Oh - I agree with you there....genius is definitely one way to describe it

This could be my favorite politcal maneuver so far :)

Ooohlala, I can't wait. This is way better than signing meanies up for annoying spam mail.  :D

I recommend you not send them to the campaign office - they will just trash them. Send them to one of the Alaska Governor's offices -- that way they get "counted" and are part of public record. Here are some offices (more at: http://gov.state.ak.us/govoffices):
/>
Governor Sarah Palin
Alaska State Capitol Building
Third Floor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001

Governor Sarah Palin
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1700
Anchorage, AK 99501

Governor Sarah Palin
675 7th Avenue, Suite H5
Fairbanks, AK 99701-4596

Thank you for your insightful posting on this scheme of "brilliance".  I see a Pulitzer in your future.  I was so impressed, I made a donation to Fathers for Life (www.fathersforlife.org) in Jen Nedeau's honor and I encourage everyone to do the same!  :-)

Has anyone ever considered how much paper this wastes? Seriously. Donate money in Palin's name, skip the postcard sending, okay? Let's not destroy the environment for spite's sake.

This kind of thing disturbs me.  I can't put my finger on quite why, but it seems really spiteful.  I can understand that the thought of having someone in power who feels the way Sarah Palin does about women's reproductive is frightening . . . but I also feel strongly that she is as entitled to her opinions and values as I am to mine.  Even though they may be poles apart and we can't reach any common ground.

I also know if the tables were turned and I was on the end of this sort of a campaign I would find it really offensive and disrespectful.  If 'they' were doing it to 'us' wouldn't we feel just a little outraged?

I don't know that the ends justify the means.  I hope there are better ways of getting our point across that are more adult and respectful.

You poor misguided children! not only is what you are doing stupid,but senseless! you hate Sarah because she has morals and values,if you have sex,guess what? you might have a kid!!! not only is abortion wrong but its against GODS will,that aside,why should i have to pay for your lusts uncontrolled?? and by the way the Earth and all its fullness belongs to GOD!! no one truly owns their body,men included.

To the last comment:
your idea of god is not the same as everyone else's in the world, and should therefore not be used as as an excuse for legislating certain rules.  I personally don't feel that abortion is right either.  Because of my beleifs, I would never have one (I'd like to think in any situation, even extremely adverse).  However, abortion has been going on since women have been having children; it just changed from abortive herbs to surgical, and when outlawed it is done in life threatening ways. 
And besides, YOU don't have to pay for anyone's "lust uncontrolled".  I have a college friend who intended to have an abortion, but couldn't afford it.  she was turned away, and is now carrying the child to term.  These proceedures have no effect on public money.  organizations that do help with the costs of such proceedures, like planned parenthood, get their money from others who support their cause, not the government.  YOU however are paying for it when the child is provided for through welfare.
Please leave your God out of my life and out of the laws that govern it.  I have my own morals and I do thrust them upon everyone else, as i beleive no one else should either.

This is so awful! How could you say you are Pro choice, and not accept the choices of other women like Palin, and force her to be a part of something she does not wish to be a part of. its like forcing you to be a part of a Pro life movement without your consent. Just think of something specifically you are totally against. How would it feel for example if in your name 1 million dollars were donated to a Pro child sex slaves fund, or a Pro child soldiers fund? Not that great huh. just a rule of thumb, Treat others like you would like to be treated. Respect the choices of others, if that’s what you say you stand on...and don’t celebrate at the fact that you are forcing a choice on to someone else. If you say you are all about people having the freedom to choose, then don’t force your beliefs on others, because then you are clearly not pro choice, but pro one opinion, and you are a hypocrite.

"no one truly owns their body,men included."

Really?  That's scary.  It's the only true "possession" any of us actually have.  And no one tells me what to do with it.

And guess what?  People don't get pregnant every time they have sex.  And people don't get abortions every time they get pregnant or every time they go to Planned Parenthood.  But people do have to pay for the women and kids on welfare.  Don't donate to Planned Parenthood if you don't support a women's right to affordable & safe healthcare.

There are NO men's health issues that even compare to this in the political arena. 

@Meg Appleby
Sure, Sarah Palin is as entitled to her beliefs as you are to yours. The difference is that she is attempting to impose her beliefs on others, whereas you are not.

Also, as an addendum, we so often focus intently on the right to have beliefs that we forget that not all beliefs are of equal validity or worthiness. So there's that, too.

@ Anna V Hutchinson
My thought is, that while Sarah Palin may well be attempting to "force her beliefs on others" by running for office surely you have other avenues available to raise awareness about their lack of "validity or worthiness" than something so spiteful and thoughtless.

When we resort to these kind of techniques to get our point across, it cheapens us and tarnishes our opinions.  This kind of action is not ok in everyday life, why should it be acceptable in politics?

Sarah Palin has every right to choose her values and stand up to be elected with those as her platform.  You have every right to choose your values and bear them in mind as vote for someone else.

