Steven Waldman proposes the following hypothetical situation: more premarital sex and fewer abortions. Would pro-lifers accept this trade-off?
We all have our own convictions when it comes to the topic of abortion. And in a rush to declare our alliances and opinions to those we deem a threat, it seems we stop listening.
A disturbing implication of “abortion reduction” is that our society should more closely monitor women who want abortions and the reasons they want abortions.
My common ground fantasy involves both pro-life and pro-choice leaders taking certain premises of each other’s movements more seriously in order to break the conceptual logjam we’ve created.
Can we truly say we have found common ground on family planning when all we have done is found a few people who disagree with us on reproductive rights as human rights are able to support a bill that provides family planning funding?
To use abortion rates as a valid indicator of success at preventing unintended pregnancy, we must first ensure the accessibility of abortion.
The value of our work is not solely about reducing abortions, or even unintended pregnancies. It is about creating a sense of ownership among women and men about their own body and their relationships with others.
The White House is setting up a meeting with evangelicals to discuss “abortion reduction”. Right Wing Watch raises an interesting question about this: why?!
“Abortion reduction,” one of the signature anti-choice tactics of the 1990s, has now migrated into the Democratic Party under the guise of offering “common ground.”
If President Obama’s Office for Faith-Based Partnerships wants to address teen pregnancy and abortion, his next 10 appointments to the council should include experts on women’s health and reproductive health care.