abortions once viability is achieved (I don’t like legalisms like “late term”). I also don’t mind parental notification provided there are protections built in for situations where this would be inappropriate (e.g., parental rape) – why should you need parental permission for minor surgery or medication of a minor while waiving it for her having an abortion?

    “… they’d support reducing unwanted pregnancies, so long as it doesn’t include contraceptives, family-planning programs, or comprehensive education on sexual health.” Like Parson Malthus and other preachers, the far-right tend to be lousy observers of actual human behavior. Given the empirical evidence, you can’t obtain reduction in unwanted pregnancies without accessible, family-planning or sex education. You might wish water to run up hill, you might pray that water run up hill … it isn’t going to happen. You want water up there, you gotta carry it up or invent and pay for and build a pump. You don’t like the pregnancy consequence of teenage sexuality (which you promote with nearly every product you try to sell), quit preaching and legislating and do something about it.

  • Well said, Ed.

    The slant I want to add… is that the “95-10” initiative will not go anywhere without a substantial investment in medical care (and medical facillities) for poor people. And considering that abortion is a medical procedure, doesn’t it make sense that providing good quality family planning should be done in the context of a subsidized clinic?

  • If this doesn’t turn into Democrats saying “See? We’re opposed to abortion, too,” this might be a winner. It would be nice to have a provision that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, regardless of their take on the “morality” of birth control.

  • I’m very strongly pro-choice. For years I’ve been saying that the pro-choice movment’s mantra should be abortion: safe, legal and rare. If the Dems actually get this, use it to show that all the Repubs want to do is tell people “don’t do it” in regards to sex, more power to them.

    I’m also all for changing the subject from abortion to contraception and reproductive health care, however, they really don’t need to ban 3rd trimester abortions or support parental consent laws as part of this package. They just shouldn’t be part of the discussion– if they do all they can to prevent and educate then they’ll eventually be non-issues. They’re Republican issues, used by anti-choice, anti-sex ed people to chip away at the right to legal abortion. Dems should leave them alone.

  • This is exactly what the Democrats do to pry the pro-life mantle from the hypocritical hands of the Republicans.

    One question: where in the initiative does it ban late term abortions? I don’t see this anywhere.

  • From a practical standpoint, the proposal has a lot to recommend it (though the devil will be in the details.) From a political standpoint, “supporters hope to soften their party’s abortion-on-demand image” is ludicrous. That image is a result of constant demonization from the Right of anyone who doesn’t support outlawing abortion as “supporting abortion on demand until the last minute of pregnancy.” This is another one of those political fights that policy isn’t going to get us out of. It’s the sort of thing I’d expect from Roemer, who has a long history of parroting Republican talking points about the Democrats (even blatantly false ones, like the Casey-at-the-convention tale), and then declaring that all the Democrats’ problems are because they won’t change in response to these talking points.

    Furthermore, any sane Democrat should only support a “compromise” proposal like this if it comes with a pledge to pull it and fight like hell if the Republicans gut it of everything that’s actually positive and use the half of the “compromise” they like as a club to beat pro-choice Dems, which they will if it gets anywhere at all.

  • The NRA fights even the most sensible of gun restrictions on the “slippery slope” theory; pro-choice groups fight even the most sensible of abortion restrictions on the same grounds. I want to say “why do we have to compromise?”, but we do, if we ever want to get anywhere.

    That being said, third trimester abortions don’t happen. They are the anti-choice version of the “War on Christmas”. When I was in medical school, I was present during two dilation and extraction abortions (aka “partial birth”). One 19 week fetus was severely deformed and the other 17 week fetus had a fatal genetic disease. Amniocentesis is now done somewhat earlier in pregnancy so there is adequate time to obtain the results, make a decision, and arrange the abortion before 20 weeks.

    Giving up access to post-viable abortion (which is done only for the rarest of reasons) as long as there is a health of the mother/fetus exemption is really not giving anything up. Women don’t have late term abortions for reasons of convenience, so there is really no loss from prohibiting something that doesn’t happen.

    I’d be willing to swap parental notification — with a federal standard for easy access to exemption — in the under 16s for improved sex education, access to both regular and emergency contraception, fully funded WIC and universal single payer (the camel’s nose inside the tent) pre-natal care.

    I had a patient recently who needed her second abortion at 19. Her parents took her birth control pills away from her twice to keep her from having sex. Because she has a poorly controlled seizure disorder, she takes three teratogenic drugs and is at high risk for a very deformed baby. Unfortunately, that is the level of stupidity that we fight against.

    I agree with Redshift about fighting.

  • I guess this a “What’s The Matter With Kansas” issue. Economic conservatives will always vote GOP. The question is how to pry economically liberal, social conservatives away from the Republicans. The Democrats have already moved right on gun control, moving right on abortion is the next step.

