How to Push Abortion Out of Women’s Reach in Four Days or Less

It happened quietly and quickly.
And now, no one’s allowed to talk about it.

The story comes out of New
Jersey. There, the Cherry Hill Women’s Center provides reproductive
and gynecological health services, including abortions. It was established
in the 1970s, and is a member of the National Abortion Federation and
the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

As part of the center’s support
services, it developed a partnership with a local hotel, the Clarion
Hotel & Conference Center, to offer out-of-town abortion patients
a discounted rate on a room.

On October 20, LifeNews, an
online anti-abortion publication, published an article that reported on
this partnership, drawing on information it received from New Jersey
Right to Life.

"The Clarion Hotel in Cherry
Hill offers a reduced rate of $59 for a room originally priced at $109
to women staying there from out of town to get an abortion. Women need
only show a receipt from the abortion business saying an overnight stay
is necessary," according to the article.

It also indicated that the
Quality Inn in Maple Shade, NJ, had a similar arrangement with the same
women’s center.

LifeNews described how anti-abortion
groups were beginning to boycott the hotels, and urged its readership
to further protest a policy that it said was aiding those who want to
skirt parental notification laws in other states (New Jersey itself
doesn’t have a parental notification law; attempts to ban interstate travel of teens seeking abortion have never become law). LifeNews offered contact
information for the hotels so readers could address them directly, and,
presumably, articulate their distress at the policy.

Within just a couple days,
other anti-abortion groups picked up the story, and passed it to their
own email lists and membership bases. The Family Research Council, in
an email blast, wrote alarmingly of how the hotels are "profiting"
off of abortion by offering the discounted rates. It is unclear why
the FRC believes that renting rooms at less than cost to certain guests
brings the hotel a profit.

"Of course, the hotels may
honestly believe that theirs is a compassionate offer. But even with
the best of intentions, a discount like this only makes it more affordable
for young girls to cross state lines for an abortion," claimed Tony Perkins’s Washington Update, an FRC e-newsletter. "Ironically, both the Quality Inn and the Clarion are part of an umbrella
corporation called Choice Hotels International. Join us in urging the
Choice chain to choose life."

Their members did just that.
By October 24, Family Research Council passed on another e-newsletter to its base, this
time celebrating that the email/telephone protest against the policy
that spread across the larger anti-abortion community worked. The Clarion
Hotel had decided to cease offering discounted rates to patients of
the Cherry Hill Women’s Center.

From the FRC e-newsletter:

    If you don’t believe that
    a few minutes of your time can change the world, we can prove it. On
    Wednesday, the Update highlighted a story from New Jersey where two
    hotels were offering room discounts to women who could prove they had
    abortions at a nearby clinic. We encouraged you to contact the franchise
    and voice your values. Today, I’m happy to report that after just two
    days, your overwhelming response through phone calls and emails has
    resulted in an immediate change of policy.  

    Yesterday, we received a letter from the corporate office of Choice
    Hotels. It reads, "’A copy of the Washington Update (dated October
    22, 2008)… recently crossed my desk. It referenced two hotels within
    the Choice Hotels franchise system. The email message highlighted your
    organization’s concerns regarding these hotels, and I wanted to take
    this opportunity to respond to you directly as this issue has been resolved.
    The Clarion Hotel & Conference Center, upon reflection, has ended
    the practice of offering special rates to patients of the Cherry Hill
    Women’s Center… we do try to be sensitive to issues and questions
    raised when it is within our power to do so and we are happy to provide
    you with this positive update…’ Sincerely, Anne Madison, Vice President,
    Corporate Communications, Choice Hotels International, Inc."  

    We applaud Choice Hotels for moving so swiftly to correct this problem
    and congratulate all of you who took the time to be pro-active–and
    perhaps save a few lives in the process.

"The Clarion Hotel paid attention
to their local market and decided to make this change," said David
Peikin, senior director of corporate communications at Choice Hotels
International, when asked by RH Reality Check for further comment. He
also said that CHI heard from The Quality Inn that the hotel never did
offer discounted rates to patients of the women’s center.

