For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org
What if one day you woke up to a news story like this?
Feb 24: Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization's previously stated mission of saving the "unborn" had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, "The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," by which Perkins means having sex.Now, of course, comes that part in the movie where you realize the main character has been dreaming. Screechy music... Of course, the report is true, as are the quotes in this story, but the so-called anti-abortion movement refuses to admit that its long held political and fundraising habits have worked too well to now be abandoned, and so continues to resist common cause (and common sense). And the equally habit worn media continues to cover this story as if there are really two equally sincere but unfortunately opposed voices. Americans want this common sense approach. The fringe doesn't. In fact, 80 percent of voters believe that women won't achieve full equality without access to family planning and 72 percent want federal funding to help pay for birth control for low-income women. Now that the enabler in chief is out of office, hopefully the marginal will be marginalized, and along with them their media enablers.The acknowledgment that his moral agenda trumps his professed desire to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, comes on the heels of a new report released today by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-partisan policy institute frequently cited by both sides of the abortion debate. The report found that increasing access to contraception is the most effective approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and the need for abortion. That report specifically concluded that making contraception available to low income women reduces the number of abortions by nearly 40%. When birth control isn't available unintended pregnancy increases by 2 million and the number of abortions spikes by more than 800,000 each year. Researchers noted that providing contraception saves taxpayers 4 times as much as not providing it.
Some 91% of Americans favor contraception and so were startled to discover that groups which claim to be against abortion oppose the very strategy that results in significant declines in abortion. Instead, in a further shock, they support policies that researchers show lead to sharp increases in unintended pregnancy and abortion rate. Many ordinary self-described "pro-life" Americans were confused by news of the seemingly incomprehensible, yet universally-held, position of groups that have, for decades, promoted themselves as opponents of abortion.
In light of the new information, other groups formerly considered anti-abortion indicated that deep and long-held political grudges played a primary role in their unwillingness to support policies that reduce abortion. Troy Newman of Operation Rescue told the AP, "It's another Planned Parenthood bailout," referring to largest provider of prevention services in the US, "It covers their overhead."
Sometimes referred to as "The Pro-life Paradox," researchers and women's health advocates in recent years have drawn attention to the disparities between the mission statements of so-called "anti-abortion" groups and the effects of their policies. For example, the countries considered the most "pro-choice," where contraception is widely available and abortion is legal, and often free of charge, are those that also have the lowest abortion rates in the world. The countries with the highest rates of abortion are those that have adopted the policies of the so-called "anti-abortion" movement and have banned abortion and opposed efforts to make contraception more widely available.
This post originally appeared on RH Reality Check--Information, commentary and community for Reproductive Health and Justice.
A similar situation exists with the DEA. Without illegal drug traffic, there would be far less reason for it to exist. The repeal of the Volstead Act significantly reduced the beaurocracy (and the budget and public clout) of agencies monitoring the production and sale of alcoholic beverages, and much of the opposition to repeal came from those who were involved in Volstead Act enforcement. The paradoxical behavior noted in this post should be expected when organizational survival is at stake.
Your DEA analogy is flawed in that it's sort of like saying - without illegal aliens there would be no need for a border control agency... ah... no kidding.
This is murder... you want to claim that it should be legal in the event there's physical (key-word) danger to the Mother, ok, done. Other wise, this sickness needs to stop...
I really don't care if you and your friends think Abortion is a last resort or not... it needs to stop. Have you seen these pictures? You're ok with that?
Abortion... the only "Right" we don't encourage and celebrate...
However, Ms Page, you appear to slam the "Pro-Life" group for using the same tactics that you employ to put forth your case.. You are standing up for your philosophy and encouraging others to do the same against all opposition.
What is wrong with the pro-lifers doing the same? The "dream" with which you have painted this "horrible" picture is just as manipulative and skewed as any that I have seen in their camp. I see little difference on either side. They see this as something wrong. They speak out. Why is that anymore of them "forcing their morality on us" than is your course of action. You seem to say that you want them to not only allow you your right to abortions, but to celebrate you for them. How absurd.
I am no one but a father who has lost a daughter as an infant and three children to miscarriage, none of which is to sing a sad song, but simply to ask who is actually being manipulated. Do you believe that liberal politicians are no less "empire builders" than conservatives. Forget "public servant". They are first and foremost politicians. Each "side" has its own agenda, and primary on that is staying in office.
For liberals, you seem to be very narrow minded.
Simon
I have no problem with people thinking it's wrong to have an abortion - I don't expect them to get one. But I do have a problem with them trying to take away my right to have one. It's MY body.
The Pill, which IS expensive, is not safe, anyway, especially for women over 35.
I have known those groups were anti-birth control since at least 1980. Why are you surprised? Their approach is based on a moral viewpoint that believes they must rein in the 'bad' behavior. It is judgmental, but not illegal. And in some ways they have a point. Birth control is NOT foolproof--I have one child that resulted from a 'failure' situation. The Pill lead to free love and the Sexual Revolution, and look where that got us. But BC does USUALLY work to prevent a baby--so I am all for it.
The problem is not that the government does not fund abortions. For most women, regardless of wealth or status, the pill did not lead to 'free love.' The biggest contributor to the problem is the attitude of some religious groups that dictate their mores on society as a whole. Schools should teach age-appropriate sex classes that includes birth control and prevention of STD. Parents and religious groups should supplement what the schools teach by instructing their children in their religion's believes and practices. The church can reward or punish their own members, but does not have direct responsibility for the beliefs or practices of others.
My thought is, 'Your priest and our legislator is not welcome in my bedroom.'
I am an over 50 woman, pro-abstinence by choice, and also, in favor of abortion remaining legal.
Government needs to hold men (even teens)financially responsible,including employers in wage deductions.
Yes, those are the same clergy who are sexually abusing BOTH girls and boys, but they are petophiles, not gay. Gay persons would never sexually assault children, since their attention is to people more near their age. The Catholic bishops and the pope got this wrong too, although there are many gays among the clergy, but it is sick pedophiles who abuse children. Of course, many men who go into the priesthood, it seems, enter because they're gay or their petophiles, and because they want an excuse not to get married.
When I was a social worker working with teenagers I had a pregnant, white sixteen-year-old in my caseload. When the case was reviewed loud, clanging bells went off. A HEALTH, WHITE NEWBORN AVAILABLE. Ooops, a Pat Roberston connected agency was involved. The child arrived, the girl changed her mind and kept the child--and then ran off with a guy. The teenage mother's mother moved toward adopting her grandaughter. The "loving" adoption agency pressured (harassed) the grandmother telling her that she was "too old" to adopt the baby, anong other nasties. THIS IS WHAT REALLY GOES ON. THE CHILD IS A COMMODITY FOR A BUSINESS. WAKE UP AND LOOK BEYONDE THE "HOLY" RHETORIC. Common Ground--prevent unintended pregnancies.
Sincerely,
Ruby Jo
The left wants to remove life of the unborn (they'll eventually be born), but not via capital punishment.
The right wants to remove life via capital punishment (they'll eventually die), but not the unborn.
That is life's sick humor I guess...
Try living outside the box -- you will probably like it.