Even fitted diaphragms shouldn't be prescription only.

When my then-girlfriend moved to my city, she knew perfectly well what size of diaphragm she needed. But she still had to find a local doctor to write that size on a little slip of paper.

"social conservatives tend to balk at any form of birth-control being made more easily accessible."

I suppose there are a tiny fraction of social conservatives who don't want birth control easily accessible. A politically powerless group if there ever was one.

About the same number as the entire organization of 911 truthers, who think 9-11 was a Joint Jewish US Government plot.

Most of us would settle for them not handing it out in the schools to 12 year olds while those government employees teaching them, extol the virtues (and not the risks or responsibilities) of recreational sex.

This is about graft, and government control . Not about what social conservatives want.

I remember once listening to Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s and hearing a caller talk about condoms. Perhaps she was angry about his "bungie condom" ads. I don't know.

Anyway, the caller wanted to lump his opposition to abortion with his opposition to condoms...except Rush didn't have an opposition to condoms, at least nothing on his level of go-to-the-mat reverse Griswold vs CT like his reverse Roe vs Wade.

It took a very long time for him to try - and I don't think he succeeded with the caller - explain his science-based pro-life position arguing from DNA and why physical barrier contraception is not the same thing as an abortifacient (This is not making an argument about why you should believe this; this is saying that people who conflate the two are missing perhaps a distinction):

(A) You fundamentally own your DNA. That is you.

(B) Your DNA is created the moment a soldier reach his destination and accomplishes the mission objective - a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell.

(C) Therefore, it cannot be the same thing to trap or kill the sperm cells on the way to the egg, or to put some extra barrier on the egg to make it impermeable - compared to destroying a fertilized egg. Taking premise (A), the "third party" who you are enforcing the right to life for does not exist if the whole process is stopped before the unique third-person DNA is created.

You can say it's hedonistic, self-serving, cheating nature, playing god, etc - but you can't say that using a physical barrier is the same as an abortion or abortifacient since the third-person DNA is not created. A physical barrier seems far better than pumping a woman full of hormones to kill whatever natural process happens in her, anyway, and thereby wreak havoc on her physiology.

It would be nice if they weren't handed out in schools and children were indoctrinated into crazy sex-positive feminist theories before they can write in cursive. Adults are going to do what adults are going to do; it's very hard to make laws to change behavior except for the most heinous of acts without becoming a police state.

Social conservatives absolutely do want to make birth control harder to obtain -- take all the "abstinence only" ridiculousness and keeping birth control in government hands so teenagers can't get it easily.

Social conservatives absolutely do want to make birth control harder to obtain -- take all the "abstinence only" ridiculousness and keeping birth control in government hands so teenagers can't get it easily.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 22, 2015 9:31 AM

I would love to see some kind of legitimate citation for this. (Not some screed in the Huffington Post)

The only candidates I know of who are advocating birth control pills be over the counter, are Republicans.

1. Abstinence solves a lot of problems and postpones many until a better "head" is thinking.

What's the problem with that?

2. Had my son come home from school one day and said "Hey Dad. School said I did not need to tell you about this but I though you should at least discuss it with me, ...".

3. If Griswold was not about money what was it about?

I had to get a medical fitting for a knee brace when I injured my knee years ago. A bit different in that there was a specialist at the shop - he may have been an MD - I don't know. The brace was to my viewing not significantly different than the over the shelf ones -- but was considered a medical item so it had to be fitted.

Those sex ed classes were boring, dry, technical and always subtly pro-abstinence. I've been to a few as an adult (friend was a school director). Sure you'd enjoy sex Little Billy but you would die of gonorrehea soon after. South Park made a pretty good episode showing what sex ed classes are really like. They are very careful in what they teach because of people like Isab, who think those classes are hippie dippie free love pro sex. Parents generally get a warning beforehand so they can take their bleeding ears precious snowflakes out of class.

I used to think they were pretty useless until my friend told me that that is how a low income 12 year old student of hers realized she had been raped by a male relative (they talk about rape too).

Love this abstinence comic

http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/e3/ff/e3fffd_479545.jpg

Social conservatives absolutely do want to make birth control harder to obtain -- take all the "abstinence only" ridiculousness and keeping birth control in government hands so teenagers can't get it easily.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 22, 2015 9:31 AM

I would love to see some kind of legitimate citation for this. (Not some screed in the Huffington Post)

Posted by: Isab at August 22, 2015 9:56 AM

OK, here's one. Granted, it's not too recent, but it's not the HuffPost, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It was the cover story for that issue. Russell Shorto is a historian and journalist.

