Dear Colleague:

"I voted for it before I voted against it": How the John Kerry mentality
has infected the Senate Democratic caucus.

Steven W. Mosher
President

PRI Weekly Briefing
4 August 2006
Vol. 8, No. 30


Senate Democrats' Make-Believe on Girls' Abortions
By Joseph A. D'Agostino


Given the symbolic and electoral successes of pro-lifers in the past few
years, Democratic politicians and consultants have been openly discussing
ways in which to appeal to more pro-life voters.  They have been in a
particular bind, since their decade-long defense of partial-birth abortion
has painted the Democratic Party as radically extreme on the abortion
issue.  If you are not against delivering 9-month-old unborn babies feet
first and then sucking their brains out before delivering the head, what
are you against?  Just as Democrats have been holding meetings, writing
articles, and conducting surveys on how to seem less anti-religion, so
they have done the same on seeming less anti-life.
 
Democratic senators who wish to appear more moderate on
abortion--particularly those from moderate or conservative states--had a
great opportunity recently to demonstrate their reasonableness on the
issue.  Many of them voted for the Child Custody Protection Act (S 403),
which forbids adults to take a minor girl across state lines for an
abortion without the permission of one of her parents, though only if the
state in which she resides has a parental consent or notification law in
the first place.  How could anyone oppose this common-sense measure that
maintains parental authority and responsibility while helping states
enforce their own laws?  Thirty-four senators did, and all but five were
Democrats.  However, 65 senators voted for the measure, including 14
Democrats.
 
That vote would mean Democrats had a good example of a little moderation
within their party on the question of abortion, if it weren't for
Democrats' other concern.  Although they want to be seen as more pro-life,
they also need to satisfy their base and their special interest groups,
which are rabidly, feverishly, even religiously pro-abortion.  Democrats
can't survive without the abortion-as-sacrament crowd, yet the polls tell
them they are the minority partly because of their rabid pro-abortion
politics, so what to do?
 
Taking a leaf from Sen. John Kerry's playbook, the Senate Democrats
decided to be for the bill before they took against it.  After the Senate
passed the Child Custody Protection Act by the large majority of 65 to 34
on July 25, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) objected to the
routine request to appoint conferees to reconcile the Senate version of
the bill with the House's.
 
When the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill, a
House-Senate conference is appointed to iron out the differences.  This
new, compromise bill is then voted on by both houses.  Conferees are
appointed all the time without controversy, and the practice itself dates
back to the beginning of the Republic.
 
What is not routine was Durbin's objection, which was a surprise
procedural maneuver that could doom the Child Custody Protection Act's
passage.  Clearly, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, could not
have taken this unprecedented action without the support of his party.
And, in fact, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), the No. 1
Democrat in the Senate and a supposed moderate on abortion who voted for
the bill, raised the same objection the next time the Senate tried to pass
a motion to appoint conferees, confirming that the Senate Democratic
leadership is united behind this tactic.
 
The Democrats claim they want to ensure that the Senate version of the
bill is the one that finally passes Congress.  The Senate version contains
an amendment from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) punishing anyone who
commits incest with a minor and then transports her across state lines for
an abortion.  The amendment was non-controversial--it passed 98 to 0--and
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) has promised to reject any
bill coming from the House-Senate conference that does not include Boxer's
amendment.  Yet, the Senate Democrats continue to block the bill, with
Reid objecting to the appointing of conferees this week just before the
Senate left Washington for its traditional August recess.
 
What is going on?  Simple: Moderate Senate Democrats want the credit among
the electorate for voting for a popular pro-life measure, and the national
Democratic Party wants the credit among its special interest groups for
dooming the same measure via procedural technicalities.  The Dems may also
dislike a provision in the House bill that requires an abortionist to
contact a parent if a minor girl comes to him from out-of-state, though
preservation of the Boxer amendment is their publicly given reason.  Frist
may try to get the Senate to appoint conferees without Reid's
permission--which is possible but unusual--or he may decide not to spend
precious Senate floor time on this fight with an election looming.  It is
unlikely that this procedural tactic to force the Senate bill through
Congress will succeed, since House leaders do not want to give in to such
blackmail--and neither does Frist.
 
Sen. John Ensign (R.), from Reid's home state of Nevada and primary
sponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act in the Senate, says, "We
worked together in a bipartisan fashion to amend the bill and get it
approved and, now that it has been approved, some Democrats are
undermining the will of the Senate and the American people by unfairly
blocking it.  It is underhanded and disingenuous, and it needs to stop
now."
 
Is this bill needed?  It certainly is.  Parental involvement laws reduce
the abortion rate among minors, as Professor Michael New of the University
of Alabama concluded in a July 18, 2006 Heritage Foundation study.  After
parental involvement laws were passed in five states, the abortion rate
for girls 13-17 declined by 30.5% while it declined by only 18.6% in other
states (abortions have been trending down generally in recent years).
 
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of
Law in Minnesota testified before Congress about studies concerning
underage abortions.  "In addition to improving the medical care received
by young girls dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, parental notification
will provide increased protection against sexual exploitation of minors by
adult men," she said.  "National studies reveal '[a]lmost two thirds of
adolescent mothers have partners older than 20 years of age.'  In a study
of over 46,000 pregnancies by school-age girls in California, researchers
found that '71%, or over 33,000, were fathered by adult post-high-school
men whose mean age was 22.6 years, an average of 5 years older than the
mothers. . . . Even among junior high school mothers aged 15 or younger,
most births are fathered by adult men 6-7 years their senior.  Men aged 25
or older father more births among California school-age girls than do boys
under age 18.'  Other studies have found that most teenage pregnancies are
the result of predatory practices by men who are substantially older."
 
Clandestine abortions are helping these men cover up their crimes.  "A
survey of 1,500 unmarried minors having abortions revealed that among
minors who reported that neither parent knew of the abortion, 89% said
that a boyfriend was involved in deciding or arranging the abortion (and
93% of those 15 and under said that a boyfriend was involved)," said
Collett in prepared testimony.  "Further, 76% indicated that a boyfriend
helped pay the expenses of the abortion.  Clearly, a number of young girls
who obtained abortions without their parents' knowledge were encouraged to
do so by a sexual partner who could be charged with statutory rape.
Secret abortions do nothing to expose these men's wrongful conduct."
 
That, of course, doesn't matter to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) or to
the national pro-abortion groups who oppose this bill, or to the Senate
Democratic leadership.  Hopefully, pro-life Americans will see through
this shady attempt to seem more moderate on abortion while refusing to
allow action.  They should certainly insist that Frist, Reid, and their
colleagues get this bill passed into law when Congress returns to session
after Labor Day.


Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the
Population Research Institute.

_________
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, Va. 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
Website: www.pop.org
_________
(c) 2006 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
http://pop.org/donate.cfm. All donations (of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated. _________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, go to:
http://pop.org/subscribe-weekly.cfm or email us at pri@pop.org and say
"Add me to your Weekly Briefing."
The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."