From the back pew comes a Democrats for Life op-ed

Lee Strong of From the Back Pewwants to publish this Democrats for Life op-ed. He and co-author Carol Crossed would love to see it in the New York Times, etc. Good luck! I wouldn't be surprised to see MSM snub a sensible column like this. It doesn't suit their Reasonable agenda. To them, abortion is just fine, thank you, the way it is. There's no need to encourage those Foolish people that believe it's a problem.

Mr. Strong makes some excellent points:

The initiative addresses a common misunderstanding about abortion. While Roe v. Wade allows abortion for any reason before viability, Roe's companion case, Doe v Bolton, allows it for the health of the mother. 'Health' is broadly defined as "“all factors–physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient.” This has the net effect of abortion on demand, a practice the majority of Americans disapprove of. Americans do accept exceptions in cases of rape, incest, severe disability of the child, or the life of the mother. But these cases represent less than 5 % of the cases of abortion.

It is in the other 95% of cases Democrats for Life wants to make a difference through 95/10.

The program includes making adoption tax credits permanent, banning pregnancy as a 'pre-existing condition' in the health care industry, and making grants for ultrasound so that women can see the development of their baby. It includes legislation that will require women's health centers and abortion clinics to disclose adverse effects of abortion, both emotional and physical and that parents are notified of their underage daughter's abortion.

Certainly the 95-10 plan has certain merits. Any policy that calls on abortion clinics to explain all the facts, funds ultrasound and insures that parents are aware of and consent to their children's abortion is a clear improvement over current policy. I'm not saying that parents approving of their children having abortions is laudible; I'm saying that it's an improvement over today's situation, in which young girls can secure these brutal procedures without their parents even knowing what happened! Of course, there are sticking points. Funding even non-contraception ignores the effects of Abstinance study programs among teens and perpetuates the contraceptive culture that leads to abortion in the first place.

It's a good step in the right direction. Society needs to face the honest truth that abortion kills the youngest and most defenseless of people. Until Society as a whole faces this reality, any legal measure to restrict access to abortion will remain hamstrung by the ongoing prolife/pro-abort front in the culture war. Of course all people of goodwill need to work in whatever way they can to eliminate abortion--legally and otherwise. What can be done about the abortions that still occur? The 95-10 plan addresses this reality. It's a prudentially sound way of reducing the circumstances that lead to abortion.

Can the pro-moloch party truly welcome prolife democrats? If they can, it might lead to their ressurection as a credible force in American politics. If the Howard Deans and Ted Kennedys of the moloch wing of the party co-opt the new movement, and make it window dressing for the usual suspects, then expect the blue bleeding to continue at the polls. Americans are too foolish to be suckered by the Reasonable. At least, as of last election.

Interesting times we live in. Stay tuned!