Rep. Tim Ryan: My Plan for Common Ground on Abortion

I agree that people need to be more responsible. But I completely disagree that a woman or child should be forced to carry to term a child she knows she can't take care of. Since when are the rights of the mother not taken into account? She is still after all the primary caregiver.

In all these facts and statistics, I haven't read any comments about the role of the father in procreation. Oh' I've heard about "father's rights" and in some cases, it's a legitimate point, but not the main point unless he's willing to be at home taking care of the baby alongside mom. Usually, he walks away scott free with no concern for the seed he's (also irresponsibly) planted. So, let's see ... the father is off the hook, leaving the mother with no money, no support and the prospect of raising an unwanted child that will likely end up in abject poverty. I won't even discuss the woman who is married to an abusive husband and has made the (wise) decision that she doesn't want to bring children into an abusive home filled with hatred. Does that father have more rights than the mother who has to endure the suffering and wants to spare her progeny the same suffering? Open your eyes folks.

Ok, well what about mothers who do want their babies, but are forced to bring to "term" a baby that is dying inside of them, but because their physical health is not technically in jeopardy, they have to live with the anguish of knowing their baby's going to be "born" dead. And the doctor is afraid to assist these women for fear of losing their license, or worse, being assassinated. But who cares about the mother's plights, right? As long as the unborn baby is brought to term, your job is done.

I haven't read any comments about social and financial programs to assist these mothers with raising these babies they know they can't afford to have. "You should have the baby," "The unborn baby has rights," you say, but what happens once the baby's born into poverty and/or into a home where they're clearly not wanted? Have you thought of what to do for these babies in that instance? I see you pro-lifers mobilizing all the time with your sensational posters and your marches and your lists and your lobbying, but if you're so concerned about life, why not put your efforts toward programs to really help these women. Why not watchdog program to make these men and these boys accountable for their part in the irresponsible acts that led to the unborn baby? Why not put together programs to find good homes for babies brought to term where the mother demonstrates she is not fit to raise a child. All I keep hearing from you is the baby, the baby, the baby. Well, that baby is going to grow up to be a child and then a teen and then an adult if you have your way; have you given thought to what type of person this unborn child could grow up to be?

I'm not saying I like abortion any more than you do. I'm saying look at the ENTIRE picture, not just the myopic view of the Life you want to "protect".

Tammy of FL 12:47PM August 27, 2009

If someone makes a choice to have sex and gets pregnant then they (the father and mother) should be held responsible for protecting and paying for the life that they started.

Responsibility:

Be responsible for the life that you start. Don't start a life that you must kill.

We are not animals that can not make decisions. We are not animals that can not control our sex drive. We are humans that can make good choices.

We can not act like that all of the sudden people are pregnant. There are several decisions made before getting pregnant.

No one's self desires or wants are more important than another persons life. If you start a life then be responsible.

There are many more solutions and choices that are better than Killing an unborn child. Be strong, brave, and nobel and make decisions that protect life.

Love the Mother and the Child. Both lives are equally important.

Love Life.

ComPassion of IN 12:56AM August 26, 2009

One inescapable fact is that we embraced a horrendous welfare "reform" agenda that dehumanizes and punishes women who keep their babies. We provide the most meager levels of aid among all industrialized nation, for the shortest period of time, and recipients are treated much like parolees who have lost their fundamental rights. They do NOT have the same legal protections as others, and certainly aren't treated as "regular folks". We speak about them with such contempt (and at best, we simply don't care). It is harder than ever before for these people to work their way out of poverty, due to a tangle of workfare policies, but they can't risk losing Medicaid. It's a very complex subject, and perhaps the bottom line is that every person in this situation knows that they are regarded as something inferior and worthless (Americans aren't shy about expressing their contempt for our poor).

How can we object to abortion? Because life is sacred? No, if we believed that, we never would have embraced these policies. It's easy to understand how someone would wonder if abortion isn't the compassionate alternative to the realities of poverty in the US today.

DHFabian of WI 12:53AM August 26, 2009

Regarding my assertions (in two earlier posts) about the substance of the legislation that Ryan, the imposter, has been pushing in Congress -- don't take just my word for it. The Annenberg Center's FactCheck.org examined the Capps Amendment in an August 19 analysis titled, "Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?" The FactCheck analysis concluded: "Despite what Obama said, the House will would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans. . . it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the ‘public plan’ would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies."

There is much more eye-opening information in the FactCheck piece -- read it here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

Time magazine reporter Michael Scherer also cut through some of the smokescreen: "The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount 'not less than $1 per month,' according to the legislation [i.e., the Capps-Waxman-Ryan language]. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage." ("How Abortion Could Imperil Health-Care Reform," August 24 Time).

Pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak has branded the Capps-Waxman-Ryan amendment a "phony compromise.” Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says the amendment "would be an enormous imposition on the working poor who may find the public plan to be the only one they can afford. Whether you call it federal funds or private premiums, they would be forced to pay for abortions they don't want and may find abhorrent.”

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, whose record of pro-life achievements in Congress is unsurpassed, said of Ryan, "He has no right whatsoever to advertise himself as right-to-life."

Even before the most recent episodes, Ryan had been was kicked off the advisory board of Democrats for Life. He claims that mainstream pro-life groups do not like him because he is pro-contraception. This is as bogus as the rest of his spiel .

(When The Weekly Standard recently asked Ryan, "When do you believe life begins?," Ryan replied, "That answer's above my pay grade.")

Congressman Ryan, we expect you will keep working to torpedo the efforts of the real pro-life House members, pleasing your new friends at Planned Parenthood. But at least have the honesty to stop flying false colors.

Further documentation on these matters is available on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html

Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Committee

Douglas Johnson of DC 6:43PM August 24, 2009