An Outrageous Attempt by the Bush Administration to Undermine Women’s Rights


The Bush
Administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before
science and women’s health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of
contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by
labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be
released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide
contraception to women who need it. We can’t let them get away with this
underhanded move to undermine women’s health and that’s why I am sounding the
alarm.

These rules
pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans
seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family
planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients
access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services.
They’ll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception
and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and
uninsured women and men.

The regulations
could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception
for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York
and California’s
laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for
contraceptives as part of "the problem." These rules would even
interfere with New York
State law that ensures
survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in
hospital emergency rooms.

We’ve seen this
kind of ideologically driven move from the Bush Administration before.
Senator Patty Murray and I went toe to toe with the Bush Administration to
demand a decision on Plan B by the FDA. We won that fight and we need to
win this one too.

When I learned
about these proposed rules, I immediately joined with Senator Murray to call on
the Bush Administration to stop these dangerous plans. I am joining with New York family planning
and healthcare advocates to spread the word. Now is the time to raise our
voices. I will continue to press HHS and I hope you will join me. I
have posted information on how to get involved at www.hillpac.com.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    Once again big government is trying to control women by regulating what should be a health & medical decision between a woman and a physician. How dare they!!!!

    • invalid-0

      So, if birth control=abortion are we going to stop selling condoms over the counter? You can’t label birth control as abortion, otherwise ANY method of preventing pregnancy (ie. pulling out,condoms,etc.) is under the same rule. It’s ridiculous. Low income women need birth control just as much, if not more than middle income women.

    • invalid-0
    • invalid-0

      The idea that the healthcare providers should pay for birth control is to say they should pay for condoms. Abortion is not the issue. Women wake up stop comparing erectile dysfunction to birth control. You choose to have sex you choose to get an abortion and I am fine with you doing so but don’t ask me to pay for your mistake and don’t expect healthcare to either. Healthcare should pay for medical issues not choices. The next thing you know the women will want healthcare to pay for their breast augmentation.

      • invalid-0

        Great point….Your choice but we pay for it…

      • invalid-0

        Actually, I think birth control should definitely be compared to erectile dysfunction. You’re arguing that birth control is a “life-style” issue whereas erectile dysfunction is “medical issue.” Leaving aside, for the moment, all of the medically bad things a pregnancy can do to a woman, erectile dysfunction is also a life-style issue. Erectile dysfunction doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s caused by diabetes, hypertension, other medications, etc. Viagra does nothing to treat those other conditions. All it does is treat a LIFESTYLE complication. So, if you’re not going to pay for a “lifestyle” drug for women, we shouldn’t do it for men, either. We’ll pay for the diabetes, but that’s it.

      • http://www.bible-college.net/ invalid-0

        Well I agree with 90 percent of your comment. The only part is abortion. I don’t agree with killing a living being. Sorry but i do agree we should not pay for women who make a mistake or the guy for that matter.

      • invalid-0

        Viagra : Sildenafil relaxes muscles and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

        Sildenafil under the name Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. Another brand of sildenafil is Revatio, which is used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and improve exercise capacity in men and women.

    • invalid-0

      If you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion and birth control are simular since they have the same consequence. If you merely suspect that life begins at conception, then you must error on the side of life and equate abortion and birth control as simular. I believe that all human life begins at conception. I believe that we are all entitled to life and would gladly fight to preserve it just as much as our liberty. God bless America and all those in leadership positions who recognize truth. If you are in a political leadership position and do not recognize truth, then it is time to fine another position to occupy your time.

      • invalid-0

        1- educate yourself by first buying a dictionary or learning to use spell check. It’s spelled SIMILAR.

        2- educate yourself on what birth control does- primarily, preventing the egg to be fertilized in the first place, and secondly preventing that fertilized egg from being implanted.

        At which point to you refer to as conception? When the egg is fertilized? Birth control prevents that from happening in the first place.

    • http://www.myspace.com/cerealmike invalid-0

      My wife and I were married on May 24 this year. As newlyweds, we make love anywhere from 3-6 times per week. I challenge anyone to say that what we do is just “our choice;” more than that, it’s our right as a married couple. Christians saying that men and women “choose” to have sex, and that the best birth control is abstinance, might have a case when referring to teenage indiscretion or middle-aged one-night stands, but are always quick to point out the sanctity of married sex; well, what about married couples who simply can’t afford a child, or even married couples who just don’t want a child – would you say to them that they should just refrain from having sex until they DO want a child or they CAN afford it?

      In my mine and my wife’s case, we have three options:
      1. Don’t use birth control; get pregnant; put ourselves in so much debt that we can’t afford the childs necessities; be accused of neglect; lose the child to child services; and finally have the child torn from our lives to it’s own great distress.
      2. Don’t use birth control, and in an attempt to prevent conception, simply abstain from sex; both of us become frustrated at the situation, ourselves, and each other (as any therapist can verify); consistently damage our relationship due to this frustration and slowly – and then very quickly – drift apart (as any therapist can verify); and finally end up with a divorce because, as neither of us can express our love for the other, each feels unloved.
      3. The RESPONSIBLE choice: My wife takes the pill; we don’t get pregnant until we can afford it and she gets off of it; everyone wins.

      My wife and I paid our dues; we dated for one and one half years before we married, and all the while were completely pure. There were even times when we were engaged that we thought about it, because we knew we were getting married, but we stayed pure anyway until our wedding night. We have rightfully earned our God-given right to make love, and do not deserve to be denied this simply because an over-zealous political administration believes that the entire country should be held to a single restrictive set of ideals.

      Thus concludes Point One.

      Point Two is simply that while most Christians avidly claim that the Bible says that God made sex for procreation (primarily to counter the homosexual argument), as a Christian myself I can verify that from the beginning, in Genesis, God says that He gave sex to men and women as a gift, not for procreation, althought that obviously is included; but simply as a gift for men and women who love each other enough to get married and wait until their wedding night to make love. Sex is a gift, not a tool.

      Point Three begins with a very important question: where is the line drawn? People today are so afraid of abortion that now we are taking it a step forward and saying that any form of birth control is abortion? Well, then, condoms are abortion. Pills are abortion. Erectile dysfunction is abortion. Masterbation is abortion. Homosexuality is abortion. Hysterectomies and visectomies are abortion. And in all fairness, if one were to continue that logic, abstinance would be considered abortion! Under this interpretation, the only sexual act that wold not be regarded as abortion would be having sex for the express intent of having a baby. I think we can all agree on how stupendously silly this is.

      There are so many uses for birth control that it is impossible to regulate it in any more strict way than is already in effect without doing drastic damage to the female population of America. For example, say that, hearing my case, the administration decided to say that any women under the age of eightteen were not allowed birth control. Well, my wife has had ovarian cysts on-and-off since the age of fourteen, some of which, when they burst, could have threatened her life; but she was prescribed birth control to limit her ovary production, which essentially saved her life many times over. If the above regulation was in place, the Bush administration would essentially be signing the death warrant of a thousand girls in this same situation.

      It is simply NOT the governments place to ensure that we all follow a certain moral code. The government is there for our protection from war, from poverty, from bodily harm, even sometimes from ourselves; but NOT from decadence. The more we rely on our government to enfore our beliefs, the less we realize that it’s OUR duty to enforce what we believe, and the worse the situation ultimately becomes; because (as any therapist can verify) the principal reason people get so bent out of shape trying to get the government to enforce their beliefs is because if the government doesn’t support them, their beliefs are not validated; these people do not truly put their trust in God, but in Bush. Well, I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that teenagers wanting birth control so they can have as much sex as they want is wrong. I believe that many things are wrong.

      I also believe that it is MY job to HELP other people SEE things my way, not the GOVERNMENT’S job to FORCE people to OBEY.

      Mike Burton

      • invalid-0

        How many ridiculous comments can there be?
        As many people who follow Hillary Clinton.

        Bush did not try to block all contraceptives.
        In fact he did not try to block contraceptives.

        But you would have to be able to read or listen to newscasters who read to know that. Certainly not Hillary Clinton who misleads people on a regular basis to get her way.

        Bush was trying to stop those drugs which kill a fetus.
        If there is a fetus then you have already conceived. There is already an unborn baby. Condoms & other Contraceptives would not have been affected at all.

        Be against it. Fight against it. But do not lie about what you are fighting against.

        You are fighting for the right to kill a fetus. You have a right to fight for that right.


        Science has proven that a fetus is very much alive. And science has proven that a fetus feels and avoids pain at a very early age.
        But it’s OK, you can kill it so long as it hasn’t been born… Oh wait. If during the abortion it accidentally lives… just let it die by leaving it alone until it dies. It’s OK.

  • invalid-0

    This why I voted for her: choice is the foundation for the American way of life. Unplanned pregancies undermine hope of acheiving life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness. All of Obama’s plans mean nothing if the million abortions performed each year change to ten million unwanted children born each year as this latest edict from the Devil would do if left unchecked. Name me one part of anyone’s platform reproductive choice or lack thereof is inconsequential. GAME ON!

    • invalid-0

      Unwanted children is what you said. Even by your own comment, common since tells us that the “free Choice” came at conception. This ridiculous argument that choice is a freedom in the abortion issue is no different than you choosing to drink and drive. You make the choice then; the consequences of that choice will be a responsibility to the drinker for the rest of his or her life.
      You looney leftwings would probably come up with a law to protect alcohol related death offenders if you could.
      The problem with abortion is the same that it has always been.
      Innocent children, unable to speak, has to few people that are willing to speak for them.
      You should be ashamed!

  • http://www.ida-africa.org/ invalid-0

    Stop blaming the bumbling idiots in the bush administration. Congress makes the laws, not the White House. If Congress would just grow a pair, this would not be an issue.

  • invalid-0

    Why be surprised at one more attack aimed at civil liberties by the Bush administration.
    This is just one more symptom of the ultra conservative agenda which has effectively destroyed our culture, our economy and which is currently selling us all out at pennies on the dollar to China and Western Europe.
    Give me a break… Budweiser/Inbev, another American institution falls.
    Bin Laden stated that he wanted to destroy our economy, our freedom and create fear! The Bush administration has very effectively completed the job.
    Chairman Mao once said that China would never have to attack the US, that we would destroy ourselves from within, through our arrogance. Thank you Bush/Chaney/Rice et al for bringing this prophecy to fruition.
    I am appalled at the continuing ignorance of the American people who still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, or who still believe that the US will be able to maintain its Superpower status. Our current wars are being financed on borrowed money, and all of our freedoms including our reproductive choices are existing on borrowed time.
    Any women (and men) at all who voted for Bush now deserve to see their civil right curtailed. They deserve to see their daughters and grand daughters forbidden from making healthy decisions about their bodies. Welcome to the rise of the Fourth Reich. All Hail King George.
    The newly formed peasant class will work the service sector for minimum wage, and will continue to reproduce ignorant children to ensure more compliant workers. Or die!

    • invalid-0

      Name one time when an abortion had to be performed for the health of the mother.
      Then multiply the number of abortions into that staggering number; then see if you conscience can live with the death of that many babies in the name of choice.
      You people amaze me.
      You rail against the very nature of people that made this country free. If the attitude of your party existed at the revolution, you wouldn’t have the right to say the things you are saying now.
      Knock knock, is anybody home? Left liberalism does not have a good track record for longevity of freedom. Read a little history.

  • scott-swenson

    While I agree with your assessment of Congress needing more spine, to be fair to all genders, these are proposed HHS regulations that will waste Congress’ time — and that is another lesson we should all be learning about the far-right — how much time and energy is wasted dealing with their ideological driven agenda when the vast majority of the public and all of the science, stands in opposition to their views. Think of all the economic and health care issues legislatures could deal with, not to mention courts at all levels, if these fringe ideologues didn’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars by bringing these issues up. The far-right has gone way too far off the ledge, and these proposed regulations are one more example. As if we needed another.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Ok, if they can try to control women’s bodies, then I say what’s good for the goose …..is better for the gander .

    There needs to be a tough law passed that requires ALL MALES who indulge in making babies AND WHO DO NOT CONTRIBUTE EQUALLY TO THEIR UPBRINGING AND SUPPORT to undergo a VASECTOMY!
    Why should taxpayers have to pay for their irresponsible indiscretions???

    • invalid-0

      Why is it that McCain voted in favor of insurance covered Viagra but not insurance covered birth control? I once responded to a blogger who was anti-choice that the best way to prevent unwanted birth is if men were CASTRATED.
      (Naturally I’m kidding, but isn’t the ability Viagra gives men, the cause of some births?)

    • invalid-0

      Right on !
      I am tired of being taxed for welfare, schooling , and (in some cases) incarceration of unwanted children whose birth could and should have been prevented and whose sires simply walk away from responsibilities of child-care and financial support.
      And I am tired of the double standard that holds that the punishment for pregnancy should be visited on the woman while the man waltzes away. Both parties are equally at fault for any consensual sex. If contraception was NOT used, then both are equally guilty for not using any. If contraception was used but failed to work, both are equally innocent. (and likewise, if an intended conception turns out to be a drastically defective fetus, both parties are equally innocent victims.) There is only ONE situtation in which the male and female are not both equally guilty or innocent, and that one exception is rape, in which one is severely guilty and the other is a victim, and we all know which is which.
      We need strong laws demanding that the sire of every pregnancy taken to term, ie every born child, be identified and COMPELLED to financially support that child. and if the woman is unable or unwilling to do the child rearing, let’s assign the duty of rearing to the man and let the woman just contribute financially.
      Although Bush and his Rabid Right buddies may not know it, this is no longer the 1960s or 1970s. Science has marched on. We have DNA technology to absolutely identify the sire of every child. For that matter, we could identify the sire of every fetus as well, by amneocentis or chorionic villi sampling followed by DNA tests. True to make this work , the pregnant woman would have to give a list of “suspects” , ie those men who might potentially be the sire. This could be a pre-requisite for any form of public aid. Her statement that a given male was potentially the sire would be sufficient cause for a warrant for his DNA sample (giving a DNA sample is as easy as brushing your teeth). Once the sire is determined, an order of support would be issued and the required support would be fully one HALF of the costs of the child’s maintenence, including a reasonable amount of day care. Or if the sire wanted to take over the parental duties, he could do that and the mother would be the one paying support. If the daddy does not have a job or if he doesn’t make enough and needs to have a second job, he could be assigned one. There are plenty of jobs in this country that most people don’t much want to do because they are boring or dangeroous or low status or low pay. But when you make a child, you lose the freedom to pick and choose. At least that has been considered to apply to the woman, so it should also apply to the man.

