The State should not be in the business of regulating religious beliefs, nor dictating to a woman what she should do WITH HER BODY, in the privacy of her doctors office.

It isn't just HER body though.. it is also the body of another human being that isn't being given any rights. Abortion, particularly in late pregnancy is horrific. The unborn child is literally killed without any anesthesia , usually torn apart and removed from the womb in peices and most studies indicate that the larger babies can feel pain and suffer before they die. There really is NO good reason to perform late term abortions. While I am not willing to block all abortions, late term abortions should be stopped. We have babies at 22 weeks or more gestation that survive in the NICU with proper medical care so why on earth would it be appropriate to torture and kill them at the same age because they are unwanted?

@CassAnn

It's her body. If she wants to have an abortions thats between her, her doctor, and God. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with you, and isn't the business of the Government. The End!

I am not taking sides, merely asking a question.

Question for all the republicans who oppose abortion. With regard to Roe v. Wade. Why during 8 years of republican control of the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court loaded with conservative justices, did the republicans not over turn Roe v. Wade?

So, what you are saying Megalodon - If a little girl is raped by a relative, she should ask the perpetrator to put on a condom first? What really cracks me up is the term Pro Life. I'm Pro Life, but I'm also Pro Choice. That little girl should have a choice on an un-wanted pregnancy the will affect her for the rest of her life

Seems to me like just any another way to circumvent the Constitution and the ruling of the Suprime Court. A to abortion...The day I can become pregnant is the day I will take sides in the issue, mean time it a womens right to decide

If what they are doing is for truly medical reasons ,then no problem. If this is an attempt to drive out abortion clinics, then the new regulations should be tossed.

@Casann it is *her* body not yours, not the right to lifers, not the republicans, not the democrats, not mine. It is HERS. These people how disrespect the supreme court ruling have zero respect for the law. Maybe we should look at what other laws they have pass that we don't like and tear them up too? Maybe we should just ignore all law? Would you like if say you needed a procedure and I personally found it distasteful and showed up outside your medical practitioners office and tried to block it? Had media coverage in tow? Hundred's of people with me violating your civil right and violating your right to medical privacy?

This is America, we all have rights we don't get to pick and chose what law we don't like and find ways to get around them and at the same time violate the civil rights of others.

They're not doing it for purely medical reasons, or the restrictions wouldn't be targeted at abortion clinics. For instance, they didn't ban all prescriptions by telemedicine. Their motives are clear.

more accountable as well as those who refuse to be accountable to pratice safe sex.

So your condom breaks and you have to raise a child you have no preparations for and can't afford and will go on public assisstance????

And then you complain about that???

can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why the unborn human has no validation when in the womb? i have yet to hear an acceptable explanation that dignifies why an unborn humans rights' have no merit. how can it be a legally acceptable decision to murder another human being?

can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why the unborn human has no validation when in the womb

While I don't like answering a question with a question, why don't you care about the "already born"???

There are right now 300 million real children in this world starving in poverty.

Why don't you care about them instead of adding one more to the problem??

I have not seen anyone comment on the phrase in the article " he was shot to death in May 2009 by an anti-abortion activist." If this were Iraq/Pak/Afgan I guess we would have said " he was shot to death in May 2009 by an anti-abortion TERRORIST". I guess the in those countries there are a lot of ACTIVISTS???

American Taliban strikes again... Look out women of Kansas...the burka is next.

Kathleen: Mysogeny : hatred of women: That's when you insist women are not included in the consittution's right to privacy and the government makes their most personal decisions for them because they are women...When this attitude of women's inferiority is accepted and even promoted by a woman it's called masochism .

More lies! Brownback campaigned on the "Jobs, jobs, jobs" platform. (Yes, I live in this state of ignorance called Kansas. Vote Brownback - Vote Talibangelical.

As this lying "small government" Republican takes the meat axe to education, he creates the Bureau of Pregnancy Police and tells women to "Assume the position." This is the ultimate in cavity searches.

Yes ladies, you are now the property of the state; chattel, things.

That's right! Stay home. Don't vote. Defer to the menfolk. They know best, right? Ignorance is bliss, right?

Sounds like a "culture of harrassment" for those who don't have the "right" political and religious beliefs.

David, you beat me to it! Republicans are all for "small government" except for the cases where they want to decide what a woman should be able to do! They always say "keep out of MY business but dictate someone else's!"

Funny how once the baby is born these same "right to lifers" want nothing to do with it.

Hypocrites.

Teabagged, Here is you answer: Republican politicians will never make abortions illegal because they screw around too. They have daughters and wives and sisters, and these families through some raucous parties. There is inevitably some jerk like me who will crash the party for the free shrimp and hook up with one of these republichicks. BAM! Now they are deciding between raising a child with the "liberal gene" or getting an abortion.

TYVYLAG, I'll be here all week.

Barry, I don't know many physicians who prescribe without seeing the patient.

