Tony,

And I'd add that Pro-life Republicans (and pro-life Democrats) must also take hard stances against preemptive war, torture, and unlawful incarceration.

Posted by: Quetzal | July 9, 2008 10:52 AM

Tony,

As I said before - 95% reduction in abortion is not enough. It neds to be 100% no abortions. How many murders will be excepted by the people of America to be exceptable? Your proposal is nothing more than allowing 5 murders out of 100. The way to pay for it is nothing short of socialism, but you already know that. Remeber - "the least of these" is in red letters.

Posted by: c.from vineyard columbus | July 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Thank you, Tony, for this post. It is wonderful that you are taking an active role in helping the Democratic Party to make reducing abortions a plank this year, despite the unwillingness of many party activists to touch the issue.

One small note: Republicans had control of the White House and Congress with a conservative Supreme Court for four years (2002-2006), not two.

Posted by: I and I | July 9, 2008 11:13 AM

These are all "solutions" which no self-respecting conservative can consent to. The price is too high, I'm afraid.

Ben -- You are willing to put a price on human life? Or is it really just political and cultural power conservatives crave (under the guise of "pro-life")?

But that reminds me of something. I've been reading the book "The Five Love Languages," and the author says that sexual activity among teens is directly connected to an inability for their parents to communicate love to them properly in a way that they understand. Economic instability in the family is a major factor in that, so it thus follows that if families were strengthened the pregnancy rate would drop precipitously.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 11:29 AM

"How many murders will be excepted by the people of America to be exceptable?"

It seems that as long as the violence and victims are in black communities, the number of murders is not important to most conservative (white) evangelicals. Take note of the school shootings of the mid 90s. Until they started taking place in white schools, most of the country ignored them. Shootings had been taking place in urban, predominantly minority schools for the past quarter century, but you would never know it from the national news media or from the preaching of most conservative churches. Only when white kids started dying did folks take notice.

So please, spare me the false hubris about murders being acceptable. The all or nothing concept towards the abortion issue does nothing to reduce the number of children dying. Of course, the GOP doesn't really want to save the lives of the unborn, they just want to win elections.

It's nice to see some folks actually working towards saving a few lives for once. Maybe, if you were a real Christian, you would celebrate their efforts instead of lambast them.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 11:32 AM

Mr. Campolo

Nice start and I will support where I can. But you argument is not with me as a conservative pro-life person.

When (depending which website you go to) about 50% of the Dems will die on the abortion hill all the way to 3rd tri terminations, not sure you will be able to do the 95-10. When over 70% of the abortions are for sex selection or terminating a downs syndrome or other 'defected' fetus, it doesn't look good.

My wife and I have three children - I was hoping for two but what can I say - one more by the goalie. We had the the 'test' done to check for downs and for other reasons. The person helping us with the test told us that if it is 'downs syndrome' that we had options. I told her that no we did not. Even if the fetus was downs we were going to take it to term and love it because it was a child that God gave us. She truly was PO'd because were would bring such a person into the world. I told her that to be forwarned is to be forarmed and that it would just allow us the time to get things ready in the house to give a downs child a chance to achieve their potential.

We had a beautiul little girl who keeps us on our toes at age 13. As a pro-life conservative that is tired of the abortion war but if I keep silent we will be able to terminate babies after they are born someday. I have been willing to give up the 1st tri if those who are pro-abortion would give up the last tri. Saddly that is not going to happen because the majority who support abortion on demand will never give in so why should I.

Good luck with you venture in the Dem Party but I believe your 'plank' will be left on the dock when the boat sails. (personally - from what I have read of Obama while he worked in IL - I would not count on his support either - I hope he changes his mind)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 11:46 AM

Ben Wheaton: "Smoke and mirrors, all of it. These are all 'solutions' which no self-respecting conservative can consent to. The price is too high, I'm afraid."

Ben, what price is acceptable to you?

Note I say to "you," because I am unaware of evidence that you speak for all "self-respecting conservatives." If said evidence exists, please enlighten us.

Posted by: carl copas | July 9, 2008 12:10 PM

"It's really ironic how a move within the Democratic party to loosen its unwavering stand on "abortion right" can be treated with such hostility by some pro-lifers, considering that they for so long have complained that the Democrats refuse to accept fellow Democrats who do not adhere to their rigid stand."