      As far as I am concerned , siring a child on a minor should be an automatic vasectomy offense. Siring a child and not paying support should at least be a vasectomy offense and perhaps a gelding offense. Rape (by force, threat , or drug) or child molestation should of course be a gelding offense.

      Let’s make the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy as devestating for the male as for the female. He is every bit as guilty and deserves every bit as much punishment.
      Of course if the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy were made as devestating for the male as for the female, I will bet that 99% of men would have a sudden epiphany of enlightenment and realize that contraception (including condoms) is a duty and blessing and that abortion is an inalienable right.

  • invalid-0

    This is a last-gasp attempt by the Bush administration to impose its far right-wing ideology on the rest of us. My first instinct is to laugh, but, unfortunately, these decisions have real consequences for real people. Let’s hope Sen. Clinton and friends can put a stop to this nonsense.

  • invalid-0

    Yay! Thank god for Hillary (and I’m an atheist :-)).

    Now if only the ‘presumptive Democratic nominee’ would say something too, maybe in-between his tours to Europe.

    • invalid-0

      Peut-etre mon cher Chevalier, on doit dit “Merci a la Diesse pour Hillary !”

      Perhaps, dear Chevalier, one should say “thank Goddess for Hillary !”

      but I too am an atheist, both by natural temperament and by mature intellectual reflection. when I feel any need of prayer, I pray to my dead horses and dead dogs, whom I truely adored and who returned that love and who, moreover, I could count on to obey me. (and being a horsewoman, I am truely a chevaliere in the most literal sense.)

      I cannot understand why NARAL chose in the late days of the primary campaign to endorse Obama, whose pro-choice sentiments have been at best very understated, rather than Hillary who has been an outspoken champion of contraception and choice. it was a golden oppertunity for NARAL to endorse both of them (if not endorsing Hillary alone) AND to give ringing condemnation for McCain’s long and consistent anti-choice record.

      Our next President will almost certainly get to make several Supreme Court appointments. Those appointments MUST be ones who whole-heartedly believe in gender equality and in reproductive choice.

      Hillary SHOULD have been the Democratic candidate. However, given that she got essentially half the Democratic primary votes and given that no Democratic candidate can be elected without her 18 million supporters, she now is the ONLY logical choice for Vice President.
      She’d also be a good choice for Supreme Court, though she lacks appellate judicial experience and also advocacy experience in Constitutional cases, either or both of which are desirable in a Justice but neither of which has ever been a mandatory qualification.
      Of course my very first choice for the next Supreme Court opening would be Sarah Weddington, whose record of advocacy before the Supreme Court should be well known to all. She tried and won Roe v Wade.

  • invalid-0

    It certainly is interesting that Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular are opposed to excessive government regulation – when it comes to protecting the environment or consumers or citizens’ health. But when it comes to imposing a conservative religious or corporate agenda, any regulation is a good regulation.

    Here we see this again with new regulations restricting access to reproductive health care, which will degrade needed health services to citizens, but impose a conservative Christian ideology on everyone – regardless of an individual’s beliefs. This is the very opposite of our democratic ideals.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you Hillary for continuing to fight for us in the Senate. If I can’t have you as my president, I am relieved to still have you in the congress standing up for women’s rights and civil liberties.

  • invalid-0

    Thank God for Hillary is correct, someone needs to keep up the fight. The presumptive democratic nominee, Congress , Pelosi , Dean and the rest are total frauds…. Americans need someone to STAND TALL AND STRONG

  • invalid-0

    Stanley, you’re mistaken in this case. This is a case of executive rulemaking done through the administration. It’s sucky, and perfectly legal, and really does amount to the administration making a law with no input from Congress. Congress can complain about it, but, in fact, they don’t have the power to stop it. There will be a public comment period, but the Bush administration is under no obligation to listen to us. Congress might be able to pass a law to change the rule, but how much do you want to bet Bush would veto it?

    If this goes through, the only way to get rid of it is the next president using his power to flip the rule. So let’s work on getting Obama into the White House, because there’s no way McCain will roll this back.

  • http://www.xanga.com/Andrea_TheNerd invalid-0

    “But at least God gave you a beautiful life out of this rape…”

    I don’t think we need to subject rape victims to religion in their time of need. What they need is the real truth as to what their options are, and keep the practitioners emotions out of it. If health providers can’t keep their feelings to themselves, they’re in the wrong career field.

  • invalid-0

    You’ve summed it up john. Well said, I agree.

  • invalid-0

    . . . and any statement about sex would certainly be troll bait.

    So–just as it was up to General Clark to point out that being a POW didn’t really qualify you for the White House–it’s up to someone other than Obama to make the point that the GOP has spent the last 28 years (ever since Reagan cozied up to the religious Right) turning itself into the Party of Your Sex Life Requires Government Approval.

  • invalid-0

    Congress needs to really get it’s act together; what good was winning and doing NOTHING; they should have started impeachment proceedings immediately against the two terrorists who are running?/ruining this country..

  • http://redhotandbluepolitics.com invalid-0

    Thank you, Sen. Clinton, for stepping up and speaking out on behalf of women’s rights and reproductive freedom. Your tenacity and willingness to tackle the tough issues is why I support you for President. We need a party and party nominee that stands and fights for core Democratic principles. Sadly, Obama, Dean, Pelosi, et. al. fall far short.

    PUMA!

  • invalid-0

    This is exactly why I voted for you (not that my primary would have counted). I definitely appreciate your pro-active stance on defending my reproductive rights, and thank you for continuing your efforts in the senate!

  • http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net invalid-0

    This story is getting almost no press. We need to get the word out immediately.

  • invalid-0

    Oh lol, Anonymous. When I first read your letter, I read it as “Why should taxpayers have to pay for their irresponsible secretions???”

    Same thing, yes? And I HIGHLY agree. But I’m still chuckling …

  • invalid-0

    It seems to me that big government needs to stay out of the privacy issues of women and others because it is private. Religion should not even play into ProChoice clinics that give safe and sound abortions. The fact is that poorly educated women need this option to save on the unnecessary birth of more babies who will be brought up in third world culture poverty.
    Common sense needs to reign supreme.

  • invalid-0

    Once again, Hillary R. Clinton stands up to the Republicans and to George W. Bush on an important issue — and once again, “the other guy” fails to do anything, because it’s not a priority to him. (And people wonder why I’m still supporting her?)

    I signed Senator Clinton’s petition and I urge everyone to do the same; we must stand up for reproductive freedom.

  • invalid-0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

    I say trot this one out, with thanks to my history buff friend.

    Thank you for being vocal about this. This is absolute insanity. Radical conservatives need to get over the idea that their opinion on other people’s personal lives is welcome. It certainly isn’t ethical or moral.

  • invalid-0

    But why do you think Obama would allow the right to choose to be lost? As far as I know his position is the same as Hillary’s. It better be, is all I can say.

  • invalid-0

    The unbelievable, horrific Bush administration strikes again. Only an evil man, with contempt for women would come up with this ideology. We all should make a stand against the religious right—a very small percentage of the United State population and a small voting block-which, seems to be able to dictate laws for the many. Please, we must all flood Congress to undo this ruling as soon as this Idiot and Chief creates it. Fight the good fight, Hillary! For all of us need your help

  • invalid-0

    The bush adm. is putting out these regulations-NOT congress!

  • invalid-0

    I wonder how many unwanted/uncared for kids will be produced because of this?

    Think about how horrible these kids lives will end up being!

  • invalid-0

    ONCE again, Hillary shows Obama to be NOT concerned about women’s issue.

    Good on Hillary

  • invalid-0

    Once again Hillary’s leadership shines through the flashy rhetoric of other presidential contenders on this VERY important issue for families. I wish Americans would wise up and see who really is the true leader this election year- and reject both Obama and McCain.

  • invalid-0

    AS you out it so sucinctly put it the way to get rid of this is with a new government. Women need to be aware of McCain’s record with respect to women’s health issues. Denying birth control only creates more need for abortions. Better access to birth control is the way to reduce them. As this isn’t rocket science I would have thought the president could actually understand it. Shame on me, I know better…

  • invalid-0

    I’d like more information on this before I act. Maybe some places I could go and read this announcement for myself? And I’d really like something a little more substantial than a prepared online statement to act through. Suggestions for donations? Offices of people to contact? Karen Finleys plans for the next little bit? You know, actual action.

    Please provide these things at your earliest convenience. I dont like my reproductive choices needing justification or being handed vague threats with only the cliched spector name-dropped for credibility.

    Thank You

  • invalid-0

    Yes, he is Pro-Choice. Jeez.

  • invalid-0

    None of the candidates: McCain, Obama, or Clinton were there to vote against/for restricting abortion access in American Indian health and it passed and no one cared, not even the rabid anti-Obama Clinton supporting feminists.

    ‘Vote to adopt an amendment that would prohibit the funding of abortions under the Indigenous Health Bill (S 1200), except in cases in which the pregnancy resulted from incest involving a minor or rape, or in cases in which an abortion is medically necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life.’

    http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=17357

    Why? They were on the campaign trail. So let’s not act like Obama doesn’t give a crap about womens’ rights. It’s because he’s abroad talking to soldiers, talking to minority communities and doing other things he’s been accused of not giving a crap about. But by all means let McCain, champion of women that he is, slither into the White House.

    • invalid-0

      That’s the thing, though. It just wasn’t important enough to him to be there to vote. I’m not saying that any of the other things he has been doing are unimportant, but it seems like women’s health issues are continually at the bottom of the list even for left-wingers. I’m not saying that Hillary is the answer by any means, I’m just disappointed with absolutely everyone who let this slide by.

  • invalid-0

    He’s pro-choice. And Clinton skipped out on preventing anti-woman legislation too:

    http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=17357

    Difference is this passed and the current issue will most likely not because it affects white people too.

    • mellankelly1

      He’s pro-choice. And Clinton skipped out on preventing anti-woman legislation too:

      http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=17357

      Both Obama and Hillary are pro-choice.  Obama wasn’t there for that vote either… neither were any other presidential hopefuls as they were all running their respective campaigns (2/2008).  Do a little research before attempting to label Hillary as someone who would skip out on anti-woman legislation (clearly you know nothing of her dedication to women and children’s issues).

  • invalid-0

    I’m a 26 year old woman. I’ve avoided the abortion/contraception debate for a long time so please excuse my ignorance. Ok…are we really talking about the government (taxpayers) funding birth control? I hate to sound heartless…but I really don’t want to. Sorry it’s nothing against birth control or people who claim they need it. I just dont want to pay for it. You may think contraception and abortion are perfectly fine and should be as readily available to others as a cup of Starbucks. Try to imagine for one second that some people, not just Christian right-wingers, might not agree with you and may not want any hand in your dream of spreading “reproductive freedom”. Stop expecting everyone to go along with you on this issue.

    • invalid-0

      What many people on this board seem to forget, even if one does not support federal funding for birth control purposes, the “Pill” has applications for use other than stricly contraception. Many women need the Pill to help reduce severe menstrual bleeding and/or cramps, to regulate an irregular cycle, or to deal with symproms of endometriosis or other medical conditions. If this treatment is not provided to poor women with these conditions, they risk sliding further into poverty because the pain and other symptoms are often too severe for a woman to work while suffering from these conditions.
      Besides, isn’t it far less expensive to the government to fund birth control to women who, if they are unable to afford paying for their own contraception– how on Earth is the same woman supposed to afford a child?

  • invalid-0
  • invalid-0
  • invalid-0
    • invalid-0

      Obama didn’t vote on that one either…so, I don’t get your point.

  • invalid-0

    Hillary for President.

  • invalid-0

    or a LOT later. Contraception costs a lot less than paying for a baby’s delivery, and then food stamps, housing, WIC payments, school and etc. Your choice, 26 Y.O. And no, I will NOT "excuse your ignorance" – it’s your job to educate yourself – especially when the resources to do so are so readily available – so you’d better get busy.

    ….

    It’s not just about having taxpayers funding birth control – it’s about getting access to contraception in the first place, it’s about categorizing medically accepted and widespread methods of contraception that have been around for decades as "abortion" so that medical personnel who have so-called "moral objections" to abortion can deny giving contraception to women even when those women can pay for it themselves. If you are a woman it doesn’t matter whether you think you can "avoid this debate" or not – you ARE a part of it.

  • invalid-0

    Hillary supports Barack. She is not running for President again until maybe 2016. I had hoped for Edwards, but Obama has the same policies as the others anyway. The Democratic candidates agreed on almost everything this year.

    I’d bet money that Barack is going to give Hillary her choice of any Cabinet position. She’ll probably take HHS.

  • invalid-0

    .

  • scott-swenson

    We’re seeing lots of new and obviously very passionate people come to the site because of this issue, asking where the media is and why there isn’t more information about it. We wonder the same thing, but we’ve beeen on this story since the day it broke with articles from Cristina Page, Dr. Susan Wood, and others in our "Contra-bortion?" series.

     

    With our daily email, you too would have been reading about it a week ago, forwarding it to friends and helping to build the momentum for reality-based sexual and reproductive health policies.

     

    Since it is the actual issues you care about, you may also be interested to read this story — found only on RH Reality Check today — about abstinence-only, and how the Bush HHS war on science and contraception continues.

     

    We can fight amongst ourselves as progressives, or choose to fight together for the issues important to everyone, regardless of party. RH Reality Check will keep you up to speed on issues the mainstream media often misses with our daily email alert.

