Yes, the American people do support common sense restrictions on abortions but that does not imply they are "with" the Faith and Freedom Coalition when it comes to what those restrictions are. We do have restrictions today and overwhelmingly the American people do support them so let's address what Ralph Reed proposes: Are they "common sense" that most Americans actually support or just illogical propositions based upon religious beliefs? http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ra.../2013/01/28/id/487750?s=al&promo_code=1237D-1 1. parental consent and notification Yes, in an ideal world we would always support parental consent and notification but we live in a far from ideal world. An underage female might not live in a house where the parents are more concerned about the girl than they are about imposing their own personal religous beliefs upon her. The parents don't bear the child and the Rights of the Girl supersede the parental Rights in these cases. In short if a law is to be passed that requires notification and consent of the parents then there must also be an expeditious means for the girl to present her arguments before an unbiased authority as to why these requirements should be waived based upon what is in the best interests of the girl. The parents don't always have the best interests of the girl as their primary concern and the best interests of the girl take precedent. Additionally sex education, birth control pills, and Plan B must be available to a young girls. All three of these help prevent teen pregnancy. That is a "Common-Sense" approach to teen pregnancy. 2. waiting periods We already have waiting periods between the time when a woman becomes aware of the fact that she's pregnant and when she has an abortion. I'm unaware of any cases where a woman doesn't know she's pregnant, walks into a clinic, finds out she's pregnant, and then has an abortion. We don't need these waiting periods legislated because they already exist. Legislating a waiting period is exclusively about trying to prevent the abortion based upon an a religious agenda unrelated to any "common-sense" necessity. 3.. bans on partial-birth abortion, bans on late-term abortions First it needs to be understood that "partial birth" abortions are not a medical term but does refer to the medical procedure intact dialation and extraction. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/partial+birth+abortion "Late term" abortions are already highly restricted under the law and can only be performed if the life or health of the woman is in serious jeaprody if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. Late term abortions are not "elective" but instead are required based upon a medical diagnosis and they are also very rare accounting for less than 1% of all abortions. Few Americans believe that a woman's life or heath should be sacrificed by denying her an abortion so the proposition that these abortions should be completely banned is not supported. We should also remember that if the woman dies then normally the fetus dies as well. Finally I would argue that denying a medical procedure, such as IDX, so that a more dangerous procedure must be used in these rare cases fails the definition of "common-sense" by all standards. 4. women’s right-to-know laws Yes, the woman has a "right to know" and doctors provide information related to both pregnancy and abortion during the doctor-patient meeting before any abortion is performed I'm unaware of any cases where a doctor intentionally withheld any information from a woman. Either they volunteer this information and/or answer any questions the woman might have related to either the pregnancy or an abortion. Planned Parenthood is a perfect example of an organization that honesty provides this information to a woman in every case. What must also be understood is that there is a difference between a "right to know" and a "mandate for medical procedures though. For example, a woman should never be obligated to have an untrasound before she has an abortion. The laws have to be neutral neither advocating or opposing the Woman's Right to an abortion. Right to know includes ensuring that the woman is provided with information about abortions as well as information about pregnancy but only if the woman wants this information. The Woman also has the Right to be Ignorant. If a woman doesn't want to know about having an abortion because they've already decided to have the baby then they shouldn't be forced to listen to a docter or medical professional discuss it. If a woman doesn't want to know about pregnancy because they already decided to have an abortion then they shouldn't be forced to listen to a doctor or medical professional discuss it. So yes, the matter of abortion really should be left to "common sense" but where we tend to find a lack of common sense are proposals being made by anti-abortionists such as Ralph Reed. For example, does Ralph Reed oppose laws that are closing clinics that provide abortions? While not denying the Right of the Woman to have an abortion they deny the Woman access to have an abortion which is fundamentally the same thing. It does no good to have a Right if the Person cannot exercise that Right. Does Ralph Reed oppose the state that are attemting to close the Planned Parenthood clinics which deny women not just the Right to an abortion but also services for pregnant women? Does Ralph Reed support coverage for birth control and abortion under federal medical insurance programs? Does Ralph Reed support sex education in our public schools that prevents teen pregnancy and access birth control and to Plan B for young girls to prevent the pregnancy. Or is Ralph Reed merely making proposals that aren't based upon common-sense but instead are solely intended to stop woman from having abortions?
