Here I\u2019m going to focus entirely on abortion in what we hope will be a post-Roe<\/em> world – state and federal legislation. As usual, these are my own thoughts, not official positions of the Consistent Life Network.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Several things should have been done all along that, in addition to their own merits, work as abortion prevention \u2013 whether abortion\u2019s legal or not. But the idea that states banning abortion have all the more responsibility to pass these has come up in several media spots. For those states insisting on keeping abortion legal, these are some of the things that will be all the more important.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One year the National Right to Life Committee and the National Organization for Women had their national conventions in Denver on the same weekend, so I went to major chunks of both. One button popular in both: \u201cEvery<\/em> mother is a working mother.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I propose a bill that would expand Medicare to cover everyone from conception up to age 18, plus all obstetric care for pregnancies, plus include that the Hyde amendment is permanent and covers all federal programs.<\/p>\n Why Medicare? Because an age-based set of benefits is already established and doesn\u2019t mark the recipient as poor. It has a better reputation with doctors, is more stable, and doesn\u2019t rely on state governments who cut Medicaid.<\/p>\n Children as a whole aren\u2019t the most expensive health care group. Medicaid and CHIP dollars could go into the Medicare budget to cover the same people. Medicare already covers children with disabilities (although that could be better done), so the most expensive children are already in the budget.<\/p>\n For Republicans, having the Hyde amendment permanent, and having conception be the beginning point \u2013 would that be so very valuable as to let them swallow their aversion to expanding Medicare?<\/p>\n For Democrats, having a substantial expansion of Medicare \u2013 would that be so very valuable as to let them swallow their aversion to the Hyde amendment?<\/p>\n Actually, I doubt it. I fear this is fantasy; positions are so entrenched. But if either one of the parties did decide to propose it, it would surely put the party in a spot, wouldn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n In the meantime, those who follow Catholic<\/a> and Mennonite<\/a> doctrine, a large hunk of evangelicals, and us pro-life feminists and consistent lifers would all regard it as a win-win. We like both parts of the deal and wouldn\u2019t regard it as a horse trade at all.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Comedian Stephen Colbert noted (at 3:13-3:34)<\/a> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton\u2019s remark, \u201cWe can\u2019t stop bad people from doing bad things. They\u2019re going to violate murder laws, they\u2019re not going to follow gun laws. I never understood that argument.\u201d Colbert responded, \u201cI\u2019ve got to say \u2013 \u2018Laws are pointless\u2019 is a bold position for the attorney general<\/em>.\u201d Having heard arguments recently that laws against abortion won\u2019t stop all abortions, I apply the same point: for both guns and abortions, laws won\u2019t stop the problem entirely, but they\u2019ll have a substantial impact, and that\u2019s life-saving. You don\u2019t avoid saving some lives just because you can\u2019t save them all.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve written on the effectiveness of parental involvement for abortions on minors<\/a>, as well as what studies show about various kinds of abortion laws<\/a> on the books.<\/p>\n Suggestions we\u2019ve already made for referendums<\/a> can also apply to legislation, once allowed:<\/p>\n Meanwhile, what\u2019s the impact of laws that ban abortion outright, or after heartbeat detection? We all know women will travel to other states eager to receive them. But there\u2019s a continuum of how much women actually want to do this:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Those who are being pressured or are unsure obviously benefit from having the ready availability of abortion removed. Those who only need a small obstacle or information on alternatives will mostly make their way to birth just fine.<\/p>\n Sidewalk counselors find a steady stream of such women in the most unlikely of places \u2013 namely, walking into the facility with an abortion appointment. There are far more such women elsewhere.<\/p>\n When the media report an upsurge of women trying to get appointments in neighboring states, they don\u2019t notice those are only the women on one extreme of the continuum. Pro-lifers encounter women on the other parts all the time.