     

    We haven’t been able to get many people in Congress to stand up to abstinence-only or for family planning yet, so it will take people committed to improving sexual and reproductive health for everyone to keep all politicians, regardless of parties or passions, mindful of the science and public health issues involved.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • http://commonsensegram.wordpress.com invalid-0

    Thank you Sen. Clinton- your willingness to stand up and fight for us every day is what we need in this country. The Bush administration is trying to give a parting gift to the ultra-right wing with these new regulations.
    Thanks for standing up for us- and oh by the way- where is the Democratic “leadership” on this issue? Where are Pelosi, Dean, Brazile, Reid etc?? Oh, that’s right- worshipping at the altar of change.

  • invalid-0

    Considering that he’s recently said that mental distress “wasn’t a good-enough reason” for a woman to have an abortion, and has mouthed fundie platitudes about abstinence education and how sex is “sacred,” I’d say that women absolutely have the right to wonder how diligent he’ll be about protecting choice.

  • invalid-0

    They deserve to see their daughters and grand daughters forbidden from making healthy decisions about their bodies.

    Of course, the daughters and granddaughters (note, John, it’s one word) deserve to be punished for the sins of their elders… because they’re just property, right?

    Though I’m not sure why I’m arguing with someone who quotes Chairman Mao. A different flavor of tyranny is still tyranny.

    • invalid-0

      Since I didn’t vote for him, I damn well don’t deserve it, thanks very much.

  • invalid-0

    Actually yes Congress does make the laws, but Bush also has the right and the ability to put this into action without congress signing on – there will be a comment period but then the Bush administration can do what they want! Which is what they always do – UNDERMINE Women.

  • invalid-0

    “I’m a self-righteous, selfish fool who admits that I don’t follow the issue at hand, clues you in to the fact that I’m about to say something obnoxious by saying, ‘I don’t mean to sound heartless,’ then reveals that I privilege my anti-sex sense of ‘morality’ over other people’s rights, not to mention the prospect of paying less now instead of more later for social services.”

    Twenty-something anti-feminist women make me want to beat my head against a wall. Yeah, you’re such daring, edgy “truth-tellers,” spouting off the words that teh menz love to hear you say…

  • scott-swenson

    Dear 26 year old woman,
    Can I please opt-out of paying taxes for

    • failed abstinence-only programs?
    • narrow ideology masquerading as public health and HIV prevention aborad?
    • unjust war?
    • torture?
    • domestic spying?
    • tax subsidies for major corporations that pollute?
    • tax subsidies for big oil — already seeing record profits?
    • tax subsidies for sugar, tobacco and other things that contribute to poor health?
    • tax breaks for people and companies that take advantage of off-shore banking loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes?


    Ninety-eight percent of Americans use birth control at some point in their lives, to plan families so that they are ready to bring children into the world economically, emotionally and in every other way.

    I doubt any of these other issues that many taxpayers would like to "stop paying for" could muster a fraction of that level of acceptance in our culture. Birth control is about health care, something that should not be denied any person.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Yesterday, I was the second post in this field and there have been beaucoup responses, but the basic challenge remains: are any political platforms or policies for the future immune to the results of reproductive rights or lack thereof.

    Some of you were not around for our escapades in southeast Asia. It was a different time, fighting communist influence all over the world and bodies were needed to hold back the “Reds” of that time. Where do you think most of those bodies were found in the US?

    Among the lower classes, that’s where! With a draft that allowed for college deferment, an American male whose formal education ended in high school was under scrutiny of the Draft Board. Of course, not everyone drafted was sent to Vietnam, AND not everyone who went came from a poor background, John McCain being just one example.

    But analysis of the casualties that accumulated over time showed two things: a surprisingly high percentage of African-Americans made the list as part of the high percentage of men from lower-class backgrounds overall who were wounded and/or killed in our southeast Asian operations: not so shocking when one considers the likelihood of population segment (black) being as poor as it was then – some men entered the service and requested posting in ‘Nam for the extra combat pay.

    Does any of this sound familiar? Aren’t recruiters trolling the malls looking for out-of-work teens to fill the quotas?

    What makes a family poor, or more to the point, what keeps a family poor? From Baltimore to Beijing it’s too many needs/not enough resources. What will cause the greatest increase in need for every family unit?

    Another child, especially one born without a plan. Now some may say Jamie Lynn Spears didn’t plan her pregnancy so what’s the big deal? At her age, she’s got the resources (money) many of US will never make in a lifetime. Somehow, I think some planning was done before delivery if Disney is going to live up to its contract.

    So what’s Ms. Spears have to do with ‘Nam? Probably not much, but by cutting off the one avenue of birth control (contraception) to millions of American who up to now had some expectation of access, right-wing pharmacists notwithstanding, one can expect to see a lot more Jamie Lynn’s without the cash doing the same thing, giving birth, without the cash.

    And those teens will be doing John McCain a great service through their out-of-wedlock and impoverished births. If our troops are going to stay in the Middle East for 100 years, he’s going to need some more boots-on-the-ground!

    What better place to find bodies for those boots than among familes strapped for cash their entire existence? I’m not saying don’t vote for Obama because he wasn’t slick-on-the-draw when HHS fired this salvo at women’s rights. Just remember McCain needs your child, your grandchild and your great-grandchild for the “win.”

  • invalid-0

    Hi Scott,

    When I read your response to my post I couldn’t help but think oh my gosh I never want to pay taxes ever again. Look there has to be a point where I’m not personally responsible for other people’s situation. Sure a lot of people use BC but that doesn’t mean that everyone is ok with the idea of paying for others to recieve it. You can’t just expect everyone to be on board with you. And if they arent it doesn’t mean they are heartless or they don’t care about others. It only means they disagree with you and you should just leave it at that.

    I think the great thing about this country is that you have the freedom to get a job, buy a pack of condoms with your own money and go to town. Sorry for being crude…just making a point. I understand there is an ideology war going on. You’ve got your pro-life folks lashing out at the pro-choice crowd. Pro-choice people on the other side lashing out at the pro-lifers. I think some people see BC and EC as a way for both sides to sort of meet in the middle. The more ways people have access to BC and EC the less abortions there will be and that makes everyone happy. I get it. So why not just give money to planned parenthood? I’m all for a little check box on the tax form that says Planned Parenthood Contribution. If as many people care about this issue as you seem to think…then there ya go. Problem solved. But dont expect everyone to be responsible for what happens in other people’s sex life. That’s their business.

    Rachel

  • invalid-0

    If you split your head open…I’m not paying for it. =)

  • invalid-0

    I don’t need to get busy doing anything. I know what you people believe. It’s really very simple. You want everyone to be on board with you and agree to your idea that abortion and BC are perfectly fine and should be as available to ANYONE, including young girls without parental consent, as a diet coke at a gas station. I’m just dumbfounded that you EXPECT everyone to agree and anyone who doesn’t is somehow misinformed or beneath you. This isnt a health issue…its a choice issue. If women want access to BC, EC and abortion…then they should know how to get it. But forcing someone else to give it to them is wrong.

    • invalid-0

      “Forcing someone else to give it to them is wrong”. In the first place, no one forced these people to be state licensed health care professionals – if they can’t, or won’t, perform certain “unpleasant” aspects of their jobs then they should pursue another career field. Second, are you going to adopt the unwanted children from a rape victim, or foundlings and etc.? Then the state will have to support them – oh, I guess that means you! “If women want access to BC, EC and abortion…then they should know how to get it” not if these rules go into effect – apparently you still don’t get it – under these rules there may be no place for women to get access to these medications and procedures, and these medical professionals will not have to inform them where they can get them: In some states there is only one clinic that provides abortion services, so if you are poor, or a minor and can’t drive (and probably because of ab-only sex ed did not know about contraceptives either) and you are hundreds of miles away from that clinic you are SOL. I don’t expect everyone to agree – just those with at least one half of their brain that functions properly – and yes, you are misinformed.

  • scott-swenson

    Dear Rachel,

    Thanks for your reply. You are not “personally” responsible for anyone else’s behavior but your own. But as a member of society we do all have a responsibility to understand that there are as many different experiences as there are people. No one is asking you to be personally responsible, just acknowledge that we, on some level, are our brothers and sisters keepers, and that we should afford every person the same respect for the experience they’ve had in their life, regardless of circumstance, that we expect from others.

    Your Planned Parenthood check-off box idea is the same idea I was suggesting, to point out why we can’t just opt in or out of any part of democracy, no matter how we feel about it personally. Check-offs don’t work. No one person has the right to impose their ideals on everyone else. The government’s role is to arbitrate disagreement and conflict between individual rights — if you don’t believe in birth control, don’t take a job where you’ll have to dispense it to someone who does, or set yourself up in business so you won’t have any patients who ever disagree with you. We could call it the Rupert Murdoch Hospital and it will only play Fox News, and the only people who go there or work there are people who agree with each other politically.

    If you don’t want to share in the responsibility of educating people about responsible sexual health, and equipping them with contraception if that’s what they choose, then are you prepared to be responsible (as a taxpayer) for the care and feeding of the children from unintended pregnancies, the emergency room visits of women who tried to self-abort because they could not find or afford a safe legal procedure, the children who will be orphaned when mothers die, or the health care costs of increased sexually transmitted diseases because abstinence-only programs have so dumbed down our youth that they don’t understand how to prevent disease or unintended pregnancy?

    You can look at it as paying for someone else’s sex life if you like, and I do agree that ultimately what happens between two people is their business. For me the government, of which you and I are a part, has a role in educating people about the facts so they can make the best choices for themselves, and working to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy. We educate about over-eating, drinking, smoking, drugs, driving, and all manner of other things that can help equip people to make wiser, safer decisions, live healthier lives — why is it that when it comes to sex we as nation freak out?

    This is about health care and creating a culture where people have the information and tools to make responsible decisions for themselves, at all phases of their natural born lives.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    In all fairness – the “mental distress” comment was specifically in reference to third-trimester abortions, which, in turn, he would support a ban only if the law provided clear-cut exceptions in the case of the mother’s physical well-being being at risk. And “mental distress” as both a term and concept tends to be a lot more vague than specific physical harm, making regulation a lot more difficult and so I could understand erring on the side of caution in that matter. It’s not a position I would prefer, but it’s not unreasonable, either.

    • invalid-0

      In all fairness – the “mental distress” comment was specifically in reference to third-trimester abortions

      It was in reference to a provision of abortion law that’s been in place for 35 years. By saying he opposes this provision, he’s saying he intends to roll back women’s reproductive rights to more closely resemble those of the pre-Roe days.

  • invalid-0

    “For me the government, of which you and I are a part, has a role in educating people about the facts so they can make the best choices for themselves, and working to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy.”

    Some of us don’t believe this is the role of government.

    As soon as the government gets involved in the education business, it is choosing one ideology over another. In the end, someone feels isolated and/or oppressed.

    It is not my responsibility as a citizen to make sure that other citizens live healthy lives or make good choices. It is my responsibility as a human being to do this—but not as a citizen. To that end, the proper place for the donation of money for these causes is charitable organizations.

    While there are many things that we pay tax dollars for that we shouldn’t, drawing a comparison between anything we use tax money for in order to illustrate your point that money should be spent on this is ridiculous.

    Whether you agree with the war or not, it IS the role of government to defend its citizens and we elect officials to make the judgment about when this is necessary. It is hardly the same thing as providing funding for “education” programs or free birth control.

    We need to spend more time rebuilding families in this country so that people don’t feel it is necessary for government to play that role.

  • scott-swenson

    Anon,

    …. “spending time rebuilding the family” sounds great, but in case you forgot, the government does give tax advantages to married couples and people with children, operates the most ambitious public education system in the world, makes low interest student loans available for college students, and covers the expense of Medicare and social security so the expense of aging doesn’t bankrupt our parents and grandparents. It sure seems like the government is doing quite a bit to support families.

    Supporting family planning, for the vast majority of Americans, is one more way that we as a nation are working to strengthen families. But perhaps you had something a little narrower in mind?


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

    • invalid-0

      I wouldn’t exactly call the ease with which people can get divorced in this country supportive of the family—if they bother to get married at all. But that is an entirely different topic…

      I don’t believe in throwing tax dollars at the problem. I have been a public school teacher for over ten years and have watched public education receive more money that is wasted on BS programs and agendas I don’t agree with. In addition, it has become more and more incumbent upon me (as a teacher) to do the “child rearing” that parents should be doing.

      I don’t have an answer, or “the” answer; but I also don’t believe the government does either. I would much rather let people make moral decisions for themselves, fund those decisions themselves (or turn to charitable organizations that do) and keep the government out of as much personal business as possible.

      If I didn’t have to work, I would home-school my kids. Or if I made more money, I would send them to a private school where I could choose the agenda I believe important instead of having them subjected to the “Agenda of the Month” in the public schools.

  • http://brokenporcelaindoll.blog.co.uk invalid-0

    Ummm… Anon.

    Apologies for derailing a little, but I do baulk a little when I see people treat divorce as if it is some awful, family-destroying event. Especially as such ideologies (please note, I don’t know you and don’t claim to know if this applies to you) often stem from an idealised concept of what “family” should be.

    When two people no longer love one another, or are unable to live peacefully together, this damages children. Seeing parents fight continuously, and being caught in the middle of arguments (no matter how hard you might TRY to avoid that, it WILL happen). Abusive relationships as well. The fact is that, for all that these frivolous divorces and marriages are highly publicised, I don’t know one single person amongst my peer group, my mother’s, my grandmother’s or my younger nieces and nephews’ that have been divorced over anything other than life-altering issues. Divorce is messy, expensive, difficult and heart-wrenching in the best of circumstances. Who, aside from celebrities with their billions of cash, would subject themselves to that, and the expense of marriage itself, over a whim?

