Comments

Even being strongly pro-choice, I could support this bill if (1) links to crisis pregnancy centers were limited to those that avoid the false information that some centers have been found to propagate and those whose "counseling" is more than just a religious guilt trip, and (2) the collection of abortion data does not infringe on the privacy rights of women who obtained an abortion.

Gilgoff's question is both flawed and judgmental. It's the proverbial "when did you stop beating your wife" question, which is flawed because it is based on an unstated presumption -- that there was wife-beating occurring that needed to be stopped. Gilgoff's question -- why reduce the number of women seeking abortion if there's nothing wrong with abortion -- has the same type of flaw. It assumes avoiding abortion is the only reason to want to reduce the number of women consdering abortion.

In fact, the real reason to want to reduce the number of women considering abortion is because each of those women is already suffering whatever the tragedy is that caused her to consider abortion in the first place. The tragedy we want to prevent is the unwanted pregnancy, the economic injustice that prevents her from being able to care for (another) child, the rape, the incest, the fetal abnormality. Some of that we can't do much about, such as the fetal abnormalities that prompt the extremely rare late term abortions, or even (apart from rape awareness and law enforcement efforts) rape and incest. But we can work together to reduce the number of women with unplanned pregnancies and to reduce economic injustice.

Any serious effort to reduce the number of women seeking abortion must include (1) age-appropriate comprehensive sex education, (2) meaningful access to safe and affordable family planning for all women, (3) attention to economic justice issues such as family-friendly tax and labor policies, low income daycare, education reform such as the Harlem Initiative, etc.

As Christians are gradually silenced in the public square, we see liberal politicians grow their power by providing cradle to grave entitlements to an ever increasing voting block.

I wouldn't mind paying taxes on the bullet items listed above with the exception of providing child care to low-income and student parents.

Without even considering the potential for abuse, this type of service is harmful to society as a whole, as its sense of charity, thankfulness and humility are under attack.

I pray for wisdom and strength for myself and our Christian communities to consider what's important and continue to be salt and light where we live.

I think there should be a consolidation of efforts from church groups to provide these things. I don't understand why efforts from Uncle Sam is the best way to reduce abortions. Christians have been helping people in these types of situations for years, so why the legislation? I think legislators like to make everything "law," rather than seek out the most sensible approach because it diverts the credit to them rather than the self-giving individuals who have championed helping the needy.

Lawyer's point about the "religious guilt trip" is completely unfounded. The reason churches provide most of the post-abortion counseling and help to struggling mothers is because those people actually care. There's a reason Planned Parenthood does far more abortions than adoptions. It's because they trick people into thinking their only reasonable option is to kill their baby, and that is just unethical and scandalous. Groups like that are predatory while churches have nothing to gain, because their mission is to give.

I wonder if the government (read as male politicians and judges) ever thinks that encouraging young people to have sex outside of marriage ends in having babies and when the young are too young to support themselves, what the heck, the taxpayer can do it. What is this passion our politicians and judges have for making it easier for boys to have sex with younger and younger girls. The male ends up moving on and leaving the girl behind with the kid , no support financially, no education, otherwise back to being below the men and under male(gov't) control. And now that parents can't be involved and stop the males from getting free sex from their daughters, the taxpayer gets to support the daughter and the kid. How much lower will the age for the girl be mandated by male judges & politiians for the sexual privilege of the male. Perpepuating sex is not the answer. Let the young people be supported by their parents, hey, what an idea. It puts the problem and solution back in the families hands not the gov't where it's always been. Out of 3,000 kids in my graduating class, 3 girls had babies but that was in the 50s now it's every tenth girl. Something's wrong in this society.

This Act is a good first practical step to try and limit the number of abortions. It gives a helping hand to financially strapped women. What may not be adequately covered is educating men and women on how to not get to the position of needing an abortion in the first place.
There need to be financial incentives as well as moral incentives to encourage change in behavior.

Thank goodness something is being done! I am extremely pro-life, but I don't deny that people will continue to have sex before they are ready to take care of a child. As such, we must be ready to teach these families to "fish" so to speak, so they can support their families in the long run (versus depending on welfare). "Provide child care to low-income and student parents" - That is key... child care for both mothers AND fathers that need to work/gain and education.

As a student and a mother trying to make it out of financial difficulty, I resent people who suggest that it helping out with childcare will be harmful to the society and is a bad idea. It is more harmful to our society to limit the people who are able to go back to school or work to nonparents. No one wants to be in the situation where they can't afford childcare, but sometimes childcare is more than you are making at your job, and if you're a student, you're actually paying to take classes, which means you're paying twice when you use childcare.