Debate between antiabortion, abortion-rights supporters now focusing on contraception

"If you're among the millions of Americans who don't like the idea of abortion but also don't like the idea of banning it, good news is on the way" in the form of two bills recently introduced in the House, William Saletan, science and technology reporter for Slate magazine, writes in a Washington Post opinion piece.

"Without banning a single procedure," the bills "aim to significantly lower the rate of abortions performed in this country," Saletan writes, adding that "[v]oluntary reduction, not criminalization or moral silence, is the new approach" (Saletan, Washington Post).

Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who opposes abortion rights, earlier this month introduced a bill that aims to reduce the number of abortions by establishing health care- and child care-related programs to support pregnant women.

The measure -- called the Pregnant Women Support Act -- is modeled after Democrats for Life of America's "95-10 Initiative," which aims to reduce the U.S. abortion rate by 95% over the next 10 years.

Another bill (HR 6067) -- which also was introduced last month by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who opposes abortion rights, and abortion-rights supporter Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) -- is modeled in part on the 95-10 Initiative.

Ryan and DeLauro's bill would require states to cover contraceptives for women with incomes of up to 200% of the federal poverty level, establish grants for sex education programs and require programs with a focus on abstinence to include thorough instruction on contraceptives.

The measure, which includes 20 initiatives, also would increase funding for health care for low-income women with children, provide no-cost visits from nurses to teens and women who have given birth for the first time, expand a tax credit for adoption and fund child care services for parents in college (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/20).

The two bills "used to be one proposal," but they were split in two because "one faction wanted to fund contraception and the other didn't," according to Saletan.

"In short, the good news is that we no longer have to fight about abortion," Saletan writes, adding, "The bad news is that we're now fighting about contraception." He adds, "The old question was abortion as birth control.

The new question is abortion or birth control. To lower the abortion rate, we need more contraception. And that means confronting politicians who stand in the way" (Washington Post).