I'm just going to raise a glass to the end of the world as we know it~

I don't suppose the regulations put forth to stop women from seeking abortions comes with equal pay/benefits for those mothers? Do they go after the fathers who refuse to have anything to do with their children? What about the babies that go into foster and adoption programs? Will they receive the educational funding and mental health services they will require? I won't hold my breathe!

I agree... There was really no reason to collapse CassAnn's comment other than because some people disagreed, which is a rather childish reason to collapse a comment. The funny thing is that whenever I see a collapsed comment I am even more curious to see what that person had to say.

Republicangirl:

Hey, you're really the thoughtful one, aren't you - reposting pure crap?

A woman's body is THAT woman's body. Period. She is the one who must make the decisions as to how it's used and that's that.

How wonderful of you to allow the rest of us to share in the enormous expense involved in rescuing a 22-week old fetus/child in NICU. Care to tell us where Republicans disappear when an unwanted child is carried to term, delivered, and grows up being abused, molested, or simply lives in abject poverty?

Torture? You cannot prove that a 22-week old fetus feels pain. It may react, but that does not necessarily mean it is reacting to pain - simply stimulus. Nope, you guys go for the inflammatory and the provocative, and the unsubstantiated nonsense.

Hypocrisy is far too tame a word for the likes of you and your half-watt compadre CassAnn.

Some of us conservatives actually do care about children after they are born (actually alot of us conservatives do). Just so you know I'm a conservative not a republican, which means as a conservative I almost always vote republican, but I'm not forced to blindly agree with whatever the republican party says.

I'm in college right now studying to become a microbiologist specializing in diseases that are especially problematic for the poor. When I am financially prepared to support a family I plan to mostly adopt. The chances of me becoming a father before I am ready for that responsibility is zero because I do not engage in behavior that could result in me becoming a parent. This is just one example of a conservative who goes against the supposed idea that conservatives do not care about children and people in general after they are born.

Oh yeah, and by the way I am a Sikh (not a Christian), and many people would probably go as far as to say I'm a *gasp* fundamentalist and I deeply care about other people even if they are not the same as me!

If you want to get an abortion on an early term pregnancy, then go ahead and do it but pay for it yourself so nobody can criticize your choice.

As long as government money is used then those who pay taxes have a right to an opinion.

How is it that CassAnn'sown personal opinion is crap? Is your opinion crap or is only her opinion crap because you don't agree with what she has to say?

While I am COMPLETELY pro-choice a dissenting opinion should not be stifled just because people don't agree, isn't that the basis of debate? Two opposing opinions?

As to my thoughts on abortion, as I've stated I'm pro-choice. I had an unexpected pregnancy and while I decided that I was going to keep mine, I was happy that I knew I had the choice. However, do I think the industry could use a little more looking into, sure! The only reason I say that is from personal experience with a friend who had a tendency to use abortion as a form of birth control and I don't think that's right. Those medications and procedures cannot be good for you if used time after time.

Perhaps if more time went into teaching prevention the number of women who chose abortion would decrease with increased education, who knows? I don't have any answers, just an opinion.

Opinions on this issue are irrelevant. If someone wants an abortion, they have always been able to get such, do now and most importantly, always will no matter what law is ever passed. That is the reality the dense must get through their idiot skulls.

Forcing people to practice "safe sex" has never worked ever and most importantly, will never work ever.

As a consequence, Kansas will simply drive the abortion business to the next closest state or to the back alley where quacks thrive. Of course, no one with common sense would ever do this but never underestimate the stupidity of religious fiction lemmings.

" Why during 8 years of republican control of the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court loaded with conservative justices, did the republicans not over turn Roe v. Wade?"

Answer: First, the Supreme Court was NEVER loaded with conservative justices - the SCOTUS had THREE "conservative" justices during the Bush Admin: Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas. Later Sandra Day, a Moderate who publicly stated Roe was precident, retired and was replaced with Alito, moving the number of Conservative justices to four. You can be sure that Obama won't put any conservatives on the SCOTUS, so the conservative justices will STILL be the minority. And second, neither Congress nor the President can overturn a Supreme Court ruling. So what's your point?

can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why the unborn human has no validation when in the womb

While I don't like answering a question with a question, why don't you care about the "already born"???

There are right now 300 million real children in this world starving in poverty.

Why don't you care about them instead of adding one more to the problem??

Richard, if you don't like answering a question with a question, then why do you do it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you think the answer to those 300 million starving kids is to kill them so they won't suffer anymore - surely you can find a better solution for suffering children than that? And who says we DON'T care about them? Who says we DON'T donate money to charities that help feed them? Do you? And why do you think the two are interchangeable, anyway? Obviously I don't have a problem answering a question with another question, and that particular question is really an accusation, isn't it? It's kind of saying "you don't care about them after they're born" posed as a question, isn't it? No need to answer, of course it is.