By all means show your support for Planned Parenthood.  But do it in your own name.  As @Jennifer Quiroa said "Treat others like you would like to be treated. Respect the choices of others  . . ."

Thanks for all the comments everyone - really enjoying this discussion - I think that another thing to note is that while many nonprofits have had to accept lower profit margins during the Presidential elections, this was a successful manuever to generate money to an organization that may have been overshadowed by the presidential campaigns.

This is absolutely sickening! It just proves what devious depths the liberal left will go to. It shows mean spiritedness, immaturity, and it gives the obvious message that a woman does NOT have the right to choose. If she chooses life, as Sarah did, this is what happens!If Sarah chose to kill her baby, with Downs Syndrome, you would be cheering her on! What hypocrites you are! The "right to choose" is one sided indeed! Your slogan should be "Choose Death".

@Donna

Oh come on, you know that the devious right will quite happily sink just as low given half a chance :)

Lets all not descend into angry name-calling.  I realise this is a sensitive topic.  So lets all be sensitive.

bestest of ideas,ya betcha!!

   Planned Parenthood isn't concerned about any "rights" per se.  The real purpose of Planned Parenthood is EUGENICS. 
   They are all for reproduction, if the baby is "perfect."  But if the baby had a genetic disorder (RP, Usher's Syndrome, etc.), or if it were black, they would kill it.
   Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a female Hitler.

David - that is a highly charged statement - really, "female Hitler" ?? I mean think about that for a minute. Anti-semetic, anti-woman and very very pointed. If you have a clear point to make in terms of why a) you support being pro-life or b) why those who for whatever reason need to go to Planned Parenthood for even say, birth control, not an abortion, shouldn't be allowed to do so, please state that.

   The best (and only) real birth control is abstinence.  If women hate babies enough to ginsu them, then they shouldn't have sex.

David, come on, your argument is cruel and unkind.  Not to mention missing half the equation that goes into making babies!  Men are as responsible for unwanted pregnancy as women and should be held equally as responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Women who have abortions very seldom take the decision lightly, and its not usually made because they hate babies.  There are many reasons why women ultimately come to the decision not to continue with their pregnancy.  And while it may not be a decision you can countenance, cruel and badly thought out judgements do not fix anything.

Sensible education of our children (both boys and girls) about their bodies, about sex and about birth control options - including abstinence - will mean that fewer women and girls feel they need to turn to abortion as a method of birth control.

Giving our own children the tools, self-esteem and confidence to ensure they treat sex with the respect it deserves will also go a long way to making sure that they make informed and sensible decisions.

Indulging in lively, thoughtful debate is a fantastic way of learning new things and teaching new things to others.  Name calling and inflammatory statements about opinions that differ from our own - and the people that hold those opinions - does your cause and beliefs a disservice and convinces no one.

Meg, what kind of tools are you planning to supply kids with? At what age will you supply these 'tools?' You all speak of abortion as if someone is liberated, and no harm is done. Well, yes, someone is being liberated, but in order for this liberation to occur, someone has to be killed. I hope we never forget the absolute fact at the bottom of this debate -- abortion kills a child. Someone is murdered, calmly, without a thought to the future. To date we have murdered nearly 50 million children in this United States of America. And to David's point Planned Parenthood is founded on Eugenics. Because your sensibilities are quickened does not make it untrue. Margaret Sanger's history is well known -- google her, if you dare. Or YouTube her, whichever you prefer.

The writer thought it funny and appropriate to abuse Sarah Palin by donating money to an organization Sarah abhors in Sarah's name. What is funny about this? It is not a prank, it is identity theft. Planned Parenthood should return every dollar of this ugly event to its doner and advise the doner such behavior is not acceptable.

Finally, to the point made that Planned Parenthood gets all their support from donations. WRONG! They are the benefactors of taxpayer largess. Much to my dismay they receive millions from my taxes every year for programs I abhor. I would have this group disenfranchised of a single tax dollar. And maybe Sarah will get John McCain to disenfranchise this abhorrent group.

Great points Meg. I can see where the strategy of this situation might differ with your belief system, but the genuine sentiment you conveyed is very compelling.

Thanks for all the opinions....we need to have these conversations to realize that while we disagree - we all believe in humanity.

I am grateful that we have the ability to express all of our collective thoughts here at Change.org....

   I dare anybody to look up Margaret Sanger on the web.  She was the founder of Planned Parenthood. 

   Margaret sanger was a fanatic believer in EUGENICS.  She firmly believed that people whom she deemed "inferior" should not be allowed to reproduce.

   However, the love of money is the root of all evil.  Money answers all things, so follow the money, and you'll find the reason for everything Planned Parenthood does.

   True, a woman has the right to do as she pleases with HER body.

   But she does not have any right to harm the BABY'S body.

@ Kenneth

Thanks for your considered response.

In answer to your question, I believe there are a range of tools that children need to be provided with to ensure their sexual health as they grow to adulthood.  And if they are provided with these tools, the rates of abortion as a means of birth control would likely drop significantly.