Their stand remains unchanged. Are we supposed to applaud a mere change in rhetoric?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 12:24 PM

"A recent study indicated that as many as 200,000 abortions could be prevented each year if the government includes contraception for low-income women on Medicaid. Also if provisions were made for medical coverage for pregnant women who cannot afford doctors and hospital care, and daycare assistance provided for mothers who are gainfully employed to support themselves and their children, the number of abortions per year could be cut even more dramatically. Too many low-income women, especially those who might become single mothers, cannot afford what better-off women take for granted."

And to this conservatives like Ben say, "let em' die" because it might cost him some money. Of course he supports the 100% solution...it doesn't cost him a penny nor does it cost him any real sweat.

What this all boils down to is the fact that conservative pro-lifers, by and large, are less concerned with saving the life of children than they are with obtaining and maintaining power in government. They are quite content to allow 200,000 plus children die each year as long as it results in Republicans getting elected to office.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 12:28 PM

"As a pro-life conservative that is tired of the abortion war but if I keep silent we will be able to terminate babies after they are born someday. I have been willing to give up the 1st tri if those who are pro-abortion would give up the last tri. Saddly that is not going to happen because the majority who support abortion on demand will never give in so why should I."

What does funding condoms, childcare, and health care for women in poverty have to do with conceding on first, second or third trimester abortions? Numerous studies show that if more funding is granted to provide these services the number of abortions in this nation will drop...rather dramatically.

How does funding these services compromise your values regarding abortion?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Their stand remains unchanged. Are we supposed to applaud a mere change in rhetoric?

You miss the point. The idea is to reduce abortions, not simply change rhetoric (and rhetoric hasn't done anything but continue the war anyway). Even the "pro-choice" side will agree with that and might even support it.

Here's the question: Given that at this point you cannot have both, would you rather take serious steps to end abortion or simply win the rhetorical war? As a dedicated "pro-lifer," I'll take the first any day.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 12:34 PM

Tony Campolo - you continue to help shape the face of our political system with your open minded views towards tough, tough issues like abortion. I pray that Senator Obama will continue to support efforts about abortion reduction in this country. I believe that this is the first step to ending abortion.

I am definitely pro-life, yet have learned that abortion will not end unless we address the reasons that women seek abortions. It is not enough that Christians stand around and say that they are pro-life and only vote pro-life. It is not enough that we stand on the street corners with signs saying abortion is murder.

We MUST stand up and take active steps to help these women, the majority of whom live in poverty, so they will not choose abortion over life.

While I believe that this is really the primary responsibility of the church and para-church faith-based non-profit organizations, it will also take government support to help make this happen. The problem of poverty is too widespread and has permeated our society. It is time for Christians to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk!

Posted by: Debbie | July 9, 2008 12:37 PM

RJohnson -- I think you mean 4,000 abortions pe day.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 12:46 PM

"Oh, please. Simply because we don't take Tony's argument for a liberal solution to the abortion at face value does not mean we cannot be a Christian."

That's not what I said. I said that somebody who rejects a potentially workable solution simply by saying that it costs too much is not offering a Christian argument, and I stand by that statement.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 9, 2008 12:49 PM

I wonder what the 5 out of 100 babies that will be aborted feel about reducting the abortion rate?

Posted by: cp | July 9, 2008 12:53 PM

My question to Tony Campolo (and any one else who shares his policy solutions) is: Why should we be trying to reduce the abortion rate? I understand why we want to reduce poverty rates and increase education about contraception, by what is it about abortion that makes its reduction the ultimate goal?

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 12:59 PM

N.M. Rod: "Christians, you have been gamed."

Eloquently put.

Mod'lad: "Kind like a Dr perscribing a pill for your heart but giving you a low dosage so that you have to keep coming in for further tests and pay for his new car."

I finally figured it out: you're visiting here from Dogpatch in Htrae. There's no other logical explanation to make sense of the data. I can now rest easy.

Posted by: carl copas | July 9, 2008 1:08 PM

Tony writes that "Pro-life Republicans must join pro-life Democrats and address the economic problems that are driving hundreds of thousands of young women to think that abortion is their only option..." (emphasis mine)

Usually when someone makes a statement like this they're offering some sort of compromise between two opposing policy solutions. But what are Tony and other pro-life Democrats offering to pro-life Republicans?