Peiken added that the policy
to offer or not offer a discount to women’s center patients did not
originate with CHI.

"We heard from the concerned
public and of course we passed on what we heard to (the hotels),"
Peiken said. "We offer some national rates and discounts, but the
local ones are negotiated locally."

This was as much information
as Peiken was willing to offer; he did not answer further questions.
Meanwhile, repeated phone calls to the Clarion Hotel itself resulted
in silence.

"We’re not allowed to talk
about that," said one Clarion Hotel desk clerk who did not give her

"I’m not going to answer
questions on this," said another Clarion Hotel employee who did not
give his name or title, but who was described by the desk clerk as a

"We don’t do business with
them (the Cherry Hill Women’s Center)," the Clarion manager said
before hanging up abruptly.

And so, it’s as if it never
was. The support once offered by the Clarion Hotel for patients of its
local women’s center is swiftly rescinded and silenced.

While the Family Research Council, LifeNews, and
other organizations that oppose abortion rights celebrate the change,
and the Clarion Hotel avoids it, there is no indication that they will
offer any concrete alternative to the patients of the Cherry Hill Women’s
Center who don’t have a place to stay.

It’s an especially pertinent
point. In New Jersey, 19% of counties and two metropolitan areas had
no abortion provider, according to the Guttmacher Institute. In the Northeast census region that includes New Jersey, 11% of women
traveled at least 50 miles to have an abortion, and a further three
percent traveled more than 100 miles. It’s apparent that lack of immediate
local access to abortion requires many girls and women to travel to
receive one.

New Jersey actually has a lower
rate of counties without an abortion provider than most states, including
those that border it. Eight percent of New York counties lack an abortion provider, according
to the National Women’s Law Center. Pennsylvania has a rate of 39%.
Delaware: 17%. And the Family Research Council is right about one thing: with restrictive
policies preventing teenagers and women from obtaining abortions in
states across the nation, those with higher concentrations of abortion providers and with less invasive laws are indeed more likely to attract women seeking abortion.

What’s more, the Cherry Hill
Women’s Center offers second trimester abortions and non-surgical
abortions. Both of these procedures require two-day appointments;
patients, then, must have a local place to stay overnight to enable proper medical monitoring and care. For women who don’t live in town, or who are
struggling already to pay for the abortion and their travel, discounted
lodging at local hotels is a crucial part of making the procedure accessible.

Travel and Lodging A Critical Component of Abortion Access

Stephanie Poggi is the executive
director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, a coalition of 106
funds that provide people seeking an abortion with referral, financial,
and emotional support. Many of these funds offer traveling and lodging
support, Poggi said, and with the current economic downturn, that need
is "skyrocketing."

"We’re getting tons of
calls from women who are economically disadvantaged, and there’s more
of those than ever," Poggi said. "They don’t have the gas money
to drive four hours [to the nearest clinic]. They’re laid off, or
are under the prospect of being laid off."

The financial burden on women seeking abortion is exacerbated by the
fact that only 15 states cover abortion with Medicaid, and even in those
states that do, many people aren’t able to take advantage of it. Immigrants,
for example, have to wait five years before they quality for Medicaid.

As well, Poggi added, lodging
is an added burden in states that have a 24-hour required waiting period
for abortions.

Half of the counties in Southern
and Midwestern states don’t have an abortion provider, meaning that
travel is an especially big barrier for people seeking abortions. But,
Poggi, pointed out, that doesn’t mean "safe states" with fewer
restrictive laws and a higher number of providers — states like New
Jersey — are free of burdens.

"Even states that are ‘better’
have problems with full access," Poggi said. "No state is free of

She pointed out that "women
with money will be able to travel anywhere to have an abortion if they
need it. It’s the lower-income women who are being hurt by all this."

What’s the good news then?