The most important tool you can provide is self-esteem.  People who value themselves and respect others tend to indulge in less risky behaviours than those that don't.

I believe strongly that teaching our kids to not be ashamed of their bodies is a part of that.  They need to be able to talk about sex - and I don't mean in some pornographic way - but rather to be able to express themselves without shame so that they don't get pressured into something simply because they don't have the words or confidence to say what they want - or don't want.

They need to know how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy.  Its easy to tell your kids 'Just say No', but at some stage they will say 'yes' and whether they are 16 or 36 when they do, they need to know about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases.

Personally I don't want my kids having sex until they are mature enough to handle the possible emotional and physical consequences.  But I would be doing them a huge disservice to deny them the education they need to make informed, healthy decisions as they grow up and experiment with life.

I was unable (after a quick search through google/you tube) to find any information about Planned Parenthood that was unbiased from one side of the argument or another.  So I am sure the truth of their intentions lies somewhere in between the two extremes.  (In New Zealand, our 'Family Planning' is a decidedly less politically charged organisation.  It is primarily charged with ensuring women's reproductive health.  FYI Our abortion rate is around the same as that of the USA.)

You are right, of course, in stating that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics.  Not the most appealing of viewpoints I agree.  But, in her favour, she was also critical of the use of abortion as a method of birth control and advocated instead for better sexual education and prevention of conception.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is neither funny or clever to be donating money in Sarah Palin's name to an organisation she abhors.  As I said in previous posts, its offensive and disrespectful.  And the fact that it has netted Planned Parenthood a good income, doesn't make it any cleverer or more acceptable.

The thing about democracy is that it involves compromise.  When you live in a democracy you have to accept that not all people think as you do and that there will be some programmes that your taxes fund that will run contra to your values.  The trade off is, you get to speak out about what you believe in, vote for political candidates that you agree with, and (for the most part) are free to live in line with your values.

   Actually, Meg, "self esteem" is the last thing a person needs.  We all have way too much of it.
   Why do children get pregnant?  Because the culture-at-large pressures them into sexual relationships.  Any girl who is still a virgin is regarded as "weird."  So she submits to a loveless sex act to satisfy the demands of her societal circles.  Of course, she winds up feeling worse.
   And why do boys have sex?  Because they too are pressured.  They are also taught that "If it feels good, do it."  They want to "feel good," so they pressure the girls into a loveless sex act.  The boy puts his "feel good" over the best interests of the girl (i.e. wait till marriage; concentrate on preparing for the future).
   So the girl gets pregnant.
   The boy (a deadbeat dad in training) is nowhere to be found.  He will not love his girlfriend or his baby, or support them in any way, since that cuts into his personal "fun" time.
   The girl might try harder; but some of them will complain about the rigors of motherhood, because they're missing out on their "fun" time, too.  
   Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood wrongly sets this up as a "women's rights" issue (i.e. "self esteem"), instead of what it really is:  a PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY issue, for both boys and girls.
   And, finally, some dirty trickster sets up this cruel joke, connecting a moderate (Sarah Palin) to a radical (Planned Parenthood).  As far as they're concerned, the end justifies the means, no matter how dirty or underhanded the tactic.
   That is "self esteem" in action:  "I don't care whom I hurt, or how I do it, as long as I get MY way."

@ David

Thanks for your opinion.

Self-esteem is, however, something quite different from your explanation. 

Self-esteem is valuing yourself.  It means you hold yourself in high regard.  You value your opinions and have the self-confidence to do the things that you believe are right.

People who have a high self-esteem very seldom get pressured into behaviour they feel is wrong or risky.  They tend not to rely on other people's opinions of them to feel good about themselves so are better able to resist peer pressure.

As the mother of two young girls I wholeheartedly agree that there is a lot of pressure on our young people to indulge in sexualised relationships from a very young age.  I feel very strongly that it is my duty as a parent to ensure that my girls are strong enough of character and well enough informed to resist that pressure.

Please try and remember, that when kids get pregnant, they are still just kids.  Of course they will struggle with the sudden onset of responsibility, it is often a big enough adjustment for  older couples to make.  A little kindness and some community support goes a long way to ensuring that their kids will get a good crack at life.  Harsh judgements seldom achieve much, and, in cases like this its really just closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Whether Sarah Palin is a moderate & Planned Parenthood is radical seems to depend on which side of the debate you weigh in on . . . but I agree, it was an underhand and unnecessary tactic.

As for "I don't care whom I hurt, or how I do it, as long as I get MY way." - from my way of thinking, its a fine example of selfishness in action.

I personally disagree with the right for a woman to choose and only feel that abortion should be an option for health issues; if the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother.  Regardless of my personal beliefs, I hate that abortion has become a major issue in our presidential campaigns.

I find this political tactic to be extremely disheartening.  In fact, I was involved in a heated discussion with my very conservative family the other day when I said I felt that abortion is the topic that fundamental Republicans use to divert attention from the actual issues that cross party, religious, and moral code lines.  This just brings to light how far people will go on both sides to tear down candidates and how far they will go to further polarize our ideas and inhibit growth and change in the United States. 

