We are framing this issue wrong: pro-choice

[noamnety]

We need to redefine the pro-choice/pro-life debate. The difference between the candidates is not "for abortion rights/against abortion rights." The difference is actually that Kerry supports alternatives that can prevent unwanted pregancies, while the Bush administration opposes women having any decision making power except for abstinence.

I don't know the right soundbite for that. Pro-choice has become synonymous with abortion specifically, we need a new phrase that reflects prevention rights. That sounds lame, I'm sure there's a better phrase. I think we can pick up a significant number of pro-life votes, if the issue is not "should abortion be legal" but rather "should birth control be available?" I don't believe most pro-life people are so right-wing that they oppose birth control in general. Many understand that birth control reduces abortions. If single women were appropriately concerned about the possibility of their right to use any birth control being curtailed, they would go to the polls.

If you look at the specifics of these Bush appointees: http://ideamouth.com/appointments_and_disappointments.h... you can see the pattern - they oppose birth control as a concept. I haven't seen this in the media at all. How can we get this out there as an issue?

[kestrel91316]

1. You misunderestimate conservatives................

Many conservatives strongly believe that birth control should not be available to ANYONE; that if you are not married than you must be abstinent; and if you are married then sex is for procreating. Period. These neanderthals DO exist, and they don't hesitate to speak their minds on any number of forums.

[kikiek]

9. I think you're right. Recently there was a pharmacist that refused to

fill a woman's prescription for birth control because it was against their religious beliefs. What kind of damage did the pope do when he told people in Africa that condoms won't prevent aids because he is against birth control? Unfortunately common sense doesn't prevail when religion is involved. If you don't believe in abortion don't have one. Don't decide for me. Keep religion out of politics completely period.

[noamnety]

13. pharmacist refusing to fill prescription

Right there is our story. We need a few actual people, I think, who have been denied contraceptives, to become a poster child for the cause.

Phase 2: find a single woman who wants to be a poster child for sex out of wedlock. That's the hard part, eh?

[kikiek]

14. Yah actually the woman it happened to was getting it for hormone

therapy not that it should matter. The pharmacists have an organization that supports their belief system I read. Also some MD's are refusing to prescribe them. I read a story about a ob/gyn who wouldn't prescribe them. Like living in fantasyland. Prevention magazine was where I read it http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,2479,s1-7342-P,00.html the hormone therapy case is farther down. That was MD who refused.

[NMDemDist2]

10. explains their foul attitude doesn't it?

extreme horniness makes people cranky ROFL

[Toots]

17. And that is why their husbands fuck around on them

Republicans are notorious for screwing around on their wives. Think Hyde, Livingston, Gingrich, Barr, etc. etc.

[GiovanniC]

57. H. L. Mencken

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry."

[Sparkly]

2. I think it's all part of the same thing: Reproductive Freedom

You definitely have a point. This administration has instituted global gag orders, cutting funding from clinics that even mention abortion or lobby their own governments for it -- even though the funding was for birth control! (Yet the headlines here read it as "Bush cuts funding for overseas abortion," which we didn't fund to begin with.)

And I have told anti-choice people that if they oppose abortion, their right ends at another woman's body, but they're free to donate to birth control clinics, women's centers and community outreach programs to help prevent unwanted pregnancies! That's what could prevent many abortions, if they really cared!!

So I'm with you. But philosophically, I think it's still rooted in the same, larger issue: reproductive freedom.

[NMDemDist2]

3. Reproductive Health rights, Reproductive Freedom

Women's Health issues are all much correct terminology that just "abortion"

[Sparkly]

4. Right

and I re-read my post and realized I misstated that the funds were for birth control -- they weren't for abortion, but they were for women's health in general, not birth control alone.

[noamnety]

5. The conservatives are split

Many conservatives strongly believe that birth control should not be available to ANYONE;

Absolutely, many do. But also a good many feel "if you get pregnant, it's your own fault, for not using birth control."

The first group is beyond our reach. The second is not. While planned parenthood may have literature out on this, that's not a source that pro-lifers will be browsing, so we need to redefine this and get it out as an issue in the mainstream press. Somehow. Tell me how.