And here are the responses:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/magazine/21letters.html?_r=0

There are 11 letters.

BTW, after the end of the original article, it says that Shorto "has written for the magazine about the anti-gay-marriage movement and religion in the workplace."

I HATE the word Hoohah. And Vajayjay.

It was the cover story for that issue. Russell Shorto is a historian and journalist.
Posted by: lenona at August 22, 2015 11:27 AM

Doesn't matter. Where is the statistical evidence? Some legitimate survey, not a made up wet dream. Or perhaps the Republican platform for either of the last couple of election cycles?

the only evidence I can find for* any claim *that certain fringe social conservatives are opposed to birth control is from some hysterical piece of crap in Salon magazine.

We all see these fringe groups. The ones that think 911 was a U.S. Government conspiracy or that the moon landing was faked.

As I pointed out originally this is far from a mainstream social conservative or religious position.

Even if a person is personally opposed to birth control, a very tiny sliver of that demographic takes the position that government should ban it. ( They are tilting at windmills. It is never going to happen, and they should be ignored and laughed at, like your neighbor who lines his house with tin foil)

The only people even suggesting that a majority of social conservatives, or even a substantial minority are against birth control is a bunch of screeching left wing nut jobs, that were trying to paint the Hobby Lobby case, as anti birth control, when what they objected to, was the government forcing them to pay for methods of birth control that they considered to be abortifacients.

I will raise my hand for that camp. I am one of those social libertarians who thinks that even if something is a really good or bad idea, doesn't mean that I want the government controlling it, prohibiting it, or mandating it.

Even if a person is personally opposed to birth control, a very tiny sliver of that demographic takes the position that government should ban it. ( They are tilting at windmills. It is never going to happen, and they should be ignored and laughed at, like your neighbor who lines his house with tin foil)
__________________________________

Well, you know what they say about good people doing nothing...

Oh, yes, forgot to say...

Leaving aside what anyone thinks of Mother Jones Magazine or about abortion, here's what I posted elsewhere:

I almost missed this article since the mail-to address (library copy) almost covered the article title. Luckily, it WAS mentioned on the cover of Mother Jones (it's not the cover story).

Unfortunately, I can't find a real link - even for subscribers! Maybe next month...

What really caught my eye, when I flipped through the magazine, was a map of Texas showing where the abortion clinics were in 2012 - and how many have closed down since then. Not to mention that even in 2012, there were only 41 clinics and only five of those lay west of San Antonio, so almost all of them were in eastern Texas.

So, guess what's happened since then?

From another article:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/tracking-texas-abortion-access-map/

As of March 6, 2014, there are 25 open abortion clinics, six of which are ambulatory surgical centers, in Texas.

As of April 11, 2014, there are 24 open abortion clinics, six of which are ASCs.

As of June 10, 2014, there are 23 open abortion facilities, six of which are ASCs, due to the retirement of the lone abortion provider in Corpus Christi. Legal abortion care has ended entirely between the U.S.-Mexico border and San Antonio.

As of July 31, 2014, there are 19 facilities providing legal abortion care in Texas, five of which are ambulatory surgical centers.

As of October 3, 2014, there are eight facilities, all ambulatory surgical centers, providing legal abortion care in Texas, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state can begin enforcing the ambulatory surgical center and admitting privileges provisions of HB 2.

As of October 15, 2014, Texas has 16 legal abortion providers, after the Supreme Court blocked an earlier Fifth Circuit ruling that had allowed Texas to fully enforce HB 2. Clinics across the state now need not operate as ambulatory surgical centers, though doctors who provide abortions everywhere but Whole Woman's McAllen and Reproductive Services in El Paso (which has closed its doors entirely, despite the ruling) must have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

As of June 9, 2015, the day the Fifth Circuit upheld the most stringent requirements of HB 2, mandating that abortion providers operate as ambulatory surgical centers, Texas had 18 legal abortion providers, eight of which were licensed ambulatory surgical centers. A ninth ambulatory surgical center, operated by Planned Parenthood in San Antonio, is scheduled to open in fall 2015. Texas abortion providers have petitioned the Fifth Circuit to block their decision--asking them to rule by June 19--while the providers seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Last updated June 15, 2015.

