Copyright 1996 David C. Reardon. Excerpted with permission for from Making Abortion Rare, published by Acorn Books, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791-7348 for internet posting exclusively at www.afterabortion.org. All Rights Reserved.

Chapter Nine described the central features of our pro-woman/pro-life legislation. Here I would like to take a moment to mention a few additional ideas which would not directly fit into the Freedom of Choice Act but would help to create a more truly pro-life/pro-woman society. 

State Amendments or Referendum

Everyone knows that ideas which are popular with the public may not always be popular with state legislators or governors. Therefore, wherever it is difficult to pass pro-woman statutes like the FOCA described in Chapter Nine, petitions should be circulated to introduce either a binding referendum or an amendment to the state constitution. In the latter case, the amendment would be attached to the rights reserved by the people. Even if such an initiative fails to pass, the educational rewards are immense because once the initiative is on the ballot a lot of media attention will be given to the issue. At the very least, this is a low cost public relations campaign which can be launched with just the time of the volunteers who circulate the petition. 

The following is an example of an amendment which would appeal to the middle majority -- or at least leave them wondering why they should not support it. 

Women have a civil right to full disclosure of all risks, alternatives, or other information which a patient might reasonably consider relevant to a decision to accept or refuse a recommendation for abortion. Full disclosure must be given to the woman, or in the case of a minor, to the minor's parents or legal guardian. The State may not limit a woman's right to seek recovery in civil court for any injuries related to induced abortion. 

This simple amendment, which is perfectly reasonable to people in the middle majority, would: 1) establish that it is a violation of a woman's civil rights to withhold relevant information, and thus provide cause for civil suit other than medical malpractice; 2) establish that the standard for disclosure is the reasonable patient standard; 3) require parental notice and disclosure of risks; 4) strike down any statutes of limitation for time of filing a civil action against abortionists; and 5) eliminate any ceilings which limit the size of judgments against abortionists. 

Fetal Development Education

Pro-abortionists insist that women don't need information about fetal development because they have already learned all about it in school. This is generally not the case because most sexual education courses avoid "too much" on fetal development because it may be upsetting to girls who have already had abortions and, to the course developers, it does not help to promote acceptance of abortion among teens, one of their primary goals. 

To ensure that students do receive adequate education on the development of the human fetus, state education laws should be amended to require that all courses in public schools which include discussion of human sexuality must include at least 2 units (2 hours) per year on fetal development from conception through 24 weeks gestation. There are easily enough films on fetal development to make this task easy. 

Furthermore, classroom guests presenting information on sexuality or family planning information should also be required to begin with at least ten minutes reviewing fetal development. This ten minutes reviewing the biological results of sexual activity will help to offset the sex-is-for-recreation tone of Planned Parenthood type presentations. 

Post-Abortion Education

In a vein similar to the above proposal, the State has an interest in educating young people about the reality and risks of abortion. In order to encourage thoughtful informed choices, it is best that young women, and men, receive information about risks and alternatives prior to becoming pregnant rather than in the midst of a crisis. 

To achieve this goal, the state should mandate that all public school courses where there is discussion of human sexuality and/or birth control methods must include at least 2 units (2 hours) per year on the potential physical, psychological, and social risks of abortion and discussion of resources available for supporting unplanned pregnancies. 

Once again, classroom guests presenting sexuality or family planning information must include at least ten minutes of time on the risks of abortion and alternatives to abortion. This requirement too will help to balance the tone of Planned Parenthood type presentations. 

An Abortion Tax

Abortion has real social costs. There is sufficient research to lead a state legislature to reach the reasonable conclusion that abortion increases the incidence of substance abuse, suicide attempts, psychological illness, reproductive injuries leading to premature births resulting in newborn disabilities, and other public health problems. Having reached this finding, it would be reasonable to establish a "use tax" (calling it a "sin tax" would be politically incorrect) on abortion. According to this legislation, a service tax, perhaps in the range of $25, would be levied on each and every abortion. This amount would be earmarked for support of state funded drug abuse programs, wheel chair access ramps, post-abortion counseling programs, or similar services which the State supplies or subsidizes. The rationale is that women who use abortions, or children born subsequently who are handicapped due to premature birth, are more likely to need these services post-abortion and the tax on abortion is appropriate help to pay for these social costs up front. 

