Political: Moderate, Centrist, and Progressive Thread

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Let me educate you then bro. LOL

A progressive is more centrist and favors a mixed economy. A liberal is closer to socialist.

And as for Government...like marriage...it's an institution ordained by God, read Romans 13.

Your education system, like the Department of Education, is sadly lacking. It cannot call a spade a spade.

As for government...yes, it is ordained by God. It has it's place, and the church has it's place. And the government isn't supposed to take the place of the church...read Acts 6. That's why conservatives want limited government...government in it's God ordained place. We don't advocate anarchy.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

ChristopherHall> If you want European Health Care and European Socialism- simply move to Belgium

Do you think for even one half a second anyone in America thinks a hoot about what party is in power. They are disgusted with a Democratic party that moved so far left it abandoned it's own base. They are digusted with the GOP given a mandate in 1994 that is a dismal failure. Instead of shrinking Government, they have grown it to exceed what LBJ did with the Great Society of the late 60's. But instead of thought, they are hypnotized by the **** tube and some girly man telling them what to say and do. To top it off, antics like algore pulled in Florida and the debauchery of "hanging chad" cause more apathy. They will simply stay home and we get a mess like we have never seen before.

[ChristopherHall]

Bishop, you wrote some good stuff, I just think it needs to be developed better.

I do believe that liberalism, at it's core, is about greed. That doesn't mean everyone who suscribes to it is greedy...some people, apparently you included, honestly believe it's purported good intentions.

In all honesty, politics is a very worldly system and both liberalism and conservatism are fueled by greed. Some good well meaning folks are on both sides, but in all honesty the system is very corrupt. I think the best thing for the Republicans, and our nation, will be to spank the Republicans in the general election. They’ve lost their way, they spend worse than liberals, and jump at war as a first resort. Kennedy had hard evidence of WMDs pointed right at us and used military strength and diplomacy without waging pre-emptive war. Bush rushed blindly into a war he was repeatedly advised against. And don’t get me started on no-bid contracts that are allowing war profiteers to milk the national treasury dry. War is bidness…and bidness is good. They don’t care if it was necessary or not. Don’t reward the Republicans for nearly ruining our nation. Punish them, it will make them better in the long run. The Democrats will jump like boyscouts to do good by the American people and be more responsive to what the people they represent desire…until maybe the second term or the next Democratic Presidency. Then the Democrats will need a good whippin’ and by then hopefully the Republicans will have learned their lessons.

I firmly believe that to be sold out to a body politic and it’s philosophy is foolish. Times change and we need to adapt to survive. Sometimes a rough and tumble un-regulated economy is good for us…then we need to tighten the reigns and bring those horses back under control for a while. It’s always in a state of flux, it’s dynamic not static. What happens is we foolishly pick sides and then become mindless followers. Frankly, I believe if the Antichrist is an American President he will be a Republican. Why? Well, he knows Christians will vote for the devil himself if he’s a card carrying, pro-life, Republican.

As for you not being a socialist: Maybe not a pure socialist...but wealth redistribution, government control, and heavy progressive taxation are all hallmarks of socialistic systems. A rose by any other name would smell as...well, not sweet, but I'm sure you understand my point.

Do you believe a person can be socially conditioned to the point that any mention of regulation or taxation rings of socialism? I do…I see it all the time. Sometimes I have to step up and confront a company for overcharging or not meeting governmental standards and guess what…they call me a socialist. Good grief. Whiny free-market monkeys just don’t get it. No…you can’t dump that there, we need that water. I don’t care how many of YOUR experts say it’s cool. And no…we’re not going to buy your snake oil chemical to reduce odor at wastewater, our chemists have shown that you’re chemical doesn’t meet standards and frankly…will not work for us. They virtually refuse to be refused…then they go buddy up to some politician and get the contract that way. Then five years later here we are…the chemical didn’t meet standards and has actually done some damage to the local ecology. Then we try to get them to make things right according to the contract and then they call us…”Socialists!” Get real dude. I just want my son to be able to fish in clean water man, back off. Hey, let your kid go play in your chemicals. LOL Man, I could tell you stories…and we deal with relatively smaller companies. Imagine what multibillion dollar companies try to get by with. Those incidents are documented too if you’re interested and want to look them up.