And I noticed that you didn't answer the first question at all - and it's pretty easy to figure out why. There IS NO GOOD ANSWER, so you must deflect.

It's always nice to see such venomous hatred from the self-proclaimed enlightened. Certainly opens doors to dialogue with those of opposing viewpoints, by golly! Nothing like a bramble bush in place of of an olive branch. ^_^

Not a conservative majority SCOTUS? What do you call all the 5-4 decisions by conservatives Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito?

These guys refused to overturn a state law forbidding late term abortions because they decided -- despite testimony from the medical community -- that danger to a woman health wasn't a legitimate reason to permit late term abortions.

Fairly recently, these guys ruled that businesses have the same rights as individuals (incredible).

I've only listed two examples of right-wing conservative rulings...but there are many more.

Str8shott . I wondered how long it would take before some one used less that 1% of all abortions to try to justify all other abortions.

NCarolinaGirl:

Why is CassAnn's "opinion" pure crap, you ask? I'll tell you why. When enough of these people form a majority, they can take their "opinion" to the poll, make it the law of the land, and enslave people.

Do you really think this abortion battle is strictly about abortion? Hardly. It is about our right to control our own lives.

Do you understand that our government has the power to pick a group of people...........Hey, let's pretend here........who are healthy, male, aged 18 to 26, and force them into servitude? Let's stop pretending. That's the draft.

Let's pretend again. We have a group of people - a majority - who support an invasion of a country, let's say Viet Nam, because they attacked an American ship. Later, this majority discovers the ship story was an outright lie. Fifty-eight thousand DEAD. Those aren't abortions, those were healthy people - OUTSIDE THE WOMB. That's not pretend, girl.

When your "opinion" results in slavery, when your "opinion" results in a living, breathing human's death.......it's not only crap - it's dangerous, and I'll fight you tooth and nail to stay outside your control.

"Not a conservative majority SCOTUS? What do you call all the 5-4 decisions by conservatives Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito?"

NOPE! Kennedy is not a conservative - he's the last Moderate, and was ranked a Moderate with O'Conner and Souter (both of whom are retired). Also, Kennedy and O'Conner voted with the Liberals on "Planned Parenthood v. Casey," a PA abortion-related case, where they reaffirmed Roe as precident, and REFUSED to overturn it because doing so "would invalidate the prior Administration." Look it up.

"These guys refused to overturn a state law forbidding late term abortions because they decided -- despite testimony from the medical community -- that danger to a woman health wasn't a legitimate reason to permit late term abortions."

Really? What case are you referring to? I'd like to look it up.

T Bourlon -

I think the poster may be referring to this:

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-18/justice/scotus.abortion_1_ban-on-abortion-procedure-major-abortion-case-type-of-late-term-abortion?_s=PM:LAW

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

can we remove all the labels when we look at this issue?(christian, atheist, black, white, male, female, republican,democrat,etc) science proves that an unborn has it's own dna from the moment of conception, thus making it a human. killing said human is murder, preborn or otherwise. nowhere does anyone address that the choice of the female or male human in utero is not being given any constitutional rights. do you presume said individual would give up their choice at life?

myopinion, thanks - I guess this was referring to the ban on partial birth abortions? From your link:

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right."

Well, technically there is no burden on the abortion right, because the law is NOT banning late-term abortions, only one certain type of late-term abortion. The partial-birth abortion was opposed by a majority of U.S. citizens, including those described as "pro-choice." (And to me that makes sense. The idea of a woman's right to choose rests on the fetus being in her womb, not an autonomous being; but once it starts to separate from the woman's body the fetus becomes a separate autonomous being, entitled to the same constitutional protection as you and I.)

At least that's the interpretation I'm drawing from this. There was never any demonstrable proof that the partial birth abortion preserved a woman's health any better or worse than any other type of late-term abortion. So, as long as some type of late-term abortion is available, then this particular type is not necessary and denying this particular type is not an unconstitutional burden on her right to choose. That was Kennedy's logic.

So kathleen, you want to remove all labels, then you go ahead and use words with no legal or medical meaning whose intent is clearly just to inflame - "preborn", "unborn", and you rown personal definition of "murder" that has nothing to do with the law (or our Constitution which does not give "rights" to a fetus).

I guess you have a separate set of rules for the labels others use and the ones you use. Pretty convenient for you.

Str8shott

So, what you are saying Megalodon - If a little girl is raped by a relative, she should ask the perpetrator to put on a condom first?

no...., that is what you are saying, or trying to imply that i am saying... that would be anally redundant of anyone to think that, much less imply.... not to mention to think thats what i would imply.

I will simply state, i dont feel it is the publics responsibility to kill an unwanted fetus, because people like to use the excuse "its my body" bit. IF you were that concerned with YOUR body, you would have, as well as your partner taken the steps as directed by planned parenthood in the 1st place NOT to get pregnant. only an idiot can believe that someone over the age of 13 needs planned parenthood to tell them how a baby is made. That there are ways of NOT getting pregnant.