[DaveSZ]

6. Frame it as saving women's lives

like they did at the March for Women's lives.

I agree that many Fundies like Clarence Thomas don't agree with the right to privacy at all.

[fudge stripe cookays]

27. Santorum either.

"If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to poluygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

Does that undermine the fabric of society? I would argue yes it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold-- Griswold was the contraceptive case-- and abortion."

Griswold vs. Connecticut was the case that made birth control legal for married couples in 1965.

FSC

[zuzu98]

7. Good point.

I've never understood the thinking of the "anti-contraception" crowd. If you oppose abortion, shouldn't you be in favor of anything that makes it less likely?

The solution is the same as it is for every other issue: letters to the editor, letters to legislators, urging Reproductive Rights groups to re frame the issue (and, of course, donating money so that they have the means to do so), voting for pro-choice candidates, etc., etc.

[DaveSZ]

8. Right

The Fundies had a real chance to reduce abortions by making the morning after pill availible otc, but they threw it away.

It proves that they don't believe in the right to privacy or birth control.

[noamnety]

11. The morning after pill can't be our focus.

My personal belief is that the morning after pill is absolutely no different morally than regular birth control pills, or an IUD.

But my beliefs aren't the target - I am a liberal. I want to target the moderate republicans. We've allowed them to identify with the far right, when in fact, I don't think their views are the same.

To hit them, we need to talk about the views of the Bush appointees on less contraversial contraception, like condoms, the pill, and the patch.

[fudge stripe cookays]

12. Oh but see...

The Pill, Depo Provera, IUDs, the morning after pill....any of these are considered "abortifacients", meaning they do not allow implantation of the egg in the uterine wall. To them, one is no different than the other.

Scary, huh?
FSC

[noamnety]

15. abortifacients

To some, the pill and the patch are abortifacients. But not to all moderates. And especially condoms are not viewed that way.

I think we can pick up some male voters also if we don't focus on women's lives being saved - but on the right to decide to have sex without becoming pregnant. I am sure there are some men who want to have a physical relationship without the commitment of a child/child support.

Let's not make this just a women's issue. Maybe it needs to be hit in terms of child support. I think it can be talked about without even using the abortion word. The issue is preventing unwanted pregnancies.

[DoktorGreg]

18. Is that a real word?

Or is it like like Partial Birth Abortion? A made up term designed to inflame emotions? It just sort of has that look and feel about it. Is there a better term around?

[fudge stripe cookays]

23. The pro-lifers created it, as far as I know. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

28. It's a real word and has been around for many years. eom.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. Abortifacients prevent implantation, in effect causing a

very early abortion. That's just medical fact, although birth control pills and Depo-Provera are not designed to act as abortifacients but to prevent conception; however, they can cause abortion as a side effect. Actually, the mechanism which makes IUDsa effective was unknown when they were first marketed, so they weren't designed as abortifacients, either. The "morning after" pill was designed to cause a very early abortion and has been widely opposed by the pro-life movement.

If you think abortion is acceptable, of course you will find all those methods acceptable, but those who oppose abortion take the opposite view -- nothing scary about it!

Better use of contraceptives to decrease the need for abortion is an excellent social goal. All reasonable people should agree to that, but that will necessarily exclude some people on both sides of the issue.

[DoktorGreg]

41. I think Im gonna disagree a little bit...

I am googling the term now and I can't find any medical web site that is calling it that. I am finding some sites that look like they are trying to give medical advice, but I'm not sure they are of the medical profession.

I was wondering what a better, more medical term might be. I think this might be an area that the language may have been co-opted.

[July]

48. This is a real word (Latin-based).

I don't think there's been any co-opting here, and I would guess (don't know for sure) that this IS the term used in medicine. Perhaps some health care professionals at DU could weigh in. It's a Latin-based term.

[Susang]

50. That's odd

Since I googled it and this is what I found right away:

From Websters Online Dictionary:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Ab/Abortifacient.html

Abortifacient
Definitions: Abortifacient
Abortifacient
Adjective
1. Causing abortion.
Noun
1. A drug (or other chemical agent) that causes abortion.
Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

From Medscape, a site for MDs and medical professionals:

Efficacy and Safety of Medical Abortifacients
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408870_4

[DoktorGreg]

54. So are you calling me a liar?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Abortifacient&btnG=Google+Search

Look at that, every item on that first page links to a pro life site. Well except for the herbal abortion site, which (I followed the links yesterday, and that one was not color changed) wasn't there yesterday, when i originally posted.