    Anyway, back to the subject at hand. This issue of contraception access isn’t about pushing an agenda on anyone. It is about preventing an agenda from being pushed on people. What Bush is proposing would leave hundreds of thousands of low income women, regardless of circumstance, unable to protect themselves from disease, unwanted pregnancy and pregnancy-related death and illness. We can’t predict whether the women that need these services will be promiscuous orgy-attendees, or virgins that were raped against their will, or hopeful mothers with ectopic pregnancies or changed circumstances, even IF you felt those things were reasonable means of determining right to access of abortion.

    I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. And pro-contraception.

    And yes, since we cannot know WHY a pregnant 13 year old might want an abortion without the awareness of her parents (What if daddy is the cuplrit? What if daddy beats his little girl and she is afraid of what he will do? What if mummy and daddy belong to a fringe religious group and would harm her for her “sins”? What if she was raped and just afraid to come forward, or wants to spare her parents the pain of finding out about it?) I think the rights of our most vulnerable members of society should allow abortion without parental consent.

  • invalid-0

    Hi Scott,

    Allow me to humbly disagree with you. Oh where do I start? First of all…I don’t think that we as a nation freak out about sex. Sex is a wonderful thing and completely natural. People are always going to have different opinions about it. I have a lot of opinions about it but my core belief is that nature intended it to be for procreation. Even using BC you still run a slight risk of becoming pregnant. So there I said it. There is nothing wrong with sex but I try to have a good understanding and respect for its function in nature. I also understand there is another aspect to sex…that we all love it…it’s enjoyable. I think you run into trouble when you divorce one aspect from the other. Only having sex for the pleasure aspect and not caring about the fact that his condom might break and I could potentially get pregnant. I don’t think my generation is too dumb or too ignorant to grasp that concept. I think a lot of people my age and younger are aware of what can happen to them but they simply don’t care until something happens.

    Do I think abstinence only programs work? My answer to that is it depends on the person. I went Catholic school in Alabama from pre-school all the way through 9th grade. In 10th grade I went to a public high school. In Catholic school, from what I can recall, they teach both the science of reproduction and the theological teachings of the Church as it pertains to sex, marriage and birth control. You could call it an abstinence only program I guess. Now that said…the classroom was an open forum for debate. Not everyone in the room was pro-life or against birth control. No one was punished for his or her opposing views. When I transferred to public school…there was really no difference at all except that you saw less teaching on the subject and it was only brought up by students when discussing current events and other social issues. It was sort of the same way in college. Although I never had lessons on BC, I did manage to make it out of school with a complete understanding of how my body works, how men’s bodies work, and what could happen to me if I wasn’t careful. So based on my own experience, I would be more inclined to advocate programs where students learn more about the science of reproduction, how pregnancy can occur and common myths associated with it. Then, once the students have a good grasp on the science of reproduction, I would begin a lesson on birth control but I would steer clear of promoting it. It’s all about providing facts so that everyone can make their own informed decision.

    Ok now into the notion that healthcare providers should be required to dispense BC, EC and/or provide abortions. I don’t agree at all. What I wish people would come to understand is that whether they like it or not there are two sides to the BC/abortion debate. It’s upsetting to me, Scott, that many on the left who are unwilling to accept the fact that there are good people out there who just happen to oppose contraception and abortion. Why force them to subscribe to your beliefs when they don’t force you to subscribe to theirs. They can’t force you to do anything. I don’t think they are out there trying to make a statement. They just want to be able to practice medicine without going against their convictions. What is so wrong with having convictions? Lots of people have them. If I’m a waitress and I love my job, then why should I have to quit just because the government says I’m now required to wait tables AND dance on the bar with no shirt on? In this country, you have the freedom to make an informed decision on where you need to go to receive the specific attention you need. I went to college in a tiny little town in Alabama. Some of my good friends had pregnancy scares and all it took for them was to open the phone book and find the nearest Planned Parenthood or clinic that provided BC and EC. Nobody ever told them no because they went to the clinics that they knew would give it to them. People are not as dumb and helpless as some make them out to be.

    • invalid-0

      a person who goes into a profession knowing that an aspect of that profession might go against their religious beliefs should either NOT go into that profession, or be professional about it and do what they’re being paid to do.
      case in point: i worked for a juvenile court judge. he was a republican. he was personally anti-choice. at least a few times a month we had jane doe hearings. jane doe hearings are for young women under 18 who want an abortion, but for whatever reason, can not let their parents know they are pregnant. a lot goes into the decision of the judge – the reasons she can’t notify her parents (are they violent/abusive), what is her level of maturity, does she understand the possible risks of abortion, etc.
      i once asked this judge if it was difficult for him to rule on jane doe cases. his answer? NO. no, because when he put on his robe, he was no longer himself, nor his personal beliefs, nor his religious beliefs – he was a judge, and as a judge, he had to respect the law as it was written.
      THAT is how medical professionals should be, as well. they have rights, certainly – the right to choose a job that is more befitting their religious beliefs.

  • invalid-0

    They just want to be able to practice medicine without going against their convictions. What is so wrong with having convictions? Lots of people have them.

    a problem arises when going with one’s convictions hurts another human being. Like the woman who needs BC to control endometriosis; or the rape survivor who needs EC to prevent becoming pregnant by the creep who assaulted her. These women have convictions too, like they don’t want to live in unbearable pain, or be forced to have a crimnal’s baby.

    Which brings up another question: Why are the convictions of a pro life nurse, or an anti-contraception pharmacist so much superior to that of the women who wants BC or EC? I understand the reasoning of these people, but their solution (refusing to help a person in need) is neither professional, nor ethical.

  • invalid-0

    Um, I guess I’m missing something, but last time I checked it doesn’t HURT someone not to provide them with contraception.

    I find it extremely frustrating that the argument is fueled by the assumption that people of low income are mindless morons who can’t control their libido.

    It is perfectly ethical and professional to refuse to be forced into behaving in a manner which we find immoral. It is our right as human beings to act on our convictions. It is not about whose convictions are superior, it is about our right as individuals to act on those convictions without government interference.

  • invalid-0

    I’m sure that as Clinton has found some way to twist the story! I suppose no one has taken the time to really research this! This is insane and there is no way that could possibly happen the way she has make it out to sound. No matter what way you look at it taking lives that were given to us from God (the one who is really made up all the rules) is wrong, its called murder! The Clinton family has none nothing but lie to our country from day one I dont see how so many people are so “trusting”. So say what you like but I’m proud to have a leader who wants to stand up for what God (I guess many of us have forgotten that whole One Nation Under God thing* key word UNDER GOD) says is right and say no to taking innocent childrens lives into our own hands. This proposal doesnt say no to birth control, so take sometime to read into it please. Personally I dont want to continue to pay for abortions and the day after pill (which many people are trying to use as regular birth control)! I swear if people dont start thinking of whats right unstead of what they want for them selves God is gonna come down and smack you all!

    The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

  • scott-swenson

    Anon – you said "It is not about whose convictions are superior, it is about our right as individuals to act on those convictions without government interference."
    In this case "government interference" is a medical professional who believes, contrary to everything they learned in their medical training and all the scietific data, that contraceptions are the same thing as abortions. That person will be allowed to interfere with a low income person (just to use your example, but it could be anyone) that WANTS to control their reproductive health so that they can (perhaps, hypotesizing here) furhter their education, get a better job, stabilize their life to the point where they are ready to be parents as opposed to running the risk of a pregnancy they aren’t ready for. If that pregnancy happens, and they DIDN’T have access to birth control, that could "hurt" some people. And make no mistake — this effort will not stop — when has the far-right ever stopped? They believe in the incremental erosion of personal privacy, individual rights and liberties. They will continue until birth control and reproductive health are handled exclusively according to their beliefs.

     

    What is amazing is that it is YOU who made the assumptions about anyone, regardless of income, and YOU who supports governmnet interference, and you don’t even recognize it.  Beliefs do not get to trump scientific facts, no matter how strongly you believe them, when it comes to a pluralistic democracy. If people want to have a government based only on their beliefs, go do that — here in America, we settled that issue a couple hundred years ago and we’re not turning back.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Hillary was the candidate I supported; now I will write in her name for president; this foolery with any other candidate is ridiculous. Obama’s time is not yet.
    The sanctimonious females who “STAND BY THEIR MAN’” to obstruct the freedom of all women do not have a clue as to how much cost and detriment to society unwelcome children create. Their idealogy is stop abortion but encourage child abuse and neglect. Who cares if unwanted children are sexually, physically and psychologically abused just so fundies stand by their ‘man’ and destroy the freedom and choise of women everywhere.

  • scott-swenson

    Scott, that many on the left who are unwilling to accept the fact that
    there are good people out there who just happen to oppose contraception
    and abortion. Why force them to subscribe to your beliefs when they
    don’t force you to subscribe to theirs. They can’t force you to do
    anything. I don’t think they are out there trying to make a statement.

    You are so good at twisting things, I understand why you have the views you do. I respect your views. I respect people who don’t believe other people have the equal rights to make the same decisions they do because they believe differently. It is hard, I admit, to respect that, since in essence by calling people who are pro-contraception and pro-choice "murderers" it feels at times they are just touch disrespectful to people who believe differently from them. But I afford even the most narrow minded people respect I often feel they do not extend to others.

     

    When it comes to "forcing" people in this country to believe one thing or another, it is actually your side doing the forcing. In a pluralistic democracy, people have many beliefs — the First Amendment allows this despite what many on the far-right think. It is not about "one belief" or the marriage of church and state, it is about many beliefs, none more important than the other when it comes to affairs of state, but all equal, all recognizing a creator (other than atheists, also protected by our Consititution). So no one can force anything on anyone.

     

    But anti-choicers are the people forcing these incremental laws that change access to contraception, not based on the latest medical thinking, but on their singular belief.

     

    The government should be a neutral space where the laws created allow people, regardless of belief, to go about their business. If you don’t believe in contraception, you should not be in a job where someone who does might need your services. That is freedom of choice, choose your career so that your beliefs will not stand in the way of another person. Do not use the law to make it more difficult for another person who believes differently to live their life. It is the far-right using the law to limit people’s choices, and to suggest that one belief is more important than another’s, or medical facts for that matter, not the left. The left (and the center, and many on the center-right) believe that government can and should provide access to contracption, information about family planning, and teach comprehensive sexuality education so people are equipped to make the best personal and private decisions for their individual lives, their families, and their future. No one on the left is forcing you to believe that. You need not access these services, no is saying any of this is mandatory. All we are saying is your beliefs cannot stand in the way of ours, that would be "force" and that is what the far-right is doing.

     

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    I am happy to see that the people who are trying to determine when and how many children each one of us must have such as anonymous posting at 2:30am so clearly state the beliefs that are behind this proposed regulation of my body. God wants this, this is what god would want…Is the HHS so bold as to claim they have the ear of god? We know from the past eight years that Bush certainly believes that he is on God’s mission, bankrupting our economy, invading nations for oil, and protecting his cronies at any cost.

    How dare you assume to know what my god wants and expects of me? If you can’t even begin to accept the concept that different people believe in different gods and follow different belief systems, then you are the one that really needs some education.

    I am going under the assumption that you don’t take birth control since you believe that this is not what your god would want, and Bush certainly believes his god wants you contraception free. Since you are most likely not abstaining since most do not despite the U.S. investing millions of dollars in ineffective abstinence-only programs in the U.S. and abroad, you are probably practicing the rhythm pull-out method and if ooops, there is a little pre-cum, then that is what god wanted and you will raise that child regardless of whether or not you are prepared to care for the baby? Are you really that naive?

    Sorry anonymous, I want more control over my future and my family and every woman, including you, deserve the same. By taking medication each day, I am not having an abortion, science will confirm this, and I don’t care whether or not your god does, just keep your god off of my body and out of my laws.

    Yes, everyone should read the draft HHS regs, many will not understand the language due to how poorly written it is, but for a good synopsis of the regulations, you can read this: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion . It also includes a link to the full draft regulations. No one is trying to spin this to be worse than it is, this is one of the greatest assaults on women’s health in a long string of attacks that leaders have undertaken in an effort to appease groups that have some of the most archaic notions of women, their rights, and their place in society.

    So I challenge you anonymous posting at 2:30am to educate yourself and stop following leaders who claim to have god on their side, those are the most dangerous kind and will only lead you down a dark road, such as the path the U.S is currently on and has been sliding down for the past 8 years.

  • scott-swenson

    “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

     

    Only one problem, anon, contraception is not abortion. Oh, and another, your beliefs don’t get to trump anyone else’s. If you don’t believe in certain scientific facts or medical advances, you shouldn’t be in a business that might bring your beliefs into conflict with a patient, whom you’ve taken an oath to serve. Remember service?

     

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    This article doesn’t cite any references, I can’t find anything about this on the Health Department’s website, and the link in the article is for a website with the vaguest mission statement I’ve ever read.
    I don’t think this is real.

  • invalid-0

    Under God was a phrase added to the Pledge of Allegiance through the lobbying efforts of the Knights of Columbus in the 1950s, affirming our stand against the “reds” of those times, was also a Christian stand. Of course, more commies exist now than ever before (China). The Chinese also own our debt, and we may have get physical if they suddenly wanted to get paid tonight.

    You all think the HHS ruling is the end of the agenda, but you’re not even close. We have 1-billion Chinese to kill and 1-billion Muslims to kill if the Fourth Reich is to exist for the next 1k-years. The Nazis approved their Aryan men fornicating beyond marriage AND discouraged their Aryan women from having abortions long before they gained power. We’re just seeing the beginning of the master religion, starting with less access to birth control. Partial birth abortions don’t destroy potential life – they destroy potential soldiers.

    If you were told that in the beginning, would you have allowed Bush to even breathe? That’s how the Devil works and he always starts small.

  • invalid-0

    Well where do you draw the line? I’ve never been raped or had endometrios, thankfully. But but I do know that both could happen to me and I know in my mind what to do and where to go if the unexpected happens. Forcing a medical professional to divorce his/her sense of what is right or wrong from his/her decisions as a professional isnt the way to go. Women need to have information…they need to be prepared. I know what to do if I’m raped, my mother knows what to do, we both know where to go and how much time I have to get there.

  • invalid-0

    Sen. Clinton said, “These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care.”