   Actually, abortion is an issue, not a "diversion."  Women do not have a "right" to murder a baby.  Thou shalt not kill.  Case closed.

Meg, Thanks for the post. I agree with you about self-esteem. It is, or should be, something like, "I know who I am, I have values and live up to them. I am striving to be better each day."

Unfortunately, getting pregnant and having a child does mean a teenager now has to quickly become an adult. The only out is having family to support the teenager so he and she can go to school. It is critically important to make sure the new parents do this, so they can be valuable members of our working society and not 'dead-beats.'

Mary, be careful not to ascribe all the blame for diversion to Republicans or conservatives. Every side of the abortion issue is to blame. Remember we have lost nearly an entire generation to this scourge. I wonder about the impact of that in a few years if we continue to kill babies at the current rate.

And finally, Meg, I never considered attitudes as 'tools.' This approach will take some thought. Self-esteem as a tool. Hummm' reckon I must consider it for a bit. But the 'tools' such as condoms, iuds and such are non-starters for me .. unless they are preceded by some genuine intellectual and social preparation by a team of some real experts in reproduction, biology, and ethics. I am pretty sure there is not a soul teaching at our schools here that is truly qualified. Planned P is totally unqualified as their bias is so obvious. 

Before I walk off into the sunset ... I want to debunk one last thing. Sarah did not charge for rape kits. This has been exposed for the ploy it was. Taking details out of context is unfair. This happened in the Kouric and Gibson interviews, as well. Gibson's was the most egregious. His team moved answers to different questions to make her appear to be slow and dumb. It was caught and the network was called out on it, but it got scant press ... obvious reasons. I am just as incensed when I see the continuing balderdash spreading about Obama being a Muslim in secret. Done for obvious reasons. Just, for me, this is so distasteful.

"If Sarah chose to kill her baby, with Downs Syndrome, you would be cheering her on! What hypocrites you are! The "right to choose" is one sided indeed! Your slogan should be "Choose Death"."

Really?  I'm insulted by this statement.  Often this argument is presented by the Pro-Life side to try to portray Pro-Choice in a negative light.  Pro-Choice advocates do not sniper kill gynecologists, bomb womens' health clinics or scream at women entering doctors' offices.  And we certainly do not go around advocating abortions for "less than perfect" babies. 

Some may be surprised to find out that most Pro-Choice people have chosen to have babies.  It's the freedom to make private decisions regarding reproduction (for both the men & women involved) that is at the heart of the matter. 

I have been to Planned Parenthood, for guess what?  Not an abortion.  "Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a female Hitler."   That's a sad statement from a man who I'm presuming has never been to PP. 

There are many reasons that someone might decide to have an abortion, and no-one has the right to make that choice for anyone. The only people that have a say are the mother and father of that unborn child, or in some cases the mother alone. There are some very closed minded individuals that tend to think that abortion is the worst thing possible. If those people actually researched the topic on hand prior to posting a blog, they would realize how many different aspects there are. Everything from the fiancial difficulties, to a mother dieing from complications involved from getting raped. IN SOME CASES, CHILDREN THAT ARE BORN AS A DIRECT RESULT OF A RAPE TURN AROUND AND RAPE OTHER PEOPLE WHEN THEY BECOME OLD ENOUGH.

Yes Dory!

I was also thinking about this topic as I moved through my day... the word "abortion" is used to spark passionate feelings from both sides of the issue when in reality, abortion itself is such a small part of what goes on in family planning.  There are so many things that will disappear from Womens' Freedoms if we only focus on the narrow issue of abortion.  And freedoms that won't be "denied" to unwed teenagers, but denied married couples - which would probably be the majority of people affected if Roe v. Wade is overturned anyway...

It is difficult for me to restrain myself from being somewhat unkind to both of you (Dory and Lisa). But, as a gentleperson I shall not take to the rail as you have.

First, Dory, you would be absolutely WRONG. The choice to have an abortion involves a number of persons more than the Mother and Father. The Medical Doctor is involved, and the State is involved. Of course the Church is involved. You want to categorize the abortion matter as not 'the worst thing possible.' Would the unborn child agree? Probably not. I am a Catholic, currently working on being a better one, and I have learned the Church doctrine is far from what Pelosi and Biden are saying it is, so hummm', perhaps we have a ways to go in the discussion. The Church now affirms a life has begun at conception, so now an abortion is killing a being -- according to the Church.

And as to the (all CAPS shout) about children resulting from rapes becoming rapists -- I would hope you can repent your way out of that remark. It is specious, and unless you can bring some credible evidence to the discussion, I ask you to refrain from such incredible and impossibly insensitive remarks.

Lisa, we meet again, and again you are claiming health would suffer if the Supreme Court ruling called Roe v Wade were rescinded -- but you still cannot bring support for such a claim. I am an old guy, and a lifelong student (I am finishing up an earned PhD now), and I find non-supported declarative claims a poor defense for discussion points. What freedoms would disappear if RvW were to be reconsidered and rescinded? Which freedoms would be denied married couples, but not unwed teenagers? How so you know the majority of RvW effects are upon married couples? I don't know this, and would be happy to hear of your source.