<\/p>\n Also, couples will take more care about getting pregnant when getting un-pregnant is so hard. More women won\u2019t get themselves on that continuum.<\/p>\n In any event, the major impact of abortion-banning legislation will be to close abortion facilities, or the abortion-performing part of some medical clinics. Shutting down the assembly lines of current abortion practice will have a major impact on abortion numbers.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t have to do draconian things to make sure each and every abortion doesn\u2019t happen. Numbers will drop precipitously (they already have in Texas) simply with the passage of the law alone.<\/p>\n At which point, all the things mentioned in Point 1 above, along with more prenatal justice education, become all the more crucial.<\/p>\n ================================<\/p>\n For more of our posts on similar topics, see:<\/em><\/p>\n Should Abortions be Illegal?<\/a><\/p>\n Who the Law Targets<\/a><\/p>\n Why the Hyde Amendment Helps Low-Income Women<\/a><\/p>\n Removing Health Care Access is an Act of Violence<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nPoint 1: Taking Care of Everybody<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/dot-infinity-300x155.jpg\")
<\/a>All programs that effectively reduce rape, domestic violence, and sex trafficking should get very, very high priority.<\/p>\n<\/a>Henry Hyde made a good pro-life case for parental leave; see Paid Family and Medical Leave<\/a> for the speech and more. The parental leave bill passed, but it\u2019s unpaid, making it unworkable for many.<\/p>\n<\/a>Raising the minimum wage<\/a>, by reducing poverty, reduces abortion.<\/p>\n<\/a>Bolstering Community Health Centers in general \u2013 and especially in the vicinity of Planned Parenthood centers that don\u2019t have any nearby<\/a> \u2013 will bring greater access to health care. Even a gridlocked Congress may be able to do this, because both Republicans and Democrats support Community Health Centers. It\u2019s already in the CHC\u2019s legal definition that they don\u2019t do abortions.<\/p>\n<\/a>The idea of a child allowance was originally proposed to be done through Social Security, but ended up as an expanded tax credit. It was wildly successful in reducing childhood poverty<\/a>. But then it ended. My opinion is that Social Security payments make a better fit: being a parent is work, and work we need people to do. Sharing in the cost of that makes as much sense as sharing for people with disabilities and retirees. Social security might be more permanent than a tax credit.<\/p>\n<\/a>There should never family caps on any kind of poverty-relief payments; those have been shown<\/a> to increase abortions.<\/p>\n<\/a>Increasing affordable child care options.<\/p>\n<\/a>Increasing access to affordable housing.<\/p>\n<\/a>Finding better solutions to crime that don\u2019t involve mass incarceration, which can break up families and other support systems for children. Cash bail<\/a> for those safe enough to be let out can threaten jobs and make pregnancy harder. The exception to the abolition of slavery<\/a> for those convicted of a crime encourages mistreatment of prisoners.<\/p>\n<\/a>We need to find ways to make the Hyde amendment permanent. The Hyde Amendment bars federal Medicaid dollars from paying for most abortions. It\u2019s a rider every year. It\u2019s\u00a0a life-saving measure<\/a>, as\u00a0shown in studies<\/a>. It\u2019s\u00a0helpful to low-income women<\/a>, since it removes some of the pressures to abort. Democrats have recently made its passage much more precarious than it used to be.<\/p>\n<\/a>Anything that helps with access to health care: expanding Medicaid<\/a>, the Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program<\/a> (CHIP) or any other method that works.<\/p>\nPoint 2: A Horse Trade<\/h3>\n
Point 3: Laws Directly on Abortion<\/h3>\n
![\"Post-Roe](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/title-graphic-300x217.jpg\")
<\/a>On stopping late-term abortions, where the best public support is: cast the proposal not in terms of restriction, but protection \u2013 it gets the same result, but frames it better. And it will be far more effective and persuasive if other protections of late-term babies are added. Say, health coverage and other supports for the mother, the unborn child, and for children born with disabilities. (We have a list of possibilities<\/a> and would like to add to it if anyone has suggestions.)<\/p>\n<\/a>Conscientious objection on state tax dollars<\/a> could apply to both abortion and the death penalty, and military-related expenditures where that\u2019s in state budgets.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Blog-Abortion-Women-Want.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n