Abortion question....

[dennis4868]

had a discussion with a family member today about the abortion issue.....I dont know alot about it (i should). Basically my family member said that he is pro choice even though he is personally against abortion. But then he went on to say that the government should have NOTHING to do with the abortion issue....meaning there should be no federal funding for abortion...the government should keep out of this issue 100%....should not ban abortion as the law is now but the government should not be involved in the federal funding of it.....this family members sometime talk out of his arse so I am not sure if he knows what he is talking about.

What specifically does the government do to help women get abortions? Are taxpayers money being used so that women can get abortions? If so, what is your opinion on this matter?

Thanks

Dennis

[havocmom]

1. call your local Planned Parenthood organization and ask them if they get

federal dollars to pay for abortions. My guess is you will get polite giggles then the real information.

edited for clarity

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Wonder if the same applies to a therapeutic abortion?

Let's say in the first couple of months of pregnancy a woman discovers she has cancer of some sort that is rapidly spreading and must be treated through chemotherapy.

Would that family member be against paying for the procedure in order for a woman to proceed with a lifesaving treatment?

[dennis4868]

3. good point.....

:-)

[displacedtexan]

4. In other words, your family member wants coat hangers back...

Rich women have always had abortions and birth control (my grandmother was taught "The precautionary Arts" in the 1920's).

Poor women and the uneducated, however, mutilated themselves in order to end unwanted pregnancies.

Gov't aid is necessary to protect women's health.

[jdj]

8. If she is willing to go into more detail I would love to

hear the long version of "the precautionary arts"

Women's culture really gets buried under secrecy sometimes. I have never even heard the phrase "the precautionary arts".

Wow. I wish she would write down everything she was told and put it out there.

Furthermore, rich women ALWAYS WILL have birth control and abortions.

[Palacsinta]

14. Lysol Douches!

That's what my grandmother told my mother she used. Very effective, too. Just ask my seven aunts & uncles!!

Edited to add that my grandparents were poor immigrants. Don't know what rich women did then either.

[miss_kitty]

9. hear hear

not allowing a person the choice because they lack funds is wrong.

if there was more sex education, there would be less abortion. also if women weren't still vilified for having sex and/or babies outside of marriage, by these same a*holes who want abortion to never happen could get their wish.

[Eloriel]

5. Actually, the govt doesn't do much

Maybe someone more knowledgeable will come along.

However, my understanding is that if there are any funds used to pay for abortions, that would be up to the states to do the funding via Medicare or whatever, and the rightwing in most of the states has been all over this like white on rice, so I doubt there are many places where that's the case.

I don't think the Fed govt even allows its women soldiers to get "free" abortions at military medical centers any more.

There is govt money going to Planned Parenthood for health services to the poor which should include abortion (along with other reproductive health services, of course). But PP and other similar groups also get funding from other sources-- private foundations, private donations from people like you and me.

As for whether the govt SHOULD fund abortions, let's look at it this way. If you're poor (and otherwise eligible for help with medical expenses), should you be forced to bear a child (who will thus grow up in poverty) just because you're poor? Shouldn't "health services" for the poor include ALL health services needed?

The argument is really only an anti-woman, anti-poor people wedge argument from the right. Abortions aren't NEARLY as expensive as the costs of yet another child raised in poverty, and rarely as frivolously entered into or needed as the right would have you believe.

[dennis4868]

6. That was my understanding also....

there are very little federal funds going directly to women for abortions....its up to the states to decide how to use their medicare funding and most states only fund abortion in case of an emergency....let me know if this is off base...like I said I am not up and cirrent on this very important issue.

[jdj]

11. you only have to look at the fall of the American middle class

over the last 25 years to understand why the right doesn't want the poor to have abortions.

Without a glut of uneducated and destitute laborers, they might actually have to become moral employers, something they never stop striving against.

[miss_kitty]

12. no ""free" abortions at military medical centers"

but a breast augmentation? liposuction? oh yeah...