To fill the void and make abortions
an accessible and healthy experience for those who need them, thousands
of individuals and organizations are stepping up. NNAF groups are run
almost entirely by volunteers. Haven, for example, is a New York abortion
fund that hosts women in the homes of volunteers when they must travel
for an abortion. Other funds house women in hotels, or offer vouchers
to ease the cost. Sometimes there are discounted meals at local restaurants
available, ensuring that patients will be able to eat.

In a time of greater need and
greater scarcity, in a time when anti-abortion activists are angling
to cut off support services abruptly while offering no safe alternative,
it’s the compassionate action of the abortion funds and those individuals
who simply lend their time and care that’s making all the difference.

"The National Network of Abortion Funds last year raised
over $3 million and helped over 20,000 women," Poggi said. "Volunteers
are doing this work out of their own compassion, and the word is spreading."

Gaylon Alcaraz, executive director
of the Chicago Abortion Fund, said she too sees the need for practical
support increasing. Alcaraz
said that the fund is receiving calls from "all across Chicagoland
and Illinois, parts of Missouri and Indiana where there are no abortion
providers, people who are coming to Chicago for an abortion and definitely
need practical support for transportation and lodging."

Poggi acknowledged that a sustainable
solution requires more systemic change. She’s pleased that allies
of the NNAF are increasingly organizing around the economic barriers
to safe and accessible abortion. Until that happens, however, the funds
are needed to offer the safe alternatives that are unavailable elsewhere.

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

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • invalid-0

    I love how abortion advocates like Clark advocate abortion as the only solution for pregnant women. If a woman is unable to drive to a close distance to find an abortion business, then the solution is more abortion.

    Clark complains that there are no alternatives for such women, but there are. There are 10 pregnancy centers in a 20 miles or less radius from Cherry Hill that provide women with real pregnancy help and assistance — things like pregnancy tests, medical support and referrals, counseling, education assistance, clothing for mother and child, housing help, insurance help, etc.


    These centers would likely help women find free or low-cost housing if they need it for a visit as opposed to having to stay at an expensive hotel.

    President-elect Obama says we need to work together to reduce abortions and offer women alternatives. Articles like this prove some “pro-choice” activists are really pro-abortion. Making sure it is as easy as possible for women to get abortions doesn’t really help women. Be willing to think outside the box.

  • anna-clark

    I’m sorry you think I’m advocating abortion for abortion’s sake. The foundation of the pro-choice movement is certainly choice: the belief that a pregnant woman deserves a range of safe and accessible options, including raising the child, adoption or abortion.


    With comprehensive sexuality education, access to contraception and health care, and a society that supports children and working families, I believe that will lead to far fewer women who need abortions. It sounds like you, President-elect Obama, and I share that hope.


    At the same time, if a person does decide she needs an abortion, she has every right to find care that is safe and accessible. Making things unreasonably difficult with far-away clinics, lodging needs, and so on only causes harm and pain. Why would you want that for anyone?

  • invalid-0

    I love how a man is willing to come here and let us know what does and doesn’t “really help women”
    I guess we silly women should consult men before we do anything with our own bodeis or *gasp* make choices for ourselves.

  • invalid-0

    I’m curious if Steven Ertelt, LifeNews, and the Family Research Council (and others) really think they’re helping the anti-abortion cause by pushing their agenda on these hotels and coercing them to stop offering these discounts. The women visiting this clinic are on their way to do probably one of the hardest things in their lives. It’s really too bad that these anti-abortion groups advocated so strongly to get these hotels to take the discount away.
    Some of the women visiting this clinic are already driving 4+ hours to get there, since there isn’t a clinic closer to their homes. If the discount is taken away, maybe they won’t be able to make the trip at all. But I highly doubt that will stop women from getting abortions — it will instead force women to turn to non-safe alternatives, such as doing it themselves, or going to a non-licensed provider. Or worse.

    And please, someone explain to me why a hotel offering this type of discount effects anyone else at all. The hotels were simply trying to be compassionate by giving these women a break. The hotels weren’t completing the abortions themselves, for god’s sake!