Here's a blog post that may - or may not - give people something to dwell upon as they debate this issue.

Oops, here is the link http://tinyurl.com/6ghrd6

"What freedoms would disappear if RvW were to be reconsidered and rescinded? Which freedoms would be denied married couples, but not unwed teenagers? How so you know the majority of RvW effects are upon married couples? I don't know this, and would be happy to hear of your source."

No Problem.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut  This court ruling has been upheld many times.  If Roe v Wade falls, this will follow.   And once Gris. v. Conn. falls, married couples will not be able to make private decisions concerning their marriages - family planning being a major part of this.

I'm not sure why I have to prove, though, why hormone treatments are used for reasons other than contraception, but here's a link: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007111.htm   There are other conditions that are treated with hormones (endometriosis being one of them) that has nothing to do with contraception.  Take that treatment away, and women are left with few options, one of the remaining being hysterectomy. 

I think my husband & I have every right to decide on my medical treatments without the government limiting our choices just because these drugs can also be used as contraception. 

I'm 34.  I have endometriosis.  I'm staring down the barrel of a hysterectomy.  I cannot have any more children.  I live with severe pain.  Do you need to know that?  No.  No one does.  But because the drugs my doctor gives me to treat this is also connected to what John McCain calls "Women's Health"  (note the quotes please) I have to be worried if it will be taken away and I'll be left with the prospect of a hysterectomy and NO HRT - going through menopause at an age when I should be enjoying virility.  And thanks to all the laws concerning what women can and can't do concerning their health, there won't be any women's equivalent to viagra.

Now, explain to me how a teen & her parents making a choice as to what to do with an unwanted pregnancy is any of the government's business, too?

Unfortunately, there's more support in the form of laws & Supreme Court rulings to support why women should have access to medications, why married couples should be entitled to making private decisions that concern their marriage, and why doctors should be able to consul their patients in private matters without the government's intervention. 

@Kenneth

In response to your question on sources from Dory.

I don't think this should, or could, be the the main argument in support of RvW. Nor do I agree with Dory's very blunt statement.  However there has been research done that suggests RvW may be one of the biggest contributors to a decreasing crime rate.  The study suggests that children born to parents who are not ready to raise them, or do not want them, are more likely to grow up to be criminals.  And that the "missing generation" you mention would actually contain a higher than average criminal rate.

Again, I don't think this can be the sole basis of an argument for upholding RvW.  If you believe that abortion is murder then the trade-off is still obviously irrelevant.

Mark,
Have you a url for this research?

I have never read, or heard such. I know children of poverty stand a greater chance of finding themselves on the wrong side of the Law, but to advocate aborting all the children of the poor is a thing I cannot even hold in my head ... just to Margaret Sanger for me.

I did complete a bit of research on Sanger -- so, Jen, David was not so far from the mark with his "female Hitler" comment. She did not dream of world domination, but ridding the world of the weak, poor, and minority was definitely in her writings. She also was in a relationship with several folks who were signed on for Neitsche's theory of a superior race through eugenics.

I think I cannot reach Lisa with my point -- why cannot her MD provide her with the medical help she requires without the RvW or Griswold decision? I just cannot understand the restriction on her MD.

The source where I've read about the relationship of crime rates vs. abortion rates is from Steven Levitt, an economist who takes a very statistical approach.

Like I said, this obviously isn't the only reason you can hold up for supporting abortion rights. And I don't think anyone is advocating "aborting all the children of the poor".  That's a ridiculous statement to make. I was just putting it out there as support for some people who had mentioned a connection between the two.

No amount of stats or health care based arguments are going to convince someone to change their stance on the issue.  I think the basic question comes down to whether you believe abortion is murder, which in turn is based on when you think human life starts.  And whether you think the government should interfere with people's private beliefs on these matters based on what is essentially a religious doctrine.

Yes, the origins of the matter come from our religious beliefs, as does most of our Law. The Catholic Church has clarified their position since Pelosi and Biden have so egregiously misrepresented it. Life begins at conception for the Catholic, which both Pelosi and Biden affirm they are practicing Catholics. Further, even before this the relegious thought leaders (who were the de facto leaders of society) believed to abort a child yet unborn, even if it was, as then believed, forming and not yet inbued with a soul (which, the Catholics and others have now changed to conception), it was still abhorred as this was aborting a human being in its forming stage. It was a matter of degree of evil, aborting a being in its forming stage was punished, but less so.

Now today we have politicians (think Obama) believing it is Ok to kill a 'live-born' that survived an attempted abortion. We have certainly come a long way.