(end)

And to think that many otherwise intelligent people honestly believe that it's easy enough for poor women (or girls, or even not-so-poor women) to take several days off from work, drive hundreds of miles, often across state lines, and pay for a night or three at a motel, and even more to the clinic...all to exercise their constitutional rights.

Imagine if you had to do that in order to vote. Would anyone stand for it?

BTW, from what I heard, one reason Europeans don't fight that much (IIRC) against the restrictions on second-trimester abortions is that women in Europe generally don't HAVE the above obstacles when it comes to first-term abortions!

Aug 18
Found it again - it's the September-October issue, with Bernie Sanders on the cover. Yes, the author is Molly Redden. It's about 8 pages long, not counting three pages that are mostly photos.

So, as of now, the ONLY abortion clinic in Texas, west of San Antonio, is in El Paso - but if the law is fully enacted, that too will disappear; there will be only TEN providers in the state, and, they said: "there would be no abortion providers in the 597 miles between San Antonio and Las Cruces, New Mexico."

That raises a wonderful question, which I have asked before:

Just much technology should you be able to personally command to exercise a "right" – and at what expense?

And how often DO you get a "do over", for what is essentially an unintended consequence of irresponsible behavior?

You don't know what your talking about Lenona. Yes there are people who are 600 miles from the nearest abortion provider in Texas. Of course you are talking about 100 people spread out over 360,000 square miles. Are you going to tell me that there is a specialized abortion clinic in every town of 10 people or more in California? Seriously? For the vast majority of Texans abortion is readily available and costs ~$150. Of course the older the child the more it costs.

I don't care for the ultrasound law. It should specify noninsertion technology only. But a number of women I've talked to say it helped them. They know they are killing their child. For whatever reason they decided that was the best decision. Seeing the ultrasound gave them something to say goodbye to.

Lenona,

I just looked at your map of abortion providers. It is in no way accurate. I know the Houston area and this was a family concern not that long ago. There are dozens of providers not on your map.

I have a hybrid view of the debate. I believe in teaching abstinence but educating about the usage of all birth control and supplying it. I did that for my own daughter because let's face it, sex happens, and I would rather her biggest regret be about having sex than what she did to remedy a baby-making problem afterwards. I don't believe that DNA makes a baby. I'm somewhere in the heartbeat area, actually. But that's just me. I have no scriptural basis other than my belief that people are people once life begins to flow. I work in the medical field and have knowledge of cases of extreme preemie babies at 24 weeks (5-1/2 months' gestation). It's a crazy magic number. Any sooner and they will near-certainly die. But if they can juuuust make it to 24 weeks, it's amazing. I just believe that at some point in utero babies have rights equal to that of the mother. If they can live outside the womb, we should not be aborting them at that point.

Gooseegg,

For Christianity there are no strict scriptural references. There are comments from popes and councils and they have put the 'ensoulment' anywhere from conception to first breath. Abortion post-ensoulment is typically forbidden but abortion pre-ensoulment is typically disapproved of.

For Judaism there is little concept of 'ensoulment' since the body and the soul is not viewed as completely separate. There is a general ban on abortion. But abortion in the case of the fetus threatening the mother's life is approved since the fetus is considered to be attacking the mother and ending it's life is the same as ending a murderer's.

In Islam 'ensoulment' happens 40-120 days after conception. Even so many Muslim nations forbid abortion.

As for modern medical science, at conception a new life has begun. When that life gains rights is not a scientific question.

"The next big Supreme Court case involving abortion is expected to come from Texas, where a 2013 law led to the closing of many clinics and inspired abortion opponents around the country to propose similar restrictions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/upshot/how-texas-could-set-national-template-for-limiting-abortion-access.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-middle-span-region®ion=c-column-middle-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region&abt=0002&abg=1

Feel free to ignore. After all, the NYT is full of lieberals and demonrats!

"As for modern medical science, at conception a new life has begun."

Miscarriages are not an excuse. Either produce a living baby from every fertilized egg or get the death penalty.

Ohio legislation would outlaw abortion if the State doesn't like your reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/ohio-bill-would-ban-abortion-if-down-syndrome-is-reason.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

"And to think that many otherwise intelligent people honestly believe that it's easy enough for poor women (or girls, or even not-so-poor women) to take several days off from work, drive hundreds of miles, often across state lines, and pay for a night or three at a motel, and even more to the clinic...all to exercise their constitutional rights.

Imagine if you had to do that in order to vote. Would anyone stand for it?"

This is where you don't understand the law. Access to abortion is not a constitutional right. Never has been.

