Pro-lifers are pro-abortionists

As a pro-choice activist I can honestly sympathize with pro-life individuals. There are compelling arguments on both sides. Because I have worked intensively on the pro-choice side, I know how it feels to believe in your position so strongly. Abortion is more than a "thorny" issue. Abortion will continue to be a personal and, unfortunately, political issue. Too often, abortion is used to differentiate candidates.

In presidential and congressional elections, there are obviously other issues as important as reproductive rights. Last year, I focused solely on reproductive rights. However, I am proud of my work. And I still believe access to a safe, legal abortion is vital, not only to a woman's social and economic well being, but also to her life.

That said, you would think pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike would vote in favor of sustaining, if not increasing, Title X funding. Title X is a federal program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services that covers a range of reproductive health services like STD screening, basic infertility screening, pelvic exams and pap tests, emergency contraception in addition to contraceptives -- all based on a patient's ability to pay. By law, Title X funds cannot pay for abortions. Yet, so-called pro-lifers vote against family planning any chance they can get -- even during our present national crisis. How unfortunate. How unthinkable. And how disgusting.

In early October, just weeks after Sept. 11, Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) attempted to pass an anti-family planning amendment. Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) is also offering an amendment to limit public funds for emergency contraception -- a higher dose of birth control that can be taken after unprotected sex or sexual assault. The amendments aren't unusual: Every year so-called pro-life legislators introduce such legislation. Only now they're taking advantage of bi-partisanship encouraged by the events of Sept. 11.

Access to family planning has proven effective in reducing large numbers of unintended pregnancies, as well as abortions. Unintended pregnancy is not ideal. Although to some it may be romantic, to others it is heartbreaking. Unintended pregnancy increases mortality rates of newborns and the likelihood of child abuse and developmental disabilities.

I conclude that so-called pro-life legislators are, in effect, pro-abortionists. I shall refer to them as pro-abortionists in writing and in public, because that's what they're accomplishing. Make no mistake -- pro-abortionist legislators know what exactly they're doing yet continue to cripple family planning.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon said it best: "No American woman should be denied access to family- planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of family planning services ... to all who want but cannot afford them." And he was a republican! I guess today's social conservatives aren't so compassionate.

Family planning needs to stop being treated as something like a disease, something that pro-abortionists want to get rid of. Family planning is a fundamental human right. Without family planning, a woman would have 12-15 pregnancies. The fact is, in industrial and even developing countries, couples want small families. Access to family planning is not something only for the upper- or even middle-class. Certainly, this isn't about "entitlements." This is about our future as a just and humane society.

The goal is this: Every pregnancy a planned pregnancy. Simple. Sound. Sacred.

We must be ever vigilant in opposing restrictions on family planning, for there are those unscrupulous legislators who will stop at nothing in risking women's lives.