It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Excellent Proposal to Reduce Abortions

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Statement By Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Marking the 40th Anniversary of Griswold V Connecticut

Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Reid calls for the Passage of “Prevention First” Legislation


“Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut that laid the groundwork for widespread access to birth control for all American women.


“Birth control is a basic part of preventive health care for women. Over the past forty years, increased access to birth control has helped to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and infant mortality.


“While we have made significant advances over the last forty years, we still have a long way to go. The United States has among the highest rates of unintended pregnancies of all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion. Making contraception more accessible and affordable is one crucial step toward reducing unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions and improving women’s health.


“We can’t let the pendulum swing backwards. We need to pass legislation like the Prevention First Act (S. 20) that will continue to improve access to contraception and will improve women’s health, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and reduce abortions – all while saving scarce public health dollars.”


The bill seeking to continue the reductions in abortion seen under Clinton's stewardship of education and prevention of unwanted pregnancies is co-sponsored by:

Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] - 1/24/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 2/2/2005
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 1/24/2005
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 5/26/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 1/24/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 1/24/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] - 2/8/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 1/24/2005
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 1/24/2005
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 1/24/2005
Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] - 2/2/2005
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 1/25/2005
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 1/24/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 1/24/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 1/24/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 1/24/2005
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 1/24/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 1/24/2005
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 1/24/2005
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 2/8/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 1/24/2005
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 1/24/2005
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 1/24/2005

It most certainly should appeal to not only everyone in their right mind, but at least 80% of everyone else.


Eighty-eight percent of voters in the poll, including 80 percent of Republicans, said they support women's access to contraception. Eight in 10 respondents who identified themselves as "pro-life" also said women should be able to get contraceptives.


Don't let President Dobson, Vice President Ratzinger and their fringe paper "majority" outlaw contraceptives and drive abortions back up to Reagan/Bush numbers. Come on people. Put the worry beads down and think.




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Well rant you know already that abortion is again in a time high for the last four years since attacks on reproduction rights in our country started again with a new fueled purpose.

If women had access to free contraceptive, abortions law will not be needed and then what will the anti-abortionist do?

That is why contraceptive are part of the fight.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Statement By Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Marking the 40th Anniversary of Griswold V Connecticut
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Reid calls for the Passage of “Prevention First” Legislation

It most certainly should appeal to not only everyone in their right mind, but at least 80% of everyone else.


Rant, I am one of the 80% you were alluding to who support a womans right to contraception, ie; Pre-coital prophylaxus. In other words, the intent has to be present to prevent pregnancy from the start, be that by pill, patch or other mechanical aid.

However, when you start talking about "emergency contaception", meaning chemical or mechanical interruption of a pregnancy, then, we part company, opinion-wise. Once the egg has been fertilized and is in the uturus, then, you are aborting a human life, IMO.

The answer to the teen pregancy epidemic (if that is what it truly is) is better education of teen males and females at home and at school(IMO, from about the 6th grade on) from parents, teachers, etc. There is no assurance in the proposed bill that this "emergency contraception" would only be offered to women who had not already concieved although the wording states the intent is to prevent ovulation, fetilization or implantation of the egg in the uterus; any woman who had consensual
sex and found herself to be pregnant a week or two later could show up at a clinic or hospital and state she had been sexually assualted or raped, with no police or legal confirmation or just say she had just had unprotected sex and have that pregnancy aborted by use of "emergency contraception".

At the very least it is just another "below-the- radar attempt at increasing the avenue of abortion choices to women who just don't care enough about protecting the life that is growing in their wombs or preventing that life from occuring. The only way I could support this legislation would be for wording to be added to insure that the only women provided this treatment are those who have had sex in the last hour and can prove it or those who are brought to the hospital by police immediately after a rape or sexual assualt.

Senator Reid's bill doesn't solve the problem he proclaims himself to be addressing. But that's just my opinion.






[edit on 6/8/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
However, when you start talking about "emergency contaception", meaning chemical or mechanical interruption of a pregnancy, then, we part company, opinion-wise. Once the egg has been fertilized and is in the uturus, then, you are aborting a human life, IMO.