[benddem]

7. Eloriel is correct

The US doesn't pay for abortions in military hospitals. The obvious exception is for the health of the mother. When I was stationed in Germany we had a "petty cash" fund (don't know where it came from-didn't ask) and the women went to the Netherlands.
There are a lot of health reasons why women need abortions. If he doesn't want to pay for those...those women could die.
Do not believe all the junk about so called "partial birth abortions" this is a term the fundies made up to make it sound gruesome. If you ever saw a woman dying because of her pregnancy you would be for the procedure.
The correct pro-choice position is (and should be) that we believe that ALL medical decisions should be made between the patient and his/her medical practitioner.
One of the fights that the wingers have made is for providing funds to reproductive agencies overseas. We really need to help women in developing countries with their reproductive choices. But the wingers have outlawed all help to those agencies.

[dennis4868]

10. thanks for the....

411 :-)

[Eloriel]

Don't forget too

that in those extremely rare late term abortions, where the mother's health or life is at risk, the fetus isn't viable either. Otherwise they'd simply induce labor. (Duh!)

[Eloriel]

21. Double post, sorry

(How'd they DO that?)

[Lovecrafty]

13. My opinion on the whole abortion issue...

The Republicans have been using the abortion issue to get the single-issue vote and demonize the Democrats. They use those buzzwords like "murder", "baby killer", and "innocent" to portray us Democrats as immoral and evil, as if we're out there seeking out your fetus like a vampire! The single-issue voters are all too willing to elect them as long as they say those magic words: "I am pro-life". And that's it! You can be the most corrupted politician imaginable, you can pillage our enviornment, loot social security, outsource jobs, even take away our civil liberties, but as long as you uttered those magic words then you can count on the single-issue vote!

I have always despised single-issue voters for not looking at the broader perspective, for following blindly like a Jonestown Alumni these Republicans into the gates of hell itself, enchanted by their own sense of righteousness and that magic buzzword "pro-life". For many Christians, this is the ONLY issue. They don't care how corrupt a person truly is as long as they claim to be "pro-life". Amazingly, death is all I've seen from Republicans. The Death of our economic future..the death of thousands of innocent civilians abroad..the death of our enviornment...the death of our middle class...the death of the sickest and most needy among us..the death of our civil liberties and the constitution. How these naive single-issue voters are convinced Republicans are "pro-life" is beyond me!

Besides, suppose you banned abortion tommorow. Completely 100% illegal nationwide. There is NO WAY the adoption rate can keep up with the birth rate! Once all the pro-life Christians adopt a few children, what then? The birth rate is increasing exponentially every year! Eventually, with the birth rate outpacing the adoption rate, one of two things will happen:

1) The Government will embark on one of the largest social programs in history trying to deal with these millions of unwanted children born each year. We will basically be forced to create "baby farms", where the unaborted children will be raised like cattle by the hundreds..the thousands..and eventually the millions! All funded by the taxpayer, of course. I'm sure once it starts costing them money, Republicans will drop their "pro-life" stance and come back to a practical solution to the population problem! I suppose the baby farms will make an excellent recruiting tool for the industrial-military complex, however.

2) Adoption standards will be reduced to the point where you now have "Baby Wal-Marts". The screening process of potential parents will be accelerated, putting more children into the hands of unfit or otherwise abusive parents. Right now MONEY is the main incentive for foster homes. Foster parents are paid on a per-child basis. I have personally seen foster homes with as many as 10 children. These children are often victims of abuse and neglect, withdrawn and afraid of people in general, suddenly thrust into a strange home with ten or fifteen other children. There is no time for the one-on-one care and attention the child requires to overcome their abuse. This will only get worse with the influx of the millions of children each year being put into the system because of the anti-abortion laws. So entire generations will be born and raised in foster homes, forgotten and neglected...BUT ALIVE PRAISE JESUS!!!

[FizzFuzz]

15. Hear Hear Hear!

Welcome to DU and Well Said!!!!

A third possible outcome:

Perpetual war and other disasters, steadily increasing crime, deadly skirmishes over dwindling resources, more epidemics.

What is that physics law of systems seeking balance? I don't know how it's worded but I know about the concept. The increasing pressure of too many people is and will continue to seek ways to depressurize. Its up to us if we want to deny and let suffering do the job we refuse to face up to, or whether we will be proactive and use our brains to come up with reasonable and compassionate ways to reduce the birthrate. Could take alot of suffering before people wake the fuck up.