    Therefore, to accuse me of making this distinction by saying, “That person will be allowed to interfere with a low income person (just to use your example, but it could be anyone) that WANTS to control their reproductive health..” is dishonest.

    I fully support the rights of Americans to make choices in their own best interests. However, as a thinking human being I understand that a just society does not support the idea that one human life is worth more than another. The desire to get an education or not endure a pregnancy should not come at the expense of another life. If these things are truly important to the individual, they will refrain from activities which place them in precarious situations.

    I am Pro-Life AND Pro-Contraception—but I don’t think the government should be in the business of providing contraception to its citizens. Sexual activity is a private matter for individuals and is only subject to government intervention when it endangers the life of another. To say that limiting access to contraception by refusing to force tax payers to pay for it is endangering the life of another, grossly demeans the individuals making these choices.

    Every drugstore in America sells condoms. I was even able to get some at a drugstore in the middle of nowhere this weekend to ensure that my husband and I could continue with our “Family Planning”. The key is: I PAID FOR THEM because it was my choice to have sex.

    The problem with the Pro-Choice movement is that they exalt choice above anything else. They prefer choice without consequences and the only thing that this leads to is an erosion in decency and a healthy respect for life.

  • invalid-0

    So, if birth control=abortion are we going to stop selling condoms over the counter? You can’t label birth control as abortion, otherwise ANY method of preventing pregnancy (ie. pulling out,condoms,etc.) is under the same rule. It’s ridiculous. Low income women need birth control just as much, if not more than middle income women.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t understand why this is even an issue. Regardless of status (poor, middle class, wealthy) if someone wants to be responsible and avoid an unplanned pregnancy, they are entitled to birth control and it should not be equated as abortion. Abortion has a specific definition and contraception has a specific definition. What brought about this changes? The health insurance companies? They shouldn’t be allowed to cover whichever prescriptions they choose. As long as it’s FDA approved and prescribed by a medical doctor, then I say it should be covered.

    By the way, many women including teens take birth control for other reasons besides preventing pregnancy such as regulating menstrual cycles, endometriosis, acne, etc… would this affect them as well?

  • invalid-0

    How dare you tell others they should be ashamed of thier opinion? No one is telling you to go get an abortion. We are simply sharing our beliefs. I read your response and understand why you think that way, but I would never tell you to be ashamed of your opinion just because I believe different. Can’t we show each other some respect?

  • scott-swenson

    We don’t traffic in "fakes" or misinformation on this site, we counter the misinfomration that comes from the far-right. This article about the HHS proposal has the document from HHS linked to it. You didn’t even have to leave this site to learn more about it, but then again, I understand that opinion is more important than fact to many people who wish to tell other people how to live.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Why don’t Bush and company legislate men’s penis’ that way women would not need contraception. Perhaps if they would have regulated men’s penis’s I would not have been raped as a sixteen year old virgin.

  • invalid-0

    **If the attitude of your party existed at the revolution, you wouldn’t have the right to say the things you are saying now.
    Knock knock, is anybody home? Left liberalism does not have a good track record for longevity of freedom. Read a little history.**

    Here’s some history – at the time of the revolution there were no anti-abortion laws. Not until the middle 1800s did individual states start to make it illegal.

  • invalid-0

    Feel free to volunteer as a surrogate womb for unspeaking unborn babies.

  • invalid-0

    So by your logic, the woman that was raped had a _choice_ to have sex and conceive that child? The definition of rape is that she didn’t.

    Will you tell a married woman that she either a) can’t have sex with her husband or b) can’t have access to severely teratogenic drugs that are necessary to maintain her health and ability to function, because she also b) can neither get access to the birth control necessary to reliably prevent pregnancy or have access to an abortion in the case that that birth control fails? Will you tell a couple that both carry the Tay-Sachs gene that again, they can’t have a normal marriage and/or don’t have the right to decide to end a pregnancy where the child will be born with a horrible death sentence? (Tay-Sachs children have no hope; they are born normal, they start to deteriorate within a year, and die in horrible pain.).

    Things like this are not black and white. As far as “looney tunes,” not everyone believes in the “second the egg meets sperm” definition of the beginning of life, or even that implantation is where life begins.

    Anyway, I’d rather worry about the living, breathing, walking children in our country that no one speaks for, that live in substandard conditions or suffer in abusive homes or are lost in the worst part of the foster care system. How about you go adopt and care for all those kids, and _then_ come back to us and yell about the innocent unborn children that have no one to speak for them?

  • invalid-0

    Birth control is not equal to abortion but “emergency contraception” is NOT birth control if it eliminates a fertilized egg. Perhaps if “morning after” solutions were not included under the banner of contraception there would be less resistance. It seems like the pro-choice agenda can be as “sneaky” as President Bush is supposed to be. Keep the terms clear and perhaps we could actual build trust when there is disagreement.

  • invalid-0

    Most of this anti-abortion and anti-birth control is driven by the right wing Christians. I believe the Christians should read their own Bible again. Starting with Genesis and going through the New Testament, the Bible always equates life and the indwelling of God with breath. We know that when one takes his/her last breath, one dies (and Christians believe the soul goes to heaven.) Well, the Bible indicates that the soul comes into the body when one takes his/her first breath. Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” See also Genesis 6:17, 7:15; Job 12:10; Ezekiel 37:5-9; and John 20:22. The infusion of life and of the soul comes when a person is born and takes that first breath. I don’t know how these Christians are equating conception with life. If that were true, God would be the biggest abortionist of all, since 80% of fertilized eggs are miscarried. I believe you are right. We need to concern ourselves with the people who are living and breathing. The Bush administration really does not care about the child after it is born. He wants more worker bees.

  • mellankelly1

    Jason, I find it interesting that in the entire article that you reference  (Contraception: Why Not?) there was not one mention of the Winnipeg Statement which reflects the dissent within the Catholic Church regarding artificial contraception… I believe it is worth noting that there are various viewpoints regarding this issue within the Catholic Church.

  • mellankelly1

    The idea that the healthcare providers should pay for birth control is to say they should pay for condoms.

     

    Your entire rant is nonsensical and does not reflect a compelling reason why birth control should not be paid for by our health care providers.  And as an aside, condoms are not a prescription medicine – birth control pills cannot be purchased over-the-counter – why shouldn’t insurance companies pay for prescription birth control if they pay for other prescription drugs and devices?  It is imperative that women’s health-care issues are addressed by insurance providers; having access to contraception is crucial for women (being able to control the timing and/or spacing of children reduces the occurrence of maternal death, low birth weight babies, and infant mortality).  Simply because you don’t believe that contraception is significant to women’s health-care does not make it so.

  • invalid-0

    Well I’m not really twisting anything. I’m sharing a perspective that you simply don’t agree with. It seems like, I could be wrong in thinking this, that you and I come from different places. Like I said, I’m a 26-year-old woman. I’ve had a taste of what it’s like to mess up and have a fear of being pregnant. To be in college and realize that my mistake could potentially put a stop to what I envision my future to be is a feeling like no other. That’s one part of me that many people don’t know. I also know what it is like to be a Catholic, which, to many of you reading this, may cause you to roll your eyes. But I can say that I understand why the Church believes what it does in regards to Abortion and Birth Control and I can understand why many healthcare providers are so passionate about being able to practice medicine without compromising their beliefs. Scott, I couldn’t imagine living in a country where, if I’m a devout Catholic and I love caring for other women like myself, I couldn’t follow my passion because the government says I would need to sacrifice my faith in order to so. It’s not the government’s job to say that to me at all. It’s up to my patients to make the decision that is best for them. I don’t know if this matters or not but I thought I would inject it anyway…the Catholic Church is against contraception…not the pill itself but the act of contraception. In other words if I’m a woman with endometriosis, a Catholic doctor would not be going against his/her faith to prescribe the pill to me to be used for that. I don’t know if that matters to you or not…but knowledge is always a good thing. =)
    I tend to be a live and let live type of person. I feel that the far right tries to impose too much and the far left is just as guilty. I get turned off by all the fussiness and fighting to be completely honest with you. Abortion sucks. I think it’s quite telling of a society when pregnancy is treated almost like a disease where women need to pump themselves with medicine every day. And if that doesn’t work, undergo an invasive and often expensive procedure to get rid of the “disease”. At the same time I think the pro-life crowd is dreaming if they ever think roe v wade will somehow be overturned. It won’t and even if it is, that isn’t going to stop abortion. I personally think pro-life and pro-choice folks need to chill out and work together instead of stepping on each other’s toes all the time. I don’t know if that will ever happen because I know some people are stubborn and actually enjoy the fighting. I don’t. I like seeing good results. I like people trying to understand others instead of making themselves look like victims. I hate all the name calling and ugliness.

  • invalid-0

    Well, if the point is that a woman who CHOOSES to have sex must take the consequences, then that is a damn good arguement for all women to join the New Lysistrata Rebellion. Tell every heterosexual man you know that since the consequences of heterosexual sex could be pregnancy, you will abstain from now on. That’s right : total abstension from every form of heterosexuality. No intercourse , no blow jobs, etc. So tell the man in your life he’d better make friends with his left hand, because you are going to be abstinent.
    It just amazes me that men preach abstinence who are not willing to be abstinent themselves. Don’t they realize that whenever a woman abstains, the man with whom she might otherwise be “making woopee” is also going to have to abstain (unless he can find a more foolish woman).
    Why are we not instead saying that if a man CHOOSES to engage in heterosexual intercourse, HE has to be responsible for the consequences ?? If pregnancy results and abortion is unavailable or not choosen as the answer, then that man has to be responsible for fully HALF the total costs of rearing the child and likewise has to do fully HALF the actual work of child-rearing. Is not the man as responsible for the CHOICE of intercourse as the woman is ?? Does it not “take two to tango”?
    The above refers to mutually consensual sex. As we all know not all sex is consensual. But we also know that it is damn hard for a woman to coerce a man, but not at all unheard of for a man to coerce a woman.

    Now the other aspect that Anonymous refers to is COST. If COST is his real issue, and I’d agree it is a legitimate issue, then he should recognize the economic realities. It is very cheap to provide contraception, whether providing it through an insurance plan (which the user does pay for , either directly or indirectly when it is part of compensation for employment) or providing it as a welfare freebie. Contraception is a damn sight cheaper than pre-natal care and childbirth care. Contraception is cheaper than aborting all uncontracieved unwanted pregnancies. Contraception is a damn sight cheaper than welfare payments for raising an unwanted child born to the woman who couldn’t afford to pay for her own contraception or abortion and certainly cannot afford to rear the child. Contraception is cheaper than costs of public school for that child. Contraception is cheaper than taking an unwanted and neglected child into Child Services and paying for its foster care for years and years. Contraception is cheaper than the extra Police work and prison time that so often results when a child is unwanted, resented, and poorly reared. Abortion is also a damn sight cheaper than any of these financial impacts of an unwanted pregancy unwillingly carried to term.

  • invalid-0

    So you think that all conservative women are clueless and can’t think for themselves? “Fundies”? I think your anger is blinding you. There is a place for “unwanted children” and it’s in the arms of other parents who would love them. Abortion isn’t the end all be all cure to the abuse and neglect of children. It’s not birth control either and birth control is not abortion. Women don’t have abortions to better society. Abortions are a by-product of a society that cares very little for pregnant women. It’s sad when any pregnant woman has to undergo a procedure out of fear that her life will not be “normal” if she has her baby. Women have been having babies since time began. Why is it only now that having children is a “detriment to society”? I think it’s the other way around.

    Rachel

  • invalid-0

    Absolutley correct. At the time of the colonies and the framing of the Constitution there were absolutely NO laws against abortion or contraception. Both contraception and abortion were widely practiced by colonists and those practices continued through mid 1800s and beyond. These methods were not what we today would consider sufficiently reliable but they did double the inter-birth interval and cut total family size in half. Some of the methods were not as safe as we today would want, but they were viewed as acceptable risks compared to the very high risks of pregnancy and child-birth.
    From the early 1800s on, the public lecture circuit had many speakers on family limitation, and their lectures were very well attended. Many booklets were is widespread circulation, such as Knowlton’s “Fruits of Philosophy”, Owen’s “Moral Physiology”, and many others less well known. The arguement that couples had a duty to limit family size so that they could properly rear and educate their children was a well accepted one.

    When laws concerning abortion began to appear , the early laws made it only a minor offense and only after “quickening”, an event which could only be known for sure by the pregnant woman. Prosecutions were extremely rare. Note also that it was NOT a crime for the woman to seek or self perform an abortion, nor to have one performed on her.

    The serious movement to restrict abortion came as part of the newborn American Medical Association’s attempts to restrict medical practice to its own members. In particular the AMA wanted to drive out the midwives.

    Those of you interested in history should read “Contraception and Abortion in 19th Century America” by Janet Farrell Brodie. Despite the title, it begins with coverage of colonial times.

    By the way, I just love this site’s requirement that a poster have to solve a simple arithmetic problem. Too bad the same requirement is not imposed on those seeking public office !

  • invalid-0

    No I’m not and I don’t appreciate your elitist attitude either. You must not be from the South, darlin, because if you were, you would know we southern ladies don’t appreciate rudeness. “Misinformed”. Who do you think you are spouting off that kind of nonsense about someone you don’t even know? You can disagree with me all you want but you keep your personal attacks to yourself!

    “In the first place, no one forced these people to be state licensed health care professionals – if they can’t, or won’t, perform certain “unpleasant” aspects of their jobs then they should pursue another career field.”

    …That’s YOUR opinion and should not be the government’s. What’s next? Are you going to force Brain Surgeons to perform root canals?

    Second, are you going to adopt the unwanted children from a rape victim, or foundlings and etc.?…

    Perhaps. And if I don’t…I know five other couples that will.

    not if these rules go into effect – apparently you still don’t get it – under these rules there may be no place for women to get access to these medications and procedures, and these medical professionals will not have to inform them where they can get them: In some states there is only one clinic that provides abortion services, so if you are poor, or a minor and can’t drive (and probably because of ab-only sex ed did not know about contraceptives either) and you are hundreds of miles away from that clinic you are SOL.