It takes roughly 72hours(as far as I remember) for an egg to become fertilized, the emergency pill should be taken the "morning after" why it is called the "morning after pill" this just stops the "egg" from becoming fertilized and is a very good thing. It goes not "abort" a human life as the life has yet to be created in any sense of the word.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I really hate the euphemism "reproductive rights." I would agree that you have the right to decide when a child is conceived...but once conception occurs, that's it--too late.

No woman has the fundamental right to kill her child, born or not. Abortion is anti-woman. By nature a woman is a nurturer, and abortion destroys that. I didn't realize just how true that was until I was pregnant with my son, who is now 3 1/2.

BTW, trying to teach children about birth control is very counter-productive. Planned Parenthood knows this--that's why they're constantly shoving "sex education" off on everyone--and the more unintended pregnancies, the more abortions they can sell. They don't care about women--they only care about the almighty dollar. Abstinence is much more effective.

NO contraceptive is 100% effective. Sooner or later the law of averages catches up to you. The only thing effective is abstinence.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
My "rights" aren't one of them.


Originally posted by Amethyst
I really hate the euphemism "reproductive rights." I would agree that you have the right to decide when a child is conceived...but once conception occurs, that's it--too late.


Says who? Not the law. Not most Americans. Not even the Bible as far as my reading goes. So that's what you say? Make the woman birth her rapist's offspring because it's "too late!" Never should have worn that skirt in public ya hussey. :shk:


No woman has the fundamental right to kill her child, born or not.


Actually she does. Has since 1973 in America. Has in most every other part of the world except Islamic countries since time began.


Abortion is anti-woman. By nature a woman is a nurturer, and abortion destroys that. I didn't realize just how true that was until I was pregnant with my son, who is now 3 1/2.


By nature, people are lots of things. Like sexual.


BTW, trying to teach children about birth control is very counter-productive.


What's counterproductive?

Texas Study Shows Teen Sex INCREASES After Abstinence ONLY Education


The only thing effective is abstinence.


How unrealistic. Have you met people?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
One thing that will reduce the number of abortions--criminalize it. I was reading on abortiontv.com that 70% of women who aborted said that they would never have done it were it illegal.

Aborting due to rape only compounds the problem. You know how you're told that in order to overcome a problem, you have to face it? Well...if you're raped and you abort as a result, you're running from the problem, and it makes it worse! Further, more than 90% of women who aborted due to rape said that if they had to do it over again, they would have carried their children to term, and possibly adopted the children out! They really hate being used by the pro-abortion crowd to further the abortion agenda.

Abortion technically IS illegal. It violates an unborn child's Fifth Amendment right--that is, the right not to have LIFE, liberty, or property taken away without due process. Roe, therefore, is an unconstitutional ruling and is actually null and void. Just because something is "made" legal doesn't mean it's right--hey, the Supreme Court also legalized slavery way back when!

And how's abortion good for the woman? It's not. How safe is it to stick something sharp up there, or to terminate a natural process using unnatural means? A woman's body was designed to carry a child. Furthermore, women do die of legal abortions!

And you pro-abortion people play into the NWO-types' hands. They just used the liberals. Think population control. They encouraged abortion and marketed it under the "reproductive right" nonsense. A lot of this they did through second-wave feminism.

Our birth rate is already below replacement worldwide. Think what kind of chaos is going to come about.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Am, you have your rights to your opinion but to claim that 90% of women that became pregnant from raped and aborted regreted it is off the mark. Please don't try and comment on a situation that you may not have been in to know what you would have done.

I hate to break this to you but we no longer live in Eden. People have sex, plain and simple. So if I take your approach to raped women I would have to say to you, deal with the problem. To hide behind "just never have sex" is not reality in todays world and does nothing to help reduce unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is one of several ways to approach the problem. At this point whatever helps, we need to try.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
NO contraceptive is 100% effective. Sooner or later the law of averages catches up to you.


That's why it's a good idea to use both the condom AND the pill. It may be overkill, but it works. And in that case, if a fluke happens, with the odds against that happening you can conclude that it was the will of the Powers that Be... and you have the child.


The only thing effective is abstinence.