I am glad you did not mean to take the Margaret Sanger approach to rid our society of all the children of the poor, minorities, and those with weaknesses (Down's, etc). I was troubled to think such might be so. However, you might further define your thoughts that led to this statement ... "And that the 'missing generation' you mention would actually contain a higher than average criminal rate." Your statement is declarative, appearing to state this as fact. How do you know this, and from where did you research this? Is your 'fact' made from believing more of these missing children due to abortions are from the poor and would therefore, as you had intimated, have greater propensity to being 'criminal,' or 'violent?'

"I think I cannot reach Lisa with my point -- why cannot her MD provide her with the medical help she requires without the RvW or Griswold decision? I just cannot understand the restriction on her MD."

Kenneth has already read the response here: http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/no_debate_when_it_comes_to_presidential_candidates 

For the record on this particular blog entry: it's not a restriction on MY doctor, it is what will happen if Roe v Wade is allowed to fall.  I was using myself as an example of someone who isn't necessarily using HRT as contraception.  The prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg may soon be included in the definition of abortion, and since this is what hormone contraception (pill, IUD, ring, etc.) can do if ovulation occurs, these may be taken away from women as a choice to prevent pregnancy or other treat other female problems.

Most times, the focus of these discussions are on teen mothers, the poor, unwed parents, so we forget that many women who use contraception are married and already have as many children as they want.  At this point, then, there is a husband/partner who will be directly affected, as well, by any changes in the laws governing family planning.

Am I the only one who finds it intriguing/amusing/slightly horrifying that the most vocal anti-choice voices in this discussion have been male?

Also, Kenneth:

The research referenced regarding the connection between Roe v. Wade and lower crime rates was published in the widely respected and successful Freakonomics, by Stephen Levitt. I'm surprised you missed it.

And finally:

"Of course the Church is involved." Excuse me, what? To start, there is no one church to be labelled the church-with-a-capital-"c." To continue, one of the reasons that there isn't one is that its existence would violate the Constitution. To conclude, following any religion is a personal choice that should not be imposed on anyone for any reason. Same goes for the (much more reasonable) decision to completely disregard the supposed truth and "morality" of a poorly written text written in the desert a good 2000 years ago. Or should we also stone our children when they disobey us?

Please, keep your religion away from my body.

"Am I the only one who finds it intriguing/amusing/slightly horrifying that the most vocal anti-choice voices in this discussion have been male?"

HA!  Anna, this point struck me at the ripe old age of 16 when I took my first vocal steps into the Pro-Choice world.  It's a perfect irony, isn't it? 

Also, great comments about religion.

Anna and Lisa,

Thanks for your comments. It is clear Men quite possibly have no place in your world view UNLESS they are willing to toe your line on issues. Too bad, some folks think thought should be happening in one's head regardless of gender. I happen to feel we should not be killing our next generation in such wholesale fashion. I try to be a gentleperson in my comments, but I cannot sit here and agree with you -- when I do not.

Anna, the capital "C" for the word church means something different from your definition of church. First off, a lesson, there is no language in our Constitution mandating a separation of church and state. There is however a demand the state not create a STATE Religion -- such as the English have. We had a Justice of SCOTUS who created the "rule" from thin air. However, the bottom line is there is no State Religion. My use of Church refers to the fact that Christ took the headship of His Church and He joins with those willing to become His and join with Him to create the Church. So, you see, it ain't the Protestant denomination or the Catholics I am professing -- I see a bigger Church -- and the body of the Church is all believers. True believers cannot accept abortion -- so, you see, people like Joe Biden and Barak Obama, and Nancy Pelosi worry me, as they try to have their religion and abortion too. I don't think it is do-able.

"people like Joe Biden and Barak Obama, and Nancy Pelosi worry me, as they try to have their religion and abortion too. I don't think it is do-able."

What about people who try to have their capital punishment/death penalty and religion, too?

Also, it's not "toe your line on issues", it's believing that a person regardless of gender, has the right to make their own decisions regarding their bodies.  "we should not be killing our next generation in such wholesale fashion."  Fine, that's something to look at BUT do you personally know anyone who's had an abortion?  I don't.  I also don't think it's my place to limit the choices faced by another person when I don't know all the details of their circumstance.  I'm guessing abortion isn't something you just "do" because you're bored or you want to try something new that day... It's not a decision entered into lightly or carried out immediately by health care providers or even easily recovered from.  The physical & mental recovery probably doesn't happen overnight, either.  I wouldn't want to walk in any woman's shoes who has had to make this choice.

Kenneth,

Thank you for your (condescending) lesson. Now one for you:

1. First amendment to the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Note that this does not say that Congress shall make no law respecting a STATE religion, as you erroneously stated earlier. Thus, the Church of England really has no relationship to this discussion. Rather, the amendment indicates that Congress shall make no law that installs one religion in a place of predominance over others. This leads to...

2. There can be no single, dominant church-with-a-capital "C," state sponsored or otherwise. Definitely not state sponsored. If otherwise, it cannot be in control of government policy. Congress cannot make laws based on its teachings because doing so would be "to make [that particular religion] a national or state institution" ("establish," def. 6, Merriam Webster Dictionary). Furthermore...