OK, we pay for those idiots to recieve special training and education... why should we also pay when they dont learn? I think if you make a mistake, you live up to your responsibility, you should be accountable for your actions, and... AND if you can not be, it should come out of your own pocket, not MINE, not the guy next door, in the next town or state, because we are also talking FEDERAL TAX $$$ for this crap.... it is the person who made the mistake of their own free will and doing.

Abortions should be paid for by tax dollars only...ONLY if the pregnancy was a matter of rape or incest, or could result in death to the mother.

when my youngest daughters mother went to PP for a check up, to be positive she was pregnant, she came home in tears, because we already had a good idea because she was late, and 3 or 4 EPT's all showed positive results, she also went for advise for taking care of herself and the baby during the pregnancy, they did everything possible to try and talk her into having an abortion... a 21 yr old woman, sent home bawling.... imo they are a bunch of sh!t bags that should be shut down, and put out of buisness.

Barry, I don't know many physicians who prescribe without seeing the patient.

Janellect ... I don't know where you live. You may have convenient access to doctors of all specialties. However, that's not true in many rural or remote areas. Telemedicine is a recognized (and encourgaged) means of providing access to specialists who are otherwise unavailable or are hours of travel away. They can review test results and x-rays through data links and, often, even see the patient. If it is acceptable for an orthopedist to prescribe an non-inflammatory via a telemedicine link, why can't RU-486 be prescribed the same way?

Exactly Jon. Where are all the teabaggers with their "smaller government" and "Don't tread on me" flags? "Less intrusion", "Less interference" except if it panders to the religious right. Lets face it. Tho only way the tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy republicans can stay in power is with the help of the religious right. No matter how poor they are, they can be assured of being scared into voting right. Pun intended.

I'm sorry -- if someone murdered someone in our family -- you would want them to pay right? So murdering an unborn is okay then? What if that was your child -- and the woman had an abortion and you wanted it -- that would be okay?

@republicangirl: That's a question that ought to be settled on a case-by-case basis for the people directly involved. This is not something the government should be intruding upon.

How about the thousands being murdered with cancer or suffering from asthma from environmental pollution? Is there a constitutional right to have a successful business no matter the cost to the general welfare that government is constitutionally obligated to promote? You can't have it both ways, Republicans.

ed3891 is right, the government should not be interfering in personal decisions nor should the government be paying for personal decisions!!!!

@Rich-365548: Case in point! Consider the Radium Girls...

...but speaking as a conservative myself, I think it unfair to white-wash everyone's opinions on the issue of women's health care.

getalife -- then I guess the government should pay for health care, welfare and food stamps for those who choose not to work?

@Ed -- so we should take justice in our own hands? No more courts?

Wow republicangirl - nice way to "assume" (you know what THAT does!).

Health care welfare and food stamps for those who 'CHOOSE' not to work? So each and every person who receives assistance CHOOSES not to work?

Nice!

So much for compassion!

So what about the unwanted kids getting born once you ban all forms of abortion and birth control? Do we load them all into orphanages like they used to be?

What happens when a woman gets caught obtaining an abortion?

Do we throw her in prison? No matter what the circumstances? You're willing to pay for her incarceration? For how long?

You see - banning abortion is going to open up a huge Pandora's box that you will regret ever allowing to see the light of day.

However, I will say this. Politicians only want you to THINK they will ban abortion. They don't really want to. They know it's political suicide.

They just want your votes!

or maybe we could actually teach our own children sex education instead of leaving it up to that same "well qualified group" of old farts on capital hill, but no you go granny, lets not take the facts where they really are. Abortion should not be birth control, it should be the last answer in a troubled situation. But hey, thank goodness your parents chose life, I guess.

I just looked at the Kansas Legislature's website. There are several women within its ranks. And why does it matter what color someone's skin is?

Abortions are not used as a form of birth control! That is the most ridiculous hyperbolic statement I have ever heard.

I know so many grandparents that taught their children abstinence.

The conservative agenda looks more and more like that of all ultra-nationalistic, right- wing nations. Think 1930s Germany or the Taliban-controlled nations. All that whining about the power of the state out of the Republicans and Tea Bigots is a ruse to hide their intentions . . . state control of life and death . . . power to the state and its board of directors (the corporations). This isn't about freedom of religion, but rather the freedom to practice the religion I deem correct.

When you vote for the ultra-right, the result is fascism. Why the surprise?

Abortion isn't a tenet of any religion I have ever heard of.

Moved.

Michelle - seriously? Abortion not birth control? really? What kool-aid are your drinking from? But -- hey -- you paretns choose life! yea for you!