In general, pro-life Republicans would like to reduce the abortion rate through criminalization. Pro-life Democrats want to reduce the abortion rate through anti-poverty and health care initiatives. If Tony wants to truly compromise on this issue and reduce the abortion rate, why not offer to join pro-life Republicans in criminalizing abortion after a certain point in pregnancy as long as pro-life Republicans sign on with his anti-poverty initiatives? That is true compromise. Instead Tony demands that pro-life Republicans join him without offering them anything other than the hopes that abortion will be greatly reduced through his measures.

This leads me to think that the reason Tony and other pro-life Democrats aren’t willing to compromise is that they’re not willing to stand up to the pro-choice groups in their party. They’d rather first compromise with abortion on demand supporters than other pro-lifers.

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 1:32 PM

What laws criminalizing or overturning abortion have the Republicans passed, with they had their majority-proof plurality of legislators and with their conservative-packed Supreme Court, since the 1994 Gingrich revolution?

Where are the Executive Orders from the President outlawing abortion? He's made them without excuse for anything else, the Constitution be damned.

What a load of hypocrisy. It's just code-words for a pursuit of power by any means necessary and the truth be damned.

Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 1:40 PM

It seems to me that all of us who are pro life should think about what NM Rod just wrote.

Yes 95% leaves 5%.
And no, I cannot justify that.
What I can do is rejoice in the 95% and then work harder for the 5.

It seems a better choice than just bickering while the 100% die.

To continue to do the same things without getting the results we want is what again?
Compromise does not have to equal concession.

Posted by: wayne | July 9, 2008 1:53 PM

I don't believe that economic woes are the root cause of why women have abortions. If they were, then we would have no single women bringing multiple children into poverty-level homes-- they would just all have abortions. And the majority of women who do have abortions (white middle class, educated women in their early twenties)would be having babies instead of abortions.
This argument is just a back-door to more programs channeling more money & increasing entitlements so that democrats can get more voters.
Abortion is a cultural issue. Some women no matter how poor are always going to have more children, and other women with more financial options will have abortions because they don't want a kid for any number of various social and/or cultural reasons.

Posted by: historychick | July 9, 2008 2:13 PM

"When over 70% of the abortions are for sex selection or terminating a downs syndrome or other 'defected' fetus, it doesn't look good."

This is true only if you factor in China, with its one-child law and strong cultural preference for males. In this country, the vast majority of abortions are "chosen" by women who are poor, young and single.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 9, 2008 2:29 PM

"In this country, the vast majority of abortions are "chosen" by women who are poor, young and single."

Taking the individual attributes, this is somewhat true. All women seeking abortions are relatively young for a rather obvious reason. 80% are unmarried (though not necessarily single) and about half make less than $30,000 per year. Of course, younger women tend to make less, again for obvious reasons.

"How much would you be willing to increase your tax bill to save 200,000 babies each year, Kevin? 1%? 2%

What are 200,000 babies lives worth to you?"

I would be willing to increase my tax bill to save 200,000 babies. I disagree that Tony's plan will do so. I don't believe that economic redistribution alleviates poverty.

Would Tony accept a bill that partners major restrictions on abortion with a plan to aid single mothers? How much is his partisan affiliation worth to him?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 2:41 PM

Here's another thought: Not too long ago, Republican-authored state bills limiting abortion were very often tied up in omnibus bills that also limited sex education and access to birth control. What I saw it as was an effort to legislate morality, i.e., the ONLY way to behave is not to have sex and that will eliminate the need for abortions. Then they could eventually criminalize abortions for those immoral, sex-having, low life women and throw 'em all in jail. End of problem. Unfortunately, it's NOT very realistic. What IS it with conservatives and sex education anyway?

Posted by: JEM | July 9, 2008 2:49 PM

I don't believe that economic woes are the root cause of why women have abortions. If they were, then we would have no single women bringing multiple children into poverty-level homes -- they would just all have abortions.

That's true, actually -- the average "welfare" mom has two children or fewer because she generally doesn't have the time or energy to chase men. Part of the problem, however, is economics, with the pool of "eligible men" in the hood who can support a family by legitimate means are virtually non-existent, so the women/girls often feel forced to "settle." Keep in mind (and I didn't realize this until a couple of years ago) that most of the girls who get pregnant do so by boys or "men" (I used "men" pejoratively here) who are on the average five years older; because of the fractured nature of life in the 'hood the relationships between men and women cannot but be dysfunctional.

