Reply #1: They are not pro-life, they are forced-birth...

[ljm2002]

...yes I know I am a broken record on this, but we need to use a short, accurate term with a negative connotation that carries some emotional punch. "Forced-birth" is a 100% accurate description of what this so-called movement all about. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being "pro-life", as the cited article points out. Their whole agenda is to force women and girls, once impregnated, to carry that baby to term and deliver it regardless of circumstances.

I do realize that this term "pro-life" was used for the Forbes article and simply repeated by the OP. But still the point needs to be made: as long as we keep calling them what they wish to be called, we only hurt ourselves. If we accept that they are "pro-life", then what does that make us? For obvious linguistic reasons, the phrase that springs to mind is anti-life. But that is not accurate at all. And calling them "anti-choice", while true, carries no emotional punch.

It is 2011 and we are going backwards. 10 states out of 50 have enacted laws that make it difficult for women to get even early-term abortions. Clinic availability has been going down in many of the other states, and in some places doctors who provide abortions risk assassination. The regressives are winning this battle, and it makes me heartsick to watch it happen.