Im sorry, I missed the part about how they are "white" males. Interesting to note that most blacks identify themselves as Baptist and the Southern Baptist Convention are one of the prime "pro life" groups (and everyone of the Abortion clinic bombers have been baptist and so it the Westboro Baptist Church). The following are quotes from Alan Keyes, high powered black politician and just one who has heavily influenced anti abortion campaigns and every other far right issue:

"The violation on [sic] innocent human life is the same whether you commit terrorism or commit abortion."
–People For the American Way Foundation, "The Vocabulary of Terror: Anti-abortion politics since 9/11," April 10, 2002

"I will never again cast a vote for an individual I in conscience believe to be pro-choice, pro-abortion, not pro-life. Based on the confession of his heart in New Hampshire, when John McCain told us clearly that he would tell his daughter it was her choice — and every woman is somebody's daughter, so if you tell the daughters of America it's their choice, you're pro-choice. He is pro- choice, he is not pro-life. I will not support a pro-choice, pro- abortion candidate."
–Republican Presidential Debate, March 2, 2002

So just drop the racial crap. Just like other blacks delivered prisoners to slave ships, blacks here attack their own people. The problem is not black and white, it is the Republican Party. They are controlled by two groups, business and religious nut jobs and both of them come in ALL colors. make some comments about this at ithinkrevolution.com.

I can almost guarantee you are black. Not many black peopel who are capable of having a discussion without dropping race into the equation. The only race on the face of the earth who is incapable of recognizing anything without using color. The entire world is secretly plotting against the blacks. Please.

Or, maybe Kansas is the state where you need to use common sense and practice safe sex. But, the left seems to push the lack of common sense.

Gary ... I wonder if Kansas is a state that offers scientifically sound sex education that would enable people to pratice safe sex? Considering its attitudes towards abortion clinics, it is probably only doing abstinence-only programs, which have not been shown to be effective.

Yeah guys - lets all practice safe sex - that includes you men! You do know she didn't get in that condition by herself don't you?

I wonder how many would practice safe sex if they knew that by not doing so would force you to pay for a child until he or she turned 18. No more baby daddy's getting a free walk and the government footing the bill.

Robertmac, you could not have said it any better.

Right Gary: punish that baby and the mother. All you care about is ordering others what to do...once a child is born : then suddenly you figure out they're a burden. Brilliant.

You can't practice safe sex if all the Planned Parenthoods are closed, and you can't get effective birth control. Women who get regular gyne check-ups and have a medical professional helping them choose an effective method of birth control are much less likely to ever find themselves in the position of having an unplanned pregnancy. Without Planned Parenthood offering yearly checkups at affordable rates for those without adequate medical coverage, there will be MORE abortions, not fewer.

And the idea that Planned Parenthood is "promoting" abortion as a money-making thing...I don't even know how to address that. Talk about a smoke screen. Yeah, these doctors risk their lives to provide abortion for low-income clinics at rates so low it probably doesn't even cover their travel expenses...that's all for profit. They love the death threats. Give me a break!

Gary, there always have been abortions, legal or not. The more obstacles you put in the way, the more women will turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions that often lead to serious health problems and death. Don't believe me? Do some reading on the pre-Roe v. Wade days, and tell me if you really want to return to those days. And before you answer, imagine that it is your daughter, your sister, your wife, or your mother being butchered.

Robertmac and Lee, your comments are right on target.

I am pro-life -- but with the situation you discribed -- I am very torn over -- I understand your point

sweetie, everyone is pro life. I dont know anyone who supports killing babies. But fetuses ARE NOT babies, especially during the first trimester when they are not even recoginzingly HUMAN. This whole thing started when churches needed a platform to give them a way into politics and abortion and homosexuality were perfect ones for them.

" But fetuses ARE NOT babies, especially during the first trimester when they are not even recoginzingly HUMAN."

I disagree. I've been pregnant, I've felt the kicks and I've seen the ultrasounds. To me it is completely INSANE to pretend that the fetus in a HUMAN woman's body is somehow not human, not really a baby, or whatever. The biggest problem I've always had with the "pro-choice" ideology is that very statement - sounds like a "stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not" approach, and I can't get behind it for a second.

T Bourlon, I've been pregnant too, and I have no problem with abortion. Having been pregnant and having a certain personal opinion about how you felt about your pregnancy does not qualify you to make decisions for others.

And no, I've never had an abortion, nor am I likely to ever have one. But I will fight to the death for the right of all women to have the ability to make that choice in the doctor's office, not in some government bureaucracy.

T Bourton -- come to think of it -- I have never heard anyone say I am having a fetus

myopinion, I'm not suggesting I be able to "make that decision for others," I was commenting on the false statement that "fetuses are not babies." I believe if you genetically tested a fetus taken from a human woman, you'd find the fetus is, in fact, HUMAN, whether you can visually recognize it as one or not. I'm sorry, but the attitude suggests that a "fetus" is inert matter that transforms into a baby minutes before birth. Anyone like yourself who's been pregnant KNOWS that is not the case.

republicangirl, EXACTLY!