    For most Americans, finding an abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood or place that dispenses EC and BC is easy. I live in Alabama, one of the most conservative states in America, and our phone book is full of places within walking distance to receive all of these services. If you live in the middle of nowhere…life is going to be hard for you. I’m sorry that’s just the way it is. Just imagine how hard it would be if you lived in the middle of nowhere and the only obgyn in walking distance just moved to another country to deliver babies because the American government told him/her he would have to sacrifice his/her beliefs in order to continue working. Now instead of just being pregnant in the middle of nowhere, you’re pregnant and without a doctor in the middle of nowhere. P.S. – If there is only one abortion clinic in a state…there is a reason. The rest were run out of town. It’s hard for a lot of abortion performing doctors to drive to work every day passing signs that say that what he/she is doing is murder. Think about it.

  • invalid-0

    One need only study OECD and other statistics to find out that in countries such as Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and others, abortions are nearly non-existent. Why? Because of early education and easy access to contraception. Granted, the countries would be cosidered “secular” by the Bush supporters, AND they have stronger “security net” (thus each unwanted child would cost the society even more in tax dollars…).

    Before the ultraconservative Christians took over the Republican, I, as an independent, could support many people based on certain fiscal positions I preferred. Given the fact that the anti Education/contraception/abortion forces took over, I now support Obama and many other Democrats.

    I liked the postings about the Bible saying life begins and ends at breath. Also liked the comment about this being new and will find that book about family limiting etc from Colonial times. And, YES, the responsibility of raising a child should be borne by BOTH parties.

    Let’s preserve the rights for our daughters and grand daughters to decide. p.s, many of my college students will fail the math question…..

    • invalid-0

      Anonymous says…
      One need only study OECD and other statistics to find out that in countries such as Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and others, abortions are nearly non-existent.

      Where do you get your ideas?
      Number of abortions per 1000 women typical child-bearing age:
      US 15/1000
      Sweden 21/1000
      Denmark 16/1000
      Finland 9/1000
      Norway 13/1000

      And some of these statistics are somewhat in question… of course so are part of the US stats. The CDC lowered our rates based on that some states quit reporting rates.

    • invalid-0

      Anonymous says…
      One need only study OECD and other statistics to find out that in countries such as Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and others, abortions are nearly non-existent.

      Where do you get your ideas?
      Number of abortions per 1000 women typical child-bearing age:
      US 15/1000
      Sweden 21/1000
      Denmark 16/1000
      Finland 9/1000
      Norway 13/1000

      And some of these statistics are somewhat in question… of course so are part of the US stats. The CDC lowered our rates based on that some states quit reporting rates.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks for the additional resources!

  • invalid-0

    You seem to be confusing the Christian Bible with the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that abortion is illegal, neither does it say anything about us being one nation under god. That was something added to the original pledge of allegiance by Christian propagandists.

  • invalid-0

    Women have also been having abortions for millenia. It’s not something “new”.

  • invalid-0

    Anyone who sincerely wants to reduce the incidence of abortion to the lowest possible level should be applauding and encouraging contraception. CONTRACEPTION PREVENTS ABORTION.
    For those of you who, like our current Presidential Incumbrance, flunked Biology in high school, let me point out the brain-dead simple obvious fact that abortion only takes place because a pregnancy has already occurred. PREGNANCY IS THE ONE AND ONLY CAUSE OF ABORTION. to be more specific, it’s a “problem pregnancy” that causes the need for abortion. if there never again were any problem pregnancy, there would never again be another abortion.
    The vast majority of abortions take place because the pregnancy was accidental and unwanted, and the only thing more unwanted than the pregnancy would be a resulting child. These pregnancies and consequent need for abortion could and should be prevented by diligent use of contraception. Now except for surgical sterilization, all contraceptive methods have some failure rate. So diligent and consistent use of contraception will not prevent all unwanted pregnancies, but such use could prevent the great majority of them.
    ( A minority of abortions take place because a serious health problem has developed in either the fetus or the pregnant woman, and another minority take place because of incest or rape. Contraception is not going to do much to reduce these situations, though it is noteworthy that fear of identification by DNA has caused some rapists to use condoms. )

    Now it’s true that some contraceptives are known to work by preventing fertilization from taking place. Thus for these there is no conception at all and no rational person could argue that these methods are terminating a conception. No rational person could consider these contraceptives to be abortificants. The most obvious of these are condom and diaphragm with or without spermaticide. The condom has the added advantage, shared with no other contraceptive, of being strongly effective in preventing transmission of AIDS and the lesser venereal diseases. How anyone can object to these methods is beyond any rational imagination.
    It’s also true that some contraceptives are known or thought to act after fertilization , most likely by preventing implantation. and the method of action of some other contraceptives are unknown. All these methods act at a stage of zygote at which something like half of all zygotes will fail naturally. The assignment of some kind of sacredness to this stage of zygote is purely a religious belief. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution and the entire tradition of American life and thought is that every person should be free to follow his/her own religious beliefs and NO PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE HIS/HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ANYONE ELSE. So those who believe a zygote to be sacred should simply choose to use forms of contraception that act by preventing fertilization and leave the rest of us free to use whatever methods we see fit to use and find consonant with our own beliefs.

    Personally I find it hard to consider a zygote of a few days age to be more sacred than an adult woman (or a teenaged woman). I find it hard to consider such a zygote to be more sacred than an already born child currently living in poverty or in the foster care system. I find it hard to consider such a zygote to be more sacred than any other form of life, including a chicken, a dog , or a chimp.

    IF YOU TRUELY HATE ABORTION, then YOU HAVE A DUTY NEVER TO RISK CAUSING ANYONE TO NEED ONE. If you are male that means either be totally abstinent, get yourself vasectomized, or use a condom with spermaticide for absolutely every heterosexual encounter. If you are female be totally abstinent, get your tubes tied, or use a diaphragm with spermaticide and demand every male partner use a condom.

    If you truely consider a zygote or any later stage of fetal life to be sacred, consider how much more sacred must be an actual already born child. Adopt at least one of the multitude of needy children currently languishing in the foster care system. Vote higher taxes for yourself to better fund the foster care system and welfare payments to support children currently undersupported by their natural parents. Vote mandatory child support by both natural parents, yes that means daddy too, for all children. If “life” is sacred before birth, surely it continues to be sacred after birth. Now if providing financially for those already born children means that you won’t be able to afford to beget or bear children of your own, why so be it : get yourself sterilized and you won’t have any further need to practice contraception or abortion.

    But if you still claim to be against abortion but are not willing to support universal contraceptive education (honest and accurate education in schools and in public media for adults) and are trying to withhold contraception or make obtaining it more difficult for those who want it, then at least acknowledge that you are both illogical and the very worst sort of hypocrit. You might even be as bad as George W Bush.

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t say abortion was something new. I’m aware that it has been around for a long time and even the Catholic Church has had multiple stances on it over the centuries. What I think is worth noting is our society’s attitude towards pregnant women and motherhood and how it has shifted these last few years. I don’t know that it has changed for the better.

  • invalid-0

    Birth control is not always a “choice” and it is NOT something taken by “irresponsible” women or sluts. It is often taken by women whose lives would be in severe jeopardy without it, at risk of hemorrhaging or an ectopic pregnancy. Some women taking birth control aren’t even having sex. And many women who have abortions do so at length after discovery the pregnancy is not viable, or their baby has terrible genetic defects that would prevent life. Sometimes they have abortions because they need treatment for cancer or other treatments that require a pregnancy to be aborted before the treatment can be given.

    Birth control and condoms are VERY different, condoms do prevent STDs but birth control often saves a woman’s life or gives her a much better life. Check your male privilege at the door and stop using sexist language. The right to have a healthy life and reproductive choices are not the same as a breast augmentation.

  • invalid-0

    What about the children who were wanted but HAD to be aborted because their pregnant mother (who is also a life that must be protected) needed treatment for cancer or another treatment that requires the pregnancy be aborted? What about all the pregnancies that were wanted and cherished but HAD to be aborted?

    http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/

    Someone has to fight for lives without a voice, it’s true: the life of the mother carrying that unborn child. If you want to speak for children, speak for the ones outside their mother’s womb who are young girls and won’t have access to the health care they need.

    • invalid-0

      What about the children who were wanted but HAD to be aborted because their pregnant mother (who is also a life that must be protected) needed treatment for cancer or another treatment that requires the pregnancy be aborted? What about all the pregnancies that were wanted and cherished but HAD to be aborted?

      Actually, many of the fundies will say that the mother should just die for the sake of her fetus.
      -
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Carder
      -
      Angela Carder, a woman very sick with metastatic cancer, was forced to have an emergency C-section rather than immediately start chemotherapy. This was very much against her will and the will of her family, but the hospital took them to court and won. The hospital attorney argued that it was appropriate to sacrifice Angela for her fetus, since Angela would likely die anyway. The surgery took place, and both mother and baby died within 48 hours.
      -
      Although this case was eventually overturned on appeal (and the Carder estate sued the crap out of the hospital), people who think this way still exist. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed a court brief in support of forcing the surgery.

  • invalid-0

    Name one time when an abortion had to be performed for the health of the mother.

    When a woman with cancer in her uterus had to have her baby aborted before she could have treatment.

    When a nine year old girl who had been raped had to have her baby aborted because her body couldn’t support life and would have shut down.

    When a woman’s pregnancy went terribly wrong and she started to bleed out and hemorrhage but did not give birth.

    When a woman became pregnant with an ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy not in the uterus) and had to have it aborted or face possible death.

    When a woman’s baby died in her womb and she had to have it aborted or face health complications (yes, even this would be illegal)

    When a mentally ill woman was raped and had to have the baby aborted because she was unable to cope and attempting suicide.

    I could go on and on, but unless you start seeing women as living people and not just baby machines or irresponsible whores you probably won’t care about these lives, right? Pro-life my ass. Life outside the womb counts too.

  • invalid-0

    Yes but if your definition of “service” involves abortion, taking the life of another person, then doctors should have every right to refuse to take part. But I guess it’s hard to argue that point to the same people who thought it was ok to perform D&X procedures on late-term pregnancies for no just reason.

  • invalid-0

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitlement

    Just because you are entitled to buy strawberries dosn’t mean others have to be required to sell them. Birth control is a product and nobody should be forced to sell it to you. It’s not the government’s concern that condoms dont feel good enough for you.

  • invalid-0

    Then don’t ask us to pay for your limp dicks.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you, Senator Clinton, for continuing to speak out louder and more courageously than most of your counterparts on this issue and other issues directly effecting women’s rights, women’s health and privacy, and the lives and needs of women and families.

    It is not just the number of abortions in this country that would be affected by this legislation. It is the health of women and the personal and economic freedom of women and families.

    It is women who take birth control pills because that is the most efficient way to control pregnancies and handle family planning. Don’t forget that for every woman taking birth control pills, there is a man who is fully in support of birth control and grateful for it.

    It is not okay to let the government succeed in its attempt to control people’s lives in this way.

  • invalid-0

    No, I don’t live in the South, but I did for 11 years and would never go back. And you yourself said you were ignorant of the whole debate – but it seems like you know a lot of the talking points of the anti-choice crowd, so I don’t believe that one either. If you think I am insulting, then you have never been a woman – even a married “30 something” woman – who has gone into their local pharmacy to pick up a prescription for BC (or EC) – that THEY are going to pay for BTW – and getting a lecture in front of everyone about how “immoral” they are to want to control their bodies by preventing pregnancies, or a victim of rape or incest who has enough to deal with getting the same lecture – and then getting told to get their prescription somewhere else. Yes, the government should be telling these medical personnel to do these procedures and dispense these prescriptions because they are licensed by, and often paid by, the state, and no – surgeons who are licensed to perform brain surgery (a nuerosurgeon) should not be doing root canals (dental surgery) – that is not their job: Pharmacists are licensed to dispense prescription drugs, and unless there are dangerous interactions with other medications their patient is taking, then they have the obligation to fill a doctor’s prescription WITHOUT a lecture in morals, and an OB/GYN who works at a reproductive health clinic should perform abortions – a medical procedure doctors in that field have performed for decades – because that procedure is part of their job. I am not an elitist, but perhaps you are – I think you want a return to the past where the only people who had access to medically safe abortion and contraception were wealthy women. And most doctors and other personnel who work at clinics are not bothered by the signs about abortion – what they ARE “bothered” by are the death threats, the people calling them – or their families – at their home all hours of the day and night, the posting of their pictures (and sometimes their children’s pictures) on anti-choice terrorist websites, the shootings, the bombings, the chemical bombs, the hate mail and etc – THAT is why most of those clinics close down even though there is a great demand for them in those areas. You accuse pro-choice people of shoving our beliefs down your throats, yet we have NEVER killed anyone involved in the anti-choice movement, or written their license plate numbers down and tracked them to their homes and threatened them or their families. And about adopting the unwanted children from rape victims, victims of incest and others – you and 5 others make 6, that works out to about 160,000 kids per year, every year – each. Seeing as there’s about 250,000 kids awaiting adoption in this country right now, you and your friends really are not stepping up to the plate, darlin’. Better get busy!

  • invalid-0

    Birth control pills can be taken to prevent and treat other ailments, such as Endometriosis, besides preventing pregnancy. I’d hate to see women in that situation denied treatment, like myself. As soon as I started on the pill over 10 year ago, my monthly day or two spent at home in mind blowing pain ended, and I was able to resume a normal, productive life. Think about that before you deny women medical treatment.

    http://www.endometriosis.org/

  • scott-swenson

    Believe what you will, the medical facts and the science are not on your side. No one is telling you what to believe, just suggesting when it comes to health care, perhaps we should consult other sources than what you think everyone else should believe.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    There are many, many, many (in fact according to most polls, a majority) Catholics that not only disagree with the political hierarchy of the church on contraception, but work in medical professions and have no problems being both Catholic and respecting people who are not, and may believe differently. THere are many Catholic politicians who understand how to allow their faith to inform the public service, and still respect the health and rights of others who do not believe as they do. No one is suggesting that the government force people to do anything they don’t want to, I’m suggesting those people choose to work in places and with people that only agree with them, if they cannot respect that God did not given them the authority to sit in judgment of others.