    Shame on you, Family Research Council, LifeNews, Steven Ertelt, and others.

  • invalid-0

    I’m a New Jersey resident (Newark), and being part of a hardcore pro-choice state, the fact that the anti-choice movement was able to accomplish convincing this hotel really hurts me. If you know of any group or organization doing something about this, please let me know. I’m willing to give up my time to help women have full access to reproductive health services, even if its financially.

  • amanda-marcotte

    You imply that there’s ways besides abortion to, well, get an abortion.  How do you abort without aborting?

  • invalid-0

    I had not thought about this before–but it seems a good idea for all cities that have a clinic to have a network of volunteers who would take a woman into their home for free or a small fee to cover food/utilites. Now that my daughters have grown and(at least for now!) moved out we have extra rooms–I would do this for a woman who had to drive a long ways. Any ideas out there about how to implement something like this? Of course, there would have to be some way to screen people to make sure that anti-choice zealots were not posing as people who wanted to help–and then harass or abuse the women needing care.

  • invalid-0

    I love how a woman is so sexist that she refuses to even consider the viewpoint of a man on the topic — never mind that millions of women would make the same argument.

    You favor a Supreme Court decision allowed by nine MEN that allowed abortion, you probably voted for a MAN for president earlier this month, etc.

    So essentially you employ sexist arguments in a discriminatory manner — i.e. only when they suit your pro-abortion agenda. As long as men are promoting abortion it’s okay with you. Sad.

  • invalid-0

    Of course this furthers the cause…

    Hotels are doing their community (and themselves) a disservice by promoting the destruction of human life. They’re also potentially covering up sexual abuse by making it easier for sexual predators to facilitate an abortion on a teenager by taking her to another state for a secret abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent.

    It also further the cause by protecting unborn children and women from dangerous abortions that are proven to cause physical, mental health and spiritual problems.

    And your insistence on making it easier for women to have abortions makes it clear you’re only interested in abortion, not alternatives.

  • anna-clark

    What a generous spirit you are! A quick internet search seems to indicate that abortion services are provided at only three clinics in the whole state of Indiana, where I presume you live … so that makes such volunteer network like you’re proposing even more important.


    You might consider talking with other networks of volunteers that have made this work. Haven is a network in the state of New York, where people offer their spares rooms, beds, etc. to women and girls who need it. Consider contacting them and asking for advice on building one in your region (and doing it safely!)


    You might also contact your local and statewide clinics, advocacy groups, etc. You might be able to tap into their networks of supportors to find other volunteers with spare rooms and kind hearts.


    That’s some starter ideas. Any other thoughts?

  • invalid-0

    Like my good friend says, ‘If men got pregnant, abortions would be available in vending machines.’
    Sexist?? I think it’s more like “realist” as in the way things are, white men still control the masses(in GENERAL, OK) It’s still tough for women to rise in the political world. And let’s not forget, only a man can impregnate a woman. So let’s keep passing out those condoms!! Women: make your man wear it! The population explosion will end us all if we ignore it any longer. Cheers.

  • birthmom

    Umm, he is exactly correct. And you reply asking fro the alternative…. Well, it’s freaking adoption! how are you in ANY way trying to revent the increasing amount of abortions. I was raped and thank God I didn’t give in to the temptation to would of been FAR too easy! Women are stronger than this, and you are underestimating women today in this article. Don’t be naive, abortion clinics will help you in any way to get you to have the abortion done by them.

  • betty-brown

    but, what you anti-choicers refuse to accept is that my opinion, and the opinions of pro-choicers in general, is not only just as valid as any other person’s – but, that the law is on my opinion’s side. 

    and the adoption argument?  puh-leeze.  it will never fail to repulse me that anyone thinks that any woman should carry an unwanted pregnancy to term in order to give it up for adoption to an infertile couple.  i am not a freaking incubator.  and no woman should be forced to carry pregnancy to term just because an infertile couple desires an infant instead of one of the many older children available for adoption. 

    woman are stronger than this, you say?  well, i think that YOU are underestimating women today with this ridiculous belief that a woman who decides to abort hasn’t made this decision using her own mind and intelligence – nah, she was probably talked into it, against her own judgement, by an abortion clinic.



    truth?  is truth unchanging law?  we both have truths, are mine the same as yours?

