Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The GOP Forced Me to Have an Abortion

By Dana L., The Washington Post. Posted June 8, 2006.


By fighting against Plan B and other emergency contraception, President Bush left me with no choice but to have an unwanted abortion.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

[Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.]

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.

The next morning, after getting my kids off to school, I called my ob/gyn to get a prescription for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent a pregnancy -- but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. As we're both in our forties, my husband and I had considered our family complete, and we weren't planning to have another child, which is why, as a rule, we use contraception. I wanted to make sure that our momentary lapse didn't result in a pregnancy.

The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B. No reason given. Neither did my internist. The midwifery practice I had used could prescribe it, but not over the phone, and there were no more open appointments for the day. The weekend -- and the end of the 72-hour window -- was approaching.

But I needed to meet my kids' school bus and, as I was pretty much out of options -- short of soliciting random Virginia doctors out of the phone book -- I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best. After all, I'm 42. Isn't it likely my eggs are overripe, anyway? I thought so, especially since my best friend from college has been experiencing agonizing infertility problems at this age.

Weeks later, the two drugstore pregnancy tests I took told a different story. Positive. I couldn't believe it.

I'm still in good health, but unlike the last time I was pregnant, nearly a decade ago, I'm now taking three medications. One of them, for high cholesterol, is in the Food and Drug Administration's Pregnancy Category X -- meaning it's a drug you shouldn't take if you're expecting or even planning to get pregnant. I worried because the odds of having a high-risk pregnancy or a baby born with serious health issues rise significantly after age 40. And I thought of the emotional upheavals that an unplanned pregnancy would cause our family. My husband and I are involved in all aspects of our children's lives, but even so, we feel we don't get enough time to spend with them as it is.

I felt sick. Although I've always been in favor of abortion rights, this was a choice I had hoped never to have to make myself. When I realized the seriousness of my predicament, I became angry. I knew that Plan B, which could have prevented it, was supposed to have been available over the counter by now. But I also remembered hearing that conservative politics have held up its approval.

My anger propelled me to get to the bottom of the story. It turns out that in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee, whose suggestions the agency usually follows, recommended that the drug be made available over the counter, or without a prescription. Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision.

Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex. Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

By late August 2005, the slow action over Plan B led the director of the FDA's Office on Women's Health to resign her post. The agency's delay on the drug, she wrote in an e-mail to her colleagues, "runs contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health." As recently as April 7, Steven Galson, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said that the agency still needed time to work on the issue.

Unfortunately, time was the one thing I didn't have.

Meanwhile, I hadn't even been able to get Plan B with a prescription that Friday, because in Virginia, health-care practitioners apparently are allowed to refuse to prescribe any drug that goes against their beliefs. Although I had heard of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control on religious grounds, I was dumbfounded to find that doctors could do the same thing.

Moreover, they aren't even required to tell the patient why they won't provide the drug. Nor do they have to provide a list of alternative sources. I had asked the ob-gyn's receptionist if politics was the reason the doctor wouldn't prescribe Plan B for me. She refused to answer or offer any reason, no matter how much I pressed her. By the time I got on the phone with my internist's office and found that he would not fill a Plan B prescription either, I figured it was a waste of time to fight with the office staff. To this day, I don't know why my doctors wouldn't prescribe Plan B -- whether it was because of moral opposition to contraception or out of fear of political protesters or just because they preferred not to go there.

In any event, they were also partly responsible for why I was stuck that Friday, and why I was ultimately forced to confront the decision to terminate my third pregnancy.

After making the decision with my husband, I was plunged into an even murkier world -- that of finding an abortion provider. If information on Plan B was hard to come by, and practitioners were evasive on emergency contraception, trying to get information on how to abort a pregnancy in 2006 is an even more Byzantine experience.

On the internet, most of what I found was political in nature or otherwise unhelpful: pictures of what your baby looks like in the womb from week one, and so on.

Calling doctors, I felt like a pariah when I asked whether they provided termination services. Finally, I decided to check the Planned Parenthood Web site to see whether its clinics performed abortions. They did, but I learned that if I had the abortion in Virginia, the procedure would take two days because of a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, which requires that you go in first for a day of counseling and then wait a day to think things over before returning to have the abortion. Because of work and the children, I couldn't afford two days off, so I opted to have the procedure done on a Saturday in downtown D.C. while my husband took the kids to the Smithsonian.

The hidden world of abortion services soon became even more subterranean. I called Planned Parenthood two days in advance to confirm the appointment. The receptionist politely informed me that the organization never confirms appointments, for "security reasons," and that I would have to just show up.

I arrived shortly before 10 a.m. in a bleak downpour, trusting that someone had recorded my appointment. I shuffled to the front door through a phalanx of umbrellaed protesters, who chanted loudly about Jesus and chided me not to go into that house of abortion.

All the while, I was thinking that if religion hadn't been allowed to seep into American politics the way it has, I wouldn't even be there. This all could have been stopped way before this baby was conceived if they had just let me have that damn pill.

After passing through the metal detector inside the building, I entered the Planned Parenthood waiting room; it was like the waiting room for a budget airline -- crammed full of people, of all races, and getting busier by the moment. I was by far the oldest person there (other than one girl's mom). The wait seemed endless. No one looked happy. We were told that the lone doctor was stuck in Cherry Blossom Parade traffic.

He finally arrived, an hour and a half late.

The procedure itself took about five minutes. I finally walked out of the building at 4:30, 6 1/2 hours after I had arrived.

It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Dana L. is a lawyer and writer living in Virginia. Out of concern for her family's privacy, she requested that her last name not be published.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
HER PREGNANCY WAS NOT AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE...
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 8, 2006 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...except to her:

"Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex. Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences."

Hardly. This woman's pregnancy was not an unintended consequence of erecting barriers against the legitimate use of Plan B. The purpose of blocking the use of this morning after pill is to cause more children to be born to, among other things, man the fast food restaurants, mimi-marts, Wal-Marts and battlefields of tomorrow.