I think arguing semantics is a waste of time. The legal (and medical) definition is not "unborn baby", just like abortion is not defined as "murder" (a legal term) as many who oppose legal abortions like to throw around.. The medical definition is indeed "fetus". Having been pregnant doesn't make one more qualified to determine what name to use. It seems the best option is to use the accurate medical and legal terms, and avoid the semantics debate.

In the end, to me, it will always be about choice. And about the fact that pre-Roe v Wade, abortions still happened - a lot; it's just that they were dangerous and life-threatening when done in back alleys; the only ones with access to safe abortions in those days were people of means who could afford to leave the country or who knew docs that for the right price would quietly perform the procedure in their back rooms.

I cannot fathom a return to those days. If abortion becomes illegal, though, that is what we will face.

Fewer abortions will always be a good thing - but not by limiting access or shaming women, but rather by increasing education and access to health care and birth control.

abortion is just murder plain and simple. in 100 years people will look back on our social morals and say how could people support such an insane practice. It is much like slavery was when it was just the norm.

Typical of the uneducated to assume everything in today's society is somehow exclusive to the current time.

Abortions have been going on for thousands of years. One could say that 'planned parenthood' is the world's second oldest profession. It's not going anywhere so long as there are unwanted pregnancies.

@Greg --

If that's how you feel then don't have an abortions... that's your right. But don't impose your religious morality upon me.

Where did Dave say anything about religion? I'm lost

Agreed 100 percent!

lol, you dont understand Republicans. They DO want small government for thier big corporate donors. But they want big government for the poor people so they can control the workers better. how is this not obvious?

Yeah - Kansas is the pinnacle of small government...

Your argument doesn't work OldStyle. At 22 weeks the child has some chance of surviving outside the womb. With each additional week, the chances of survival only increase. Why abort at all? Preterm delivery is better than death.

I disagree.

I am a republican that is pro life and pro choice. I personally believe that abortion in most cases is wrong. I also believe that it is the mother's decision and we do have a law on the books that supports this - Row v Wade. I think we should obey the existing law, even though I don't like it. I don't like that I can't buy a Cuban cigar but I still obey the law.

However, I do have a problem with the goverment telling me I have to help pay for someone to have an abortion.

It seems to me that most pro-abortion people always resort to calling pro-life people religious wingnuts. Religion does not have any part in my decision about how I feel about abortion. I don't care what someone that is reading a 2000 year old book interprets it to say about aborting a fetus. My personal beliefs are based on my thoughts that every human being should have a right to live regardless of the environment they are placed in. For an unborn child, the environment may be an unfit mother, poor family or any other reason a woman chooses to have an abortion. (With the exception of a clearly identified medical reason to protect the mother's life.) For instance, if I was to be magically transported to the south pole, the environment would be counterproductive to my desire to have a productive and comfortable life. The fact that I am placed in this undesirable environment does not give someone else the right to decide that I should die.

We pro-lifers are not all religious nuts. We don't want to legislate what happens to or in a uterus. We do not want to be held financialy accountable for someone elses choice that disagrees with us. If you want an abortion, pay for it. If you can't afford an abortion but know that is your only option if you get pregnant, then don't get pregnant. If you are a victim of a crime that causes you to get pregnant, you will find that most people in our society will be empathatic and try to help you any way we can, financialy and/or emotionaly. That includes Republicans, Democrats, Capricorns and brick layers.

JC, your response is very reasonable, except that federal funding for Planned Parenthood is NOT currently funding abortions. I completely agree that because abortion is a contentious issue, tax dollars should not pay for it. Ever. Even in cases of rape or incest. There are private support funds that can be tapped for such cases, and I'm sure they would find many donors. And rape and incest are not the main reasons that women are seeking abortions, so it's tiresome that these two issues come up over and over again. (Frankly, my personal belief is that abortion for reasons of rape or incest or a mother's life in danger is just as wrong as abortion for "convenience." Does the poor fertilized egg that resulted from a rape have any less right to life than any other fertilized egg? It's not the fetus's fault that its father was a criminal. The fetus is completely innocent, regardless of its origins. I just don't think that my personal beliefs should have any bearing on law in a nation with a secular government. I believe theocracy is wrong, even if I end up on the "winning" side. But I digress....)

Federal tax dollars do NOT pay for routine abortion for Medicaid patients (exceptions for rape, incest, or cases when the mother's life is in danger have varied since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976). States have the right to include abortion coverage with Medicaid, but most don't (and isn't that what "small" government is about? states rights? local control?). Federal tax dollars do NOT pay for Planned Parenthood to offer any abortion services. So the federal government is not telling you or anyone else to pay for someone's abortion. That was struck from the Health Care Reform legislation and has been federal law for decades.