If what you say is true - that most pro-life Republicans wouldn't want to compromise when there's an actual compromise on the table - what makes Tony think they'd take him up on his proposal when he doesn't offer them any compromise?

You missed what I said -- for GOP conservatives and "culture warriors" it's their way or no way. To justify the "war effort" (and thus the $$$ flowing in) they have to maintain a discernible enemy. If abortion really were being dealt with properly it would take the issue off the table.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, during the 2006 general election campaign Focus on the Family convened a "Stand for the Family" rally in my city, basically as a shill for endangered Sen. Rick Santorum. That was especially ironic since his opponent Bob Casey Jr., certainly no ideological conservative (as was his late namesake dad), nevertheless is known for his anti-abortion stance.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 2:53 PM

Great post! Your efforts are more than welcome, Tony notwithstanding the self-righteous naysayers.

Posted by: JamesM | July 9, 2008 3:15 PM

"Just about any female can go to a Planned Parenthood clinic and get 'the pill' so that she will not get pregnant. If you look at the dosage of the perscription in the majority of the cases - it is what OBGYN's give to a pre-menopausal women to assist her. The dosage will do little to prevent her from getting pregnant. This was in the PBS special and you can ask most drug reps that sell to PP clinics. Higher failure rate means repeat business. Kind like a Dr perscribing a pill for your heart but giving you a low dosage so that you have to keep coming in for further tests and pay for his new car. But it seems to be OK for PP to do it."

Sorry Moderatelad, but you are wrong.

www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as-20031125p693-pill.php

yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/birth-control-whats-difference-between-high-lowdosage-birth-.html

Maybe you should get your "facts" right before you go off blabbing and showing your ignorance of the situation. For that matter, maybe you should quit vomiting up the same clabber that has been passing for critical thought in conservative circles.

You see, you are confusing low dosage pills with very-low dosage pills.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n6_v58/ai_21251948

But then, why let facts get in the way of your preconceived notions? After all, it might cost you an extra $2 on your tax bill, and we can't have that, can we?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 3:35 PM

Oh goody, Tony Campolo has discovered the old play of using the life issue to leverage support for a minimum wage increase and expanding medicaid coverage.

I got a sneaking suspicion you guys would support all that even if it didn't do a thing to abortion rates.

But that's okay, I have my own plan to lower the abortion rate:

1. Reduce the minimum wage so that unskilled workers -- both men and women -- can at least find jobs. (I realize that's counterintuitive, but a crappy job is better than no job, if only because one can build a work history that one can use to land better employment.)

2. Charterize and voucherize education so that all Americans will have a chance to have a decent education (improving their earning potential)

Hey, what do you know, those are the kinds of things I've supported before too. Amazing how that works.

Wolverine

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 3:37 PM

"I don't believe that economic redistribution alleviates poverty."

Spoken like a true conservative. Spending tax dollars to help the poor..economic redistribution. Spending tax dollars to fund oil companies...economic stimulus.

Love of money, Kevin...

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 3:38 PM

Reduce the minimum wage so that unskilled workers -- both men and women -- can at least find jobs. (I realize that's counterintuitive, but a crappy job is better than no job, if only because one can build a work history that one can use to land better employment.)

Balderdash. Food, clothing and shelter prices are not going down, and besides, unskilled workers often don't have the contacts to get better jobs (which is part of the reason they're unskilled). Most of those minimum-wage jobs are in service industries and are part-time with little or no health insurance, little opportunity for advancement and often located in places you can't get to without a car. Factor in child-care expenses and you will actually spend more money than you make depending on where you live.

2. Charterize and voucherize education so that all Americans will have a chance to have a decent education (improving their earning potential).

The folks who send their kids to the better schools don't want kids from lesser means attending them because it defeats the purpose of putting their children in those schools in the first place, which is the real reason vouchers almost always get voted down. Indeed, in Cleveland in the mid-1990s a voucher program had to have a provision in it allowing an exemption for public suburban schools for it to be approved by the Ohio Legislature. (And -- surprise -- every suburban school indeed opted out.)

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 3:52 PM

So we are accountable for atrocities that other people commit simply because we did not pay them not to commit them? Or, rather, because we did not vote to ask other people to pay people not to commit them? That is the upshot of the anonymous poster's reasoning. Is there any scriptural support for this idea?