In addition, children, like excessive dependence on credit cards, keeps a family in more debt and makes the breadwinners, especially as jobs become harder to find or replace, more dependent on their present job and less free to objecting to working conditions or to leave the job.

Toward this end, social defenses against unemployment and poverty such as unemployment insurance, welfare, disability and Medicaid will be progressively eroded away as bankruptcy protection and restrictions on credit card interest and penalties has been weakened or obliterated.

These are all intermediary steps in the construction of the corporate state where people are seen as capital like the flocks of sheep or cattle are in pastoral and subsistence cultures.

Your choice
Posted by: marxalot on Jun 8, 2006 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You clearly have the means to support another child, being you and your husband both work, yet you chose to take this life.

I blame the Bushistas for a lot - they are guilty of a lot. But you took this child's life, not them. And for shallow and selfish reasons too. Sad.

Progressives everywhere I call upon you to dump abortion as an issue. We've been saddled with it too long and it works against all the worthy causes we stand for. If we can get progressives elected then Roe will stand in the long run. I do not want law dictating this decision to women. But most people understand intuitively that abortion takes a life. The swing voters will continue to stay away from pro-choicers.

» RE: Your choice Posted by: mazel
» RE: Your choice Posted by: billfaster
» RE: Your choice Posted by: mazel
» RE: Your choice Posted by: okcamp
» RE: Don't have kids Posted by: Jamboree
» Her choice, not yours Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Your choice Posted by: greenman
» RE: Your choice Posted by: LMNOP
» How dare you? Posted by: McJulie
» yeah right Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Your choice Posted by: hoscot
» Never Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Your choice Posted by: wenoel
» RE: Your choice Posted by: Jamboree
» RE: Your choice Posted by: Aim
» Correction Posted by: Aim
» RE: Correction Posted by: mazel
» I can't even hear you.... Posted by: decembrist
» Such a futile arguement. Posted by: aussidawg
» Don't waste energy... Posted by: decembrist
» *(*(*(*` Posted by: decembrist
» It's Cartman Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Your choice Posted by: blackpyecat
» RE: Your choice Posted by: bergiecc007
stupid criminals
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 8, 2006 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The White House and Congress are both run by stupid sexist criminals who always do the wrong thing when it comes to women's rights. We need to impeach all of these stupid criminals and have a government for all of us instead of for the rich and for the brainwashed.

I can sympathize!
Posted by: HereticChick on Jun 8, 2006 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can totally sympathize with this woman and her family. She's my age and if I was in her position, I would've done the same freakin' thing. She did the right thing for her AND her family. She wouldn't have had to go through it all if those friggin' right wing bible thumpers would get their heads out of our collective uterii! Give us the plan B pill! Idiots!

» RE: Don't have kids! Posted by: sln70
» RE: Don't have kids! Posted by: maddy
» RE: Don't have kids! Posted by: devi
» ignore this troll Posted by: mazel
» I second that Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Don't have kids! Posted by: beachy
» RE: Don't have kids! Posted by: beachy
» RE: Don't have kids! Posted by: LMNOP
» Um, thats the POINT Posted by: repo
blame someone else
Posted by: Must have been the Roses on Jun 8, 2006 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am troubled by the leap from "Plan B is not available without a perscription" to "Bush caused my Abortion." Convervative laws on pregnancy protections are no excuse for an educated family with even minimal resources for pregnancy planning who didn't plan properly. I suggest using a better story to make the case Plan B should be available without a perscription. And believe me, there are many of them out there.

» RE: blame someone else Posted by: greenman
» RE: blame someone else Posted by: owleyes
» RE: blame someone else Posted by: owleyes
» RE: blame someone else Posted by: Aim
» RE: blame someone else Posted by: LMNOP
interesting
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jun 8, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Plan B should be readily available, and yes, the conservatives would probably love to have women like her pregnant and without an abortion option either so she'd be forced to reproduce one more white, middle class kid.

All the same, she knew she didn't use her birth control. She's an educated woman, and since she's a lawyer, I have to assume that $$ can't be that tight, so why not have her tubes tied, why not have her spouse get a vasectomy, etc? Of course I sympathize with the "we were in a hurry and didn't use protection just this once" situation, but two factors caused that unwanted pregnancy: she didn't use the contraceptive she had, and she couldn't find Plan B. Then she and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy, not Bush.

I am fully supportive of the persuasive aims of this article, but the writer's lack of self-consciousness leaves me doubtful that it would convince anyone who disagrees with Plan B or is undecided.

» wrong Posted by: sln70
Sounds Like She Needs a New Doctor
Posted by: AndyF on Jun 8, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope the author has found a new doctor. If her doctor is unwilling to prescribe Plan B she should fire the doctor and get a new one. If enough people question their doctors and pharmacists and start to hit them in the pocketbook when they take actions which hurt their patients the doctors and pharmacists will change their policies.

» Yes ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Yeah, a psychologist Posted by: JayDee
» RE: Yeah, a psychologist Posted by: JayDee
This has been happening all the time in South Dakota even before the ban !
Posted by: SDres11 on Jun 8, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the working class men and women are the forced losers. All along I knew that this "abortion" debate of pitting men and women against each other would only give the fucking elitists all the victory. Remember, the rightwing blowjobs have greater disrespect for married couples more than anyone else. A true conservative would never stoop this low.

P.S.: Martha Stewert and Ann Coulter will be getting all the "abortions" they want while working class women such as this author will continue to face mass persecution by our looney government !