  • harry834

    force women to be pregnant against their will.

    The only way this could not be true is if anti-abortion laws made an exception for women who did not want to be pregnant. Does any "pro-life" activist call for this exception. No. Because the whole point of anti-abortion laws is to STOP the process whereby women can choose to terminate their pregnancies. Anti-abortion laws forbid the choice of pregnancy termination.

    So, yes anti-abortion laws mean women will be legally forced to be pregnant against their will. Some "values".

  • harry834

    force women to be pregnant against their will.

    The only way this could not be true is if anti-abortion laws made an exception for women who did not want to be pregnant. Does any "pro-life" activist call for this exception. No. Because the whole point of anti-abortion laws is to STOP the process whereby women can choose to terminate their pregnancies. Anti-abortion laws forbid the choice of pregnancy termination.

    So, yes anti-abortion laws mean women will be legally forced to be pregnant against their will. Some "values".

  • emma

    Steven Ertelt, you said

    ‘…protecting unborn children and women from dangerous abortions that are
    proven to cause physical, mental health and spiritual problems…’


    Dude. You’ve just lumped women in with  foetuses, which suggests you don’t look at women as adults, but as something childlike, or perhaps like a taller foetus. Implication is charming – that women have no cortical function or personal autonomy, so the womenfolk need benevolent daddy-figures to make our decisions for us.


    You care about zygotes, etc. That’s fine. Women, on the other hand – being adult, autonomous beings – do not need benevolent masculine authority to tell us what is or is not good for us. So, please, no platitudes about ‘protecting women’. 

  • mellankelly1

     And you reply asking fro the alternative…. Well, it’s freaking adoption

    Adoption is not an alternative for abortion – adoption is only an option when a woman has decided to gestate her pregnancy.

     I was raped and thank God I didn’t give in to the temptation to would of been FAR too easy

    This isn’t about something being "easy", it’s about women making the correct choice for themselves and their families.  That you considered gestating and adopting out to be the best choice for you is fabulous for you.  That I considered terminating a rape-related pregnancy to be the best choice for me was fabulous for me.  Terminating my pregnancy was the best and most moral decision for me and my family.  Under no circumstances would I have gestated that pregnancy.   

    Women are stronger than this, and you are underestimating women today in this article

    What a pitifully untrue and dishonest statement to make.  A woman who gestates her pregnancy is in no way "stronger" than a woman who terminates her pregnancy.

    Don’t be naive, abortion clinics will help you in any way to get you to have the abortion done by them.

    That is anti-abortion rhetoric and I’m quite certain that you know it.  You aren’t giving people enough credit when you assume that they are unable to research and discover that your statement is an outright lie.  You are merely regurgitating the rhetoric of the extremists.

  • therealistmom

    From your post:

    Don’t be naive, abortion clinics will help you in any way to get you to have the abortion done by them.


    Unless you believe thatt people who provide abortion services are somehow gunning for everyone to terminate pregnancies out of some sick twisted pleasure (odd, considering pretty much every women’s clinic I have seen provides a full range of reproductive health services) that statement makes absolutely no sense.


    If it is because you believe that there is "profit" to be made from the "abortion industry", it makes just as little sense. Women’s clinics provide education and birth control, things that help eliminate the need for abortion. Many providers are non-profit (such as Planned Parenthood), and charge the base minimum to cover costs. The average cost for a first-trimester surgical abortion seems to be about $415,whereas the average cost for prenatal care and hospital birth comes to around $7,600. Which scenario seems more likely to result in profit? Then with most adoptions there are assorted fees to be made by the lawyers involved, it can be quite lucrative which is why many make it their sole legal focus.