Also, by that definition the Pill, Norplant, deproprovera etc.. are not abortifacients, because there is no pregnancy until implantation.

Hmm, I think I may be right, the pro-lifers are erroneously calling all these medications abortifacients, when they are not really. It seems even pro-choicers are determined to use the incorrect term.

IMO only RU-486, morning after, and those kooky herbal remidies are technically abortifacients.

[Susang]

64. I have not called you anything of the sort

However, you did say that you Googled the word and could not find a medical site that used it. I did the same and found several, one of which I listed. The word is a medical term and has been used for some time.

I will post a link to what I entered for my search, although as you noted, Google's links change from minute to minute based on the popularity of the links and since this word is apparently so very popular at the moment, no two searches are going to be the same. Still, there are enough legitimate medical sites listed that use the words such as JAMA, Medscape, The-Scientist and Princeton.edu to name a few.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Abortifacients&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

[fudge stripe cookays]

16. What we have got to stress.....

is the fact that there are no more abortions now than there were in the 50s and 60s. The year for the highest rates of teen pregnancy was actually 1957.

Whether it is legal or not, desperate women will choose this route.

The only difference is that in the 50s and 60s, women DIED from it due to back alley butchers.

Most of the anti-choice fanatics now have never known a woman who died from a back-alley abortion. And if they ever do hear of one, it will have "served her right" because she was a tramp or a whore.

I'll fight this issue until I'm blue in the face, but the unfortunate truth is-- the only way things will change is when the righties win and women begin dying right and left from back alley abortions again. Perhaps then, the ambivalent and maybe even some of the nutcases will wake up and think, "Oh Shit."

FSC

[noamnety]

19. fudge stripe, I disagree.

I agree with your beliefs, but not with your strategy.

People will not change their views on abortion, and we don't need to ask them to. By focusing on the safety of abortions, we are focusing on the one aspect of reproductive rights that is the most extreme. Bad strategy.

The point here is to focus on the most common denominator. If we have someone who needs the pill prescribed because of hormone therapy, who had it refused, that is willing to talk about it, that's ideal, because it's not a morality issue at all.

Second best, now that I think about it, would be a married woman who can't get birth control prescribed. We don't even need to go into the abstinence before marriage issue, if we can get someone like that. I'm thinking possibly a reporter, or someone willing to work with a reporter, who deliberately goes to a doctor who is rumored to not give out contraceptives, so we can get the story.

We need to hit the issue with the republicans, also. We need them to be on record as supporting or opposing condoms, the pill, etc.

[fudge stripe cookays]

22. I use any strategy I can.

I talk to any young woman I can get my hands on and tell them that if Bush wins, their birth control will be going away. Most are shocked as hell.

Then I create the connection for them between abortion and birth control. When I tell them what I just posted, most are shocked again.

I do what I can. You do what you can. Together, we should be able to make some progress.

[kikiek]

26. Here's hope

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/16/health/main606628.shtml

[DaveSZ]

20. Hehe that's the ulterior motive really

for guys (and gals) being interested in the right to privacy, morning after pill, etc.

It's a fundamental belief, but also it's about the sex.

[DaveSZ]

21. H. L. Menken

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
- H. L. Menken

[dsc]

35. Do you have even the vaguest notion of a statistic to back that up

I find it close to impossible to believe.

[fudge stripe cookays]

43. Write to Gloria Feldt and ask her.

It's in her book "the War on Choice."

[wurzel]

24. Women don't have the "right " of choice. They have the "burden" of choice

Whichever they choose I certainly am not qualified to judge. I just want to make sure they are taken care of. Regardless of what they decide.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Soviet women had more reproductive rights in 1920

than American women do today. Why is that? The State should not be telling women whether or not to have children, or how many or how few children to have.

Religion should have no role whatsoever in the State!