Choice we make should remain free from judgement
Posted by: kooz on Jun 8, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A women's right to choose what to do with her life , body and reproductive rights, for whatever reason she makes her choices, are and always should be hers to make and hers to live with. No on, not one person, has any right to judge her. Period. End of discussion,

» RE: Libs are quick to judge Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Libs are quick to judge Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Dissent Posted by: Aim
» RE: Dissent Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Dissent Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Dissent Posted by: Jamboree
» RE: Dissent Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Dissent Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Screed Posted by: kooz
» Typical Ditto Head Posted by: LMNOP
How about the doctor?
Posted by: g on Jun 8, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pointing the finger at the author and harrumphing that she should blame herself is just vile and pointless. Contrary to what some seem to believe, concerns for the risky pregnancy and the health of the baby are very real, as well as concerns about being able to provide for the baby. But I am not going to expect compassion from people that draw so much pleasure from pointing at the straw in the neighbor's eye.
The Bush administration is guilty as charged. They haven't caused the pregnancy, for sure, but they did let their religions beliefs interfere with decisions that should prioritize the health of women. It is a well known pattern.
However, let us not forget that health care practitioners here are as guilty as the Bush administration. Shame to those who use their position of power as physicians or pharmacists to impose their religious beliefs. I hope she changed doctor. Notice that only women are penalized by this attitude. Can you imagine the reaction if physicians or pharmacists refused Viagra or equivalent to unmarried men?

MR.
Posted by: derfb1 on Jun 8, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the lady is claiming that Pres. Bush is part of her murder plot--I don't think so!

D.

» RE: MR. Posted by: WyrdSister
» A Nurse's Perspective Posted by: sigridfroid
» RE: A Nurse's Perspective Posted by: mysticpal
» RE: MR. Posted by: owleyes
Politics of Women
Posted by: Linda50 on Jun 8, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are women always the ones that needs to be "controlled"? Why is it since the dawn of time and women were delegated to be the gatherers and keeper of the children that men have to "control" women and their decisions? This woman's story is very typical of what women have to go through to be able to take care of themselves. The politics of women's bodies needs to stop. We know what's best for ourselves, no politician, no man or religion can dictate that. Now, with medical science, men can reproduce any body parts from stem cells in their scrotum. So, why do politics, religion and men feel envious that only women can reproduce?

» RE: Politics of Women Posted by: mirimac
» RE: The Nazi's were pagans Posted by: Linda50
» RE: History Posted by: CJC
» RE: The Nazi's were pagans Posted by: bornxeyed
» BIGOT? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Politics of Women Posted by: feller
» RE: Politics of Women Posted by: Linda50
» RE: Politics of Women Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Politics of Women Posted by: Linda50
Keep the Internet Alive
Posted by: nickprogresss on Jun 8, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to keep the Internet alive so we can keep having these important discussions.

Check out this short video explaining how the Internet may soon be much more like the medium of TV - highly structured and controlled by financial interests!!

Spread the word - use the Internet to save the Internet.

Step back and view the big picture, folks
Posted by: Maxwellst on Jun 8, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The single-minded focus on abortion is obsessive in our society, just as is the focus on homosexuality and on sex itself.

Abortion and homosexuality, the two hot-button issues that are so obsessed about in the US, are both related to sexual intercourse. Fixating upon them is evidence of sexual repression--perhaps caused by religious demonization of the sex act coupled (in some cases) by being a victim of sexual predatory behavior or ones own repressed sexual desire. One can oppose abortion without being mentally ill, but to call the opposition to abortion "pro-life" as if abortion were the sole cause of unjust death in the world is ludicrious and irrational.

It also suggests an unfulfilled desire to return to mythical idyllic times, in which people had large families, mom stayed at home and everyone sat up straight at the table and went to church on Sunday mornings. If you know a place like that, don't keep it to yourself. I am sure the author of this article would be happy not to be grabbing spare moments of love with her family, the way that modern life often causes us to do. It's sad, in the bigger sense, but that's the way it is.

Please compare societies in which unwanted pregnancy is dealt with more pragmatically than ours and decide for yourself which society has better mental health concerning abortion.

I am an ethical vegetarian who doesn't wear leather, who buys organic and carries bugs out of the house rather than killing them. It takes a lot of effort to lead a life in which one causes a minimum of pain and death, but I think it makes for a better world and a more personally serene state of being.

I commend people who choose not to have abortions, but that is not the same as condemning people who do. A personal decision (such as mine to not kill other sentient beings) is not a political one that should be foisted upon unwilling fellow-citizens. I would be happy if you stopped eating meat, but I am not going to work for legislation to limit your access to McDonald's.

If the author of this article had real concerns about the result of an unintended child upon the stability of her family and marriage, it is not my place to judge her. If someone wants to offset that loss of life in the world, go do good in the world. Feed a homeless person. Help fund cancer research. Help put a troubled youth back onto the right path. Send a check to earthquake victims. Don't support wars. Eat a veggie burger.

But fighting the death of a fetus with hatred and condemnation does not seem to add much good energy to the world, and draws more than a little attention to he who throws the stone. Mother Theresa had the right idea: You gain more converts by your own good works than by pelting (those whom you perceive to be) sinners.

Both sides politicized
Posted by: efjo on Jun 8, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple points:

1. It seems to me that both sides have politicized this issue. If the Plan B is allowed to be sold over the counter, it would be the riskiest and most medically invasive pill to be available OTC. If the usual safety standards were followed, and not a political agenda, the pill wouldn't even been considered as an OTC drug. (That said, I have no moral objections to Plan B, so that isn't my agenda here. I think it should be available with a prescription, and even purchasable in advance for those who believe they may need it.)

2. I hate to sound like a conservative here, but whatever happened to personal responsibility? To blame Bush (or the religious right, or even the doctor or the laws as they stand) is far-fetched at best. This woman and her husband gambled, and they lost. It doesn't make sense to blame someone else for that. Bush is wrong about all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean he's to blame for everything.

» RE: Both sides politicized Posted by: sigridfroid
» RE: Both sides politicized Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Both sides politicized Posted by: lmwilker
» Immoral Morality. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Immoral Morality. Posted by: feller
» RE: Immoral Morality. Posted by: aussidawg
The GOP made me do it.....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Jun 8, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the matter with this woman? She probably feels guilty for the murder of her unborn child and she needs to "project" her guilt onto the GOP so that she can feel better. Sorry hon....you get personal responsibility for not using the diaphragm and you get the responsibility for killing you unborn child. I do give you high marks for the attempt at absconding from your responsibility though just as any good liberal would do. ITS NEVER YOUR FAULT! Guess what? IT IS YOUR FAULT!