So why is the Republican party still hammering away at women's access to any health care that even covers their reproductive organs? Because clearly it's not just about making sure no federal funding covers abortions. It's about making sure that no women get birth control services, either. We've got right-wingers in all sorts of states making sure pharmacists don't dispense birth control pills and devices. We've got constant attacks on Planned Parenthood because it has become a symbol of abortion services in spite of the fact that it is one of the few places young, low-income women can go for check ups, treatment for STDs, birth control, and prenatal care.

If those who seek to defund Planned Parenthood are willing to open a nation-wide program of all reproductive services to low-income women EXCEPT abortion, I think that most of us who believe in truly small government (out of the bedroom & out of the doctor's office) would be thrilled. But they would never make such an offer, would they? Then they would have to offer women birth control services, and they don't want to do that either. Their policies pander to those who want to make birth control illegal and unavailable, and we see this in their refusal to support the kind of education programs that would make unplanned pregnancies less common. We need only look to Europe to see that wide-spread use of birth control by young people results in significantly fewer pregnancies. But the religious right can't let go of imposing their religious beliefs (only sex in male-female marriage) on all.

If the Republican party's policy was as reasonable as your response, only a few ardent lefties would be objecting to it. When you've got whole segments of society not believing that President Obama is not a US citizen in spite of evidence, it's not hard to get the same people to believe that they are paying for abortions with their federal tax dollars. It's all shift and shaft. Until folks REALLY believe in a separation of church and state, all this nonsense will continue decade after decade.

I completely agree that because abortion is a contentious issue, tax dollars should not pay for it.

War is contentious, and capital punishment is morally abhorrent to most civilized people in the world Your taxes fund both. So, you are saying that because an issue is contentious tax dollars should not be used? Great: No more of my tax money going for executions, abstinence only education, vouchers for religious schools, tax exemptions for churches, WAR, corporate welfare... Do you understand that the political process, by its very nature, is contentious? Do you mean to say: all programs objectionable to religious conservatives should not be funded with tax dollars? REALLY? Abortion is a legal, constitutionally protected activity so therefore you'll need to come up with a better argument than that.

cybersleuth: The point is that our political process is based on compromising to accommodate contentious issues. No side gets everything it wants. So, yes, I think it's sensible to compromise on the abortion issue and agree that federal tax dollars don't pay for abortions, and what I'd like to see in return is for the religious right to stop trying to impose their morality on one and all by constantly working to make abortion illegal or simply unavailable. Funding abortion is not that big a deal as long as women have access to it. Private funding can compensate, as Planned Parenthood has shown (you can donate to local funds to make abortion services possible for low-income women who can't afford them, if you so choose). Individual states can allocate medicaid coverage for abortions for their populations (like NY, CT, and VT do) that is funded by the states, not federal taxes. The real issue is that the religious right refuses to compromise: federal taxes do not support abortion services and they still can't let it go. They refuse to accept a separation of church and state.

Not everything that is legal and constitutionally protected gets funded by tax payers. What kind of logic is that? Should I subsidize gun ownership? People have the constitutional right to have guns, but I don't have to pay for their guns. If they want one, they have to go get one for themselves.

I am against capital punishment, so I would agree with you on that front but not enough Americans are in favor of abolishing it, so, again, we're stuck with compromise on a state-by-state basis. We elect our officials, that's how this thing works (or doesn't, depending on the day!).

I am glad you are not teaching my child history.

Sounds like one of those new Texas history teachers... you know, the one's where they changed all the history they teach!

Populations in industrialized nations are dropping because people are using birth control and planning families, so next you’ll want to take birth control away from people.

history teacher, there is no history nor anything teachable, in your comments.

ditto, Oldstyle!! What a prejudiced point of view History Teacher must inject into his curriculum!

And Europe is literally dying because of lack of population

Really, could you please cite your links or references for that statement??

If a woman is in a situation where she decides, for what ever reason, that she does not want to be pregnant, then she is going to terminate one way or another. I am more comfortable with the idea that she can do it safely with her doctor than by paying some nut job that might kill her. People need to stop trying to control every aspect of other people's lives! Get over it!

historyteacher, you are woefully ignorant of history. To point out just one illogical part of your post - Margaret Sanger was not an advocate of abortion, quite the opposite. She was, however, a pioneer and advocate of birth control. Are you also in opposition to birth control? Because your post makes it look like you must be.

Lol, having taught history for a short time after college, I must say "history teacher" that your post gets a flunking grade.

You make wild statements such as "Legalizing abortion = collapse of civilizations" without providing ANY evidence or reason that would support such.

And Europe is literally dying because of lack of population

You don't seem to know what 'literally' actually means.

No wonder the Bible Belt states have some of the lowest high school graduation rates and testing scores in the country. It's because of teachers like you.

historyteacher, you are every parents nightmare. Revisionist history. Keep your religion in your home and church and quit trying to force everyone else to adhere to your fairytale beliefs. Funny how the religious fanatics of the right say NO to abortion but then back every legislation possible to insure that the child will not have access to good medical care and education. You say don't kill a baby in the womb but then set about making sure that the people who need help the most, the elderly, the young and the poor, won't get any help. Make up your mind.