3. You continue to ignore a vital component of any discussion of the relationship between religion and the state, which is that not only is there a huge variety of religions at work in the US, but also there is a sizable portion of the population who do not adhere to any religion and who would likely categorize themselves as agnostic if not atheist. These people should not ever be subject to the whims of those who would base their world views on religion.

4. Atheism aside, who are you to decide who is and is not a true believer? Wouldn't a true believer know that only god could pass judgement and that it would be blasphemously presumptuous for a mere mortal to think that he could ever know god's mind and do god's work? And don't forget that huge variety of religions: you might very well be following the wrong one. (I'm beyond reasonably certain that you will be unable to find any conclusive proof that you are not.)

5. You're right. It is bad to kill our next generation. In light of this, I do hope you are anti-war and anti-death penalty.

6. I find your capitalization of "men" very amusing, and I would like to point out that at no point did I accuse anyone of lacking thought. You would do well not to (again, erroneously) imply otherwise.

7. I don't ask anyone to toe the line on any issue. Instead I ask for the respect I deserve as a woman whose body is capable of doing something that yours could never even imagine. Your concept of when life begins is predicated on the metaphysical (read: religious) argument that there is some essence that comes to inhabit an embryo upon conception despite the fact that for many weeks this embryo-then-blastocyst has a cellular complexity that doesn't even measure up to the common fruit fly. Because of its religious origins, this estimation of the beginning of life is invalid as a basis for legislation because to use it for such would be in direct conflict with what I began with: the First Amendment to the Constitution.

NOTE: Pro-choice is not pro-abortion and to refrain from criminalizing abortion is not impose anything on anyone. Please respect my intelligence by NOT making such a ridiculous argument.

8. Finally, I find your capitalization of "Men" very amusing given my earlier statement about the irony of men being vehemently anti-choice. You are physically unaffected by pregnancy and childbirth. Your life and health cannot be put at risk by either, and society will not expect you to be the primary caregiver. You do not need to condone abortion to accept and respect my right to choose to have one, and to do otherwise is to find the female sex insultingly incapable of knowing how to make an informed, reasonable decision about anything important.

Oh, and since you are apparently anti-death (as any humane person would be), I hope that you are not only anti-abortion, but also anti-war and anti-death penalty. The former in particular, as it more than anything is responsible for the "wholesale" murder of our next generation.

Note: I realize I repeated myself. It's 2:30AM here in DC. *sigh*

Anna - you rock.  "men" in caps gave me a smile as well. :)

"respect I deserve as a woman whose body is capable of doing something that yours could never even imagine" "your estimation of the beginning of life"

Speaking as someone who has been pregnant & given birth, I cannot even conclusively say when "life" began in my uterus!  Personally, I don't think for those first few weeks when all that's going on is implantation & division of simple cells that the embryo was much different from say the growths i had on my ovaries at the time - all cells that don't belong in the body.  In fact, there are many women who can't carry a pregnancy because their body attacks the blastocyst (notice the wordpart "cyst" - closed sac having a distinct membrane and division on the nearby tissue. It may contain air, fluids, or semi-solid material.) as a foreign body, which technically it is at that point.

Does life begin when 2 tiny cells collide?  Or does it begin the moment the head exits the mother's body?  Or when the entire baby is lying in the doctor's arms?  Is it when a fetus can survive outside the womb w/o the help of machines?  Is it when a fetus wiggles for the first time inside the mother?  I have been through this process and I can't say with any certainty when life begins, so I wonder how someone watching from the outside can legislate laws without a definitive answer?

What a fantastic way to bring unity by not chastizing Palin, but honoring her with a donation to bring about more sexual education to women. I am definitely a supporter.
Mr. Horn,
That is great that you are showing your own perspective on the importance of a male role model for children. I congratulate you on standing up on providing a greater image of your gender on the parenting issue. My only concern is that your website FathersForLife.Org has "graphic descriptions and photos of the abortion holocaust and of the Nazi holocaust."
hmm...
A bit off topic for a blogpost on empowering women.
But alas, that is only my opinion.
http://fathersforlife.org/health/abortion.htm

   The best sex education you can give to women:

1) NO SEX until marriage.
2) NO MARRIAGE till your man has a JOB.
3) NO Government handouts.
4) NO exceptions.

"The best sex education you can give to women:"

It takes TWO PEOPLE to make a baby.

Unbelievable. And you give ultimatums, about what I can say. I am so sorry for the both of you. I have seldom encountered such hate. And saying you are confused when life begins. I will uncheck the box, I cannot participate where such evil exists.

I don't think I've ever been called "evil" for admitting I don't know the answer to a question.  I think I'm honored.

Frankly, I don't see the hate coming from any direction other than yours. While you yourself have been mostly courteous in your ignorance (though I have to say, calling me "evil" was a bit much), Mr. Lafleche does not make your side look particularly loving:

"The best sex education you can give to women:

1) NO SEX until marriage.
2) NO MARRIAGE till your man has a JOB.
3) NO Government handouts.
4) NO exceptions."

