A response to "Obama's Abortion Extremism"
I sent off a letter to the Washington Post in response to the column "Obama's Abortion Extremism" written by Michael Gerson. Now that it appears clear the Post is not going to run it, I will here:
Dear Editors,
In his April 2 column, Obama's Abortion Extremism, Michael Gerson , Bush's former speechwriter, offered Presidential contender Barack Obama advice on how not to appear an extremist on abortion. Predictably, Gerson, by highlighting Obama's opposition to a abortion ban (a position, it's worth noting, on which he was joined by the whole of the medical establishment) he conveniently fails to credit Obama with the policies he supports that have led to fewer abortions, in particular, fewer late term abortions. What Obama should do, if he becomes the Democratic nominee, is begin to focus the national conversation over abortion on results not just rhetoric. If we as a country measured the pro-life and pro-choice movements by the effectiveness of their strategies, most pro-life voters would likely vote pro-choice. Obama should point out that the countries with the highest abortion rates in the world are those that have adopted the strongest pro-life policies and countries with the lowest rates are the most pro-choice. He should reveal to the American public that there is not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception, rather most are leading campaigns against contraception, even though contraception is the only proven way to prevent abortion. Obama should not get ensnared in the dishonest debate about "partial birth abortion"—he should instead discuss the many studies showing its pro-life policies that lead to more late term abortions and it was the legalization of abortion alone that reduced our nation's second trimester abortion rate by half. Pro-life spin doctors, like Gerson, have great talking points but few solutions when it comes to preventing abortion. Obama should start taking credit for the policies he supports that lead to the results Americans want. By just steering voters to the facts, he'll even attract pro-life voters to his side.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
4/05/2008 10:27:00 AM
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
An old saying asks the question, "if something isn’t broke, than why fix it?" Speaking of the short term financial assistance that payday lenders offer, things surely aren’t broken. In fact, customers sing the praises of payday lenders largely because, when used properly, they’re one of the fastest and safest ways out of a sticky financial situation. Unfortunately, some people in high places don’t see it this way and are trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Several bipartisan efforts have outlawed the entire industry in certain states, even inspiring presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, to take aim at them as well. On November 4, don’t vote by party; vote for the peoples’ right to financial freedom.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
You have made some startling assertions here! Where did you get this information, I wonder?
For example, you say that the countries with the highest abortion rates are those with the strongest pro-life policies. First of all, it would be interesting to find out how they know the numbers of illegal abortions in these countries, maybe from a source other than Planned Parenthood or the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Accepting their numbers for the sake of discussion, the highest numbers I can find from them are 20 women in 1000 in Chile and Peru, 30/1000 in Brazil, Columbia, and the Dominican Republic, and around 40 of 1000 in Mexico.
In the very same article (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2086/context/archive), they mention the very specific rate of 21.3 per 1000 women in the USA, not really convincing evidence for your argument that the most restrictive nations have the highest rates.
You also mention that the use of birth control is the only proven way to prevent abortion. Do you really think so little of your readers that you would write that? Firstly, the AGI reports (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) that over 6% of women who get an abortion are pregnant because of a birth control failure. The two methods mentioned are condoms and the pill.
Secondly, those who do not engage in sexual activity do not get pregnant. Seriously. Moreover, they do not get pregnant at a much higher rate than those who use birth control, as they never get pregnant, and 6% **of those seeking abortions** do.
I would suggest that you consider investing in a course on statistics. You seem to have a lack of understanding when it comes to issues such as Cause and Effect--does the fact that two phenomena are seen together mean that one has caused the other? And defining one's terms--does the fact that one person ends up dead mean that a surgical procedure is safe?
Philothea
I recently came across your post and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that it caught my interest and you've provided informative points. I will visit this blog often. Thank you.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home