Anyway, my point is that both conservatism and liberalism is about greed…that’s the nature of things on planet earth man. Get out more if you don’t believe me. The goal is to have as many good folks in both parties at least some good is done.

Frankly, Chris, I hate liberalism. Call me unChristian, a jerk, whatever. I believe liberalism is a destructive and humanistic philosophy that encourages reliance on man and not on God.

This is only an example to illustrate my above point:

“Frankly, Chris, I dislike conservatism. Call me unChristian, a jerk, whatever. I believe conservatism is a destructive and social Darwinist philosophy that encourages reliance on the power of money and not on God.”

I don’t hate conservatism or liberalism. I see it like driving a car. You’re not going to get very far if you only make right turns. Sometimes a left turn is in order and sometimes a right turn is in order. As we drive this country through history occasionally we’ll need to make some left turns.

As for other nations being more "progressive" than us...America is the most powerful and richest nation on earth.

But our people don’t live as long or have as many perks for living here as in other countries. Visit Britain, France, Norway, or even Canada. I enjoy Canada, my wife and I go up there every year for vacation. I get to meet some good people and talk about international politics. Sometimes I’m embarrassed because they just wonder when we’ll get it together and move into the modern era.

People spend years trying to get into this country.

From Mexico, South America, and third world countries maybe. But most Canadians aren’t lining up to come south, and most Europeans enjoy visiting but wouldn’t want to live here. We can find an international or European forum and talk with some European or Canadians if you like. The internet is indeed a wonderful thing.

So what in the world makes you believe other countries have it better than we do?

I’m going to assume you honestly don’t know. Bro….I mean this with all due respect, you need to stop chanting, “We’re #1!”, and study up a bit on that one. You’ll be shocked.

Because their people can wait in line for a year or so for critical surgery at the hands of incompetent physicians, but the government pays for it so they are better?

That’s a myth bro. I know of a Canadian who knows of one case of anyone waiting for a procedure, an MRI in this case, and it was because it was non-life threatening. They gave the man time off work with a percent of his wages and some real nice pain killers until the procedure. I’ve been to Canada, talked to Canadians, and even a few Europeans. I guess you could say I’ve had my own personal “Sicko” experience. LOL That’s why I’m so passionate about it and can’t deny it. Been there, seen it, talked with the folks, yadda, yadda, yadda. Bro, myths prevail and the wise search out the truth in a matter.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

ChristopherHall> If you want European Health Care and European Socialism- simply move to Belgium

Do you think for even one half a second anyone in America thinks a hoot about what party is in power. They are disgusted with a Democratic party that moved so far left it abandoned it's own base. They are digusted with the GOP given a mandate in 1994 that is a dismal failure. Instead of shrinking Government, they have grown it to exceed what LBJ did with the Great Society of the late 60's. But instead of thought, they are hypnotized by the boob tube and some girly man telling them what to say and do. To top it off, antics like algore pulled in Florida and the debauchery of "hanging chad" cause more apathy. They will simply stay home and we get a mess like we have never seen before.

I take it you had a bad experience in Europe? LOL

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

Chris, I'm sorry, but that's not the position SCOTUS took. To say so either means you don't know what position SCOTUS takes, or you are willing to obfuscate their position.

The fact is, SCOTUS's position is that abortion, under the Constitution, is a right PROTECTED by the government. Prior to Roe v. Wade, state governments had the power to ban abortion...prior to Connecticut v. Griswold, even the "right to privacy" wasn't protected by the Constitution. The fact is that Roe v. Wade simply said that if state governments were going to ban abortion, then the federal government was going to PROTECT it. It took a heretofore unrecognized right and placed it under the protection of the Constitution.

And further, liberal candidates may say they are "pro-choice"...but the fact that federal funds go to abortion advocacy groups shows that they don't have any problem with the federal government interfering in the issue of abortion....just not limiting it.

You know there have been more court cases about abortion than Roe v. Wade right? lol

[bishopnl]

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to respond to all that right now...maybe over the weekend if I get a chance.

You know there have been more court cases about abortion than Roe v. Wade right? lol

Yes, I know. I'm just concerned that since you don't seem to understand the defining one, there's not much point in discussing any of the others.

[LordChocolate]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Great question bro, can you find a "Pro-Abortion" candidate?

