Myth: Republicans never do anything about abortion

[Revmitchell]

....While some of the 54 closures were due to unrelated factors, the states that have lost the most clinics over the past three years are the same ones that have seen draconian new abortion restrictions and the biggest cuts to family planning funding. In Texas, which has lost nine clinics, lawmakers have slashed family planning funding in the state budget, required abortion clinics to become ambulatory surgical centers and required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Arizona lawmakers passed similar legislation and pushed out a total of 12 providers; the state had 18 abortion clinics in 2010 and now has only six, according to NARAL Pro-Choice Arizona.

"This has turned into a nightmare," said Kat Sabine, executive director of NARAL's Arizona affiliate. "The kind of efforts the women have to take to get family planning or abortion services are just incredible, and you can only get care if you can get out of the community to do it. If you're on a reservation or rural part of the state, unless you have reliable transportation, you're not going to get care."...

...Still, Republicans at the state and federal level are proposing new ways to restrict abortion every time a legislative session begins, giving women in their states fewer and fewer options when faced with an unplanned or unhealthy pregnancy.

"These restrictions do nothing to reduce the need for abortion or to reduce unintended pregnancy," Nash said. "I would say that those that are promoting these very burdensome clinic regulations have as an end goal the elimination of legal abortion. They don't have women's health in mind."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/abortion-clinic-closures_n_3804529.html

 

[Revmitchell]

Update (July 22): The Associated Press reports that a federal district court has struck down North Dakota's new abortion law, which would have banned the procedure "as early as six weeks into pregnancy and before some women know they are pregnant."

Update (July 17): In a special session of the legislature late last week, Texas lawmakers voted to approve a bill to restrict access to abortions in the state. Their vote came just three weeks after democratic Senator Wendy Davis's dramatic filibuster to block the bill.

Update (July 3): The Weekly Standard broke the news yesterday evening that Florida senator Marco Rubio has agreed to "sponsor of a Senate bill to ban abortion after an unborn child is 20 weeks old."

Update (June 11): The Associated Press reports that the proposed national ban has passed its committee and will soon receive a vote by the full House.


Update (June 5): Congressional news source The Hill reports that the House Subcommittee on the Constitution has advanced a national bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. The modified bill would implement a nationwide ban if approved.


As abortion laws in states such as North Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, and Kansas have become more restrictive, critics have taken the new "fetal pain" restrictions to court.


Nine other states have similar bans on abortions before 20 weeks of pregnancy–the point at which a fetus is thought to be able to feel pain–notes the Associated Press. By contrast, a fetus is generally considered "viable" at 24 weeks.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...-pain-abortion-bans-faces-court-scrutiny.html

 

[Matt Black]

Good to hear the restriction of abortion services but what is it with the conflation of family planning services with the provision of abortion? Surely they are contradictory ie: whilst restricting the latter affects the supply-side of things in the right direction, restricting the former increases the likelihood of unplanned pregnancies and thus affects the demand-side in the wrong direction. Ideally they should tackle both supply- and demand-side factors.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Good to hear the restriction of abortion services but what is it with the conflation of family planning services with the provision of abortion? Surely they are contradictory ie: whilst restricting the latter affects the supply-side of things in the right direction, restricting the former increases the likelihood of unplanned pregnancies and thus affects the demand-side in the wrong direction. Ideally they should tackle both supply- and demand-side factors.

Supposedly "independent" agencies like Planned Parenthood that depend on government funding to provide family planning services claim the abortion services they provide are privately funded. However, if they were forced to depend totally on private funding, do you suppose they would eliminate the abortion services, or the family planning services? I am under no illusions -- abortions would continue. Starving them of government funding does nothing but force them to live honestly, and perhaps force them to curtail abortion activities as dictated by private donations being their sole source of funding.

