Pro-life Democrats applaud partial-birth abortion ruling

A federal law banning partial birth abortions has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) once described partial-birth abortion was "as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon in our judiciary."

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by Congress in 2003 with the support of 63 House Democrats and 17 Senate Democrats including then Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and current Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Public opinion surveys such as the Gallup Poll in 2003 found that a solidly majority of Americans favored a law prohibiting partial birth abortions.

Nebraska' Democratic Senator Ben Nelson voted for and was a co-sponsor of the legislation. The law had previously been challenged by federal courts in Nebraska, New York and California. The decision on Wednesday overturned those rulings.

Nelson issued the following statement on the court's decision:

"I agree with today's decision by the Supreme Court and I disagree with federal Judge Richard Kopf and others who have struck down the ban on partial birth abortion. I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court's final say overturns poor decisions made by lower federal courts.

"When Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito sat in my office before their confirmation hearings, they pledged they would interpret the law, not make the law. Today's decision is a victory over judicial activism."

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said he also supports the ban, but he added that America "must do more to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies."

As expected, Kristen Day issued a statement following the court ruling as Executive Director of Democrats for Life:

"Democrats For Life applauds the Supreme Court for the landmark ruling that upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. The decision closes the book on partial birth abortions in America and finally puts this deplorable procedure in the history books where it belongs. That said, we are of the opinion that just banning partial birth abortions does not do enough to prevent abortion in America. That's why we are proud to be leading the fight to reduce the abortion rate in America by 95 percent over the next 10 years by endorsing the 'Pregnant Woman Support Act'. This legislation will be introduced in the House and Senate just before Mother's Day and will do what the Supreme Court couldn't do this week: dramatically reduce the number of abortions and crisis pregnancies in America."

Jim Wallis of the progressive faith organization Sojourners called for pro-life and pro-choice Americans to unite and work together toward the common goal of reducing the abortion rate in an excellent Huffington Post column. http://tinyurl.com/26fnr3 Wallis notes that despite the euphoria among pro-life activists and the hysteria of pro-choice leaders that the partial birth abortion ban will have little impact on the number of abortions performed in the United States.

"The procedure involves very few abortions - about 2,200 out of 1.31 million in 2000, the last year for which numbers are available. And simply banning one procedure means that there are alternative procedures that will now be used. But the furious arguments on both sides again show how mostly symbolic the abortion debate remains when focused on primarily legal questions. After ten years of heated debate, the Court's decision does nothing to reduce the number of abortions."

"Most Americans are alarmed at the nation's high abortion rate, but don't support criminalizing it. They want to keep abortion legal, but make it genuinely rare. In 2005, 68 percent of Americans agreed that abortion should be legal, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. We have supported a "consistent life ethic" - which seeks a dramatic reduction in the actual abortion rate in America, without criminalizing what is always a tragic choice and often a desperate one. Others also question if total abortion bans are really pro-life because of the likely consequences of back-alley abortions, especially for poor women."

"It's time for concrete action that would actually and seriously reduce the number of abortions in America. A better approach than the symbolic legal battle would be to gather new energy for a commitment to advancing real solutions. A constructive dialogue should include how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies, support pregnant women who find themselves in an unexpected situation, and effectively reduce the abortion rate."

"Legislation that could make a real difference in changing the circumstances that make abortions more likely has been introduced again in the new Congress. The Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro "aims to reduce the abortion rate by preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and assisting new parents. One in five abortions are obtained by a teenager and 60 percent are obtained by women with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line." We supported this legislation in the last Congress and will again. Other legislation may be introduced again by Rep. Lincoln Davis, and Democrats for Life continues to promote its 95/10 Initiative, which is still a good one."

"It's time that both pro-life and pro-choice supporters come together and support these measures, and actually do something serious and substantial in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and dramatically reducing the abortion rate. Who could be against that?Let's indeed save unborn lives. It's time to move from symbols to substance."

I agree. It is time to do something about the abortion rate. Democrats need to support the 95/10 initiative promoting alternatives to abortion. We need to expand the safety net for expectant mothers, require health insurers to cover pregnancy, expand adoption tax credits and strengthen child support enforcement efforts to assure that deadbeat dads help provide for their kids.