There is a difference between Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion. One can believe abortion is absolutely wrong, a terrible moral evil, but not believe that it’s the role of Government to address it. For example, let’s say we ban abortion today. If a woman procures an abortion tomorrow what will be the penalty? If we classify it as murder we must try her and any assisting medical professional with murder. Sentence them to execution or life in prison. But that will not fly. So we suggest taking the license of a doctor (most abortionists aren’t licensed) and fine a woman. Great, life is reduced to the value of a parking ticket or moving violation. Anything short of trying her and the medical professional with first degree murder is an injustice. Or…we can look at the situation as the SCOTUS has. It’s primarily an issue the government isn’t tasked to address. It’s a grave social evil but there isn’t a political answer.

Find me a politician that believes women who procure abortion should be tried for murder and I’ll consider it. Until then, it’s an issue that doesn’t have a political answer.

Another way to look at it is to compare it to the rest of the world. Belgium is a very pro-choice liberal nation but has had one of the lowest (if not the lowest) abortion rate in the world. Chile serves as a good example of a nation that had some very strict abortion law. Their abortion rate was one of the highest in the world.

Those were just examples. There are many more. Why is it that so many liberal pro-choice nations have lower abortion rates than nearly every deeply conservative pro-life nation?

Well think about this…in Belgium child care is subsidized, national health insurance, struggling single mothers can receive assistance with paying rent and utilities. Women know they can raise a child well. In America a young woman has a crisis pregnancy or an unexpected pregnancy doesn’t know where help will come from. And frankly, there isn’t much help out there. How will she get health insurance for her and her child? Afford child care? Keep her job? It’s all very terrifying for those women in those circumstances. So they give in to fear and choose to abort. The CDC reported that 2 out of every 3 abortions in the US were procured by women living under poverty level who stated economic hardship was the primary reason for seeking abortion. Frankly, Satan convinced them to abort because there isn’t a family friendly social infrastructure in the US like there is in Belgium. That’s why our abortion rate is nearly triple that found in Belgium. Progressives often see the issue of abortion as the byproduct of non-progressive social policy. They intend to reduce abortion by addressing the needs and issues that women face (health care, child care, education, living wage, and job security).

Besides, most Republican politicians don’t care a bit about abortion. They want to keep the issue alive to manipulate our religious values to corner us into voting for them. Frankly, like good capitalists…they’re capitalizing on the issue of abortion and playing lip service to the Pro-Life position.

It’s an issue that isn’t going away. Address the issues women face and do more than moralize. That will reduce the rate of abortion and save lives. That's the progressive approach. It's working in other countries...it can work here too. We just have to have the will to do it. Or we can argue over it for another thirty years while abortion rates stay where they are or go higher.

Lastly, they'll never tell you this...but the Democrats submitted a plan aimed at reducing the abortion rate in the United States by 95% in 10% known as the 95-10 Initiative. The Republican congress locked arms with leftwing Pro-Choice Democrats and sidelined it.

A "Pro-Choice" candidate is PRO ABORTION. A child is NOT a choice. You either let it live or you kill it. This is the "Choice". Nowhere else will you EVER in our society see where murder is considered ok as long as it was a choice.

Charles Manson Made a choice to start helter skelter. He personally never killed anyone but is spending his life in prison because he was an accomplice. ALL doctors, nurses, etc, should go to prison for life if they participate in an abortion.
Hitler did not personally kill 20 million people but he was responsible. Pro-choice candidates do not kill 1.25+ million CHILDREN per year in this country but THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE!!

A Christian who promotes or advocates murder, by voting for those who kill the innocent, should really take another look at the cross. JMO.

[Aquila]

I think you're being unfair, LordChocolate. Chris is obviously not "Pro-Abortion." Chris voiced that political progressives and liberals feel that government is incapable of adequately addressing the issue of abortion. He may be correct. He asked an interesting question, if we banned abortion what do we do with violators? Do we issue a fine or take licenses if they have them? That's merely cosmetic. It essentially generates money for the government and ties up our legal system. The only true penalty for abortion would be trial for murder, but how many would support trying women who have procured and so procure abortion with murder? That just won't fly. It becomes a rather shallow response. To insinuate that Chris is "Pro-Abortion" is a mischaracterization. Chris just thinks government can't adequately address the issue. Let's be truthful, government almost never adequately addresses anything! Odds are you're a Republican or at least a Conservative. Most Republicans don't believe in banning alcohol, tobacco, pornography, or violent entertainment. They believe that government is better off to leave these issues alone and allow private indivduals to choose rather they will particiate in these things or not. Would it be fare to say that if you vote Republican you're pro-alcohol, pro-smoking, pro-pornography, and pro-movie violence? Of course not, but according to the logic behind your judgment about Christopher, you are these things if you measure yourself the same way you're measuring him. In that I believe you'd best present to him an explaination or an apology for slandering him. He's even got is real name on this so frankly he's got a lot to loose, we hide behind our screen names.