:think:

[noamnety]

29. the line in the sand

Back to the question of framing the issue, I believe - in terms of Kerry's campaign - we need to shift the line. Note I am not saying drop the fight for abortion rights, I am saying shift the dividing line as a campaign strategy.

We've allowed the republicans to draw the line between Bush and Kerry here:

anti-abortion
-----------
abortion rights


we can put it here:

no abortion
morning after pill
------------
birth control pill
condoms
abortion prevention

possibly one row up or one row down from there, but you get the idea. We need to recapture the birth control votes, even if they belong to pro-lifers.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. are you suggesting we let them change the law and make abortion illegal

in exchange for the right to birth control and sex ed classes?

[fudge stripe cookays]

44. I don't think she's saying that at all.

They've managed to control the discussion all these years and make us look "evil" in the eyes of pro-lifers.

We have to grab control of this discussion and point out the fact that if they are so against abortion, why are they also trying to take our birth control away? They're already making our children stupid by teaching them abstinence instead of anything that can helpful in sex ed classes. According to them, if children don't learn about it, they won't have sex. Which is patent crap.

Most young women who say they are anti-abortion have no idea that the same group fostering that belief wants to send them back to the time when they had no control over their fertility. THAT's the way to bring these women over to our side-- by showing them what will occur if the Right gets what they want.

[Susang]

65. I see this as just another way of allowing them to control the discussion

Particularly since, as I posted below, they do not appear to let this issue determine their voting choice.

[NV Whino]

32. The word is CHOICE.

The problem here is that Pro Choice has become a synonym for abortion. The key word is "choice."

You want to have kids, have 'em. You don't want to have kids, don't have 'em. Use abortion as a last resort.

[NV Whino]

33. And furthermore

If you "choose" to have kids, you had damn well better be able to support them emotionally and finacially, and be able to take care of their medical and educational requirements.

[zuzu98]

34. AMEN!! n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

36. There is notthing wrong with the way we are framing the issue of Choice

One again someone with a low post count and suggests that we need to change our strategy on Choice. But there is nothing wrong with the way it is now.
There is no reason for the democratic party to go after the anti-choice votes. People have been brainwashed in churches all over the country. Those people are not going to give up on trying to stop abortion with laws just because we start talking about contraception.

CHOICE is the democratic party position.

[noamnety]

39. Cheswick - I'm not suggesting changing any positions

I am NOT suggesting we let them change the law and make abortion illegal, not at all. I am NOT suggesting changing our position on anything. This is not about compromising our beliefs. The platform will always, I hope, be the platform of CHOICE.

I am suggesting changing the way we present the debate in the media, so that our position is the more inclusive one. There is our position: pro-choice, meaning choice to have or not have an abortion AND choice to have or not have birth control. And there is their position, which is becoming increasingly anti-choice, meaning antiabortion AND anti-birth control.

And I'm saying some people are half with us, and half with them - pro-birth control, but anti-abortion. Because of the way the debate has been framed by the republicans as one of their wedge issues, we are passively letting those votes slip through our fingers without a fight. By emphasizing a different angle of the debate, I believe we can win some of those votes back. If their hearts are 50% ours, why aren't they voting for us?

And yes, I have a low post count here. It's slightly higher on the JK forums: http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showuser=24868 - I don't have much to say about that. I am new here, yes.

[Nederland]

61. Yes there is

If we were using the correct strategy on this issue, how do you explain the fact that we have been losing ground ever since Roe vs. Wade? The first step in finding a solution is to admit there is a problem. Are you willing to admit there is a problem here?

[footinmouth]

37. In a perfect world ...

Every baby would be born into a loving family. They would be wanted, nurtured and loved. This Stepford family would always be employed and never see hard times. Dad has an awesome job and mom stays home, keeps a watchful eye on the child so that he/she never does harm to himself or others. Sadly, even with the best of planning, babies still happen.

Although I'm in my mid-50's and that ship has already sailed, I still defend my right to make my own reproductive decisions. All women should have that right, they can choose to use it or not. I want young people to act responsibly, but I want them to have all the facts available before they make that choice. I want people to care about the babies and mothers who are already here. I guess that makes me "pro-life", all life, not just the narrow definition of life.