[briang5000]

16. Roe v Wade not likely to be overturned

Basing your vote on a single issue such as abortion just doesn't seem to make sense.

Abortion is not an issue that affects most people lives on a daily or even yearly rate. It's used by the republicans as a smoke screen because it is such a personal issue. They know people have strong feeling about it and people can talk about it. Most people have the same strong feelings about taxes, foreign policy, and domestic issues but don't have the education or information to really talk about it. Abortion keeps people off the real issues... Iraq, taxes, healthcare, etc.

Roe v Wade and legalized abortion is something that many American's have grown up with and have come to accept. Bush has even said (during his campaign in 2000) that he wouldn't support a SCJ that would vote to overturn RvW.

Plus, even if a president could get the SC to vote on such a change -- abortions wouldn't stop. They would move from the clinic to back alley. People who need an abortion would still find a way to get them done.

Nobody is really pro-abortion, but most people who are pro-choice realize the big picture.

If somebody wants to make their vote on a single issue. Healthcare, social security, or the economy would seem to be an issue that would be a bit more impacting on somebody's daily life.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi briang5000!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Eloriel]

22. The back alley

For those who don't understand why some of us women are SO adamant and insistent about preserving the right to CHOOSE abortion, just ponder this: during the period in our nation's history that abortion was illegal (no, it wasn't always so), some women were SO desperate to not bear the child they had conceived (with a little help from SOMEone else), that they would risk their very lives in the process of ending the pregnancy.

Some women would take coat hangers and knitting needles to themselves, often puncturing the uterus with many dying either by bleeding to death or by infection. Others no doubt tried other methods which endangered their health. And some risked going to fly-b-night back alley abortionists. Many young women died as a result.

Briang is entirely right: abortions won't end if abortion is ever made illegal again, but many women's lives will. They won't be the daughters of the rich and famous, either.

But just think about the level of desperation that drives one to risk their very life to end a pregnancy. It IS exactly that serious.

I think it's also worth pointing out that studies have shown that women who bear children as teenagers almost never climb out of poverty for the rest of their lives. That fact alone ought to make abortion more accessible to those who are children themselves, except that those who fight all abortions don't really care to end or alleviate poverty.

And, I'll close by dredging up an old truism: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Virginian]

28. Neither party wants abortions to be outlawed.

The Dems think it is a very personal decision between a woman and her doctor.
The Republicans think it is a very special wedge issue between a candidate and his right wing constituents to get them to go to the polls. If abortions are outlawed, he loses votes by not being able to drag those people out on election day. Worse yet, they might vote for the Dems who are into health care or something else that affects the poor and middle class.

[sage1]

17. abortion- her mind was changed.

I had the same question posed me by my mother years ago. She asked me
"Why should we (the citizens) pay for poor women's abortion?"

I told her: Rich women had access to abortions throughout history;
they could afford private doctors, or travel to other countries.
Poor women have less access to personal freedoms. As the most advanced nation in history, either we help poor people with health issues, or we help them raise their children. It's that simple. Either way, we as a nation care for people- appropriate health care, including abortions when necessary, or we offer health care for poor children. Or we do the immoral thing (the republican way), and ignore them, and allow them to starve and languish in poor health, and foster violence and poverty.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi sage1!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Eloriel]

23. Great answer, and 100% correct as well

Welcome to DU!

[wickywom]

18. I think dems need to take control of

birth control issues , period.
Offense not defense.
We need to say it loud and clear - WE KNOW THERE IS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT ABORTION-- WE ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING SAFER LESS EVASIVE METHODS .
It shouldn't be a form of birth control.
No woman I know whose had one would disagree with that-- considering the advancements that are being made.
If we can't get the morning after pill over the counter we lose.
Religious pro lifers aren't going to back down EVER.
If they succeed in making abortion illegal --imagine what they would outlaw next.
We must swing the argument away from them completely.
We must take responsibility for the direction of our reproductive rights
and open the door to wider for anti abortionists who truly believe they should save lives and aren't just concerned with being right about their theology.
Anyone agree?