Anymore than you have a Constitutional right to a heart transplant, or brain surgery.

What was decided in Roe v. Wade was that the states don't have the right to criminalize it, especially in the first trimester.

It was a poorly written decision, based on a Constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy. (They call it a penumbra, because a right to privacy never appears in the Constitution). It is only implied.

And if I recall correctly, states can put very few restrictions on first trimester abortions, more on second trimester abortions, and quite a few on third trimester abortions.
Finding a legitimate doctor willing to perform a third trimester abortion has been kind of a struggle, as most OB GYNs don't want to be identified as an abortion doctor.

This is how Planned Parenthood got into the business. Doctors willing to do this could hide their identies which would not be possible if they were in private practice.

And you can provide abortion services in a criminally unacceptable manner. Kermit Gosnell is in jail.

I personally don't care about making abortion illegal. In rare cases, it is very necessary, but in most cases it is just a sleazy low class lazy method of birth control for the terminally irresponsible.

I can frown on it, and recognize it for the socialist sacrament, that it is, without wanting to ban it.

"it is just a sleazy low class lazy method of birth control for the terminally irresponsible"

Obvious troll is obvious.

"Obvious troll is obvious."

Yes you are Gog. Also, care to show the scientific evidence that life begins at birth? I was quite upfront that a right to life is not a scientific question. Be it first trimester, third, or even 40ith like Ms Cartman wanted.

My sex ed had a different feel each year.
grade 4: very high level - barely knew it was sex ed
grade 5: highly mechanically detailed - including chemical signalling etc - what mattered we already knew...the rest we simply forgot. Fairly short...been then a very long course on how babies develop.

grade 6: Outside instructor brought in - very little. Feeling of "you shouldn't be having sex yet, but if you are good job and congrats! Oh, and always wear a condom - don't want to get AIDS!"

grade 7: Weird health teacher - had an oddly maternally vibe yet dressed in track suits. Really made it sound awful. A chore you must due in order to have kids.

grade 8: Super attractive ~25 year old health teacher. Super graphic STD section. Other than that was rock hard the whole time. The message I took away from her was "sex is the bestest thing every and you will enjoy it so much you have no idea on what you are missing out on! Everyone should be having it!...oh, but only once you are married...oh, who I am kidding most of you already are having sex...go for it! And always wear a condom. Don't want a baby or aids."

Oops -- I meant matronally not maternally.

That is bring back some memories. That grade 8 teacher...I visually remember her performing some demonstration in response to questions using the CPR dummy.

I remember now that both grade 6 teachers were women so the men were grouped together and a male consular was brought it.

My grade 6 teacher was right out of college. She was known among the male students for these red pants she often had on that when she bent over were so tight it was clear she was a woman...That 8th grade teacher was also known for wearing some tight cloths.

I'm very prolife. I'm also very pro birth control. Most people I know who are prolife are VERY pro birth control. The only way to ever end abortion is to get people to actually use damn birth control (by far the majority of unplanned pregnancies, many of which end by killing the child, are intelligent people who knew better who just didn't think it would actually happen. I'm not sure how we change that, other than taking away the abortion safety net).

I don't know what other people would call me. I think I'm pretty libertarian, up to the point your actions adversely affect others in a more-than-mere-annoyance way.

I live near Austin. I think some people in the coasts simply don't grasp the distances involved in Texas, and how thinly the population outside the big cities is spread. Plenty of people here have to drive multiple hours to get ANYWHERE but the next ranch. SO what? Plus, we're going to get every provider in Texas shut down, in the next 10 years. So there's that.

"most OB GYNs don't want to be identified as an abortion doctor."

Most OBGYNs became OBGYNS to bring babies safely into the world, not kill them. I still can't fathom HOW they find any to perform them, given that it quite blantantly violates "first do no harm". But, given roughly 5% of the US population qualifies as sociopathic, I guess the medical field would too. It might even attract more of them.

Except when not.

I have employer-provided health insurance. It is not the great insurance we had before Obamacare rolled out, but it is ok. Every time something prescription is made OTC, I have to pay a LOT more. And I can't (easily) use my flexible spending account for it. Take, for example, Flonase. I used to pay $10 a month, now it's about $20. AND, the bottles don't work nearly as well - about half the stuff manages to evaporate out - so I buy about twice as often. There are three of us that use this stuff daily in our house, so what used to be $30 a month - paid with pre-tax dollars - is now closer to $100 with after-tax dollars.

