two questions on abortion
Two commentors asked two different questions on my previous posts regarding abortion and the election.
One asked if I was truly voting 'for' McCain or just 'against' Obama. To be honest, I don't remember the last time I voted 'for' someone. It was probably George H. in his campaign against Clinton. When faced with two candidates you don't really like, that's just the way it is. I do trust McCain's prolife credentials, consistently voting against abortion (which is a vote for life) and I trust Palin's prolife credentials as well (though I think I've made myself clear in other places I don't think she's qualified for the job - but I don't really think Obama is either, but that's a different story).
Also, even if McCain simply keeps that status quo, I believe it will result in fewer abortions than if Obama takes office and does what he pledged to do as a first priority, namely, signing the FOCA into law. This law would remove all restrictions on early term abortions (including the requirement for counseling, parental notification in the case of minors, etc.). The only restriction on late term abortions is that they be deemed necessary to the health of the woman (including mental and emotional health. I know Obama has stated he doesn't think 'mental distress' would count - it would need to be a physical problem. Unfortunately, that is not how the Supreme Court defined it in Doe v. Bolton). Finally, FOCA would make abortions by mandating taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services. I believe his policies would increase the number or abortions in this country, and I think there is data to back this up.
In 1991 Maryland passed a law at the state level comparable to FOCA. Here's a graph of abortion rates in the state compared to those of the nation:
There are probably other factors, but you can't ignore that when state laws restricting access to abortion were swept away abortions went up.
In sum, I am voting against policies that I believe would increase the number of abortions in the nation and for a candidate who I believe will keep them where they are at (worst case) or possible make political appointments to lower them (best case).
Again, I understand that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would go back to the states. I've heard all kinds of estimates on which states would totally restrict abortions, some as low as 16. Hell, I'll take it. Moreover, I think a more prolife court would open up the possibility to federal legislation to restrict access to abortions. The idea of a Constitutional amendment is wonderful, but unrealistic (I would support this; however, I wouldn't support one banning gay marriage - again, a different issue).
That's the first question. The second question was how do I think we could work to reduce the number of abortions. Step one: elect a prolife President. Ok, that was cheap, but fun. Seriously, I do like parts of Obama's plan. Cheaper day care, paid maternity leaves, supporting adoption - these are things I can get behind. We, the nation but especially the church, should do more to support woman. I don't know what that looks like, but some of Obama's plan would be a good start (I just wish his legislative agenda didn't contravene this). I think we should help women, especially single mothers who are overwhelmed with the cost of a child. I think we should make contraceptives available to those who can't afford them. That would get us somewhere, but I don't think it would get us all that far. I see that statistically, 51% of women having abortions are in families earning more than $30,000 a year and 13% from families making more than $60,000 a year. You'll never be able to make a child convenient or free, and until you do you will have many women who opt to end their pregnancies rather than deliver a child. That is why I believe legislation must be involved.
One story: Two missionaries from Istanbul were in our ACG this Sunday. They told us about a women who was pregnant but overwhelmed by having to feed four mouths. She begged for a living and her husband shined shoes. She was considering an abortion. Her oldest daughter was distraught and told some people in the church (though the girl was not a believer). A family in the church offered to pay all the medical expenses and all medical and grocery bills for the first three years of the childs life if she would have it. The mother agreed, the daughter was so moved by the love to the church and the love of Jesus she became a believer. That's wonderful. Would the church here would do more.
One asked if I was truly voting 'for' McCain or just 'against' Obama. To be honest, I don't remember the last time I voted 'for' someone. It was probably George H. in his campaign against Clinton. When faced with two candidates you don't really like, that's just the way it is. I do trust McCain's prolife credentials, consistently voting against abortion (which is a vote for life) and I trust Palin's prolife credentials as well (though I think I've made myself clear in other places I don't think she's qualified for the job - but I don't really think Obama is either, but that's a different story).
Also, even if McCain simply keeps that status quo, I believe it will result in fewer abortions than if Obama takes office and does what he pledged to do as a first priority, namely, signing the FOCA into law. This law would remove all restrictions on early term abortions (including the requirement for counseling, parental notification in the case of minors, etc.). The only restriction on late term abortions is that they be deemed necessary to the health of the woman (including mental and emotional health. I know Obama has stated he doesn't think 'mental distress' would count - it would need to be a physical problem. Unfortunately, that is not how the Supreme Court defined it in Doe v. Bolton). Finally, FOCA would make abortions by mandating taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services. I believe his policies would increase the number or abortions in this country, and I think there is data to back this up.
In 1991 Maryland passed a law at the state level comparable to FOCA. Here's a graph of abortion rates in the state compared to those of the nation:
There are probably other factors, but you can't ignore that when state laws restricting access to abortion were swept away abortions went up.
In sum, I am voting against policies that I believe would increase the number of abortions in the nation and for a candidate who I believe will keep them where they are at (worst case) or possible make political appointments to lower them (best case).
Again, I understand that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would go back to the states. I've heard all kinds of estimates on which states would totally restrict abortions, some as low as 16. Hell, I'll take it. Moreover, I think a more prolife court would open up the possibility to federal legislation to restrict access to abortions. The idea of a Constitutional amendment is wonderful, but unrealistic (I would support this; however, I wouldn't support one banning gay marriage - again, a different issue).
That's the first question. The second question was how do I think we could work to reduce the number of abortions. Step one: elect a prolife President. Ok, that was cheap, but fun. Seriously, I do like parts of Obama's plan. Cheaper day care, paid maternity leaves, supporting adoption - these are things I can get behind. We, the nation but especially the church, should do more to support woman. I don't know what that looks like, but some of Obama's plan would be a good start (I just wish his legislative agenda didn't contravene this). I think we should help women, especially single mothers who are overwhelmed with the cost of a child. I think we should make contraceptives available to those who can't afford them. That would get us somewhere, but I don't think it would get us all that far. I see that statistically, 51% of women having abortions are in families earning more than $30,000 a year and 13% from families making more than $60,000 a year. You'll never be able to make a child convenient or free, and until you do you will have many women who opt to end their pregnancies rather than deliver a child. That is why I believe legislation must be involved.
One story: Two missionaries from Istanbul were in our ACG this Sunday. They told us about a women who was pregnant but overwhelmed by having to feed four mouths. She begged for a living and her husband shined shoes. She was considering an abortion. Her oldest daughter was distraught and told some people in the church (though the girl was not a believer). A family in the church offered to pay all the medical expenses and all medical and grocery bills for the first three years of the childs life if she would have it. The mother agreed, the daughter was so moved by the love to the church and the love of Jesus she became a believer. That's wonderful. Would the church here would do more.
Comments