    I’m a bit concerned for you, "birthmom". It sounds as though continuing the pregnancy was right for you, and I commend you for making your choice. That’s what this is all about, choice. Your wording though seems strange, that it would have been "too easy" to just go and have an abortion. I’ve heard that said about women who get pregnant in general, kind of a "she needs to pay for her slutty behavior" vibe by people with scarcely veiled mysogyny. From a rape victim though- it sounds like you felt like YOU somehow needed to be "punished" for the rape, that terminating the pregnancy would let you "get away" with something. I sincerely hope that is not how you feel, because that would be a tragedy on top of the rape. If it IS… please get help. Now.

  • invalid-0

    If you are interested in helping to set something like this up, please get in touch with me at the National Network of Abortion Funds and we can send you some information. There are abortion Funds who provide exactly the services you mention, but unfortunately, there are none in Indiana. Indiana is a state with a lot of needs where access to abortion is concerned!

    We have a lot of materials, experience, and expertise to help set up what we call “travel and lodging networks” or “practical support networks.” I’d love to talk with you.

    You can reach me at: megan (at) Also feel free to check out our website at: for more information about who we are. Thanks!

  • invalid-0

    I guess when you have nothing else to say to defend your position, a good ole ad hominem attack always works. of course I don’t view women that way, but I know it makes you feel better about your own position to make the accusation.

  • invalid-0

    It’s interesting to read the thread! There are a couple of things happening here that we are all aware of: control – the other side will never admit that they are trying to control women through their religious and moral beliefs (I just wish they would say it and be done with it “I want to control all women” and; despite all their attempts abortion has been around since the beginning of time and will continue to be whether it is legal or not.

    We are not pro-abortion but pro-choice. I’m going to support a woman no matter what decision she makes. I’m not going to force my beliefs on anyone. If she needs my help in any way I’m going to Make Choice Possible!

    Why not use some of that anti-choice energy to enhance human life ALREADY HERE! Have you adopted any children in foster homes? Do you support this insane war? Better yet, what about all the lives lost in the rest of the world due to unjust wars? Do you walk past homeless hungry people on the street everyday? Ever think about mentoring a young poor child at school? Volunteer your endless energy at a food bank or homeless shelter.

    Enhance the quality of life for those already here! A potential – what if – maybe – or possible life does not trump a life already here! Plain and simple – like it or not!

    And while you are at it….stop it with the term you MADE UP: partial birth abortion – because it doesn’t exist! It is not a medical term but something the anti-choice filtered into the mainstream media!

  • invalid-0

    “These centers would likely help women find free
    or low-cost housing if they need it for a visit as opposed to having to stay at an expensive hotel.”
    but not if the woman wants to get an abortion. all of this “free help” that the centers give is conditional on continuing a pregnancy. they wont help a woman that wants to end a pregnancy for any reason.

  • emma

    I don’t think you understand what an ad hominem attack is. I wrote that your choice of words suggests that you view women as the equivalent to foetuses, with no capacity to make decisions and thus in need of men to protect us from ourselves (and presumably from abortion providers, who you seem to think are chasing women down the street and dragging us kicking and screaming into clinics). Interesting, isn’t it, that you chose to respond with more condescension rather than addressing the substance of my argument. Are you trying to make my point for me?

  • invalid-0

    Even being raped you still had the choice to deliver. I’m glad you had the choice.

  • invalid-0

    First, there were two MEN running for ‘President.’ Even with Palin on the ticket she doesn’t support women’s rights. So your statement is flawed. Second, men have had the ability to walk away from a pregnant spouse, partner, girlfriend since the beginning of time – and do. Don’t throw your ‘shocked sexism’ argument around becuase it’s convenient as you’ll never be pregnant.

    Like the old line says, “77% of Anti-abortion leaders are MEN and 100% of them will NEVER get pregnant….”