    Here is an interesting artilce by Lisa Shea on the religious evolution of attitudes toward contraception, which contains this interesting polling data:

    In the US, up to 80% of all women are now on birth control. Even though
    the Catholic ban still stands in 2007, studies show that up to 96% of
    all sexually active Catholic women HAVE used some form of birth control
    other than the rhythm method at some point in their life. One Poll
    shows that 88% of Catholics (male & female) feel the official
    doctrine should allow use of pill and condom.

    Another poll had a result
    of 90%. A third poll showed 82% of Catholics felt that even in the
    current state of affairs, you COULD use birth control and still be a
    "Good Catholic". A survey at an abortion clinic found that 40% of women getting
    an abortion were Catholic, 40% were from other religions and 20% were
    non-religious. This is even though only about 24% of US people are
    Catholics. It seems to indicate that because Catholics are pressured
    not to use birth control, they have to resort to an abortion if they
    accidentially get pregnant at higher rates than other groups are.

     


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    Dear person with the courage to insult, but not sign your name:
    Your biting remark may be great for rallies with like minded folk, but there is no one I know that supports abortion rights and suggests that the procedure is EVER for "no reason." And if you would take a moment to listen to women who’ve actually had the procedure, you would understand that your politics is only adding stigma and insult. But thank you, and all of the other anonymous people here, for showing your true colors. For any moderate people reading about attempts to redefine contraception as abortion, and seeing the comments like yours, it is fairly easy to connect the dots and see which side of the debate is trying to prevent unintended pregnancy and disease, and which side just wants to hurl insults and force everyone to believe exactly as they do.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    So then you if support getting government out of private sexual affairs, you likely also support ending laws that allow discrimination against employment for gay and lesbian people, that prohibit them from serving their country and living honestly, and that sets up a caste system for marriage suggesting that only certain people – based on their sex/gender – are eligible for the legal, civil and tax benefits that the government confers on heterosexuals?

    And to the point at hand, should the government pay to educate and inform people about a healthy diet in order to prevent obesity, heart problems and many other conditions that will cost more in the long run? Should the government warn people about smoking and drinking to avoid health problems and costs? Should the government teach people how to drive (license them) to prevent chaos on the streets? Should the government regulate food and drug safety, workplace rules and safety? Every single one of these issues is related to people’s health on some level — and so is sex.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson
  • invalid-0

    john just because your parents did something stupid in their lifetime does not mean that you should be punished for it. maybe you should check you attitude at the door. the next generation aready has to pay for enough of the mistakes of the former don’t lay anything else on us.

  • invalid-0

    In the Bible “Breath” is The Holy Spirit, which is the third of three persons in the Trinity. The Trinity is God, Son and Holy Spirit.

    God can take away life just as He gives it – He has that right as He is All-Powerful. We cannot create life and therefore we do not have the power to take it away.

    Thou shalt not kill.

  • invalid-0

    Isn’t it cheaper to pay for the birth control, than to… lets say, pay for several full term births? What happened to the united states objection to “welfare queens”? As a tax payer, I want my taxes to go toward birth control for women who can’t afford it. Truth be told, a lifetime worth of birth control for one individual costs less than the doctors bills that WILL be paid on behalf of these women when they become pregnant. Who do you think pays for this prenatal care?! THE TAX PAYERS!

    Use some logic.

  • invalid-0

    Isn’t it cheaper to pay for the birth control, than to… lets say, pay for several full term births? What happened to the united states objection to “welfare queens”? As a tax payer, I want my taxes to go toward birth control for women who can’t afford it. Truth be told, a lifetime worth of birth control for one individual costs less than the doctors bills that WILL be paid on behalf of these women when they become pregnant. Who do you think pays for this prenatal care?! THE TAX PAYERS!

    Use some logic.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not going to respond to anymore of your personal attacks on me or the good people of the South.

    Just because someone is licensed by the state does not mean they are to give up their freedom. In case you haven’t noticed…we don’t live in a socialistic society. But what I’m seeing more and more from the far left is a yearning to move to that kind of system and quite frankly…it scares me. You obviously have never lived in a place where the government was given so much control over the lives of people for “the good of people”. I have spoken with people who have. Trust me…you might want to think about your stance allowing the government to puppeteer doctors. Lawyers have already done enough of it already.

    My friends have asked for EC before and gotten it. You know why? Because we opened up a phone book, found a clinic that had it, drove over there and picked it up. It’s not rocket science. No I’ve never had to go to a drug store and slam my fist on the counter and demand the stuff from the pharmacist. If he/she told me “no” I wouldn’t lower myself that of some self-righteous, ego-centric, inconsiderate person and DEMAND that they conform to what MY expectation of what “healthcare” should be when I know darn well that I can go somewhere else and get what I need. If there isn’t a somewhere else…then open up one yourself and start a little competition. Nothing wrong with that…it’s what we do in America? BC and EC are not “heathcare”. It is a product that is bought and sold. I mean seriously…is this about people being too helpless to get it themselves…or is this you just getting mad that someone is telling you “no”. Is it that you can’t deal with the fact that some people don’t agree with you and that the deeper issue is that you have some deep seeded hatred of people of faith? You can say what you want about the far-right crazy folks bombing abortion clinics…but I’ve never in my life seen so much every day hatred and bitterness than what I have seen from the far-left. The idea that your ideology is superior and not equal to that of a person of faith is what I mean by elitism. Like your opinion is grounded in “proven” scientific fact, removed from the silliness people call “religion”. So you run with it, lacking any sense of humility, and expect others to follow you because your opinion is the only one that matters. I’ll be the first one to say that many people who call themselves “Christians” do the same. But this isn’t about YOUR secular opinion or my religious one. It’s about the freedom for everyone to do what the heck they want without the government and a bunch of crooked lawyers and judges telling folks what to do. I’m not for the wealthy and against the poor. You think I’m wealthy? I’m uninsured and unemployed living in Alabama, a state where people suffer the most from high gas prices, and I REFUSE to make my problem someone else’s problem because I know the good Lord gave me a strong will, common sense and the opportunity to live in a wonderful country where I can bounce back in no time. It’s hard for anyone who has no money…but to live in this country you have to learn how to take care of yourself. That’s what nature dictates. In the animal kingdom, if you don’t take of yourself or if you prove to be too weak to be a member of the pack…you are eventually cast out where you could potentially die. There is nothing wrong with asking for help…but demanding it from others is different. If you keep relying on everyone else to care for you…you are never going to grow as a human being. Poor women living in the middle of nowhere need Planned Parenthood and like-minded passionate people like yourself making the effort to go to these places and help these women…not the government and certainly not doctors and nurses grudgingly helping them. The government is not in the business of population control and it does not exist to promote any ideology even if that ideology does not stem from the worship a deity. The government is not in the business of ensuring the availability of products…period. Get what you need yourself.

    • invalid-0

      my god, maybe we should’ve let you guys secede.
      margaret sanger was framed has already done a brilliant job of refuting the ignorance you’ve spouted. but, i’m so disturbed that people like you exist, i had to say something. i hope you don’t go around claiming to be a christian. what would jesus do? would he tell someone in need – “hey, survival of the fitest, baby!”. it will never cease to amaze me that we’re taught to spout off about the greatness of our country – and brainwashed to hate the way you do. conservatives seem to have zero problem with BILLIONS of dollars being spent on an evil war that destroys and kills – yet, bring up health care, and suddenly all you hear is, “WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S PROBLEMS?” my god, PLEASE grow a heart, PLEASE get a spirti, PLEASE save your soul.

  • invalid-0

    Well I agree with you that there are a lot of Catholics that don’t agree with church teaching on family planning matters. But I’m speaking to those who do follow what the church teaches. I can’t help but think of my own mother, who has been a Catholic for 51 years and an RN (ER) for 28 years. I wish you could meet her because she is absolutely wonderful. In fact she saved my life once when I had an accident on a 3-wheeler. I was about 13 at the time. Dad drove me up there while I was bleeding internally and going into shock. Despite seeing me in that condition, she did a wonderful job. She has always told me that the one thing that her patients always appreciated was that she showed them love and compassion no matter what and that her Catholic faith inspired that love and compassion. I can’t even imagine how heartbroken she would be if legislation was passed down from our government that would force her to choose between living in accordance with her Catholic faith or continuing to follow her passion in life to save lives. EC for rape victims is offered where she works…and she does not oppose it…but if she was required take part in any other family planning, like abortion, it would break her and that hospital would lose a very experienced and very wonderful nurse.

  • invalid-0

    God better get busy then. He’s been inactive since the immaculate conception. Since then life has been biologically dependent on men and women to continue human life from gametes through to conception (we can add scientists in this capability too) by deciding on sex and on women to continue these to live birth.

  • invalid-0

    I said no “just” reason. And although there are extreme cases where termination is need to save the life of the mother…there are people on your side of the issue that defend this procedure for much less severe conditions. Even doctors admit they have done this procedure for the simple purpose of ending late term pregnancies. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

    So no I’m not insulting you or women who have done this. I don’t believe they are murderers…but I question the ethics of any doctor that would chose that method to end a non life threatening pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    then you must error on the side of life and equate abortion and birth control

    Just what kind of half-assed comment is that? Why not be accurate and just say “err on the side of the fetus”? That way you show people where you stand – against women.

  • invalid-0

    Name one time when an abortion had to be performed for the health of the mother.

    1) The fetus dies and it isn’t expelled by the body. The mother is at risk for infection.
    2) The pregnant mother has developed pre-eclampsia (or dangerously high blood pressure,et al) and she could die before going to term
    3) The egg implanted in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. A burst tube can be fatal to the mother.

    Well, so that is three, but I wanted to give you something to think about.

  • invalid-0

    most can’t possibly be as naive as you are.

    Just because someone is licensed by the state does not mean they are to give up their freedom.

    Since where is the freedom to hide behind religion to justify medical discrimination protected the the Constitution? Not one word about the woman’s freedom to decide when to have kids.

    You obviously have never lived in a place where the government was given so much control over the lives of people for “the good of people”

    Tell me about it. Yet you don’t seem to have trouble with the idea of the government having control over women’s reproductive choices.

    Because we opened up a phone book, found a clinic that had it, drove over there and picked it up. It’s not rocket science.

    Fine for you, but that leaves poor women who don’t have a car,or women who don’t live in an area where there is public transportation out in the cold. It is not right to make these women struggle to get the medication they need, and BC has several non-BC uses. Must I spell them out to you?

    BC and EC are not “heathcare

    Oh, yes BC is. Rape survivors everywhere would consider EC healthcare too.

    Like your opinion is grounded in “proven” scientific fact, removed from the silliness people call “religion”. So you run with it, lacking any sense of humility, and expect others to follow you because your opinion is the only one that matters

    Um, yes pro-choice stats ARE based on scientific and medical facts. Things which can be seen and tested. Religious faith cannot be seen OR tested, so it is irrelevent as “proof” abortion should be outlawed. Pro choice stats are more than opinion because they are BACKED UP with credible and tested scientific/medical evidence.

    The government is not in the business of ensuring the availability of products…period. Get what you need yourself.

    My, my you are certainly full of the milk of human kindness. And wrong again. One of the government’s jobs is to protect the rights of all citizens. When certain people try to use religion as an excuse not to help a patient or interfere with a doctor’s orders, that is discrimination and should be stopped. By the government if necessary.

  • invalid-0

    We just want them to do the jobs they were hired for.

    Forcing a medical professional to divorce his/her sense of what is right or wrong from his/her decisions as a professional isnt the way

    The problem with that reasoning is, what about the woman’s sense of right or wrong? Her convictions? Her conscience? Aren’t they just as valid as those of the pro life nurse or the anti contraception pharmacist? That is what I find most insulting.

    On the other matter:

    Um, but do you KNOW what endometriosis is? It’s a condition in which uterine tissue grows OUTSIDE the uterus. I don’t know any woman personally who has it, I’ve just first hand accounts from endometriosis sufferers. So I can only try to imagine it. Although I was close when a tooth of mine went bad and it hurt so bad I was actually trying to create new definitions for the word “pain”.
    But I digress. For someone to hide behind his or her religion to justify medical discrimination and sentence a woman with this condition to suffer just because her/his stance is BC is abortion, well, that is beyond cruel.

  • invalid-0

    BC IS healthcare, not just a product. It enables a woman to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. There is ZERO credible scientific evidence to support the claim the Pill is the same as an abortion.
    It also has many non birth control uses, such as control of endometriosis, heavy periods, uterine cysts and Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome. There may be more, but I’m not sure. EC is also healthcare because it enables a rape survivior to avoid an unwanted pregnancy to add to the trauma of the initial assult.
    People who use the excuse of their “conscience” to avoid doing their jobs are hurting women who need these reproductive healtcare options. It can be seen as another form of misogyny. That makes it’s the government’s concern because misogny is one basis of discrimination.

  • invalid-0

    The Catholic Church opposes abortion even if its life threatening, so why not question the ethics of all doctors? Or is this a different Anonymous than the Catholic one?