Yet again we have a man presuming to know what is best for all women everywhere. This is presumptuous, condescending, and entirely illogical. Abstinence-only sex education has been statistically shown to be ineffective, and on a larger scale, human progress has only resulted from pursuing and allowing more knowledge and awareness, and not from placing severe limits on the thoughts of others.

Sex is a huge part of what makes us all human. Few other species have any inclination towards having sex simply for pleasure. (In fact, the dolphin is the only other species that comes to mind.) If you ask me, that makes us pretty damn special. To flatly deny anyone the right to engage in sexual activity would be to strip that person of his or her humanity, an act which I think we can all agree to be terrible.

Anna - thank you for bringing this into the conversation!

"Sex is a huge part of what makes us all human. Few other species have any inclination towards having sex simply for pleasure. (In fact, the dolphin is the only other species that comes to mind.) If you ask me, that makes us pretty damn special. To flatly deny anyone the right to engage in sexual activity would be to strip that person of his or her humanity, an act which I think we can all agree to be terrible."

I think that many either forget to correlate reproductive health with sexual health or choose to demonize a women's ability to enjoy the act of sex. We are sexual beings!

Additionally,  no longer does sex and reproduction need to be seen from an economical standpoint. sNo longer do we need to have 15 children to support our livelihood as say farmers - which was the case in the medieval ages when abortion was demonized by religious entities. One idea is that the Catholic Church made abortion illegal for practical purposes, not necessarily moral ones. The Church wanted to encourage families to sustain their livelihoods by having as many children as possible and for the church to improve it's membership and longevity.

In this day and age, having 15 kids would put most people into poverty - not sustain their livelihood. We need choices not only in terms of how handle the cases of abortion, but also how to plan our economic futures and explore sexual identities.

Thanks for keeping up a great conversation everyone....

"Sex is a huge part of what makes us all human."

Anna, this is a really great point!  People don't like to admit this , or are uncomfortable with the thought, because sex is often portrayed in a negative light: something we should only do to procreate! It's so ingrained in our society now that we forget that prohibiting people from having sex is denying a very primal instinct - one of the few (other than the maternal) instincts that we still have.

Let's forget teen sex for a minute & just look at romantic (adult) partners.  How much would it suck to not be able to have sex w/your husband or wife because you weren't allowed by the gov't to use contraception?  I hate hearing how condoms would still be allowed.  Great.  I'd rather be celibate than use condoms w/my husband! 

Jen, I have heard that the Catholic church banned contraception because of the need to fill church pews.   I mean, really, just having one kid nearly put us into poverty!  I can't imagine having 5, 10, 15 kids just because the church hasn't changed their stance on contraception in 1000 years.

   Oh, so if a 14-year-old kid gets pregnant, her "boyfriend" walks out, she drops out of school, goes on the dole, and raises a latchkey kid who repeats her cycle of dependency...

   ...I suppose that's "part of what makes us human."

   I hope you're proud of yourselves.  Let not fornication be named once among you.

The important thing is for said 14-year-old to have a CHOICE. A choice to keep her child, or to put it up for adoption, or to have an abortion.

Furthermore, to assume that (1) all teen mothers are bad parents and (2) all daughters of teen mothers will in turn become teen mothers is offensively ignorant. Plus there are PLENTY of latchkey children whose parents are married adults.

And for your information, I am incredibly proud of myself. I am 22-years-old, smart, successful, and comfortable with making decisions, large and small, for myself. What's more, the world I live in is not as welcoming to women as we are all encouraged to believe. You are just one example of the blind ignorance and anxious, fearful hate and anger that any healthy feminitity is sure to encounter.

I hope that YOU, who clearly are only on this site to spread nonsense, I hope that you are proud of yourself.

"the world I live in is not as welcoming to women as we are all encouraged to believe."

I can certainly second that.  

It is very important for this hypothetical 14-year-old to be able to decide (probably with her parents) what to do about this pregnancy.  Some would remove any choices she might have, condemming her and her child to a life of poverty - sucking more money from the welfare system that, ironically, most conservatives seem to want to limit or eradicate.   It's a vicious cycle that can be stopped immediately at the source.

Also, it would be nice to put some condoms in the pockets of the teen boys spreading their seeds to the wind.  How about teaching them a little self-control while we're at it?

I believe the point Ms. Jenkins was making is that moral arguments (such as sex before marriage=the need for contraceptives=bad) are being used to make much wider legislation that would effect otherwise knowlegable and able individuals to conduct their lives as they see fit (such as the married adult who does not currently want a pregnancy but is happy with her husband and married sex life)

The "Evil" Ms. J says THANK YOU!! 

"I hope you're proud of yourselves."
I am extremely proud of myself.  I have been allowed to make choices for myself throughout my life that have led me to this particular juncture where I am a successful musician, compassionate mother, and strong intelligent woman.  The world is a difficult place for women, it's the ugly truth.  And I have been taught by my own parents that until I have walked a mile in someone else's shoes, I should never judge or rule them.