The title sounds so good.   How could “prevention first” be a negative thing?  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the lead sponsor of S. 21, called the Prevention First Act.   What will be prevented and how much will it cost?  As usual, the claimed intent is to prevent “unwanted pregnancies.”  How might the provisions of S. 21 achieve such a result?   First, the bill would prohibit health insurance plans from excluding coverage for birth control drugs and devices. Even people who do not want or need such “coverage” would be forced to pay for it.

Hospitals that receive any Federal funds would be forced to dispence the morning-after pill (Plan B), which can sometimes cause an abortion, to women who indicate they have been raped.   This provision would force hospitals opposed to abortion to become involved in practicing at least one form of abortion.  Will such a requirement really help women who have been raped?  Why does S. 21 promote use of the drug for women who have been victims of sexual assault without providing them with tangible help?  Though the bill requires offering Plan B, it has no reporting requirement in place for young girls who may have been victims of abuse or rape.

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business and the likely recipient of the bulk of the funding, praised the introduction of the bill in a press release.  S. 21’s provisions for expansion of Medicaid funding for “family planning services” and to award grants for “teenage pregnancy prevention programs” and “teenage pregnancy prevention research” put dollar signs in the eyes of Planned Parenthood’s leaders.

Planned Parenthood certainly has no interest in truly helping young women who have been sexually assaulted, as demonstrated by their consistent failure to comply with mandated reporting and parental involvement laws.  How can Planned Parenthood’s ongoing encouragement of casual sex prevent teen pregnancy?  Such grants would amount to giving them more money to “solve” the problems they are creating.  With no accountability for results, their Federal funding just keeps rising.  Let Senators Durbin and Burris know your position on S. 21, and contact your Representative about the equivalent House bill (H.R. 463).

Tell them to support a bill that will really help women, called the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 270). While this bill may not reduce unwanted pregnancies, it will reduce abortions by offering real support and choices to those mothers.

The Pregnant Women Support Act would support women with provisions that include: • Establishing a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support during and following their pregnancy; • Providing child care to low income and student parents; • Providing parenting education in maternity group homes; • Making the Adoption Tax Credits permanent; • Ensuring that pregnant women are not denied health care by insurance companies and that coverage is continued for newborns; • Codifying the regulation that extends coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to low-income pregnant women and unborn children; • Increasing funding for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program; • Providing grants to institutions of higher education to fund pregnant and parenting student services.

Bill Beckman

Hopefully, you have seen the very heart-warming movie Bella that is now available on DVD.  Recently, Breakpoint.org posted a commentary with exciting news about the impact of Bella.  To date, the producers of the film are aware of some 40 babies whose mothers were contemplating abortion, but who decided to keep their children as a result of seeing the film. 

Mark Earley briefly covered the moving stories of how babies were saved from the beginning of the movie’s development.  He reported how the first baby was saved by lead actor Eduardo Verastegui during his preparation for the film.  That baby boy is named Eduardo.  Another baby was saved by Eduardo during the pre-screenings of the movie.  That baby girl is named Bella. 

Giving another specific example, Earley stated, “Even the film’s lead actress, Tammy Blanchard, who played Nina, found life imitating art.  Before the film’s release, she found herself pregnant.  Prior to the making of Bella, she says that she never wanted to have children.  She thought it was ‘pointless.’   But making the film changed her mind.  And in December 2007, Tammy gave birth to a baby girl, Ava Jean.”

Author Tim Drake has written a book about the movie called Behind Bella. Some people have been motivated to donate copies of this book and the movie itself to pregnancy care centers so this story can help save even more babies.

While efforts to ban abstinence education from schools continue, positive results from abstinence were recently covered in U.S. News & World Report.   According to government-supported research at the Heritage Foundation (called the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health), abstinent teens are far more likely to attend and graduate from college than those who are sexually active. 

Teens who abstain from sex share eight personality and behavioral traits, as follows:

• Future orientation, with a focus on long-term goals
• Willingness to postpone current pleasures for future rewards
• Perseverance, as in ability to stick to a task or commitment
• A belief that current behavior can positively affect the future
• Impulse control, including control of emotions and desires
• Resistance to peer influence
• Respect for parental and social values
• Sense of self-worth and personal dignity.

One might conclude that abstinence helps produce life-affirming choices that make a positive difference both short term and long term.

Only in a culture where self-destructive behavior is considered freedom can such results be ignored in favor of travesties like “comprehensive” sex education, morning-after pills, “reproductive choice,” and other politically correct mis-guidance of young people.  The battle is truly between a culture of life and a culture of death.

Statistics reveal that prenatal diagnosis has led parents to abort as many as 90% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome.  That percentage is similar for children pre-natally diagnosed with other conditions such as spina bifida, cystic fibrosis and dwarfism.

In a rare show of cooperation last year Congress passed the Pre-natally and Post-natally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, and President George W. Bush signed it into law. 

This bill requires giving families who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other condition, either pre-natally or up until a year after birth, pertinent helpful information. The information would include facts about the condition and connections to support services and networks that could offer assistance in raising a disabled child.  

Features include expansion and further development of a national clearinghouse on information for parents of children with disabilities, expansion of national and local peer-support programs, and the creation of a national registry of families willing to adopt children with pre- or post-natally diagnosed conditions.

Sarah Palin’s decision not to abort her son Trig after a diagnosis of Down syndrome also raised more awareness of the need to value children with disabilities, rather than aborting them.

However, the medical profession often encourages abortion. Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, told a Canadian newspaper “Palin’s decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same.” Part of the reason they lack the support is because of attitudes like his.