» Spanky, sweetie Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Spanky, sweetie Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Stupid hippie Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Stupid hippie Posted by: bornxeyed
» Thanks for that Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Oh, Spanky! Let me spell it out for you!! Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: The GOP made me do it..... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The GOP made me do it..... Posted by: lindalee
Science and the Religious Right...
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 8, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it seems are constantly at odds with this administration. This example of keeping this woman from obtaining the medication to prevent her unwanted pregnancy is but one example. The religious views of this president have also affected decisions made by the FDA, and foreign aid policy. I have heard that there is a vaccine available to prevent the sexually transmitted virus (HPV???) that can lead to cervical cancer, but that this vaccine is not being given to minors because the religious right believes that if you make this available to teens, you are encouraging promiscuity, rather than abstinance. Further, I have read that the distribution of condoms in areas where the AIDS virus is epidemic has been halted as part of the foreign aid package, and replaced with faith based abstinance programs.

Come on people, the religious rights go only as far as they don't harm someone else. (Maybe not legally, but what about morally?) The woman in the above article was obviously harmed by someone else's belief in dogma. In the case of preventing cervical cancer or AIDS, the religious right's beliefs are putting other people's lives in direct jeopardy. How in the hell can this be legal?

» NOT legal: Impeach! Posted by: sigridfroid
sue for malpractice
Posted by: zedaker on Jun 8, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
seems like a valid thing to do.

How about some tolerance and sympathy?
Posted by: CJC on Jun 8, 2006 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tenor of many of these posts is appalling. Some who do not attack Dana L for being irresponsible (they don't seem to include her husband!) and wrong take pains to distance themselves from her experience. Only two pointed out that Dana L was as badly served by her unresponsive ob/gyn, internist, and midwifery practice as by the FDA's failure to let Plan B be available without a prescription.
What's the lesson - don't have sex on Thursday because if you can't get through to the medical profession on Friday you can't get Plan B?

Dana L was brave to publish her story. Our puritanical roots make any public discussion of sex so highly charged that reason and good sense go right out the window. No wonder most people won't talk about the abortions they've been involved in - the men who have helped and supported sisters, girlfriends, daughters, wives etc etc get abortions they wanted and the women who have had them.

In my own ordinary circle of family and friends I've known of several abortions - to teenagers, college students, newly married, and mothers with all the children they could cope with. None of these abortions was done without regret and anguish. All these women are excellent and loving mothers each of them to two or more children; two are pediatricians.

Let she and he who have never made a mistake in their lives cast the first stone. The rest of us normal mortals should be in favor of easily accessible and inexpensive birth control and unjudgmental, accessible, and safe abortion. Sadly our country is in a very regressive and controlling frame of mind. May enlightenment and good sense come again soon!

Get backup ahead of time
Posted by: youngdem on Jun 8, 2006 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A number of groups now recommend that you get a prescription for Plan B ahead of time - this article is an excellent illustration of why.
I don't blame the author for not doing so, obviously her method had worked well for her for years, and EC *should* be just a phone call away. But it's not. I commend the author for sharing her real life experience.

Websites to help you find a provider fast:
http://ec.princeton.edu/
http://www.backupyourbirthcontrol.org/howto/index.htm

1-888-NOT-2-LATE
(English)

Abortion should be the last line of defense
Posted by: quetlin on Jun 8, 2006 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point to me is that the woman’s first line of defense was not available when she and her husband had a spontaneous romantic encounter. They elected to use the second line of defense, the am-after pill, so they would not have to spoil an otherwise all too rare moment together. They believed the second line of defense was available or they may have diverted their passion somewhat. They found out, to their dismay, the AM after pill was not available as needed, but a song and dance was necessary to even find a provider within the specified time frame a time frame they could not meet through no fault of their own.
The next day, they were denied by the doctor’s personal choice due to his philosophy, which he did not disclose to his patients. Due to Bush’s philosophy, the doctor even had such a choice. This is the system philosophically headed and endorsed by Bush to punish people for married sex by withholding the second line of defense
The overbooked Planned Parenthood clinic did not have emergency services available, probably because abstinence religious based clinics who shared Bush’s philosophy got the money instead.
So, she went to the third line of defense, an abortion after the sperm and egg came together and implanted -instead of being able to use a measure to prevent this step.

"If men could get pregnant....
Posted by: babs on Jun 8, 2006 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... abortion would be a sacrament."

Any person that doesn't have a womb or ovaries, or can't carry a baby to term, has absolutely no opinion on the subject of abortion. If they do, they are hypocrites and should be ignored.

And don't spew religious dogma - the bible says we should stone prostitutes to death and turn the other cheek to our enemies - where would Vegas or the Iraq war be then?

Sure, men can have a say (that is, if they are willing to support a child from cradle to grave), but the final decision is made by the person who grows and bears the babies. Period.

» Hey...A good idea appears Posted by: Kelly
» Yeah, right. Posted by: Aim
» RE Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: You are abslutely right Posted by: lindalee
» RE: I don't know about that Posted by: libgal
» RE: You are abslutely right Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: You are abslutely right Posted by: Linda50
Using regular BC pills for emergency contraception
Posted by: doctorsquared on Jun 8, 2006 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you have had unprotected sex and are unable to find / fill a prescription for Plan B (levonorgestrel 0.75 mg 2 doses, 12 hours apart), you can also use "regular" combined oral contraceptive pills in larger-than-normal doses. Here is a website (through Princeton University) that tells you the specific instructions for each brand of pill. Of course, it's always better to go to your doctor if she/he is willing to prescribe emergency contraception; even if you can't or your doctor will not do so, you should still follow up with your doctor about a week after you use EC of any kind just to be on the safe side.

Hot Button Issues
Posted by: coyote on Jun 8, 2006 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story, no matter how sympathetic, is designed to trigger outrage. If the left starts screaming, the right will scream too and this November will be about Roe VS. Wade, not wiretapping, not war, not corruption in politics.
I think if we are going to discuss this issue it should be to agree that abortion is a tragedy and there should be fewer of them.....and change the subject.
Grown children dying in Iraq, the future of our existence in the face of diminishing resources, these are the things that we are losing when we are fooled into planting a flag on the abortion issue.