Obviously, a $25 service tax would not nearly cover all of the social costs of abortion. In addition, the tax is so low that it is not even intended to be a financial deterrent. But such a tax would provide an invaluable educational service, both in the attempt to pass the law and when women were told why they are paying this tax. 

Welfare Reform

Welfare reform is a hot political topic and to which pro-woman/pro-life supporters must pay close attention. One of the biggest goals in most welfare reform proposals is the effort to get "welfare mothers" off the dole. A significant part of this push is driven by the eugenic mindset. 

It is true that lack of a financial safety net will, in some cases, change the calculus of behavior leading to some pregnancies. But it is also true that there will continue to be pregnancies among women and girls who have no other resources to help them to carry their wanted babies to term and to raise their children. By seeking to cut off welfare support for these women, social engineers are intentionally trying to increase the pressure on them to abort. 

It is not wrong to use financial pressures to reform irresponsible sexual behavior. But the target must be chosen in a way which builds up families rather than encourages abortions. To find the proper target, it is best to first accurately define the problem. 

The problem is not children on welfare. The problem is that their mothers are unwed. More specifically, their fathers are absent. As many conservatives critics have argued, the problem is that the present welfare system is destructive of families. It diminishes the financial responsibility of men for their children, and actually discourages marriage, which reduces welfare support, and thereby increases the incidence of co-habitating pseudo-marriages which are easily abandoned. It is not that single mothers on welfare prefer to be unmarried, or even to be on the dole. The problem is that the present system makes this the easiest way for them to have their families, and perhaps the only way as long as fathers are allowed to run from their parental responsibilities. 

Clearly then, the focus for welfare reform should be on fathers, not the mothers. For what is the welfare state, in these cases, except a surrogate provider? The scandal is not that mothers are being mothers, but that fathers are not being fathers. No Christian should question that there are cases when women legitimately need financial assistance to care for their children. (The only real question is whether this assistance should principally come from individuals, the Church, or government.) Indeed, care for the widow is one of the Bible's most repeated commands for alms giving. The death of the child's father is but one example of a woman's rightful claim to receive the communities support. Incapacity, imprisonment, and abandonment are also legitimate claims. However, in the latter case, abandonment, the Christian society also has every right and duty to find the negligent father and to compel him to fulfill his responsibilities as a provider through social rebuke, civil punishment, fines, seizure of his properties, and even forced labor. 

Since economic factors do affect sexual behavior, these economic forces should be principally directed at fathers who abandon their children to the care of the state. Furthermore, in order to motivate women to cooperate in holding their mates responsible for their children, the rewards of having a father should be greater than the rewards of having a welfare check. 

With these thoughts in mind I would propose the following welfare reform. Children and their mothers would be guaranteed some minimum subsistence payment whenever support payments are not being paid by the father. The only qualification is that the woman must identify the child's father. This is a key point, and it should also be applied to any government benefits for unmarried mothers, including WIC, guaranteed student loans, etc. If paternity is established, the father should be held responsible for paying support of no less than 150% of the normal welfare support which would be available if he were deceased. If it is within the means of his income, higher support payments should be required. The theory which should be applied in determining additional payments is that the woman is entitled to both child support and alimony (or separation payments), since their child is evidence of a common law marriage, even if it is a bigamous marriage. Furthermore, such payments should be sufficient to allow the young mother to be a full time mother and stay at home with her child, if she wishes. After all, society does not want to discourage a mother from being home with her children during their critical formative years. 

The prospect of receiving 150% of what she could receive through welfare payments should motivate most women to cooperate with identifying their children's fathers. If paternity is disputed, the state, which has a clear interest in determining paternity, will pay for the DNA tests to establish paternity. To ensure and record collections, support payments could be made through a government or privately licensed agency. Payments would be withheld only if the woman began to deny or obstruct the visitation rights of the father as defined by court order. 