Women have abortions because they want to have sex and they do not want to have a baby. That is a constant, regardless of marital or income status.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 4:05 PM

Rick - I didn't miss what you said. I'll re-phrase my response so I'm using your words instead of mine so maybe what I'm asking will be clearer.

If what you say is true - that compromise is beneath pro-life Republicans and that it's their way or no way - what makes Tony think they'd take him up on his proposal?

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 4:12 PM

"Women have abortions because they want to have sex and they do not want to have a baby. That is a constant, regardless of marital or income status."

So what you are really saying, Kevin, is that you are pro-life as long as it doesn't cost you any money.

In short, you are pro-money-over-life.

Have fun explaining that to Jesus as he sits on the Throne holding a few of the unborn children you chose not to help.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 4:13 PM

Rick, can you point me to an article detailing the opt-out clause you describe? I can't find it.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 4:16 PM

Rick, can you point me to an article detailing the opt-out clause you describe? I can't find it.

You might want to check with the Plain Dealer; my own paper ran a wire story on it. Anyway, the program was declared unconstitutional back in 1996, which is how it became news in the first place.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 4:23 PM

Rosemary BuShea states: "He would ask the government to step in and take the place of the church as a charity organization, creating a mire of red tape and hoops to jump through, no doubt. To say “It is not enough to advocate the overturning of Roe vs. Wade” in referring to Pro-Life Republicans is true to an extent; but to use it as if the Democratic party has done more, or is morally superior to the other party regarding this issue, would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic!"

Ms. BuShea, can you explain to me why poverty still exists in this Christian nation? In a nation where the vast majority of the people claim Christ, and where the vast majority of the people claim at least sporadic church attendance, why is it that the church is not doing more to eliminate poverty?

For that matter, why is it that so many conservative evangelicals rebel against the idea of government support of the poor, but seem to do so little through their own churches to help the poor in their own community? Barna Research published a survey back in 2003 that showed how little self-identified "born-again Christians" contributed to their church and other charitable organizations. It was well below 10%, approaching 5%, and hardly a fraction of that money went to social improvement in the local community.

www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=223

This website offers some interesting articles as to the problem of Christians supporting their churches and other charitable agencies.

Ms. BuShea, with all that God has given us, why is it that Christians seem so stingy when it comes to helping others?

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 4:31 PM

Eric: "A start would be for changes in our laws to protect these babies for their sake, but in order to create a truly just society we also have to change hearts and minds along with laws."

Should we also change the laws and require that babies, once born, receive the medical care they need in order to remain alive to, say, their 2nd birthday? I'm talking about free well-baby care, meds, hospital treatment, nutrition assistance, and anything else that the child needs in order to live.

The child outside the womb deserves the same protections as the child in the womb, right?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 4:34 PM

"I've read through the majority of the comments and, forgive me if I've overlooked this, but why isn't anyone discussing adoption as an answer?"

The simple answer is that if the baby is not white and in good health, the chances of someone adopting it are very low.

According to the Federal Government there are approximately 130,000 children awaiting adoption in this country, and that number has been steady for years.

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm

For adoption to be a viable alternative there needs to be more people willing to adopt. Unfortunately the number of people who want to adopt is not keeping up with the number of children available.

As we encourage adoption as an option for pregnant mothers, we also need to be encouraging people to consider adopting a child. It's not enough to get the birthmother not to abort. The child deserves a loving family, not an orphanage.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 4:42 PM

If what you say is true - that compromise is beneath pro-life Republicans and that it's their way or no way - what makes Tony think they'd take him up on his proposal?

Well, conventional wisdom holds that the Republican Party is about to get hammered in the fall elections and drag the "culture warriors" down with it; it may usher in a new spirit of compromise, if not consensus. Moreover, with the number of "pro-life" Democrats increasing, perhaps he figures that now's the time for something like this.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 4:47 PM

"Nevermind that the GOP held control of both Houses of Congress and the White House for four years, but never once moved the Human Life Amendment from committee."

Well, the bill had been defeated once, and had been rendered null by supreme court decisions in the interim. Any bill going forward would have to contend with the court's decisions on this matter, and thusly referred to the judiciary committee. Ron Paul proposed a similar bill, and it is also stuck in committee.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 4:56 PM

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 4:06 PM

Whoever you are -

Poor women are not the ones havig the majority of abortions. They need the children to maintain an income. I learn that from Dr's who work in those areas.