You Aborted Not George Bush
Posted by: feller on Jun 8, 2006 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take Responsibility. Oh wait a minute. That is so not cool. After all, we are supposed to have it all.

Not that simple
Posted by: midge on Jun 8, 2006 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's frustrating to me how this is always framed as a left vs. right issue. It used to be that simple for me, and my conviction to what I thought was a fundamental right never wavered. But then I came across some sobering discoveries that prompted me to think more deeply about the issue, and it's not that simple for me now. Due to more powerful and accurate testing and technology, parents can find out whether or not the fetus has or may develop disabilities or even mild, correctable conditions like cleft palate or club feet. Which is alright in and of itself, but here's the thing: many parents are opting to abort in these situations-even when only the mild treatable conditions are present. Something I often hear mentioned is the reminder that we should be focusing on improving the lives of those who are already here. Well, that's something that effects those of us who are already here. It isn't too pleasant to go your whole life being treated differently by many people and even looked down on (and for adherents to the quality of life argument, these are things that can easily be improved) and then find out that many people perceive you and others like you as a burden and don't think your life is worth living. If this continues, it could further stigmatize people with disabilites by sending this message and by the decreased numbers of disabled people. People will not have as much exposure, and we will be less visible to the point where it wouldn't seem important to improve things for us. This could lead more parents to abort, until there are hardly any people with physical or cognitive disablities or even people who just differ from the norm neurologically or physically (which is how I'd actually describe disabled people, but that's a whole 'nother post...). You can talk about improving things for those of us that are here using other progressive measures, but when society is basically being told at the same time that people find us too big a burden, that our lives wouldn't be good enough, it's pretty hard to do. And anyway, for every 10 articles I see on progressive sites that discuss reproductive rights, I see maybe 1 talking about improving the lives of disabled people or celebrating neurological and physical diversity, so it's clear which one is more important to the movement. The definition of personhood (a sentient being) used to ethically justify abortion also harms those already here. It harms disabled people in the ways described above; it also harms the elderly and infants in that it can be used to justify euthanizing them, even without their consent or the consent of their loved ones (as has happened in the Netherlands). Disabled people, infants, and elderly people with cognitive disorders were defined as non-persons another time in history, in Germany in the late '30's. African Americans were defined as 3/5's of a person (because of their perceived lack of intelligence) in the early 19th century. Why is it that when personhood is defined by hate groups we dismiss it, and when it is defined by a group of intellectuals in a way that leaves out certain groups of people it's ok? What's to stop people from creating their own logically sound definitions of personhood? Maybe this all sounds extreme, but the thing I'm getting at here is, where do we draw the line? If the arguments used for abortion rights can also be used against some groups of people already here (If the fetus is not a person due to certain characteristics, then it logically follows that other people who lack those characteristics are not persons either) must we allow it to be used that way, or is their a compromise? Is it ethical to allow parents to abort their child on the grounds that it has a disability or even a mild, treatable condition with the possibility that all of them would do so, basically resulting in a form of eugenics? How do we decide, who is right? I think this is one of the most complex issues out there.

» RE: Not that simple Posted by: Kelly
» RE: Not that simple Posted by: Callibrarian
The GOP Forced Me to Have an Abortion
Posted by: KUCING on Jun 8, 2006 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Dana L.

I hope you are up to a bit of irony. The GOP didn't force you, on the contrary the GOP's so-called Christian backers will be all too happy to consign you to hell for this abortion. I have that on the authority of Dubya - whom God speaks to - himself. And to think of diaphragms. Sin! SIN! S I N ! All those innocent spermatozoids being stopped from achieving their life's goal! Really!

Don't Put the Blame on Men.
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 8, 2006 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not by any means agreeing with the author's inability to get the plan B medication. However, in response to several posts regarding her problem, I must ask that you not blame men for the problem. C'mon, it takes two to tango (with the exception of rape), and women, like it or not, you are the ones built to carry the child. Neither I nor any other men made this decision, Mom Nature did. If anyone is to blame for the inability of her being able to get the Plan B meds., it is the "moralists" of the Christian right, and this bunch of hexed nuts consists of both men and women.

Please understand, I'm on your side on this arguement, and truly believe the Plan B alternative should be available over the counter, and as long as it remains prescription only, no physician or pharmacist should be able to refuse this need based on personal opinion. These folks are supposed to be professionals, not preachers.

I see a lot of posters commenting on the author's lack of responsibility. Well, she described her situation of not having much time together with her husband, and well...the act of sex generally is rather spontaneous. Not a whole lot of people out there (including you "Christian" types) sit down and discuss what their options are to avoiding an unwanted pregnancy immediately prior to having sex. Look, she had a reasonable expectation of having the Plan B option available to her. Her expectation was dashed by several self serving (and rather selfish) zealots. Sorry all you righteous types, I lay the blame for this one on you, not her.

Ever accidentally gotten pregnant? No? Then don't judge.
Posted by: boygranddakar on Jun 8, 2006 10:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many, many reasons why women have accidental pregnancies. To those who blame the author for getting caught up in the moment - what are you? Monks?

Every woman who has been sexually active with men has had a pregnancy scare at one time or another, and not necessarily because she was "irresponsible." Think of how many times a married couple will make love during a lifetime. Who can expect a 100% safe-sex rate in that time? Condoms break. Diaphragms are not fail-safe for all women. Moreover, there are women whose fertility simply defies many otherwise reliable forms of birth control. It just happens.

NO ONE has the right to judge whether or not a woman should continue a pregnancy to term or terminate it. Women in this position make the most ethical decision that they can while considering a myriad of factors including health, economics, family situation, and personal morals.

Those of you who condemn the author for making the decision she did - and for blaming Bush and conservative Christians for barring her way to take steps to AVOID an abortion - need to mediate on the ethics of throwing the first stone.