Since I HAVE to pay for health insurance, and it HAS to be sucky the only REAL benefit I get is the prescription benefit and the insurance "write-off" for doctors visits. Prescriptions are usually not subject to a deductible if you get them outside of a hospital. So, economically speaking, I much prefer everything to require a prescription. Many doctors are getting very liberal with prescriptions (outside of more highly regulated things like painkillers and anything psychiatric).

Thanks Ben for coming to Isab's rescue!

Actually Gog I was more attacking Lenona than supporting Isab. Lenona completely failed to prove her point and then she wandered off to complain about abortion. Gee, there are no abortion clinics in large areas with sub 1 person per square mile. Big whoop. You know what else there isn't, supermarkets. Food is much more important for most people than abortions. And as I said her map of abortion providers is inaccurate for the Houston area. I don't know if they closed the clinic on 1960 but if they did good riddance I say. The place was sketchy as all getout. They might take the baby, but they certainly were taking a kidney, a lung, and maybe your liver. I know of other clinics that are still operating but not on that map. I didn't object because of liburuls and new york city. I objected because I know this area and it is inaccurate.

And now I'm attacking you, because you are just having a trolltastic day. I don't think you've refuted anything anyone has said in this thread. Just tossed some fud and a pithy one liner.

You don't know what your talking about Lenona. Yes there are people who are 600 miles from the nearest abortion provider in Texas. Of course you are talking about 100 people spread out over 360,000 square miles. Are you going to tell me that there is a specialized abortion clinic in every town of 10 people or more in California? Seriously? For the vast majority of Texans abortion is readily available and costs ~$150. Of course the older the child the more it costs.


I just looked at your map of abortion providers. It is in no way accurate. I know the Houston area and this was a family concern not that long ago. There are dozens of providers not on your map.

Posted by: Ben at August 22, 2015 2:16 PM
___________________________________

Don't know why you're attacking ME...I was merely quoting RH Reality and Mother Jones. If you think they're being misleading, go complain to them and be sure to provide detailed, solid proof that they're wrong. At the least, you could have said that THEY don't know what they're talking about.

In the meantime, even if it IS misleading for them not to spell out the population numbers in Texas, I'd guess that their main point was that the number of abortion providers has been cut in half in Texas in just three years - and not, presumably, because teens and adult couples in that state are suddenly doing twice as good a job of using birth control! So if that could happen in Texas, it could happen in other states - like Ohio.

Also, if most European countries are willing to make things pretty easy for women seeking first-trimester abortions while having heavy restrictions for those seeking later abortions, why isn't the U.S.?

Finally, check out this chart - it's more lucid than almost anything else I've seen on the issue.

http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/

There are eight policies listed on the left (you have to scroll down a bit). On the top, it's divided into two columns, which ask:

1. Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?

2. Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequences?

"If Abortion Were About Equality, Would Americans Like It Better? It is—and that’s the problem."

By Katha Pollitt.

http://www.thenation.com/article/if-abortion-were-about-equality-would-americans-like-it-better/

Excerpt:

"...The same people who reject the right of women to control their own bodies also disapprove of women's equality. Look at the backbone of the antiabortion movement: the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the fundamentalist Protestant churches. They don't believe women are men's equals; they themselves practice female subordination quite energetically. There are, of course, liberal and feminist and atheist anti-choicers, and doubtless many believers too, who would say they believe women are men's equals. But what they usually mean is that women and men have different, equally valuable social roles determined by their reproductive roles. I have never found an abortion opponent--and believe me, I've tried--with a serious program for achieving gender equality in a world in which women are forced to carry every pregnancy to term. They're pursuing a different goal: reconnecting sex and reproduction by raising the cost to women of sex for pleasure. Even among the squishy pro-choice majority, that women should have sex 'like men' may be taking equality too far.

"Lepore notes that the courts could have used the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, to expand women's rights on equality grounds. Instead, it proved legally sterile. This is a fascinating observation. The right to vote didn't even win women the other rights that came with citizenship for men--the right to serve on juries, for example. The legal victories for women's equality that came in the 1970s were based on the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"Why was the 19th Amendment the path not taken? If Lepore had asked that question, she might have been led to a depressing conclusion: American jurisprudence didn't build on the 19th Amendment because Americans didn't support the concept of women's equality. Suffrage (which, let's not forget, took 75 years to win) was a one-off. The women's movement is sometimes blamed for grounding abortion rights in privacy, but the fault doesn't lie with it. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the decision, was presented with both pro-equality and pro-privacy arguments. He preferred privacy. Not only did it fit in better with traditional ideas about women being sheltered within the family; it also fit in better with Blackmun's concern for the right of doctors to treat their patients as they thought best..."

