95-10 Challenge

Nathan over at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has challenged the editors here at CPS and some other conservative Catholic bloggers to support the Democrats for Life 95-10 initiative. He believes Republicans will oppose the plan on the premise that a pro-life win for Democrats would be bad for the GOP. Though there is much to support in 95-10 I too oppose 95-10 as is and not for political reasons. My reasons are in my comment (below) to Nathan's post below:

First off, the 95-10 Initiative is a worthy endeavor. DFL should be commended as should those pro-life Democrats who support it. You question the Republican Party's commitment to the pro-life cause by asserting that the party is only pro-life for political purposes and not out of any moral obligation to protect innocent unborn children. Though I do not question the commitment of Representatives Ryan, Costello, Roemer, Kaptur, Stupak, Senator Nelson, and the DFL, it would be easy to do so using the same reasoning you give for questioning the GOP. I will admit though, it will be a surprise if the other Democrats, you know the pro-abortion ones, jump on this bandwagon. Does anyone seriously believe it possible that the Pelosis and Clintons in Congress will support such measures which will surely undercut organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. which have and continue to financially support the campaigns of these pro-abort members of Congress? Just look at the recent vote breakdown on CIANA, a parental notification bill, similar to one of the proposals in 95-10. 59 Democrats voted for the bill. 145 Democrats voted against it. (If I were a cynic I would say that many of those 54 Democrats, knowing this bill would pass, did so for political purposes rather than out of any desire to curb abortion. I am not a cynic though, so I will give these 59 representatives the benefit of the doubt.)

Regardless, I accept your challenge to use this initiative and work with pro-life Democrats. You see, to many of us conservatives this is not about winning a political battle. It is about fighting for children and women and changing the culture in our country. That being said I do have point out two problems with 95-10. Minus these I would have no problem supporting the whole of 95-10. You mentioned them in your post. You listed them as reasons conservatives may give, to oppose 95-10, but you claim that they would not be the real reasons. I am curious about this, since these two problems concern Catholic moral teachings. As Catholics, we believe contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370; Humanae Vitae 14, 16, Casti Connubii 56), so why should we not oppose the insurance coverage of contraception and sex education in schools which would likely promote its use? Sorry, but these two proposals promote a "contraceptive mentality" and as a Catholic I could not support them.

A key aspect which many pro-lifers (including many Catholics) miss is that a "contraceptive mentality" contributes to abortion. Some contraceptives (e.g. IUD, the pill, RU-486) are in fact abortifacients. The "lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged 'need' for abortion." (Smith, The Connection between Contraception and Abortion, 2004) As well, for over thirty years now contraception has been widely used and is deeply engrained in our culture. One would think this would have already led to a reduction in abortion. Yet, the number of abortions has not decreased. It is difficult to see how increased access to contraceptives would reduce abortion. Besides, contraception facilitates sex outside of marriage and encourages teen sex. This has led to an increase in unplanned pregnancies. Abortion, is used as a back-up contraception in many of these cases. The "contraceptive mentality" decreases sexual responsibility and lessens the sex act to something for mere enjoyment rather than the promotion of its two-fold purpose--the unitive and creative functions. These proposals in 95-10 which seek to increase the use of contraceptives, contribute to the "contraceptive mentality" and very likely would increase the number of abortions.

That is not to say that the rest of 95-10 is unacceptable. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would suggest that these two proposals in 95-10 be either removed or modified. Modifications could include: The sex education proposal should increase the focus on abstinence education. There already is more government money promoting contraception than there is promoting abstinence. Studies have shown that abstinence education is working. 95-10 is a great opportunity to increase that focus. The insurance coverage for contraception could be replaced with money and support for family planning counseling and education. I would hope that Rep Ryan packages 95-10 in such a way as to allow members of Congress to vote on individual parts of it rather than having to vote on it as a whole. Either way, members should have the ability to submit amendments which could change the objectional proposals.

I look forward to a continued discussion on this proposal.