Perhaps we need a new definition of family values. Both sides are very far apart on this one.

[jackieforthedems]

38. Look At It An Even Different Way

Abortion vs. NWO - Go to: http://www.olivetreeviews.org/articles/New_World_Order.shtml#newsitemEpZFpVkkFyDFLvulRg. Then after reading the article, go all the way up the page and to the left there will be a blue column. Click on New World Order. Which is more of a sin? A candidate who is Pro-Choice, or a candidate who supports the NWO? I think helping to usher in Satan's government may be the greater sin. Opinions please. Thanks!:)

[Zomby Woof]

40. I say we harvest fetuses

To solve world hunger.

Think of it as Jonathan Swift updated.

[Hekate]

42. Reframing needed: Ever since anti-choicers called themselves "pro-life"...

...they seized what looks like (but really may not be) the moral high ground. I mean, how can you argue with a concept that calls itself "pro-life"?

Anti-choicers have used the last 25 to 30 years to build a case for themselves (and specifically fundamentalist Christians) as the sole arbiters of what is and is not "moral." They state the case in black and white, no shades of grey. Whatever hesitancy or doubt a pro-choice person might feel about abortion is then easily used against him/her.

Most Americans are really, when you come down to it, pro-choice in that most of them believe that they would not or could not have an abortion themselves, BUT they believe abortion should remain legal with a sliding scale of restrictions. This is because unlike the more rabid anti-choice folks most Americans are able to see shades of grey and imagine extenuating circumstances for other people even if not for themselves.

In my way of thinking, this is the more merciful, ethical, and yes even "moral" way of approaching a difficult problem. It's just that we really do need to re-frame the debate -- and we have to be alert so we are able to pounce on it every time. For instance, in the past 10 years or so I've made it my practice to phone our local TV news comment line every time the blond anchorwoman calls Planned Parenthood an "abortion clinic," just so I can tell them what percentage of PP's business is abortion (tiny) and how very many other medical services they offer, including fertility workups for those who are ready to have a baby but are having a hard time of it. She seems to be modifying what she says.

I'll be interested to see what kind of vocabulary develops -- you're off to a good start 1wfern.

Hekate

[fudge stripe cookays]

46. Thanks for calling the TV station, Hekate!

I haven't heard any of our TV affiliates doing this, but if they do, you can bet I'll be doing it too!

[Zen Democrat]

45. The issue is : Government Control over our Bodies

If, the government has the right to tell a woman she must carry a baby to term, then, conversely, the government has an implicit right to tell a woman she can not carry a baby to term.

The government could enforce an abortion ban or it could force abortion. Either way, it's government power interfering with the reproductive rights of individual Americans.

[bushwakker]

47. In particular the party (GOP) that professes to be about

individual liberties and against government intrusion does a 180 whwen it come to the most personal decision someone can make. Abortion is a losing issue for the GOP because it exposes their hypocrisy. They espouse a philosophy that will say it's wrong for the government to inforce regulations that prohibit companies from dumping pollution into our air and water but it's ok for the government to prohibit an individual from having a medical procedure.

[okieinpain]

49. pro-life choices

[Susang]

51. Wrong to whom?

The argument is framed correctly as far as I am concerned.

Here's my suggestion. Take some time out of your busy schedule, I know its hard, but it is worthwhile. Call Planned Parenthood or any other non-for-profit clinic in your area and volunteer for a period of time. Get to know the men and women who work there. Learn about the women who use their services. Get spit on, screamed at, beaten up, have your life threatened, as many of us have done. Then perhaps you can tell me how the "argument" should be framed.

Until then, what are YOU doing to get this out there as an issue?

[noamnety]

52. Wrong to whom?

We are framing it wrong to a large segment of Slightly-Right-Of-Moderate voters who share some but not all of our views.

Republicans like yes or no questions: would you have voted for the war, yes or no. Either you're with us or against us. Are you pro-life or pro-choice - they want voters to pick one.

I want those SROM voters to consider that although they disagree with us specifically on abortion rights, they share our views on reproductive rights in general. I want them to view "reproductive rights" as the issue, with abortion as one part of that issue. I want them to understand that they agree with us on most of the issue, and they disagree on a single aspect of it. I think this is to our advantage, rather than allowing republicans to convince them that they are either with us or against us on abortion, and the reproductive rights debate stops there.