If a teacher at all, and not a poser - you're likely a parochial school teacher. Sad how low the Catholic schools have sunk. They used to provide a pretty fine education until the Vatican started stifling academic freedom.

Interesting. I hate you so I am going to regulate your ability to destroy a life which is still in the womb. Interesting interpetation from the left. Stupid as hell but interesting.

So, in your world, YOUR RELIGION prevails over INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS? That is ANTI-AMERICAN FACISM.

Chief Justice Roberts proclaimed that Roe v Wade is settled law ~ but it is not defined law which ultimately SCOTUS will have to address, and it should do so with great dispatch. As it stands, abortion is legal but the ambiguity of that ruling allows states to conspire against that legality. Roe was not decided on moral or religious grounds but rather Constitutional interpretation. That very document requires that responsibility of the court which now needs to find the guts to enforce its ruling or reverse it for lack of courage. I would have no problem with either decision SCOTUS might make but clearly it needs to define the legal imposition it has thrust on our society.

John, who is saying anything about religion? You azzholes label everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. Since when do we have an individual freedom to murder our children?

The American Taliban. What's next Frank? A ban on birth control?

That is exactly what the American Taliban wants.

BJ, pull your head out of youre azz.

Frank, it is not a child it is an embryo or a zygote. When it can survive outside of the womb then you can call it a child.

Wow Frank. Your argument has no credibility if you must resort to that.

Poor, poor widdle Frank.

Grow a uterus or shut up.

Jim in Texas where in the US Constitution does it give SOCTUS have the power to decide issues on "Moral" or "Religious" grounds? In fact the Constitution competly restricts the government from making religious based laws.

But you are from Texas. In Texas people believe that the US government has no authority to do anything except give them money when they need it. Washington passes a law they dont like? Dont follow it. Texas has a natural disaster and immediatly they look for Federal relief money. They need more troops on the border? Call Washington. There is a lot more on the insanity in Texas on ithinkrevolution.com. Check it out Jim and if you disagree, comment. But if you comment, support it dont just make accusations.

Roe v Wade (A Texas case by the way) IS settled law and it protects actual rights given by the Consititution-Privacy, equal protection, due process. Jim, if you dont like abortion, dont get one. But dont try to tell people who are following the LAW that they have not control over their bodies but you do.

Frank ...

The extreme right are against abortion because they say it kills babies. So now they are going to kill all the elderly, young children and babies and all of the poor people who can't afford insurance. But it's okay because they weren't killed in the womb.

Nora, did you expect this to be a democracy? That ended when a minority said that they want the government to punish them if they do not buy health care insurance and that should be the law for the country. They want the government to force everyone to buy a product, but they do not want the government to regulate the destruction of a life while still in the womb.

Gary, that was a majority, it passed.

Gary: Dont you remember that mandatory health insurance was a originally a GOP plan? Now that Obama endorsed it, they are backing away!

Gary, your argument is specious on its face. Opposition to required health care coverage as well as opposition to abortion is vested in a very loud and vocal minority that assumes the lack of an equally loud and vocal counter argument vaults the minority into the majority. You are right to question democracy for it cannot long survive in a "minority rule" environment. I notice that you have no problem being an advocate for governmental intervention in the womb so long as it provides that "life" cannot be terminated.

Nora-616050 well said. Gary-302710 Please spare us. Republicans are trying to destroy medicare, Democrats are trying to get everyone health insurance. Doesnt take a genius to see who is on whose side. It is interesting to note that when Obama was elected it was on a Platform of universal health care and he won by a large majority. Passing this legislation was one of his main promises. Now if so many people hate the idea, how did he GET ELECTED? What happened is the Republicans created the Tea Party (which backfired on them), to go to Town Hall Meettings and make a lot of noise. They even passed out instructions on buses THEY chartered to bring nut jobs to the events, telling them to cause disruption. Did you miss all of that?

Jim in Texas well said and totally correct.

Carlo C -

It is interesting to note that when Obama was elected it was on a Platform of universal health care and he won by a large majority.

You are so right... Note: the right loves to proclaim that no one likes this health care legislation, that even those on the left are not happy with it. What they neglect to say is that many liberals are unhappy bc they supported the single payer option, with profit taken out of the equation.

I find it disturbing that younger people, esp. younger women, are so naive about the abortion debate. I was a teen when Roe was decided. People: abortion happened before Roe. The wealthy were able to send their kids out of country in order to obtain an abortion. It was ever (and will ever be) thus. This attack on abortion is an attack on SAFE abortion for those who otherwise could not afford it. Legislation to restrict insurance coverage for abortion will drive it into the back alleys where it was performed pre-Roe. There is a reason why many Republican women supported Roe (and still do). Sepsis and death following an illegal abortion is cruel. Inhumane. Making safe abortion illegal will not make abortion go away.