  • scott-swenson

    Sounds wonderful and I’m glad she at least sees that EC for rape victims is important. It is interesting when we acknowledge the many shades between black and white, where each of us draws the line that suits us personally. There are many Catholic hospitals, and in some parts of the country because of mergers they are now the only hospitals for hundreds of miles, that do not share your mother’s view. They routinely refuse rape victims EC because they don’t believe in it, which is their right, but where does the rape victim find her rights honored? Some of my family are Catholic too, pro-choice Catholics, who understand that church teaching has changed over time on many issues and hope that it will on these issues as well. There is much to be learned from faith, compassion perhaps one of the most important lessons. Learning how hard it is to walk in another’s shoes, but it is what we are called to do. I simply believe that when it comes to these issues, we should err on the side of the life that stands in front of us asking for help, the woman, confident that whatever we may feel about the potential for life, it is just that, potential. The woman is life realized, and if in crisis, in need of compassion, not judgment, not lecturing, not sitgmatizing, not rejection, not refusal, not moralizing. My faith teaches that God is pretty good about finding ways to bring life and love to us, and that in return we are asked to care for and respect the lives with us. Nobody I know approaches these issues with even an ounce of the disregard for the significance of the personal and private decisions made around using contraception, or terminating a pregnancy. No one on the pro-choice side that I’ve met is nearly as uncaring or cavalier as the opposition would like everyone to believe. Are there extremists, yes, on both sides. I do not associate myself even with all of the comments on this site, but that is America – we all get to speak our mind. But the vast majority of pro-choice people have the same compassion your mother does, many are nurses and doctors and medical professionals themselves, many are people of faith, including Catholics, almost everyone that wants them has and loves children, and those who don’t are simply making a different choice with their life. We all care passionately about life, not just its potential, and we’re tired of seeing women’s health and lives, and the very private and personal decisions they and their families must make, be treated like a political football. The vast majority of this country is pro-choice, pro-contraception and pro-comprehensive sex-ed, and our government should reflect that. Even more important, science and medical facts must be respected in health care as well, and cannot be trumped by belief. Science is nothing more than the beautiful intricacy of life revealed to us as we are ready to deal with it, advance, make progress. Outlawing contraception and abortion does not prevent it, it only makes it unsafe and illegal. Where abortion is legal, maternal health improves, maternal mortality rates drop, because pregnancy can be very threatening to the life and health of the mother. Even conservatives like David Frum advocate that the GOP move off the abortion frame because with the reduction in abortions (a result of better access to contraception and increased awareness, in part) conservatives will look cruel denying basic, safe medical care to a woman whose life or health are in danger. This is about health care. Sex is a physical act, you learn about it in biology, we must see the importance of proper sexual health education, disease prevention, and encourage more wisdom and compassion and respect for everyone.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Actually many Viagra prescriptions have more in common with elective plastic surgery than birth control pills ever could. Often Viagra is prescribed for impotence that is normal in aging.

    If we should pay for a limp dick due to aging then why not pay to fix the problem of saggy skin on his face with a face lift? If having the same sexual ability of a young guy in ones later years is an entitlement, why not the same face?

  • invalid-0

    But America isn’t a Christian theocracy. So I’m welcome to say you are full of it. Humans DO create life – every day – just by having sex. That’s right, pumpkin; God had nothing to do it. It was just my parents doing the “horizontal bop” that resulted in me. Save the Invisible Sky Fairy story, I’m not buyin’ it.

  • invalid-0

    They are not hiding behind anything. You make it seem like these people are so terrible. You underestimate what “belief” really is. People don’t just have beliefs. It’s not like something they carry around in their pocket. They live by their faith and they have every right to do so. Catholics reject the act of contraception. In other words…you having endometriosis and needing birth control to rid your pain is perfectly fine. But you coming into an ER after getting trashed at a party, falling down some stairs and oh by the way you might have accidentally had unprotected sex with someone and now you want EC…isn’t going to be what a lot of people consider health care. That is a choice many people don’t want any involvement in. And understandably so. There are places to go and people to speak with if you want to make that choice…but expecting just anyone to be involved in it is wrong. I could be wrong but I feel like the reason why we are going round and round over this is due to a lack of understanding the true depth of this issue. I don’t think many of the people on this board know what it’s like to be a devout Catholic. I’ve been one all my life so I understand how many feel that their rights to live in accordance with their faith may be at risk over this issue. Some of you don’t agree…but I really don’t think you ever could unless you walked in my shoes. And no I’ve never been poor, without a car and raped before. So I could never understand what life must be like for that person. But I do know that we live in America. And in America…all people have the right to choose, not just a few.

    • invalid-0

      They are not hiding behind anything.

      They are using their religious beliefs as “reasons” to deny healthcare to people in need. That is hiding behind religion.

      You make it seem like these people are so terrible.

      What they are doing is terrible.

      You underestimate what “belief” really is. People don’t just have beliefs. It’s not like something they carry around in their pocket. They live by their faith and they have every right to do so.

      Now you are trying to say I don’t understand what “belief” is? The women these refuseniks hurt have beliefs too. Aren’t they just as valid? Your double standard sucks.

      is Catholics reject the act of contraception.

      For themselves,not for non Catholics. In other words: irrelevent.

      In other words…you having endometriosis and needing birth control to rid your pain is perfectly fine. But you coming into an ER after getting trashed at a party, falling down some stairs and oh by the way you might have accidentally had unprotected sex with someone and now you want EC…isn’t going to be what a lot of people consider health care.

      In other words, “only sluts get raped”. Is that it? You are so small minded. Go peddle your rape myths somewhere else.

      I don’t think many of the people on this board know what it’s like to be a devout Catholic. I’ve been one all my life so I understand how many feel that their rights to live in accordance with their faith may be at risk over this issue. Some of you don’t agree…but I really don’t think you ever could unless you walked in my shoes. And no I’ve never been poor, without a car and raped before.

      So you want a medal or something? America isn’t a Catholic theocracy. If you don’t want to use BC, that is fine for you. But don’t try to tell me other women shouldn’t have BC or EC because you don’t like it.

      So I could never understand what life must be like for that person. But I do know that we live in America. And in America…all people have the right to choose, not just a few.

      Oh, Jesus,Mary and Joseph! What a completely idiotic thing to say. NO ONE has the right to choose to deny healthcare to a patient.

  • invalid-0

    Back in the ’80s I had a roommate who was a Republican. He saw the GOP as the vehicle for turning America into a feudal society. He may have been deep into Dungeons & Dragons back then, but he was right. We have former White House members who refuse to appear before Congress at the behest of King George. Dick Cheney will not support rights for all homosexuals except his daughter. We invaded Iraq on the possibility of WMD-possession and we continue our presence there as the Knights Templar of this 21st-century Crusade. Homes are being foreclosed at record rates, their occupants now scrambling to live alongside the millions of illegal aliens, imported here by Bush cronies to destabilize the working American’s salary. The only reason the EPA is the only federal agency not imposing a Western version of Sharia law upon Americans is that it feels better doing nothing at all. It is no accident that our dollar is falling because lack of buying-power means lack of choice – the arch-enemy of the middle-class. Women, watch out for your ovaries, because the GOP wants YOU to go to work for the revived military-industrial complex, preferably on your backs. You are to give birth multiple-times during your life in abject poverty, so your offspring can grow up to fight the Mohammedan in Eastasia and the Communist in Westasia. Your children will produce more children in even deeper squalor to do the same thing and so will your grandchildren. We’ll need lots of troops to kill 2-billion or more people and establish the thousand-year theocratic empire. You will be jailed on a regular basis when government webcams detect spontaneous abortions issuing forth from your vaginas. Don’t think it can’t happen because by the time it does, we’ll all be serfs and IT WILL BE TOO LATE!

  • invalid-0

    “So say what you like but I’m proud to have a leader who wants to stand up for what God (I guess many of us have forgotten that whole One Nation Under God thing* key word UNDER GOD)”

    under god was added in the 1950′s when we were freaked out by godless commies.

    please, please find me a reference to god in the constitution or declaration of independence.

    you wont! besides, “our year of the lord” which is the way dates were recorded back in the day.

  • invalid-0

    why does everybody stick there nose where it doesnt belong about abortion . Its a private thing no one president or VP should say anything abut your life there are lot of tartuffe out there hypocrisy if you dont know this word bush is slithering between illusion and reality and thinks he is the best when he is not.

  • invalid-0

    why does everybody stick there nose where it doesnt belong about abortion . Its a private thing no one president or VP should say anything abut your life there are lot of tartuffe out there hypocrisy if you dont know this word bush is slithering between illusion and reality and thinks he is the best when he is not.

  • invalid-0

    THANK YOU for a reasonable, logical and compassionate comment! Though I don’t refer to myself as a Christian, I agree with most of your points. And I believe that a majority of religious people in this country believe as you do, but unfortunately, as usual, the vocal minority gets much press. Very well said.

  • invalid-0

    Keep hitting HHS through the liberal advocacy sights: Hillary would be proud. Also, don’t vote for a single Republican! Finally, register every set of ovaries – TO VOTE!

  • invalid-0

    One of the pro-life arguments seems to be that religious rights are being infringed upon by laws mandating the provision of EC or laws stating that birth control prescriptions must be filled. Many people holding this view are Christians of various denominations.
    -
    News flash — Christianity isn’t the only religion out there! Conservative and reform Jewish philosophy holds that a fetus before birth is only potential life. Actual life does not occur until birth. According to Rashi and the Talmud, the fetus “lav nefesh hu” (“is not a person”). Also, the fetus “ubar yerech imo” (“is as the thigh of its mother”).
    -
    Therefore, according to this tradition, abortion to save the life or health of the mother is not only acceptable, it is also mandatory. Allowing the mother to sacrifice herself for a fetus will prevent her from taking care of her existing family. (Admittedly, it’s a rather sexist argument, but so be it.)
    -
    Birth control is a little more complicated, but is also allowed under many circumstances. Again, if existing people and/or an existing family is endangered, their well-being comes first.
    -
    So why did I just give you a rundown on Jewish law? The answer is that laws which mandate a Christian perspective (e.g. life begins at conception) violate my religious freedom. I’m sorry, but it seems like people who scream about religious rights being violated usually mean that CHRISTIAN religious rights are being violated.
    -
    So, Anonymous of July 24, you state:

    Is it that you can’t deal with the fact that some people don’t agree with you and that the deeper issue is that you have some deep seeded hatred of people of faith? You can say what you want about the far-right crazy folks bombing abortion clinics…but I’ve never in my life seen so much every day hatred and bitterness than what I have seen from the far-left. The idea that your ideology is superior and not equal to that of a person of faith is what I mean by elitism

    You’re assuming that everyone pro-choice is not a “person of faith.” In my opinion, THAT is what is elitism. You assume that the only faith is the Christian faith, and I’m sorry, but that’s not true.

  • invalid-0

    You read like bin-Laden’s sharia law. That’s OK, your buds in the Christian Right sound the same way!

    • invalid-0

      You read like bin-Laden’s sharia law. That’s OK, your buds in the Christian Right sound the same way!

      Uh, hello? I’m AGREEING with you! What does the Christian Right have to do with it?

  • invalid-0

    I read it wrong, my bad. Hopefully the similarity of extremism in the name of one God or another is not lost in my catastrophic misread.

  • invalid-0

    That’s okay, we’ve all done it. :-)

    And unfortunately, there are extremists in every religion.

  • http://bunnygotblog.com invalid-0

    I have to say,

    I totally agree with John above and his quote from chairman Mao.
    I couldn’t have said it any better.

  • http://www.tessothy.blogspot.com invalid-0

    With so many people unable to face logic, I don’t find it surprising that a ban on birth control would be attempted. I do find it terrifying to imagine. At least Bush won’t be in office much longer.

  • http://www.tessothy.blogspot.com invalid-0

    With so many people unable to face logic, I don’t find it surprising that a ban on birth control would be attempted. I do find it terrifying to imagine. At least Bush won’t be in office much longer.

  • http://www.foundationmedicalstaffing.com/ invalid-0

    There are a lot of good comments here. It seems unrealistic that this would actually happen anytime soon. But, it is always something that could happen one day.

  • invalid-0

    Hello,

    Please, I beg those of you who will vote for John McCain because they feel Hillary was not treated fairly. Hillary’s love “is” for this country and the people in it. “Do Not Disrespect Her Love of Country”

    Don’t vote for John McCain. He is just George Bush a bit shorter and older. Remember this is not a game! This is your life.

    Do not fixate on the nonsense. Look at the real issues. This election is not about Obama or Clinton or McCain. This election is about the people of this nation. Clinton and Obama are so close on issues and McCain is Bush. John McCain is so far from Hillary on the hopes for the people of this country, particularly on the issue of healthcare.

    Vote the issues. Vote Healthcare, John McCain doesn’t feel your company should support it, that you can get it on your own. You can now, but can you afford it.

    Vote on Iraq and the other wars John McCain wants. He is so quick to want to attack without thinking and without considering the cost. He wanted to support Georgia perhaps because his top advisor is the Lobbyist for Georgia and was paid som $800,000.00. Perhaps the president of Georgia thought he bought McCain. It sounded that way in his televised messages.

    Vote against the draft which McCain supports. On more than one occassion.

    Vote Supreme Court Justices. Ladies McCain wants to take your rights away and overturn Roe v. Wade, he and Bush consider birth contol akin to abortion, they do support medical insurance covering birth control.

    John McCain has no great respect for women. Do not be fooled. He is using Hillary Cinton now to divide the Democratic party. He abandoned his first wife and three children after his wife was in a car accident and he appearance had changed due to the injuries she received. He had Cindy as his mistress while married to his first wife and married her just 1 month after the divorce.

    Vote Democratic and vote your country.

  • http://www.dermal.de invalid-0

    To be very true, Everything is going worse. I am not American but am worried about all the situation there. I am afraid to see and read all that. USSR was big but what happened to it? Is that going to happen again?

  • http://commonsenserepublican.com invalid-0

    I would like to point out that the majority of Republicans do not take this harsh of a stance. The harcore religious ones do. Please do not mistake all Republican’s as religious fanatics because we aren’t. The vast majority of republicans aren’t. Its just that the only ones who get the press are the religious right. We have more common sense than you think. As such, I don’t believe that every democrat in the US expects us to ride bicycles to work and become vegetarians.

  • invalid-0

    So- if preventing insemination during sex is now “abortion” Then wouldn’t not having sex (abstinance) also be a form of abortion?
    And if abstinance is abortion- then certianly posessing reproductive organs and not producing children is abortion also!
    I guess the only next step is to steralize infants at birth- both male and female,now abortion is impossible.
    And so is the human race.

    Birth control is NOT abortion.