    I suppose its the smart play. Since wealth distribution is like a pyramid, hyere are far more poor social conservatives voting against their economic interests for the pro-life issue than there are wealthy social liberals voting against their own for the pro-choice position. Moving right on economic issues (the stereotypical DLC stance) may pick up more wealthy liberals, but it doesn’t get you many more “Kansas” votes in swing states. Indeed, it may costs votes because it blurs the economic policy differences between the parties, making it easier to vote solely on social issues.

  • I don’t think any sane person is pro-abortion. It’s a nasty, invasive procedure. How can anyone be FOR it? That’s probably why we call ourselves “pro-choice” anyway.

    Still I think the “pro-life” people are full of shit. I don’t even think they are “anti-abortion”. What they are, really, is anti-sex.

    I think I’ve said this before, but if you scratch a “pro-life” person you will find someone who believes that “life” begins not even at conception, but at *INTENTION*. That’s right, that twinkle in your eye is a BABY, dammit! IIRC, this was the official Catholic Church position for some time, and may still be. That’s why they prohibit birth control, oral sex, and even masturbation! Every sperm, as the song goes, is sacred. And that’s just a load of lunatic horseshit that nobody should regard as a serious or tenable political position. Think about “pro-life” people and realise that they are anti-masturbation, and there is no way to take them seriously.

    The rest of us (who have no problem with masturbation, oral sex, or birth control) are anti-abortion, and we should be, and admit it, and be proud of it. We should, and can, end abortion in our lifetimes. It should be a goal. And here is how: distribute birth control pills and condoms at high schools, make them easily available to any post-puberty teen, and then give them detailed sex education including how to perform oral sex to completion, expertly– and also provide girls and young women with economic opportunity and academic education so they have other hopes and ambitions in life other than just being mothers. Finally, fast track the “morning after” pill for FDA approval. Then there will be near-zero abortions. And only slightly greater-than-zero teenage pregnancies too. We can end abortion. Want to end abortion? Great, I’m with you. Do these things.

    But that’s when the wingnuts lose it. “SEX???!! TEENAGERS!??! AIIIEE!” Get over it. Teenagers have sex. They can’t stop it, and you can’t stop them either. Do you even remember when you were a teenager? Or was it so unpleasant that you blocked out the memory? Please, people, *try* to remember.

    There are two cases of “parent amnesia” which are dangerous. Case One is when you get so nostaligic and googly-eyed over how “cute” babies are that you develop amnesia for the hellish nightmare your child was when he or she was a baby– this causes you do do stupid things like have another one :-). Case Two is when your old-fart sex drive has been reduced to such a low level that you have developed amnesia for the hellish torment that was being a constantly, desperately, achingly-aroused teenager. I think both cases of “parent amnesia” are more likely amongst older parents, and in our generation people have kids later and later (mine was born when I was 35, and I have friends popping out their first one at age 40). At our advanced ages, do we even remember random, painfully-hard erections in class? Having orgasms whilst riding a bicycle, leaning against a washing machine, or laying in the bathtub with the water running? Nocturnal emissions? How about the shower massage? Sneaking off to the bathroom at school to jerk off? When the hormones kick in at puberty time, kids will become sex obsessed. It is a genetic program. You are rutting. And it’s so difficult and emotionally (sometimes physically) painful and *embarassing* that you just forget all about it as soon as you can. I think the word Freud used was “repressed”. And thi is a dangerous thing, because it causes us to do stupid things like get outraged at the idea of teenagers having sex. We have to get over this first, before we can even address the problem in any meaningful way.

    If you’re serious about ending abortions, then provide free, open, anonymous access to birth control, sex education, and morning after pills for teenagers. Abortion will quickly become as obsolete as shock treatment or the application of leeches.

  • No, no, no. This is exactly the kind of dive-for-the-center compromise that will end up selling out women’s reproductive rights years down the line. Learn from the right wing — they never compromise. They wedge. They don’t put up bills like this that concede moral ground in an attempt to appease the opposition. They choose one dramatic, sharply defined issue and try to shape public opinion their way.

    No good can come of this bill. If it is enacted and in 10 years abortion rates don’t fall by 95%, the right wingers will say “well, we tried the liberal way and it failed” and we would have no comebacks. Even if by some miracle the target is achieved, the bill is basically one big tacit agreement that abortion is morally wrong. I have it hard to believe that the rabid wingers would not push forward on this advantage.

  • I agree with #11… the pro-lifers are really anti sex, not just anti-abortion… how anyone can think a few cells are allowed more of a choice over that of the woman that is carrying those cells is beyond me anyway. They are (usually) religious zealots who are anti-sex and think sex is bad. #11 is right on.. people have sex.. teenagers have sex… what’s need is more, better education of the consequences of sex in the schools. Plus parents not being afraid to talk to their kids about sex… education, not forced legal action help.

    • Comments are closed.