Until the delinquent father's payments reach the 100% level for welfare support, the state would pay the balance. If the husband is dead, incapacitated, or imprisoned, the state would provide welfare payments at the 100% level. Until the father is able to make the 150% payment, he would be required to participate in a proportionate amount of workfare to make up the difference. Delinquent fathers might be allowed one month off after each two months on workfare to provide them with a taste of freedom and chance to find real jobs of their own choosing. This cycling of delinquent fathers on and off forced labor would disrupt patterns of delinquency and help to motivate them to seek greater freedom and normalcy in their lives by finding full time employment. 

If, on the other hand, a couple is married and maintain a household with each other, the father would not be held liable to provide 150% of the standard set by welfare support. He would simply provide what he could, and the normal levels of welfare support for the family would be available to them as he seeks employment. 

Finally, to safeguard women against being pressured into unwanted abortions by men who want to escape financial responsibility for their children, severe criminal penalties should be imposed against those who would coerce women into unwanted abortions. Abortion clinics should be required to screen women for evidence of coercion and report coercing boyfriends to the authorities. 

This proposed system acknowledges that economic forces can influence sexual behavior and encourage the formation of family units. It may even be discovered that the technique of increasing the economic consequences of becoming an unmarried parent is far more effective at deterring the sexual license of males than females. Best of all, this approach discourages unwed pregnancies, but without penalizing unwed mothers or their children. 

Full Disclosure for Minors Receiving Family Planning Services

Finally, I would like to add that the same approach of expanding patient's rights to full disclosure can be used to address the problem of family planning agencies which effectively encourage sexual experimentation among minors by distributing birth control products without adequate counseling. There is no doubt that this practice increases sexual behavior, and because of birth control failures (both method failures and user failures), increases the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions. 

Informed consent laws should be passed which would require birth control counselors to accurately disclose all possible health risks associated with each method of birth control, effectiveness rates for preventing the spread of venereal diseases, including AIDS, and the one year and five year user failure rate (which includes failures due to user error) specifically for teens (since teens have a higher failure rate than adults.) This standard should be applied for both adults and minors, but especially for minors. Lack of full disclosure and adequate counseling would provide grounds for a suit against the family planning agency, or physician, to pay for all expenses of childbirth and childrearing. 

Parental Consent For Contraceptive Training

Because all contraceptive technologies involve certain health risks and the risk of failure leading to unplanned pregnancies, there is clearly an important parental interest in what their children are taught and given. In addition, parents and their children have the right to practice their faith without interference or harassment by the State. 

The promotion of birth control technologies clearly violates the religious freedom of parents and religious communities who are teaching their children that contraception is immoral. While the Catholic position against contraception is most widely noticed, this view is shared by many faiths, including many non-Christian religions and, prior to 1930, all Protestant denominations. This moral teaching, then, is not some new fangled doctrine but a longstanding belief of many religious peoples. 

Certainly, the first amendment establishment clause, if it has any meaning at all, forbids the government from seeking to establish a moral doctrine which is contrary to the long held moral theology of so many established religions. Therefore, schools and family planning agencies should be required to obtain written permission from parents before teaching minors about contraceptive methods, much less giving them drugs, plugs, jellies and jams. State laws should mandate that if any parent withholds written permission for birth control training in a public school, the course should be canceled or moved to an optional evening class so that no student feels embarrassed in front of his or her peers for being excluded from the course. This provision is in keeping with the same reasoning used by the Supreme Court when it banned school prayer. If school prayer must be banned to avoid the embarrassing exclusion of non-participators, the same standard should be applied to protect students' rights when their religious faith precludes their participation in contraceptive training. 
.
.
.

To read the rest of this chapter, order Making Abortion Rare, today.
.
.
.
.
Copyright 1996 David C. Reardon. Excerpted with permission for from Making Abortion Rare: A Healing Strategy for a Divided Nation, published by Acorn Books, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791-7348 for internet posting exclusively at www.afterabortion.org. All Rights Reserved.