To demonstrate my point, I started another thread on a nonpolitical forum. It's a bunch of web designers and graphics folks.

http://www.yayhooray.com/thread/8202/Reproductive-Rights---consider-your-position-THEN-read-thread

Not a single person (as of this posting) has connected "reproductive rights" solely with birth control as their first thought. But look how many listed abortion as their first thought.

This is a thread about brainstorming, not my personal background on this issue, so I will respectfully decline to enter a debate on the rest of your post.

[Susang]

53. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree

Seriously, do you believe that your recently started thread is more indicative of people's true feelings than my (and many other's) real life experiences in this field? And not all Republicans are Neanderthal knuckle-dragging morons, you know. Just because their leaders couch their arguments in black and white thinking doesn't necessarily mean that all individual Republicans are incapable of complex thought. That would be quite a sweeping generalization.

Don't you realize that a large percentage of Republican voters (male and female) are actually pro-choice and are quite disillusioned over their party's stance on this issue? Only 32% of voters currently say they would not vote for a candidate that disagrees with them on abortion. On the other hand, 58% percent of those who favored abortion rights said they would not vote for a candidate who disagreed with them . http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NYMp59wfdNkJ:www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/pew_research_wedge_022704.pdf+percentage+of+republican+voters+who+favor+abortion+rights&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Historically, this issue has not actually affected elections. I know you may find this hard to believe, but it actually has never really meant much when it comes time to vote. The time for this topic to have been brought up would have been in 2000, before Bush & Co got into office. They've spent the past 4 years steadily chipping away at women's reproductive rights because we were afraid to frame the argument "correctly" and now we all have to live with that decision.

Young women marched on Washington this year in record numbers to support abortion rights. They are also considered the most coveted voting block in this election. Interesting fact is, they almost overwhelmingly support abortion rights. Why aren't we, as in the Democratic party, or you, framing our argument to convince them? That's the question I think needs to be addressed.

snip:
Despite media hype about marches in Washington both for and against abortion rights, the issue consistently ranks low on the list of priorities cited by most voters. In a February Gallup poll, for example, abortion ranked 13th, below such issues as education, the economy, the war in Iraq, health care and immigration.

"The public is no more concerned today about the abortion issue than it was in the last two presidential elections," Gallup analyst Lydia Saad concluded in an article written last week.

The most intriguing aspect of Sunday's march that could signal a noteworthy change was the turnout of women in their late teens and 20s. Americans aged 18 to 29 vote less than any other age group, according to polling-place exit surveys. But young women favor abortion rights by 54 to 39 percent, according to Gallup - the biggest margin of any age group - and they could vote Democratic if persuaded to vote at all.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0426-12.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

55. The Major "Pro-Life" organizations in the USA Are uniformly

anti-birth control. The HLA plank of the GOP Platform would effectively criminalize the IUD and the birth control pill. These are extremist positions, vastly out of touch with the American People, that the GOP goes to great lengths to hide... but as you alluded to, they are not shy about sticking persons like W. David Hager, who seemingly would criminalize all birth control and many sex acts to boot, in positions of authority and power.


But your link is broken.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Let me say first that...

I don't see how pointing out that the true agenda of the right wing is extremist is in any way, shape, or form, a concession of core beliefs. It would be pretty damn impossible for me to be more pro-choice- I flew 3,000 miles to be a part of that march in April, and I don't even have a uterus... But I keep screaming at the top of my lungs that it's not just about abortion. That's part of it, for sure, but they won't stop there. They really think they can force people to stop f*cking-- and probably spend more time thinking about Jeeebus to boot. So, yes, they do want to criminalize birth control, many of them-- that's why they talk about not only overturning Roe v. Wade, but also Griswold v. Connecticut- the birth control case that established that pesky "right to privacy" that control freaks of all stripes seem to hate so much.