 

[Aaron]

Except in the cases of rape or incest, there is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, because contraceptives never ever fail, do they? And husbands never ever pressurize their wives to have sex with them without contraception, do they?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yes, because contraceptives never ever fail, do they? And husbands never ever pressurize their wives to have sex with them without contraception, do they?

Who's in control? Husbands? Contraceptives? Or God?

 

[Revmitchell]

Guys do not derail this thread.

 

[Matt Black]

Who is in charge of a child's body?

[ETA - for clarification, what would you like us to discuss and what would you like us to not discuss, Rev Mitchell?]

 

[InTheLight]

Guys do not derail this thread.

Indeed.

The first thing George W. Bush did upon being inaugurated was to cut funding for overseas abortion services providers. The first thing Obama did was re-instate that funding.

 

[poncho]

In FY 2004, George W. Bush's most recently completed full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased even more to $280 million, over $26,000,000 ($26 million) more than Bill Clinton's last budget year! (HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush on 1/23/2004)
..."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=19665

 

[Zaac]

In FY 2004, George W. Bush's most recently completed full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased even more to $280 million, over $26,000,000 ($26 million) more than Bill Clinton's last budget year! (HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush on 1/23/2004)
..."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=19665

So it's TRUE. Republicans really DO do something about abortion: They fund it more.

Alas, they are both sides of the same coin.

Preach the Gospel and the love of Jesus and abortion will be covered.

Is this news/current events or politics?

 

[Matt Black]

Only if people are converted; in the meantime we have a duty to the unborn children of those who are unconverted to do our best to change law and policy to offer the best protection.

 

[Zaac]

Only if people are converted; in the meantime we have a duty to the unborn children of those who are unconverted to do our best to change law and policy to offer the best protection.

Not quite sure I understand the first part of your response. If we preach the truth of God's word, the sanctity of life will be covered.

I'm not really sure why from a secular perspective, the second part of your post wouldn't apply to the converted as well.

But from a spiritual perspective, I would offer that the BEST protection is a converted person living for Jesus. The church has become know n for focusing too much on the problem instead of the solution. We've been commissioned to preach the Gospel to point all to the Answer to all man's ails.

We need to regain the focus that God gave us. Return to your first love.
Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and abortion numbers will drop as more people genuinely come to faith and walk in obedience to Christ.

 

[Matt Black]

The first part of my response was that indeed the best protection is a converted person living for Jesus Christ. But we also have to have an effective strategy to cover the unconverted too.

 

[Revmitchell]

Some folks are so myopic they cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

[Matt Black]

Meaning what?

 

[Zaac]

The first part of my response was that indeed the best protection is a converted person living for Jesus Christ. But we also have to have an effective strategy to cover the unconverted too.

Shouldn't that strategy per GOD be to point them to HIM and not the laws? If the church is pushing so heavily for laws to prevent unGodliness rather than preaching Christ, what do we become known for?

 

[Aaron]

Black Matt's only purpose here is to mitigate the offense of abortion. To him it's only slightly less offensive than racism.

 

[InTheLight]

In FY 2004, George W. Bush's most recently completed full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased even more to $280 million, over $26,000,000 ($26 million) more than Bill Clinton's last budget year! (HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush on 1/23/2004)
..."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=19665

From Planned Parenthood:

The president’s 2009 budget proposes cutting Medicaid funding for family planning by $570 million in FY 2009, and by $3.3 billion over five years. This would have a devastating effect on the millions of low-income women who rely on Medicaid for contraception and other preventive family planning services.

In addition, the president’s 2009 budget proposes to flat-fund America’s family planning program, despite the fact that Title X is drastically underfunded. Seventeen million women need publicly funded family planning services. Funding for the Title X family planning should be increased by $100 million in FY 09 to begin to fill this gap and meet the needs of the millions of women who need access to family planning services.

In yet another example of Bush’s backward budget, the president wants to cut the overall budget for Health and Human Services, but insists on increasing funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs.


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ab...eleases/presidents-backwards-budget-19142.htm