I perfer for the most part to keep issues seperate. If you want to talk about abortion - fine. If the topic is poverty - fine. Many times the inclusion of other issues just clouds the origional and makes it so complicated you can not come to consensus.

Blessings-
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 5:10 PM

Posted by: carl copas | July 9, 2008 3:53 PM

I believe if you had read my post a little closer you would see that I am not talking about the 'medical community'. My references were to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.

There is much that we can do for people that need health care but we do not need a national program so that we are all forced into having bad coverage.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 5:17 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 3:35 PM

Spare me your website and don't get into that war. Yes I look at conservative sites but I look closer at secular sites and gov't sites. They have some great information and many are surprizingly honest.

Dishonest is now the label - whatever.

Typical - attack the person when you don't like the message or the stats.

Yes - yes - yes, that is the liberal way.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 5:30 PM

The inflation being created to bail out the Wall Street mortgage speculators (but which is being used in Vegas-style "double-or-nothing" commodity bets instead) is indeed reducing the minimum wage, so we should all be in financial heaven soon, along with all the exploited illegals who are even better off since the minimum wage provisions already don't apply to them!

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 9, 2008 5:39 PM

Some of Campolo's proposals sound reasonable. There is undoubtedly a link between economics and abortion, though the relationship is not that straightforward and there are many other contributors (e.g., feminist attitudes) and third variables (e.g., neglectful men) explaining the relationship. No amount of money is going to take away the inconvenience of raising a child on your own or the potential damage it could cause to a woman's body. There's little the govt can do to eliminate these inconveniences.

Raising the minimum wage is likely to do little and may even harm women in such circumstances by reducing the number of jobs available.

The truth is the federal govt has been trying for years to reduce unwanted pregnancy without much luck. Count me among those skeptical of the 200,000 contraception plan.

The case could also be made that part of the reason our abortion rates are so high is that a generation of men have abandoned women for Uncle Sam to take care of them via perverse welfare policies. Having govt step in again to reward illegitimacy might even make the problem worse by leading to more male abandonment which leads to more abortions.

Would the Abortion Reduction plank contradict the party's pro-choice plank, which seeks taxpayer funded abortion? How can you reduce what you also set out to make free?

This is one reason why it's difficult for me to take Campolo and Sojo's claims of sincerity seriously. If they wanted to reduce abortions, wouldn't they challenge the Democratic party on their support for taxpayer abortions? They want Republicans to compromise on their economic principles, but what do they want Democrats to do differently?

Posted by: jesse | July 9, 2008 5:49 PM

"By the same token, I feel ashamed of living in a country full of "pro-life" people who will shout at women having abortions but are not willing to spend a penny of tax money to assist them. Deeply ashamed. And yes, as you can tell, it's personal."

There's good reason to be ashamed of folks like this. Not only do they not care about the unborn children, but they are perfectly happy prostituting Jesus out to the GOP for their precious tax-cuts.

It's telling that one of the first things that happened when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994/1995 was the passage of tax cuts. Where was the much touted Human Life Amendment that had been part of the party's platform since the 1980s?

It was buried in a sub committee headed by Rep. Henry Hyde. The excuse...they didn't have enough votes to pass it, so why bring it up? Never mind that they brought up many other issues during that session that they knew they did not have votes to pass. Most of these being extremist bills to gut essential programs in the government. They were quite content to put people on record for these issues.

But the Human Life Amendment was not worth the time.

Abortion is more valuable to the GOP as a GOTV tool than a legislative matter. Agitate the grass roots and bring them to the poll every 2 years by talking about abortion, but never really solve the issue because then they would not have something to agitate the base with.

This is why conservative complain about Democrats actually trying to decrease the abortion rate in this country. If it can be shown that abortions can decrease without passing a Human Life Amendment to the constitution, the GOP will loose a valuable election year tool and might lose a number of voters.

4000 deaths a day...the price of a GOP victory.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 6:18 PM

"...If Tony wants to truly compromise on this issue and reduce the abortion rate, why not offer to join pro-life Republicans in criminalizing abortion after a certain point in pregnancy as long as pro-life Republicans sign on with his anti-poverty initiatives? That is true compromise. Instead Tony demands that pro-life Republicans join him without offering them anything other than the hopes that abortion will be greatly reduced through his measures."