[Eloriel]

24. I disagree with some of what you suggest

We need to say it loud and clear - WE KNOW THERE IS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT ABORTION -- WE ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING SAFER LESS EVASIVE METHODS .
It shouldn't be a form of birth control.

AFAIC, technically it IS a form of birth control. It prevents the occasion of live birth later on. What we call "birth control" is really more "conception control." Besides, not all that many women are so careless about their sexual escapades that they consistently come back again and again and again to have an abortion. I suppose there are a few, but the bulk of women are VERY responsible. Birth control fails; rapes happen; etc. So when our side capitulates to this point, we give THEIR side legitimacy for this essentially anti-woman argument.

And I'm frankly tired fo hearing comments like Bill Clinton's famous line, "Abortions should be rare and legal," or whatever it was (there were 3 parts to it), primarily because, again, it gives some legitimacy to the anti-abortion crowd. My opinion: Don't give an inch! Women aren't any more irresponsible than the other half of the human race (and maybe a lot less so), and we don't need to have our personal business and health decisions legislated away from us. We aren't children. Abortion is necessary for some people sometimes. Period. The reasons aren't really that important or germane to anyone else but the woman involved and her family/conscience/physician: it's a fact of life that abortions WILL happen, that they ARE necessary for the health and well-being of women, and that we won't tolerate attempts to restrict our access to abortions or to legislate our "choice" in the matter FOR us.

Everything else I definitely agree with. In fact, I love the way Howard Dean handles the question -- with his usual blunt clarity: It's a medical decision and Congress has no right trying to legislate medical practice or decisions (paraphrased).

[wickywom]

25. We need less "pro choice" and mor "pro contraception" rallies-

They can't understand "pro-choice"--
It isn't really giving an inch to change the focus of the argument completely.

I just don't think the left side of this issue is willing to admit that for most women abortion was a painful choice that most have conflict with for much of the rest of their lives (mind you all these women I know are liberals and pro choice) only because the right uses it in their own argument. If we love and respect ourselves as women we would continue to both actively hold them off on issues of legality while very actively and loudly demand other choices to make abortion like Clinton said "rare"-- if for no other reason than to spare more women mental crisis .

What would the world be like if women all over the world had access to contraception and the morning after pill? How much less misery would exist for us all?

While we waste our time screaming back at them --they are very actively limiting choices to women all over the world in the name of abstinence.
Sometimes we sound like the nra with our no budging policies.

What is better for women and the children we choose to bring into the world?

[Eloriel]

27. But you're not changing the focus of the argument completely

you're capitulating slightly (which is too much IMO) to THEIR anti-woman arguments.

I just don't think the left side of this issue is willing to admit that for most women abortion was a painful choice that most have conflict with for much of the rest of their lives (mind you all these women I know are liberals and pro choice) only because the right uses it in their own argument.

Oh, nonsense. We (we = women plus pro-Choice groups like NARAL, NOW, etc.) bring up the pain of it ALL THE DAMN TIME when we try to counter the frivolous argument about how frivolously women undertake abortions, so that it becomes merely another form of "birth control."

And I reject your "most women" have conflict argument. I don't think that's borne out by the studies and stats either. Some women do; and some of that internal conflict is due to the lingering social taboos and/or their religious upbringing with "life begins at conception" beiefs, IOW: societally imposed guilt.

If we love and respect ourselves as women we would continue to both actively hold them off on issues of legality while very actively and loudly demand other choices to make abortion like Clinton said "rare"-- if for no other reason than to spare more women mental crisis .=

I never suggested otherwise. Of COURSE making better options like the morning after pill and better contraception in the first place are essential, but they would be essential for women's health and well-being even if there WERE no anti-abortion movement to fend off, simply because abortion procedures are far more invasive than better contraceptives and the morning after pill. HOWEVER, it's a mistake IMO to capitulate to their argumentation in order to demand those better options. As I said, the better options should be what we demand ANYway, abortion question completely aside. Here's a clue for you: they're against ALL contracption, which is all the more reason we have to not budge an inch. The farther along the road to making abortion illegal and/or totally inaccessible, the farther they are to achieving their real goal: an end to women having ANY control over their own reproduction.