Many people on the right think that leftists are "obsessed" with abortion rights and think the left is a one-issue movement. Wrong. They have myopia because it's the issue that seems to push their buttons the most.

The left has many issues - economic equity, workers' rights, environmentalism, social justice for marginalized groups, better health care for all... the list could go on and on. But, as part of a larger agenda, abortion rights SHOULD be protected. Like abolishing the death penalty, it's an obvious moral imperative that many developed nations made into law a long time ago.

It's about protecting women's health and women's LIVES. It's about having children that are well-provided for. It's about individual rights. It's about religious freedom, and the freedom not to be religious, and the freedom not to be governed by someone else's religion. It's about having a safer, more compassionate nation for everyone.

To me, those who oppose abortion rights are simply sexist. Although "it takes two to tango," women literally bear the burden of having children - the physical stress of being pregnant, the social stigma of peers from whom a woman cannot hide her "mistake," and, potentially, the economic responsibility of her health care and the care of the child that is born if the man decides to abandon her. Laws that create barriers to abortion say, in essence, that a woman cannot be trusted to have the moral and ethical intelligence to make the right decision - so the state must make it for her. I cannot imagine that this would be the case if men could get pregnant.

The U.S. needs to join other developed nations and guarantee women - and girls - access to birth control, sexuality education, and abortion. Better access to the two former would surely reduce need for the latter - and it would have for the author, too.

Conflating Contraception With Abortion
Posted by: Eithne on Jun 9, 2006 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has never been proven that Plan B or any other birth control pill interferes with the implantation of a fertilized ovum. This is a theory that was first proposed over 30 years ago that has never been successfully tested or proven.

What has been proven is that Plan B (and other birth control pills) prevent ovulation.

Due to the difficulty inherent in such testing, the theory of prevention of implantation has never been tested. It is a theory that was derived via inference but not based on any real data.

So I'm not sure on what grounds any doctor who prescribes birth control pills would refuse to prescribe Plan B. The doctor in question was obviously willing to prescribe a diaphragm, which is just different way of preventing sperm from reaching ova.

if anything
Posted by: repo on Jun 9, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
most of the reasons FOR bringing a child into the world are shallow and selfish.

"i want someone to carry on the family name"
"i want someone that is going to love me"
"i want someone that i can impart my values onto"
"if i have this kid, then its father has to pay me child support"

in this overpopulated world, NOT having children could be the most altruistic thing you could do

» RE: Altruism Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Truth Hurts Posted by: Aim
» RE: Truth Hurts Posted by: Aim
» RE: Some laws are necessary Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Truth Hurts Posted by: bornxeyed
» PLEASE don't feed... Posted by: doctorsquared
Reproductive and other choices.
Posted by: CJC on Jun 9, 2006 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giving up a baby for adoption is a choice about reproduction. Women do it often.

Abortion is rarely treated as murder except rhetorically. Even when abortion is absolutely legally prohibited neither the woman having the abortion, the provider of the abortion, nor anyone paying for or procuring the abortion is charged with murder. Again, except rhetorically, no one treats the fertilized egg or the extremely immature embryo or fetus as a full human life. Up to 50% of fertilized eggs never develop. Even 20% of recognized pregnancies result in early miscarriage. Where are the funerals? The unwanted loss of a fetus may cause a great deal of sadness and grief, but we don't treat the event as a death.

As for the paradox that many of those most passionately opposed to abortion also are in favor of the death penalty and even support preemptive war, it confirms that the issue is more about control of others' (mostly women's) behavior than it is about protecting life.

Choose to be compassionate.

» RE: Adoption. Posted by: Maryanne
» RE: Adoption. Posted by: Maryanne
Lack of adequate care for women
Posted by: Taraerin on Jun 9, 2006 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can agree that this administration in particular is the ultimate cause of unwanted pregnancies, further levels of poverty, etc. as they continue to cut funding for health services which includes birth control that poor women cannot get, let alone Type B prescription. Only those of higher monetary living level are able to, but only to a point. The administration cuts funds for various health care for women, what are women to do? Gynecological health as well as general health are the most important health issues for women and the administration does not care. This administration also continues to push Abstinence only Education which is incomplete and incorrect and condemned by medical associations, etc. because of it's inaccuracies. As a result of incorrect sexuality education STD's have risen.
I am totally supportive of this woman who had the abortion. Each case is different and it is only their choice no one else's!

» RE: Abstinance works Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Abstinance works Posted by: mazel
Hypocrite
Posted by: HereticChick on Jun 9, 2006 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems the only life you consider sacred is that of the almight fetus. It's OK to kill Iraqis, but not some non-sentient fetus that hasn't been born yet. Hypocrite!

» RE: Idiot Posted by: kooz
» Faulty Logic Posted by: feller
» RE: Faulty Logic Posted by: mokidugway
» RE: Faulty Logic Posted by: feller
Life begins
Posted by: In Pittsburgh on Jun 10, 2006 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government already knows when life begins and it is when the government gives you a deduction on your income tax and gives you the right to retire. Life begins upon birth and that is when Social Security starts. The IRS deduction does not begin 9 months from the date of birth and Social Security benefits do not start at 61 years, 3 month of age. And this is coming from the Bush Administration.

» RE: Life begins Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Life begins Posted by: bornxeyed
» So Bill Clinton Was God? Posted by: feller
Boycott
Posted by: In Pittsburgh on Jun 10, 2006 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boycott (or Girlcott) all doctors who morally don't want to prescibe Plan B. Morally I don't want to pay taxes to support the war, faith based initiatives, toll roads, artic drilling, the CIA, FBI surveillance and environmental abuse. But I have to.
Will we allow doctors to refuse to treat patients who eat meat because they are morally against the killing of animals?