This entire thread makes me incredibly sad. But the quote above demonstrates to me the futility of efforts to reach out to conservative, anti-choice Republicans. These folks will never vote Democratic, nor work in good faith with Democrats, no matter what you offer. They don't respect you; they don't believe in your solutions. They want to control women, and where they can't control us, they want to punish us.

Posted by: someone's mother | July 9, 2008 6:23 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 6:08 PM

So the first label wasn't good enough so now we use the 'fool' word, whatever. Some of you liberals are like a bunch of Baptists - you don't believe people are true believers unless they walk down your church isle.

Posted by: mo | July 9, 2008 7:40 PM

It's beyond me that a post on abortion attracts the fastest/biggest response in weeks on GP from citizens of a country that has one of the biggest war-oriented economies/violence-oriented societies in the world. Meanwhile, seldom is heard any kind of words on postings re the unbelievable horrors taking place in Zimbabwe, India, etc.

YOU'RE SELF-ABSORBED PEOPLE! GET OVER IT!

Posted by: canucklehead | July 9, 2008 8:15 PM

This just plays into the hands of all the pro-life fanatics. If you believe that abortions should be reduced, that assumes there is something wrong with a woman when she chooses an abortion. There isn't. It is only a purely private decision. And there is nothing wrong with that. We should support and affirm the decision of all woman regardless of their choice. Trying to reduce the number of abortions will only further stigmatize women.

Posted by: Jesse Rivers | July 9, 2008 9:26 PM

Jesse Rivers,
You've made the same point I was trying to make with my question, just more directly. Thank you.

Whenever Tony or Jim say they want to reduce the number of abortions, they're admitting there is something wrong about abortion. They understand a life is being lost, but they're not willing to protect that life under law. It's the only instance in which they would be willing to deny a life the protection of law. They oppose the death penalty, as do I, but can you imagine how silly they'd sound saying that the death penalty is wrong, but we should work to reduce the number of murders so the death penalty would never have to be applied? That is essentially what they're saying when they talk about abortion.

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 9:47 PM

RJohnson,
I would have no problem if our society provided, for free, the things you mentioned to babies after birth for families that couldn't afford them.

But for the record, we're not talking about the same things when it comes to laws protecting life. Babies outside the womb do have laws protecting them from being killed. The ones inside don't.

What do you think about laws protecting babies inside the womb from being killed through abortion?

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 9:58 PM

Sure, 100% reduction sounds nice but the truth is it ain't going to happen anytime soon. Seeking to reduce the number of abortions and take on the real and serious issues that set that table is both hard and potentially expensive. But if falls in the category of the possible. The 100% falls into the not possible and the not probably categories. It will require some money-where-your-mouth work on the part of evangelicals and those who believe abortion is murder. If abortion means that much, then you've got to do more than just stand there shaking your finger and saying make it illegal. Jesus ran into some of those folks in his day.

Seek to reduce abortions, seek to fix the societal problems and find the way to get to the goal you want without first insisting on a 100% solution. We already see that is no solution at all.

Posted by: Richard | July 9, 2008 10:45 PM

The reduction of abortions will come when women's consent is actually considered in sex and in reproductive legislation, and when the cultural stigma against extra-marital sex disappears. It's not only about money. It's still very much about shame.

Posted by: brenna | July 9, 2008 10:56 PM

"Where was the much touted Human Life Amendment that had been part of the party's platform since the 1980s?"

You brought this up earlier in the thread, and ignored my response. Are you debating or ranting?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 11:26 PM

I assume you mean this exchange, Kevin.

---------
"Nevermind that the GOP held control of both Houses of Congress and the White House for four years, but never once moved the Human Life Amendment from committee."

Well, the bill had been defeated once, and had been rendered null by supreme court decisions in the interim. Any bill going forward would have to contend with the court's decisions on this matter, and thusly referred to the judiciary committee. Ron Paul proposed a similar bill, and it is also stuck in committee.
----------

The Pro-Life plank in the 2004 GOP Platform was:

"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

The Human Life Amendment mentioned in this plank has been introduced a number of times in the late 70s and 80s, but has not seen the light of day since 1983. As I am sure you recall, amending the Constitution does not require the approval of the President nor the Supreme Court. All that it takes is the approval of both Houses of Congress by a super-majority (2/3), and then approval by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

Your reference to a bill needing to deal with the Court's decisions is not germane to this argument, so I ignored it. I assumed you misunderstood what an amendment to the Constitution would do. If the Human Life Amendment were passed, it would make all Court decisions to the contrary null and void, including Roe and all subsequent decisions.