I lean Libertarian so I see Chris' point. Government really should keep it's nose out of the abortion issue. It's too complex and no answer will adequately address the issue. I like what the Libertarian Party says in it's platform regarding abortion.

I.8 Reproductive Rights

The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients, or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

Transitional Action: We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws.

I think that's the best GOVERNMENTAL POLICY. But we should continue to preach the value of life. You see by leaving the choice in the hands of the individuals...you keep individuals morally responsible before God. If government chooses to keep it's hands off the issue and leave the choice in the hands of the woman the government is clean, the sin lays at her feet.

I just think it's unfair to label Chris or liberals "Pro-Abortion" when in fact they are relectantly pro-choice because they feel government intervention here would only complicate matters. If libs are "Pro-Abortion" for holding a choice position....conservatives are pro-porn, pro-alcohol, and pro-smoking because Republicans don't plan on banning these things but wish to leave them as personal choices. For example, here's what our beloved Ron Paul believes regarding abortion...

Ron Paul on Abortion
Click here for 20 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Obviously Ron Paul believes that the Federal Government has no place on the issue and relegates it to an issue for the states to choose, rather they choose to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Is Ron Paul Pro-Abortion for thinking the Federal Government shouldn't involve itself in the matter? Of course not. But if you judge him as harshly as you're judging Chris, Ron Paul is "Pro-Transporting Minors to get an abortion" and "Pro-no federal protection of the fetus during a crime". Do you see the vitrolic mischaracterization?

The measure with which we judge is the measure we must meet.

[ChristopherHall]

Both of yall are missing my point. I'm not Pro-Choice, I was just explaining why progressives believe as they do. Personally, I'm Pro-Life. If I were to actually choose to be a Democrat I'd be a Pro-Life Democrat. Yes, there are Pro-Life Democrats.

Dec 05, 2007 at 08:26 AM

Senator Robert Casey Introduces the
Pregnant Women Support Act

DFLA 95-10 Initiative Gains Momentum

Washington D.C. - Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) announced today that Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act into the United States Senate. S. 2407, similar to legislation (H.R. 3192) introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) earlier this year in the U.S. House, is designed to reduce the number of abortions by aiding those women who feel they have no other option.

"We applaud Senator Casey for leading the charge to reduce the abortion rate in this country by helping pregnant women,” said DFLA’s Executive Director, Kristen Day. “Our goal since the beginning was to craft a bill that would find common ground and have a positive chance of not only becoming law, but truly helping pregnant women and their families. Senator Casey’s leadership will help tremendously with our goal to reduce the abortion rate by 95 percent in 10 years.”

The battle over abortion in the United States has long been characterized by bitter partisan rhetoric and suspicion. This bill will help shape a common-sense solution that people on all sides of the political spectrum can support. DFLA believes that it should be the goal of all people to end abortion in this country and to help mothers and young children.

"The Pregnant Women Support Act is about showing that it is possible for people from different ideological positions to come together and help those who are in need,” said DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day. “All Americans should be strongly in favor of helping mothers and saving babies, regardless of their political ideology or position on the legality of abortion.”

One of the key provisions of the proposal calls for banning the discriminatory practice against pregnant women in the health insurance industry by removing pregnancy from all "pre-existing condition" lists in health care. Other provisions call for making adoption tax credits permanent, provides grants for low-income parenting college students, fully funding the federal WIC program, increased funding for domestic violence programs, and provides free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

Since its founding, Democrats For Life has propounded what they see as a more consistent approach to being pro-life, challenging both the pro-life community to broaden its view of defending life and also the Democratic Party to come back to its roots of defending those who cannot defend themselves. They hope that this bill will further both objectives, as well as create common ground for all to stand on in the fight to defend human life.

