Reducing Abortion – Number or Need?

“It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

The room was silent.

The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”

– Melody Barnes, Director of the Domestic Policy Advisory Council

Semantics? Not at all. There is a world of difference between these statements. Confused? Let’s break it down.As more facts supporting the position that life begins at conception emerge, these politicians find that they have to find a new catchphrase to support their pro-abortion politics. By seemingly agreeing with a pro-life position – without actually agreeing – they have cast themselves into a more charitable light. Now, they say, we are the reasonable ones and it is the pro-life community that refuses to compromise. And their new language is an empty promise. It sounds good, it sounds reasonable, but it means nothing.

To reduce the number of abortions is to set a goal that will see a drop in abortions performed in the United States. It is a real, tangible number that would require policy-makers to set targets for reductions over time. While there are those who will argue that abortions are declining, the data they present tells only part of the story. Certain demographics in America are actually having more abortions, and the pernicious practice of sex-selective abortions is also on the rise.  This semantic game is a response to the criticism that Democrats have taken over their inflexible stance on abortion. .

To reduce the need for abortions promises – nothing. Not one thing. No targets need to be set. no numbers need to be studied. No positive action needs to be taken. What does ‘reducing the need for abortion’ even mean? Like so much in the Obama administration – that’s a really good question. It sounds good but promises nothing. And it allows the administration to promote it’s socialist agenda on the basis that it is ‘reducing the need for abortion.’ Better health care reduces the need for abortion. More public housing – reduces the need for abortion. Increasing unemployment benefits – reduces the need for abortions. Shovel ready jobs – reduces the need for abortion…I think you get the point.

By making this policy, the Administration hopes to continue to dupe pro-Obama Catholics into thinking that his social welfare programs are the epitome of Catholic social thinking. All the while, abortions will continue. And if the numbers don’t decline – and they won’t – well, it is a woman’s right to choose, after all.

But they didn’t NEED to have that abortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.