Quote:
According to the Population Fund, the loss of $34 million from the United States led to two million more unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 deaths of infants and children. Bush is expected to withhold the $34 million appropriated by Congress for the coming year as well.
|
Doesn't the "Population Fund" and "two million unwanted pregnancies" sound a bit Malthusian to anyone?
Quote:
The lengthening list of anti-choice executive orders, regulations, legal briefs, legislative maneuvers and, above all, judicial and administrative appointments can leave no doubt where we are headed. We are now going through the longest period of no change on the Supreme Court since James Madison was president. The most significant cases dealing with reproductive rights in the last decade have been decided by 5-4 majorities. President Bush has used recess appointments to put ultra-conservative judges on the bench. In a 1992 case, Clarence Thomas wrote, "We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled."
|
Okay, some confusion. So the rate of turn over on the benches is what decides the vibrancy of our judicial system? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution, but I may be wrong here. Is it wrong that if one Court ruled in favor of Roe v. Wade, that another might rule against it? Isn't that the nature of our judicial branch...?
Quote:
Over 335 new state laws restricting a woman's right to choose have been passed in the last eight years.
|
I would be interested in seeing a list of these, or maybe even just a mentioning of what some of them do. If 335 new
state laws have been passed over the past 8 years, then you can't merely place this all on Dubya, or just the Republican Polit-Buro for that matter.
I'm also curious to see if they're laws similar to the one just past in defense of unborn children who die as a result of parental homicide. I think that legislation makes perfect sense, despite any motives Repolitcrats might have in supporting it. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they deserve double the charge.
Quote:
Twenty-four states have mandatory delays and state-prepared anti-choice propaganda.
|
Okay, now this is where she loses me.
Everybody in the "family planning" movement argues that nobody really supports abortion, they merely support "choice." Many who support "choice," argue that we must reduce the need for abortions. Ralph Nader even believes this. So how exactly do you go about doing this, other than providing options, outlets, and consequences to women who are considering abortion? Is
anything that even slightly discourages abortion "anti-choice propaganda"?
Quote:
Anti-condom policies not only result in unwanted pregnancies but an increase in AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Right-wing legislation gives fertilized eggs more rights than women.
|
The latter statement is just bullshit. Most politicians, including those evil, rotten Republican MEN, realize the sensitivity of this situation. This is why most people don't want to even touch it with a 10 ft. pole. That's why it's left to southern conservatives who will never go beyond the House for most of their careers.
And I
really resent the comment about "fertilized eggs" getting more rights than women. Unlike "fertilized eggs," which are not yet capable of thinking and acting on their/its own behalf, grown women have certain freedoms and "rights." I totally agree that we should have 100% easy access to condoms and other forms of contraception, but this doesn't mean we should simply become abortion procedure advocates. Again, everyone talks about "reducing the need for abortion," yet the desire to increase quick, easy, no questions-asked abortion access is like a runaway train, and even the slightest mentioning of counseling, waiting periods, etc. make you "anti-choice." That's anti-logical, IMO.
Quote:
Anti-choice terrorists continue to murder and bomb, intimidate and harass, but the Department of Homeland Security has no time for those terrorists. This is for our lives. Be there.
|
Ugh. Again, let's see some numbers. Among those who will be in DC will be the DCRC (DC Radical Cheerleaders). They are essentially advocating the destruction of counter-protest materials, ie. the spray painting of anti-abortion banners or signs. The DCRC are an anti-corporate, anti-globalization group, which is a movement (bless its soul) that is linked to millions of dollars in public damage, predominantly in Europe.
There are those on the fringes who nobody wants to associate with, but "family planning" advocates try to pigeon hole the entire "anti-choice" movement into that fringe. That's unfair, and basically just wrong.