I have a long-distance relationship, I see my girlfriend one weekend out of four. Trust me, when we see each other, abstinence is not an option.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Aborting due to rape only compounds the problem. You know how you're told that in order to overcome a problem, you have to face it? Well...if you're raped and you abort as a result, you're running from the problem, and it makes it worse! Further, more than 90% of women who aborted due to rape said that if they had to do it over again, they would have carried their children to term, and possibly adopted the children out! They really hate being used by the pro-abortion crowd to further the abortion agenda.


Have you ever heard the term "secondary victimization"? People who have been raped are in a fragile condition and to further traumatize them by making them have a baby, live with a pregnancy--or anything, is just as bad as rape. Rape is exerting power--as is forcing someone to completely change their life to conform to your religious beliefs. 70% of all women are afraid of being pregnant after a rape--knowing that they would have to keep the baby would only increase the trauma. Considering that half of all rape victims suffer from PTSD and have suicidal feelings--and over 10% actually commit suicide, limiting their options is a dumb idea.

I suggest that you read about the effects of rape. Learn something.

And, BTW, the statistics you are quoting regarding rape victim's post-abortion regret are based on a "survey" of 192 women that were no doubt hand selected by "Dr." David Reardon, biomedical ethicist and founder of the The Elliot Institute, a Ministry dedicated to defeating abortion. He will gladly accept your donation here via 5 cents a minute long distance phone calls (made through the power of Jesus, no doubt), with 20 to 30% of your phone bill rebated back to Dr. Reardon, er charity.

In other words, the other 800,000 to 4 million women who became pregnant because of rape over the past 32 years since abortion became legal might disagree with the 192 women Dr. Reardon interviewed (it is estimated that only about 1 in 5 rapes are reported, so an average of 25,000 pregnancies due to rape are reported in the U.S. each year and it is likely that this statistic is extremely under-reported...)

Keep in mind that just because you saw it on www.abortiontv.com, it doesn't mean that it is a fact. A website that has a flashing banner that says "Warning: Must be under 12 years old to visit this site!" and then proceeds to list multiple buttons with bloody snuff pictures isn't a resource any intelligent person would cite as a credible source.


Abortion technically IS illegal. It violates an unborn child's Fifth Amendment right--that is, the right not to have LIFE, liberty, or property taken away without due process. Roe, therefore, is an unconstitutional ruling and is actually null and void. Just because something is "made" legal doesn't mean it's right--hey, the Supreme Court also legalized slavery way back when!

And how's abortion good for the woman? It's not. How safe is it to stick something sharp up there, or to terminate a natural process using unnatural means? A woman's body was designed to carry a child. Furthermore, women do die of legal abortions!

And you pro-abortion people play into the NWO-types' hands. They just used the liberals. Think population control. They encouraged abortion and marketed it under the "reproductive right" nonsense. A lot of this they did through second-wave feminism.

Our birth rate is already below replacement worldwide. Think what kind of chaos is going to come about.


Uh huh. More women die in car crashes than from terminating pregnancies. Or from heart surgery (can't be good to stick sharp objects in your heart! And talk about not being natural...)

Have you thought about the situation in India? Overcrowding and starvation is worse. People living within their means is not an NWO plot.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
We as a society should do everything we can to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

The only extremists in this debate are those that want to ban them all. Chances are when you agree with Osama Bin Laden on domestic issues, you're an extremist and your disinfo is just as bad as that of any radical fringe element.

There's also no manditory abortions "people" and the most ridiculous euphemism of all is "pro-abortion" as there's no such thing.

Everyone is pro-life, most just happen to also be pro-choice.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
RANT--that bin Laden thing you said...you sounded just like Bush just then!


Abortion should be illegal--period. Anyone who screams about human rights being violated and then advocates abortion as a "legitimate" choice should be branded as a hypocrite.

For the record, I'm against the Iraq war.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Abortion should be illegal--period. Anyone who screams about human rights being violated and then advocates abortion as a "legitimate" choice should be branded as a hypocrite.


So you honestly think if we make abortion illegal they'll stop? I mean honestly you believe that? It doesn't work with drugs, guns, pretty much anything. So why would it abortion?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join