Strange that the GOP didn't even bring this to a committee vote when they held the majority in both Houses. They brought many other controversial pieces of legislation to floor votes just to put Democrats on record, usually just before election time. Why didn't they move the Human Life Amendment?

Could it be that they really don't want to lose this issue as a campaign tactic? I mean, if the goal is to win elections at all cost, then the 4000+ dead children each day simply becomes collateral damage in the grand GOP election scheme.

If, as the conservative pro-lifers contend, the public is in favor of such an amendment, why not bring it to a vote?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 11:54 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 12:07 AM

Mr. Campolo

Nice start and I will support where I can. But you argument is not with me as a conservative pro-life person.

This was my first post and I said that I would support him. That I am not the problem or 'argument'.

I have learned a lot from my friends in the DFL here in MN about how to get things done. They have done things in the name of 'getting it done' that I could not do - until now.

I have played the game by the set of rules that we were taught in Civics Class in High School. The DFL/Liberals ripped those pages out of the play book years ago. I have looked for someone on the otherside of the isle that would remember what the rules were. I have to believe they are there but I have not found them.

So - I am going to start back in politics not this election but more than likely the next and I am going to play by the liberal rule book. I am looking forward to being the Carvell of the Conservatives in MN. I want the pulpit like Al Gore and yell at everyone. (I am not an inventor or evangelist like him - but I can give it a try)

I have watched and learned from some of the best in the DFL here in MN.

So to guote B. Davis in 'All About Eve'

'Fasten your safety belts boys - it's going to be a bumpy ride'.

I believe that Wallis would be proud of me. (LOL)

Blessings -
.

ps - you gotta watch Al Frankin whne he starts to get a head of steam. This could be an interesting Senate race and his ads have already gone negative because he knows that is the only way the DFL wins in MN.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 12:27 AM

"So much can be acomplished without requiring more money if you can just think outside the box. But then again liberals have to have everything tied up in little boxes so that they know what to do and when the expiration date is."

Fine...let's hear some of your ideas? After all, with you planning on hitting the campaign trail, you MUST have some ideas on this.

What do you see that can be accomplished "outside the box" without raising taxes?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 12:46 AM

"I was all set for 2 children - when we had a 3rd - no one gave me more money because I shot one more by the goalie."

Nice try, but I think I get the hat trick on this one.

Please tell me you did not take the extra tax deduction or the child tax credit on your tax returns for that third child? Because if you did, the taxpayers of America most certainly subsidized your third child, to the tune of:

$1000 (child tax credit, up to the age of 17, which means $17,000 in subsidy during the life of the child)

$3400 (dependent tax credit, while the child is in your care, up to the age of 18, or $61,200 for the life of the child through age 18)

Looks to me like the US taxpayer subsidized each of your children to the tune of $4400 per year, or $78,200 for the 18 years they were a minor in your care.

Three children...$234,600 in subsidy for those three children over the years.

Now...you can elect not to take this subsidy. Being a conservative that is concerned about the tax burden on the people of this nation, I am sure you didn't take these subsidies (deductions and credits) on your return, did you?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 1:19 AM

"Raising the minimum wage would help. Studies show that a woman working full time at the present minimum wage cannot afford the rent of even a low-cost apartment, let alone carry the additional cost of raising her unborn child."

This is a common trick used by those in favor of mass redistribution of wealth. What these "studies" do is add of the minimum wage income per month and subtract expenses. It seems logical, but these studies are faulty for a number of reasons.

First, these studies use numbers to create hypothetical scenarios. They are not based on real people. Look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only 2.5 percent of all workers earning an hourly wage reported earning minimum wage or less, and this includes those that make tips. So, really it's estimated (subtract those that work jobs with tips) that only 1.1 percent of all workers actually earn minimum wage or less. Then you have to take two fifths of that to account for only those that work fulltime. Then you have subtract those that are not their family's primary wage earners (suburban teenagers and the like). Then if you want to only look at single women you have to also subtract men. You are left with a very small number that is in no way proportional to the number of abortions. Part of the reason why this number is so low is because it's hard to work a minimum wage job for an extended period of time and not receiving a raise.

Second, by only looking at earned income you leave out tax credits, housing subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, charity, ect. Household expenditures is a much more accurate statistic.

Posted by: DITE | July 10, 2008 2:18 AM