» RE: Boycott dipshits Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Did somebody say something? Posted by: aussidawg
What happened to making your own decisions?
Posted by: scoxevanescence on Jun 10, 2006 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her reasons weren't selfish. To say so is ridiculous. She was concerned about her health and the health of the baby if she were to have it. The facts are it is much more dangerous to have a child at her age, and not wanting to put herself nor someone else in danger because of it is perfectly acceptable. By saying otherwise, you are stating that this woman does not have the right to make love to her husband unless she wants to have another child. Which she has every right in the world to do, she's a big girl and is obviously capable of making her own decisions. Yes, I agree, more precautions could have been taking. But she shouldn't suffer the consequences because the Government doesn't believe in allowing people to make their own decisions and believe what they want to. I understand the whole "it's still killing a life" religious perspective. But if it had been you, would you rather kill a child that was barely alive to begin with or risk it living a life of suffer because the risks of having a perfectly healthy baby this late in life are so low? She has already shown us that she was not in the best condition and didn't want to put someone else in the same position. It was her decision to make, and religious protestors and government officials shouldn't have made it so difficut for her. Maybe it wasn't the wisest decision to make. She had options. But it's her decision to make, not yours, not the government, and I think we should respect her for this.

» It's a killing NOt a Choice Posted by: feller
OTC Medicines
Posted by: Maryanne on Jun 10, 2006 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today at each check out counter at the supermarket was a warning notice that no one under the age of 18 can purchase cough medicine and only with identification. This did not come from the FDA which would have a concern about the abuse of the substances in this medication but from the US Government under the PATRIOT ACT!

If the government is going to limit access to OTC medicines does this mean that those of us who use these are potential terrorists? Does it mean that it can start restricting all other OTC medicines under this act? deny filling doctor's prescriptions under this act?

Big Brother is taking care of us. However, being intellegent and well educated, I feel that I can make the best decisions for myself. I do NOT need some nameless bureaucrat who knows nothing about me, who is not even in the medical field, making such decisions.

» i.d.s required because of meth Posted by: Must have been the Roses
Making Abortion isn't the answer!!!
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 10, 2006 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoa everybody!!! First, the Plan B is contraception. It is the same hormone used in birth control pills. I think the person on Alternet to consult on this issue is ssegallmd, because he is a trained physician. If I am mistaken on this point, surely he can resolve the technicalities. I am opposed to abortion, BUT, only as a form of birth control when other methods haven't been tried. This issue deals with many variables, including the health of the pregnant woman, the circumstances of the pregnancy, and the future health of the child. I am a male, and don't understand the effects that this proceedure has on a woman, so...I really cannot impose my viewpoint on women, and don't want to. Further, I don't feel that it is the government's place to make that decision.

I guess the way I look at it is that abortion is a KNOWN proceedure, like it or not. If we choose to outlaw abortions, they won't be stopped, rather, like drugs, be regulated by the black market. This is an issue of keeping women SAFE, period. If Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, women will once again be forced to use "back alley" practitioners to perform their abortion rather than a safe and certified M.D. The outcome of this will simply be more death, and that is by no means a solution.

p.s. Mr/Ms ssegallmd, I hope I didn't tread on your ground by referring to you, but I do think you could be an authority on this, and I respect your knowledge on the subject. Thanks!!!

» Thanks Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Thanks Posted by: aussidawg
Sex + Stupidity = Unwanted pregnancy
Posted by: LieMeNot on Jun 11, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You had a good time, got pregnant, and blame Bush?
Dont make sense to me.

A better title would have been "The Politicization of the FDA"
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 11, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion is a non-issue unless you are a woman. It's just a wedge issue - something the Republicans throw out to rile up their looney fundemantalist base, like gay marriage. In the upcoming election cycle, look to Karl Rove to play on abortion and gay marriage while doing his utmost to avoid the topics of stolen elections, global warming, alternative energy, domestic spying and the unending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The FDA plays along with Republican political goals because the Republicans have allowed Big Pharma to load FDA panels with their employees, ensuring a smooth ride for their drug marketing practices. Quid pro quo - you help us keep our looney fundies happy, we'll let you dump dangerous drugs onto the US market for profit maximization. Keep those donations coming!

The FDA is starting to smell really, really foul - the stench is no longer ignorable.

» Life is Tragic Posted by: feller
ridiculous!
Posted by: ac1d8urn on Jun 11, 2006 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, let me state that I myself am a woman. I had an abortion 7 years ago, so obviously I am pro-choice, and I would most likely do it again if I was faced with an unwanted pregnancy that would result in a baby I could not care for. BUT- I do not agree with what this woman did.

I could tell right away that this woman is a lawyer b/c she does an excellent job of slanting the facts and placing blame everywhere but where it belongs.

Plan B SHOULD be available OTC. But nobody "forced" this woman to do anything. The GOP did not cause her to use poor judgement and neglect her birth control. A "rush of passion" is no excuse for irresponsibility! It is also not the government's fault that she did not try hard enough to get the Plan B pill. Her going to only one or two clinics doesn't exactly sound like she was too worried. When I was faced with my unfortunate choice at age 18, I had to call clinic after clinic & ended up having to drive to another STATE because no one in my town would perform abortions past 13 weeks(I was 13 & 1/2 weeks. Ridiculous, I know). My point is, if it was such an emergency, she would have tried harder to get that pill.

What happened to her is nobody's fault but her own. She's only writing articles like this because she's trying to shrug off her irresponsibility & save face.