  • invalid-0

    I think we should also find some better hotel corporations or individual lodging places which will be brave enough not to back down to anti-abortion pressure when they offer discounts to abortion patients. We can spread the word that such lodging places are good commercial citizens who support women’s rights. We can make a point of staying with them when we travel, and letting them know why we do so.

  • invalid-0

    Why do you think adoption rates for newborns plummeted after Roe vs. Wade? Adoption tells a woman that because she is not financially stable, because she is in effect powerless in this society, she is unworthy to be a mother to her own child. Adoption is trafficking in babies, nothing more, nothing less: the prosperous get the babies and the mothers get a lifetime of heartbreak and regret. (And don’t start about the psychological bad effects of abortion. Those have never been documented in any peer-reviewed literature, and those allegations are spread only by anti-abortion activists, while the devastation to women who lose children to adoption is well-known and well-documented scientifically.)

  • invalid-0

    what always gets me about the alternatives to abortion is that they begin with conception and end with birth. it’s true there are places that will assist pregnant mothers with financial and emotional support durring their pregancy and birth. which i’m all for, because i want women to be able to chose that path if that’s what’s best for them, their families, and the lives they want to lead. but after that…? do these same centers help with child care for the new baby? what about exisiting children? do they help the new mom fill out federal aid paperwork if she needs it? do they offer healthcare for the child post-birth, like say 5 years old?

    you want to makle a real change steve, and everyone like him? make it easier for mothers (of ALL kinds) and families to get child care, health care, jobs that pay a liveable wage. stop pretending that it’s better to be born unwanted to a mother who can’t care for you or dropped into the foster care system. realize adoption isn’t usually an option unless the mother in question happens to be a mostly health white girl, cause like it or not the couples who can afford to adopt (well off and typically white) want a baby that looks like them and is free of all birth defects and disabilities.

    yes, the pro-choice camp can sometimes feel like the pro-abortion camp. but believe it or not, it’s because of people like you steve. you, and here i speak to the anti-abortion camp as a whole, only seem to want to push an anti-abortion agenda. any other subject is left asside, adn we are left to defend this very important issue cause you just won’t get off it. trust me, i would love to talk about something else. do i want a woman to get an abortion…if it really is the best option for her then yes. i want her to be able to make that choice and have a place that is safe for her to go that will giver her quality care and follow up. because like it or not she will make that choice even if it’s not a legal one and then where are we left? wire coat hangers and back alleys? NEVER AGAIN!

  • invalid-0

    I think this all comes down to separation of church and state.

    The objection to abortion is a “moral/religious” one, and as such, has no place in the making of laws regarding abortion.

    The purpose of the State is to keep the peace and protect it’s citizens. Not to be a “moral” watchdog. The so-called “morality” of an action should not influence whether it is illegal or legal. The danger to society posed by the action should be the criteria for (il)legality.

    I personally do not believe I could have an abortion myself. It would be too difficult an action for me to live with. However, I DO believe that abortion should be an option.

    I also think that more physicians should spread the word about menstrual extraction, which is a method devised by a female gynecologist (who did not want to deal with her period); it involves suctioning out the uterine lining so that menstruation does not occur. Of course, if an egg is implanted, that too would be removed, thus sparing women who do not want to get pregnant the problems inherent in later-stage abortions.

    That seems to me to be the most expeditious course. An egg is in no way human. It merely has the potential to BE human. I don’t believe life begins at conception, only the potential for life.

    But as I said before: Religion should have no influence on a State’s lawmaking decisions. Allowing it to do so would first, of a necessity, favor one religious viewpoint over another, and secondly, force such beliefs on EVERYONE.

    If you have religious objections to abortion, don’t have one. If you have religious objections to homosexuality, don’t be a homosexual. But remember–by the word of your OWN deity–you will be judged in exactly the same way that you judge others.

    Remember that next time you decide to shoot an abortion doctor, bomb a clinic, or call a woman getting an abortion a murderer.