The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.
Last Updated ( Dec 05, 2007 at 08:31 AM )
http://www.democratsforlife.org/inde...d=297&Itemid=2

Pro-Life Democrats are about to do more to reduce abortions in our country than the Republicans with all the Pro-Life rhetoric. And amazingly, Pro Life Democrats will do this without wrangling over abortion's legality.

[ChristopherHall]

Here's an explaination of the 95-10 Initiative supported by Pro-Life Democrats and progressives:

Democrats for Life of America
Introduce the 95-10 Initiative


The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.

While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality.

With bold new ideas, sound research and policy arguments, the 95-10 Initiative contains proven policy suggestions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America.

The 95-10 Initiative

Reduce 95% of abortions in 10 years


Empower Women

Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program

Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers.
*Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services.

Conduct a National Study & Update Abortion Data

National Institutes of Health will collect accurate data on why women choose abortions. Within five years of enactment, the NIH will present its findings to Congress.
*This will be compiled on a confidential and voluntary basis.

Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education

Provide grants to school districts that are in need of funds to administer effective, age-appropriate pregnancy prevention education.

Federal Funding for Abortion Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses

Provide grants for universities and colleges to support pregnant women; provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child.
*These grants will help universities establish an on-campus office for counseling, referral, and parenting services for pregnant women and daycare services for parents.

Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests.

Pregnant women who choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing should be provided with information on the accuracy of these tests.
There can be false-positive results, indicating a problem when the fetus is actually healthy.

Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent

Repeal the sunset on adoption tax credits and make them permanent.

Ban Pregnancy as a “Pre-Existing Condition” in the Health Care Industry

End the discriminatory practices against pregnant women in the health insurance industry by removing pregnancy from all “pre-existing condition” lists in health care.

Require Adoption Referral Information

Require pregnancy centers and women’s health centers that provide pregnancy counseling and that receive federal funding to provide adoption referral information.

Women’s Right to Know

Any women’s health center or clinic that provides pregnancy counseling or abortion services must provide accurate information on abortion and the adverse side effects to a woman’s health. Patients do not have to accept the materials if they do not want them.

Provide Ultrasound Equipment

Provide grants to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such services. This equipment will be operated by licensed professionals.

Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs

Offer additional federal funding for programs that have received grants by the Department of Justice for providing counseling and shelter for women and children in crisis pregnancies. The leading cause of death against pregnant women is murder.

Contraception Equity

Require insurance coverage of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. (Modeled after Missouri legislation that was supported by both pro-life and pro-choice groups.)

Protect our Children

Fully Fund Federal WIC Program

Special Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is funded at about $4.9 billion, which advocates say is $268 million less than what’s needed to serve the current 7.86–7.90 million participants.
The administration expects 8.2 million pregnant women, infants, and young children to be served by the program. Thus, this analysis assumes that an eight percent reduction translates into 670,000 fewer people being served (which is eight percent of 8.2 million).
The administration also proposes placing an overall cap on all non-defense, non-Homeland Security discretionary spending for the next five years. By 2010, those discretionary caps could force 660,000 recipients to lose WIC in 2010. Between 2006 and 2010, the WIC cuts could total $657 million.
In addition, it is estimated that every dollar spent on WIC results in between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers (Food Research and Action Center).

Parental Notification

Prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.
Requires states that have parental notification to inform parents of state statutory rape laws.

Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws

Forty-six states now have some type of safe haven legislation. (The following states do not have safe haven legislation: AK, HI (Vetoed 7/2/03), NE and VT.) Most of the laws designate hospitals, emergency medical services, fire stations and police stations as safe locations. One exception is New York, which stipulates that the baby may be left with a suitable person or may be left in a suitable location so long as an appropriate person is promptly notified.

Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes

Adoption counseling in federally funded maternity group homes and teaching of parenting skills.

Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women

HR 2268—Strickland (D-OH)/HR 4350—Dingell (D-MI)—108th Congress

Mandate SCHIP coverage for pregnant women.

Expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and to newborns through the first full year of life.

As you can see, these are policies aimed at targeting the issues women face when confronted with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. I commend my Pro-Life Republican friends for all the wonderful arguments in favor of life in the market place of ideas. But truth be told they're all talk and no action. They want to address abortion without it costing them anything. Talk money and programs that might save lives and instantly the dollar is far more important. While the Republicans want to philosophize about the value of life and wrangle in the courts, we can take measures to reduce America's abortion rate. Prayerfully we can bring it lower than the Belgium's.