(snip)

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/how-to-really-defend-planned-parenthood.html

First paragraphs:

"Why does the pro-choice movement so often find itself in a defensive crouch?

"I cringed as I watched Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, apologize in a YouTube video last month for the lack of 'compassion' in two doctors’ language at supposed business lunches arranged and secretly recorded by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress.

"Not because she wasn’t eloquent, but because of what her words said about the impossibly narrow path abortion providers now are forced to walk. After all, have you ever heard an apology from a crisis pregnancy center for masquerading as an abortion clinic? What about the women in Texas who lost access to gynecological care when the state defunded Planned Parenthood and did not, as promised, adequately replace its services? Has anyone said sorry about that?

"Logically, it’s not important how doctors talk at supposedly private meetings. If they were heart surgeons I doubt it would be an issue. But these are abortion providers, and that makes all the difference. So far, the surreptitiously filmed videos, five of which have now been released, do not, as claimed, show that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit, which is against the law..."

(later)

"...Some women are genuinely ambivalent; some pregnancies are particularly dangerous. But they leave out a large majority of women seeking abortions, who had sex willingly, made a decision to end the pregnancy and faced no special threatening medical conditions.

"We need to say that women have sex, have abortions, are at peace with the decision and move on with their lives. We need to say that is their right, and, moreover, it’s good for everyone that they have this right: The whole society benefits when motherhood is voluntary. When we gloss over these truths we unintentionally promote the very stigma we’re trying to combat. What, you didn’t agonize? You forgot your pill? You just didn’t want to have a baby now? You should be ashamed of yourself.

"The second reason we’re stuck in a defensive mode is that too many pro-choice people are way too quiet. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly one in three women will have had at least one abortion by the time she reaches menopause. I suspect most of those women had someone who helped them, too — a husband or boyfriend, a friend, a parent. Where are those people? The couple who decided two kids were enough, the grad student who didn’t want to be tied for life to an ex-boyfriend, the woman barely getting by on a fast-food job? Why don’t we hear more from them?..."

"...It is understandable that women who have ended pregnancies just wanted to move on. Why should they define themselves publicly by one private decision, perhaps made long ago? I’ll tell you why: because the pro-choice movement cannot flourish if the mass of women it serves — that one in three — look on as if the struggle has nothing to do with them. Without the voices and support of millions of ordinary women behind them, providers and advocates can be too easily dismissed as ideologues out of touch with the American people.

"Women aren’t the only ones who need to speak up. Where are the men grateful not to be forced into fatherhood? Where are the doctors who object to the way anti-abortion lawmakers are interfering with the practice of medicine?

"On the issue of fetal-tissue research, we need to hear loud and clear from the scientific community. Anti-abortion activists are calling for a ban on this research, which ironically is used primarily to find treatments for sick babies. Will scientists let that happen?..."

Comment:

Christine McMorrow
Waltham, MA August 5, 2015

"Good article. There is so much misinformation about what Planned Parenthood does, and who funds abortions, that it makes my head spin.

"According to Fact Check.org, 'Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.'

"So, those against abortion can rest assured their tax dollars aren't paying for the procedure. Federal funding does cover pregnancy prevention counsel, mammograms, contraceptives, and the like--for largely poor women who could otherwise not afford family planning services.

"I agree with the author that the debate has been controlled by the right for far too long. Their vehement objections, which are fair according to their religion but not fair in a secular state, are drowning the voices of those who want to maintain control over their own family planning choices.

"Abortion is legal. With the help of PP and other family planning services, it can be prevented, and rare. I will never understand the fierce opposition to family planning services whose mission is to prevent abortion. Isn't that what the GOP wants?

"I'm not so sure. Mixed up with anti-abortion sentiment is a deeply Christian moralism that seeks to condemn all those who don't follow Christian teachings on sexuality. And of course, this has no place in a secular state that favors no one particular religion."

And:

Dex
San Francisco August 5, 2015
"Federal funds already don't pay for abortions. The realities have always been ugly, so nothing's changed there. And defunding health care that applies mostly to women, is suicide, So Republicans, go ahead and try. All of you. It will make this election cycle short and easy to predict."