That said, I'm not about to start apologizing for being pro-choice. Pro-legal abortion. I'm perfectly happy to share the tent with someone who doesn't like legal abortion, just as long as they aren't trying to criminalize it. I think this argument is a good tack to take with pro-lifers, suggesting that if they're really interested in reducing the numbers of surgical abortions, they should support safe, effective birth control. Comprehensive sex ed, with condoms. Universal Health Care and a liveable minimum wage so poor, single women might be able to take care of a baby in reality as opposed to only in made for tv movies. However, those things are kryptonite to your average right wing pro-lifer, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

[noamnety]

58. sharing the tent without apologies

That's what I'm getting at, exactly. We need to scream more about the birth control restrictions between now and the elections. On the other forum, where I asked what do you think of first when you hear the phrase "reproduction rights," here's what I got so far:

13 abortion
7 restricting who's allowed to be a parent
9 combo of abortion and birth control
2 high tech fertilization
2 stem cell research
2 castration
2 population control
1 annoying feminists
1 copyrights - gotta love the graphic design community!
1 Inheritance rights of children created from frozen sperm (because of media story today)
0 birth control

I believe this list will tell you where the media focus is right now, during the campaign season. I want to move birth control from the bottom to the top of the list between now and November.

Everytime abortion comes up as an issue, the response should include a strong statement about birth control. Never deny our position - that's something Rove would do, pretend we support one position when we actually support another - that's immoral and I would be angry if we went there. But I don't believe there is anything wrong with shifting the focus. If they say "Kerry supports abortion" the counter should be a quick correction that he supports the right of individuals to make that choice for themselves, followed immediately by a lengthier discussion of the impact of the Bush policies on birth control, and the shift to deny the right to have sex unless you are trying to create a baby. Make that the debate.

If a Bush supporter talks about pro-choice, don't assume they are referring to abortion. Have the discussion as if you assume they mean having the right to chose to use birth control, until they state otherwise.

[kwolf68]

59. I so much would

I generally choose to stay out of the abortion debate.

This is the one issue I just can’t get resolution on.

I understand human life begins at conception, but at the same time recognize we can’t levitate the “rights” of a fetus over that of the mother.

I understand that women having a right to dictate their own bodies should be law, but am perplexed that “law” tells them drugs and prostitution is illegal.

I understand that the amount of backalley abortions would be numerous further endangering more and more women while knowing the best way to prevent an abortion is to prevent a pregnancy.

No matter how respectful toward the pro-life position I may be, there is nothing that can convince me that women who have been raped should be FORCED to have that baby.

I recognize that the heartbeat does not begin to beat until between 6 and 8 weeks, but when the heartbeat begins I can see why people are emotional about terminating that heartbeat.

I really believed if we had more pro-life Democrats that weren’t so strident on the issue we would be a dominant party. The pro-lifers are one issue voters. They don’t know a damn thing about anything else, but that issue.

I am 100% in favor of the morning after pill. I don’t know that it would be the panacea, but it would also eliminate abortions.

I also wonder if Planned Parenthood doesn’t have a financial interest in perpetuating abortion? (Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of this organizations role in abortion, it was simply a cynical question)

[noamnety]

60. I don't want this to be a thread debating the issue of abortion

but rather a thread about campaign strategy - how best to use the media to our advantage.

But I do want to correct the idea of PP having a financial interest in perpetuating abortion. The number of clients they get for contraception is more than 10 times the number they get for abortions. But guess what the media focuses on?

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I think it's totally philosophically consistent

to be personally opposed to abortion and still not want to criminalize it. That's not how I feel about the issue, but I think it's sound from the perspective of understanding that what is right for me may not be right for everyone else, and vice-versa.

Also, regarding this line:

"I understand that women having a right to dictate their own bodies should be law, but am perplexed that “law” tells them drugs and prostitution is illegal."

You're not the only one who's perplexed. I think it's obscene, offensive, and fundamentally counter-intuitive that the government, any government, tries to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people on this planet who have apparently fetishized the control of others.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Reproductive Rights . . . . . nt

[noamnety]

66. CNN is actually covering this!

sort of. They are doing a story tonight (I missed the exact time) of the effectiveness of abstinence programs vs. sex ed. Yes! Now if they can just talk about the Bush appointees as part of the story, I'll be ecstatic.

*temporarily lives in fantasy world where CNN actually listens to my emails*