What would the world be like if women all over the world had access to contraception and the morning after pill? How much less misery would exist for us all?

If you think that would make the necessity of abortion go away, you're deluding yourself. Of course these better options would be wonderful for empowering more women, esp. poor women who LEAST can afford unwanted pregnancies. However, arguing for these better options doesn't have to include agreesing with the notion that abortion is inherently bad. It's inherently UNFORTUNATE, but not inherently bad and evil.

While we waste our time screaming back at them --they are very actively limiting choices to women all over the world in the name of abstinence.
Sometimes we sound like the nra with our no budging policies.


Oh, please. Who advocated "screaming back at them"? That's a ridiculous strawman. However, if YOU prefer letting them win the debate by either agreeing with their premises or refusing to answer back, then by all means you just go right ahead and do that. I'm sure it will help prevent further erosion in our access to abortion ever so much.

[wickywom]

33. i'm neither diluded nor capitulating thier argument.

Are you saying that a woman who decides to get one suffers only because of social taboos? I know a girl or two who would take you to the ground for that statement.

Why is it pro choice people allow the the conservative movement in this country to
create the guidlines of our own discussions.
We don't all have to agree on every frek'n thing.
I don't believe abortions are healthy for women period-- that doesn't mean I'm playing into thier hands, it doesn't mean i'm not pro-choice, pro-life whatever..
It is one of the few choices for poor women in the world true. That is unfortunate-- but wearing a "i got an abortion t-shirt" is constructive for who exactly?

I know there will always be abortions I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

How does screaming back at them help anyway.THEY CAN"T COMPREHEND WHAT WE MEAN--It's more costructive for the rest of us to move on. I stand by sisters who rally for choice we need them all of them .

but is it enough... young people in this country don't even know what their choices are.. and the right is winning the bigger issue of keeping them ignorant--at least here in the south--while we bicker over abortion.

I'm saying that the focus is always protecting abortion and not protecting choices--
of which there are many. we like to say we're pro- choice, but we always seem to stop with the issue of our own empowerment instead of using it to affect change.

And if you think for one second the christian coalition and thier ilk aren't meddling with funding in the third world over abstinence you've got your head up your butt.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. You can budge all you want with your body

I will continue to fight for the no budge option. Then one day if you are desperate and need an abortion, it will be available to you.
You can think me now.

I have no problem with better and more available birth control. But NO budge on the laws.

[wickywom]

34. at what point did

i suggest changing the law?

i would never support making abortion illegal for anyone.
i'm saying we must go beyond legal protection into other discussions
to make abortion less the issue.
and contraception the focus

[noiretextatique]

41. try that on 'the other side'

and let me know how your change of focus works. some of them are against birth control...period. the basics that our side needs to focus on is this:

Women are capable of making their own decision about their bodies, their lives, and their healthcare, including any and all contraceptive options.
Women are capable of living with the consequences of their decisions, including the decision to have an abortion, just like the myriad of decisions adult human beings are forced to make in their lifetimes.
Not every woman experiences trauma for the rest of her life because of any one decision, of course some do.
Whatever a woman MAY experience: it's her right to experience the consequences of her decisions...women don't need the state to "protect" them from those consequences.

[wickywom]

44. it's on nbc right now!

There are already people in the medical profession refusing women the morning after pill and other contraceptives--

Are we just going to sit around and wait for all of our choices to be eliminated.
If we don't give just a little on abortion with a 'psychological" sort of scientific principle (as weak as it may be) we would at least be in control of the changes-- which I wish could be done socailly w/out affecting the law--
Or do we wait for them to win on their psychotic religious principle-- which is a f*King nightmare scenario of epic proportions.

Does everyone think I'm crazy?


The fight has shifted beyond abortion and what if it becomes Christian mainstream?

[noiretextatique]

46. not crazy...just forgetting who 'the other side' is

you cannot compromise with these people...they aren't insterested in compromise. doctors who refuse to prescribe contraceptives should be rewarded by losing all their patients who don't agree with their decisions. perhaps then they will understand that their PERSONAL BELIEFS should govern their PERSONAL LIVES. :wtf: it's elementary.

[Djinn]

37. any actual proof on that??

"I just don't think the left side of this issue is willing to admit that for most women abortion was a painful choice that most have conflict with for much of the rest of their lives ...to make abortion like Clinton said "rare"-- if for no other reason than to spare more women mental crisis."

I actually think this is a load of crap, I hear it all the time but have never seen any reliable stats to back it up, a good friend of mine works in a clinic that provides, amongst other things, abortions, she works as a counsellor and has for over 10 years, according to her most women are NOT traumatised by their abortions and do NOT suffer any mental crisis over it. SHe also says the ones that do seem to be feeling more distress over the fact that they've been told they SHOULD feel guilt and pain over it rather than the abortion itself.

"Are you saying that a woman who decides to get one suffers only because of social taboos? I know a girl or two who would take you to the ground for that statement."

guess what I know several that would disagree with your line that MOST women suffer trauma.

BTW how many women feel traumatised because they HAD a child??

[wickywom]

38. So, you see no value

for mankind in working to make abortion less neccessary because it has no affect on women even though science could provide us with a less painful experience.

obviously, I don't know if most women are traumatized or not--
I know women who grew to be traumatized particularly when they got older.
Traumatized enough to cry over it at the mere reminder.
For you to say they have no right to that pain because conservatives use it in thier arguement is not only direspectful to them, but
to all women --

All of these women remain pro-choice by the way-- and still would have terminated thier pregnancy.
Some of them got thier abortions in another country-- that has less taboo-

i have no idea what pro life literature says-- this is my opinion solely based on the women i've discussed this with --

Yes having a child is traumatizing-- very traumatizing.
especially in the US where some of us are still treated like cattle.
Yet another issue we women should take on.

Miscarriages and spontaneous abortions can also be very painful-- i imagine even more so for someone looking forward to a child who chose to terminate a pregnancy earlier in thier life.

[Djinn]

39. right because I said that

"For you to say they have no right to that pain because conservatives use it in thier arguement is not only direspectful to them, but to all women --"

please point out where I said they have NO RIGHT to pain. Saying that I did negates your argument somewhat don't you think. I have no problem with contraception - I've managed to avoid the whole abortion issue because of a faithful 15 year relationship to a little packet of pills BUT I find the "rare" abortions argument irritating, because whether it's rare or not is none of anyone business, it's either legal or it's not. Bleating about how "traumatic" it is just buys into the arguments of those who want to have it banned or otherwise restricted. It also is a circular argument - many women feel bad that they DON'T feel bad, or they feel bad because society is telling them that abortions is SO awful it should be rare. I don't think it has anything to do with "killing" so my only reason for wanting it to be rare is that like any surgery there is a risk (although these days most are done under local anaesthetic) and it's expensive (although in Australia about half is reimbursed through our "socialised" health system).

[wickywom]

40. oh i see they

have the right to feel traumatized, but they shouldn't share their experience because you think it works against your particular perspective of the agenda?


"Bleating about how 'traumatic' it is just buys into the arguments of those who want to have it banned or otherwise restricted."

i will agree it is a very thin line, but how can you say their argument shouldn't count if you so hardily believe in choice?

My point is this --if we don't actively reach for better science and better methods which do exist by making them the focus of women's rights we will never stop being on the defensive over abortion.
There is very little information out there about what a woman can do immediately if she thinks she may have exposed herself.
By yelling back at religious nut jobs only gives them and their dead baby signs legitimacy. We should ignore them and let our lawyers do the talking.


Abstinence is again officially on the GOP agenda.

[Djinn]

45. Again try not to deliberately misrepresent what I said

"oh i see they have the right to feel traumatized, but they shouldn't share their experience because you think it works against your particular perspective of the agenda?"

THEY can share whatever they like - OTHER people shouldn't try and speak for them all - ie the "most women are traumatised" line, which is utter crap. (to remind you said: "I just don't think the left side of this issue is willing to admit that for most women abortion was a painful choice that most have conflict with for much of the rest of their lives")

"There is very little information out there about what a woman can do immediately if she thinks she may have exposed herself."

Don't know about US but where I live the morning after pill is available over the counter for around $20. Problem with it is that many women don't KNOW they might be preggers, don't know till more than 72 hours have passed and some women can't take it or can't keep it down.

"By yelling back at religious nut jobs only gives them and their dead baby signs legitimacy"

speak for yourself - personally I can't see anything that gives the medieval throwbacks ANY legitimacy

[put out]

42. I must chime in on the comment regarding trauma post-abortion.

Folks claiming this might take a look at what happened to Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Appointed by Reagan, and no liberal, Dr. Koop.

The Reagan Administration wanted a report that women suffered long-lasting physical and mental damage after abortion. Koop wouldn't do it because years of study and resulting data simply couldn't support that it was true.

Then Dr. Koop lost his job. And his stock climbed in my eyes.

Correct me if I'm in error. I'm off to refresh my memory, but a staunch right-winger, for once, would not bend science to further a political agenda. Thanks, Dr. Koop.

[wickywom]

43. thanks for the info.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. Abortion is a method of birth control

If you have one you are preventing a birth. If you are suggesting that women use abortion RATHER than other forms of birth control you are wrong and you should stop believing that right wing lie.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. I do. The idea is to work toward making abortion a real rarity.

I doubt many women have abortions gleefully. It's usually a necessary, but unpleasant at least, experience.

Let's work toward the societal changes that make an unwanted pregnancy unlikely. (There will always be a need for some abortions -- ectopic pregnancies, other complications, problems with the mother's health). But, sure, I'm all for better birth control and wider dissemination of the same.

And, I do think many who would call themselves "pro-life" would agree and join that fight. Leaving the fringe wackos exposed and proclaiming their screed against women.

[wickywom]

35. thank god

that is exactly what i mean.
i draw pictures for a living--
linear thinking is very difficult for me-- not to mention typing.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. I don't want to impinge in any way on our rights, but I think -m

long-term, the best bet for ending all the fighting is in finding those who genuinely want to look for solutions and invite them to join us in that fight (good and available contraception).

I understand the fear that this seems like giving in, or giving ground. I'm not sure I agree -- by inviting people in the middle to join in taking positive steps instead of punitive, negative steps, I tend to think we'd help.

But I have no fight with those who feel it wouldn't be productive. I can't promise to have all those answers!

[roach23]

26. here'e some info

Government funding is provided according to the Hyde Amendment. Here is a link that explains it all:

http://archive.aclu.org/library/funding.html

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that if a women is raped, she should have to risk dying in childbirth if she gets pregnant. Also, if there are health reasons, they should obviously be covered as well.

Let me also point out that I don't want to pay for an illegal war that is killing thousands, but I don't have any choice in that matter, do I?

[Cheswick2.0]

31. Dennis, tell you relative I don't like the government

paying to build bombs but it does. With the tiny number of women receiving help from Medicare to pay for necessary abortions, you relative really has nothing to worry about.
Now how do we keep the government from paying Halliburton the big bucks?

[noamnety]

47. This is the problem

A consistent agenda to oppose birth control is the gist of the issue. Not just abortions, but all birth control.

http://www.ideamouth.com/appointments_and_disappointments.htm#Health

If Bush appoints supreme court judges, the concern is not that the judges will actively oppose abortion, although that is a concern. The fear is that the judges will actively oppose access to all birth control. Look at the civil rights backgrounds of the judges he has already appointed: http://www.ideamouth.com/appointments_and_disappointments.htm#Judicial

Bush has rewritten laws already so that insurance doesn't need to cover birth control for women (but they still cover Viagra for men, go figure). Pharmacists are increasingly refusing to fill orders for the pill. The result of the current adminstration's policies will be:

1. More people getting pregnant because they can't afford or get access to contraception.

2. More people getting abortions because they couldn't afford or get access to contraception.

3. More people raising children on welfare, more of a drain on the federal and state budgets as we try to cope with that.

4. Increased health insurance costs because both abortions and even more so carrying a baby to term costs way more than contraception. A typical birth can costs thousands of dollars. As health care costs rise, more people will be left uninsured. So a policy of denying access to birth control will result in other people who aren't even involved in that decision going without health care.

5. More people getting AIDS as the administration refuses to fund programs promoting condom use.