» RE: ridiculous! Posted by: fork
» RE: ridiculous! Posted by: repo
» RE: ridiculous! Posted by: fork
As for your statement on Saddam
Posted by: Liberty777 on Jun 11, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for the part on Saddam- The way you represented his supporting of terrorism makes it apparent you believe he funded the suicide bombers' actions when it was that Saddam funded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers once they had blown themselves up. So in other words Saddam gave the families money once they had done so. This is not what it would appear to be representing in that Saddam funded the actions as opposed to the truth which would be that he basically provided the families with his gratitude. Don't take this as me condoning any such action either as it seems you like to take things out of context. Now the whole idea about Saddam funding Al-Qaeda in any way is unfounded and this was key in the run up to war. (It should be obvious that war was the first and only option to W by now.) The Administration just wanted reasons to deceive the public once it found there was nothing to link Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Nothing that has been brought forward to the public at least has suggested that Saddam would have even looked to do such a thing as fund Al-Qaeda. The training camps that were believed to be proof of the Al-Qaeda Iraq connection were in fact a part of Saddam's preparation for the resistance to the U.S. military. While Saddam's regime's reign of tyranny speaks for itself there are terrible things that go on every day to people all over the world. Please try to see things realistically and within reason. Saddam is as bad as they come and no one can deny that, but even if you think the U.S. did a good thing to remove him how could you trust the planners/architechts of this war to do the right thing when it is obvious the removal of Saddam was the only thing they planned to take seriously enough to get right? Even if the top brass like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had their hearts in the right place wouldn't it have done some good to listen to those who were telling them that they had ignored crucial prewar intelligence from the State department and CIA in particular and would be in for some kind of surprise if they thought the war would be over after the regime fell? Like guerilla warfare/civil war due to the tribes' history, religious implications, power vacuum? Ontop of it all are the lies and misrepresentations of the truth that lead people to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and/or Al-Qaeda, or that he had WMDs that he could attack the U.S. with relatively soon. AND THAT IS THE POINT! Saddam was not a threat to the United States especially not with WMDs and especially not because he funded Al-Qaeda. If it was in our best interests (best interest to most of us means our safety, to guys like Cheney it means profitting from an open economy in a country with lots of oil) to take Saddam and his Baathist regime down it would have beenwhen Bush I was in office, but even he saw how difficult that would have proven to be when considering the aftermath/ Phase IV if you will of his son's war/reconstruction period. But the neo-cons in charge with their apparent desire for freeing the world of tyranny and bringing democracy to the world failed to see their arrogance as tantamount to ignorance.

madelinefan
Posted by: madelinefan on Jun 11, 2006 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you voted for Bush, you have not only killed Iraqi babies, but well over 2,000 American soldiers who were someone's baby at some time. Crawl back under your rock, you hypocrite!

Severely Disturbed...
Posted by: lythandrel on Jun 13, 2006 2:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is proving that thecurrent state of government is attempting to slowly chip away at womens rights, and patients rights. I prefer the government to keep their laws off my body.

What's severely disturbing is that even if her doctor were to prescribe Plan B for the writer of this article, there is still a chance that the pharmacist would refuse to fill it, or the pharmacy tech refuse to ring up the sale based on their moral issues. There are no protections in place for the patient, yet states are passing laws to protect the pharmacist who is directly objecting to a doctors written order or the cashier or pharmacy tech who refuses to ring up the prescription sale. The patients rights are being usurped in favour of personal issues which are supposed to be kept out of the medical field in the first place.

South Dakota has already put a ban on abortions, and the same group that lobbied for getting that ban passed, is also trying to get birth control banned as well. I view this as an abomination unto our rights and freedoms in this country. Once something like this passes in a state, it often leads to debate on a federal level. If things continue to snowball in this direction, there's a possibility that women will be barefoot, pregnant, and back in the kitchen. Married couples would no longer have the right to plan when they want or if they want to have a family. If they wanted to hold off on children, they would have to hold off on sex. To me this is utter insanity.

To make things worse, due to the size of Texas, textbooks for much of the US are decided by what the state of Texas requires for their school board. Currently, Texas is teaching abstinence only sexual education in health classes. It's a proven fact that states that teach abstinence only education have higher teenage pregnancy rates, and STD transmission, because these teens are not taught how NOT to get pregnant and not taught about safer sex. It's quite obvious these teens are NOT abstaining. While abstinence is the ONLY way not to get STDs or pregnant, these teens NEED to be taught what is necessary to arm themselves against the possibilities in the case they choose not to abstain.

The US is supposed to have a separation of church and state, however, religion is further encroaching into the government on a daily basis.

Brilliant! Now how about some common sense.
Posted by: Gakl on Jun 13, 2006 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You gotta love the arguments of the pro-life-until-birth crowd.

It’s a small amalgamation of cells. You're talking about a mass of cells that's mentally indistinguishable from a hamster, if that. Sometimes, smaller than a grain of sand. Barely, worth a glimmer in a 14 year-old’s eye as he shoots a protein surprise into his hand while thinking about Britney Spears.

It is amazing the lack of compassion that so called Christians have for people in difficult circumstances, faced with a tragic choices. It is amazing the lack of dehumanization that those who push such an anti-liberty agenda. If those who presume to judge others really had as much faith as they claim, they wouldn't rush to judge others and control them in this life. Rather, they would know that God would judge those who have acted inappropriately in the next. So why not put your faith to the test?

Meanwhile, one man's law should stop another woman’s body and we should all do our best to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. Now abstinence and the promotion of such is all nice, fluffy, and fine. Hell, I’m for it. You should be too. It’s a noble goal, but meanwhile, people are going to continue to “get it on” as it were as we have for untold millions of years (or thousands if your reality does not share a liberal bias). Unfortunately, reality isn’t so nice. That’s why we’re over in Iraq, killing terrorists, and lots of unlucky people who just so happen to be poor and brown. It sucks, but we deal with it. Unfortunately, reality isn’t so nice. That’s why we’re over in Iraq, killing terrorists, and lots of unlucky people who just so happen to be poor and brown. It sucks, we may try to stop it, and still fail.

Now, good intentions stop being good, when they turn to idiocy. Preventing women from obtaining viable contraception that can avoid pregnancy is utter lunacy if you’re stated goal is to prevent abortions. If that is your goal, please, by all means prove it and step up to the plate. Unintended pregnancies should be avoided. Otherwise, what you’re doing is trying to prevent sex. That’s simply ridiculous. It’s a perfectly natural, necessary, and healthy thing for two loving adult human beings. The world will be a better place if the unkind things you wish to say toward people you disagree with are kept to yourselves.

The only thing worse than an unintended pregnancy is an unwanted child. That is a tragedy and tragedies must be avoided.

tk
Posted by: Laura Barcella on Jun 15, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
tk

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement