NYT Mag: Beyond abortion: social conservatives target contraception

NYT Magazine: Contra-Contraception
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: May 7, 2006

....For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

The American Life League is a lay Catholic organization, and for years — especially since Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae" encyclical of 1968 forbade "any action which either before, at the moment of or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation" — being anti-contraception was largely a Catholic thing. Protestants and other non-Catholics tended to look on curiously as they took part in the general societywide acceptance of various forms of birth control. But no longer. Organizations like the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which inject a mixture of religion and medicine into the social sphere, operate from a broadly Christian perspective that includes opposition to some forms of birth control. Edward R. Martin Jr., a lawyer for the public-interest law firm Americans United for Life, whose work includes seeking to restrict abortion at the state level and representing pharmacists who have refused to prescribe emergency contraception, told me: "We see contraception and abortion as part of a mind-set that's worrisome in terms of respecting life. If you're trying to build a culture of life, then you have to start from the very beginning of life, from conception, and you have to include how we think and act with regard to sexuality and contraception." Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002 to the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee despite (or perhaps because of) his opposition to contraception, sounded not a little like Daniel Defoe in a 1999 essay he wrote: "Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."

As with other efforts — against gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide — the anti-birth-control campaign isn't centralized; it seems rather to be part of the evolution of the conservative movement. The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is considered one of the leading intellectual figures of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. In a December 2005 column in The Christian Post titled "Can Christians Use Birth Control?" he wrote: "The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age — and one of the most ominous. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.. . .A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control — and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies."...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html

from anything having to do with the Right would simply be to make this anti-contraception position far more widely known. Even many Catholics practice birth control in their personal lives, and outlawing BC is truly a fringe idea, far out of the mainstream, for most people.

few years. I recall the reaction the idea of workfare got when a Republican congressman or senator introduced it back in the late 70s. It was viewed as extreme because welfare benefits are so low and to make people perform some kind of work for benefits was seen as outside the pale. Fast forward to the mid 90s and a Democratic president and a changed culture causing workfare to be accepted and encouraged policy.

the changing economic situation many women needed to work to support the family. those on assistance were seen as no more privileged than other women. also work was seen as beneficial to the liberation of women - stay at home mothers were frowned on and still are.

They have no basis in reality nd need to be reminded of it, were they to gett their way I believe we would be the only 'first' world nation that has banned contraceptives. These radicals are stepping up their agenda that hates women and dispises the poor.

It is true that many practicing Catholics depart from the church's teaching on contraception. I should also add that many of them feel the same way about abortion, homosexuality, and premarital sex.

What troubles me is that the right wing has been chipping away at access to medical care and to services aimed at family planning of any sort whatsoever. They have been doing this all around the world and now here in the States. The end result will be more spread of disease, more unplanned pregnancies, and more maternal deaths.

Of course, there's massive hypocrisy all over the right wing about this. Raise your hand if you think that George W. Bush went to his wedding night a virgin, or that his two daughters serenely underwent abstinence-only sex ed and are modest young maidens. :rofl:

Obviously they have no bearing on the ruling class.

Just a few observations:

1. Before Humanae Vitae, Paul VI commissioned a group including theologians, physicians, scientists, and many others, to advise him. They actually came down in favor of birth control. He seemed to be leaning in that direction, but in the end, he ignored them.

2. Many Catholic priests do not warn their parishioners away from birth control. While few will come right out and endorse it directly, they do make their position known. Humanae Vitae is probably one of the most well-known, yet universally ignored encyclicals in the church today.

3. What some may not realize is that the Catholic church DOES condone the use of birth control - as long as it is one of the methods of natural family planning. I have always viewed this as particularly disingenuous. Here's why:

--When examining a particular "sin", The Church has always placed more emphasis on the frame of mind of the sinner than the method utilized to carry out the act. Example: Killing. Whether the killing is carried out with a rock or a gun is of little consequence. It is the frame of mind of the sinner that determines the seriousness of the sin.

--When it comes to birth control, the Church has turned the matter entirely on its head. What matters here is not intent or state of mind (in this case the desire to prevent a pregnancy) - it's the method. The couple who stands on their head to examine (in excruciating detail) such things as temperature, mucus, and cervical changes in an effort to prevent a pregnancy supposedly have not sinned. Not so for the couple who uses other methods, even though the intent and state of mind of the two couples is identical. (If anything, the couple going through all the gyrations to examine mucous, temperature, etc. are more preoccupied with preventing the pregnancy than the couple who uses other means!) This inconsistency is complete nonsense, and I think most Catholics realize this. By condoning birth control (in the form of natural family planning), the Church is left with nothing much to say on the subject except hair-splitting, tortured language regarding methodology - natural vs. artificial. Most Catholics (including many priests) see that position as indefensible.

4. Regarding this quote by Daniel Defoe referenced in the OP: "...Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification..."

This is striking, and I think the same theme runs through the Catholic church's position. What's striking about it is this:

a) It seems to me that such thinking could only come from one who has no concept of what a loving relationship entails. Anyone who would say those words has utterly failed at love... has not been to the mountaintop, so to speak, and has no business advising others in matters of love and relationships.

b) It is incredibly demeaning, insulting, and condescending to women. Anyone who could utter those words knows very little about women, and nothing whatsoever about true love. The last thing the world needs is to have rank amateurs and/or brutish clods pontificating about love expressed through sex - an experience they clearly do not understand.

c) There is a presumption that a wife could not see her husband as an object of sexual pleasure. Wow! Think about that. These people see a sexual relationship in a twisted and perverted way. To them it is fundamentally a matter of a man using a woman for gratification. How cold, empty, and lonely these people must be. They don't even know what real love is, yet they presume to advise others.

How many doctors have I gone to that either reluctantly gave me a scrip for the pill, or just wouldn't? The batting average is 2-2 in the Phoenix area for me...

In my experience, doctors rarely miss an opportunity to get their patients on some kind of a prescription, because it virtually guarantees more visits.

Apparently being single and having a broken hymen is a big deal. After all, the doctor asked me FIVE times if I was married, in addition to the two times I answered it on their pre-"wellness" exam questionnaire. I don't see what the BFD is, since I can't have kids via the traditional method anyhow. I just wanted the pill to prevent all the PMS crap I deal with for two weeks of every month.

The other doctor I went to reluctantly gave me a scrip. I got a nasty lecture along with two fingers up my ass. Note: women generally do not get a rectal exam, much less when they are in their 20's.

I live in the South and I've never had that problem. Quite the opposite - doctors generally seem rather eager to get me on the pill, even though I have no desire to be on it, ironically enough.

One did attempt an exam of the sort you describe on me as well, but I, um, made it clear to him that it was unnecessary. O8)

Oh, by the way, welcome to DU. :hi:

I can only think of one wingnut doctor in Louisville... name was Frank something-or-other. I debate daily whether I want to relocate back to the South.

What a bunch.

They are now on a PRO-DEATH PENALTY march here

Our esteemed assembly majority leader now running for Governator

Is a Fundy Catholic who wants the death penalty reinstated (banned since 1849).

He is scum and a lowlife pervert. He is Very Dangerous.

...the mother of all "wedge issues."

...wedge of all "mother issues."

egad... I'm so punny. Anyway, I heard an idea recently about the anti-abortionists... that they're not really concerned with abortion specifically, their "real" issue is with contraception in general! Thou Shalt Not Interferest Withest A Womanst Makingeth of Babiesest! (I suppose the figure that's fooling with God's plan and/or they just want more opportunities to "convert" more converts to Christianity--after all, Muslims are multiplying like bunnies...)

at a friend's house (he had a lot more channels than I). I was literally shocked to see what appeared to be an entire channel devoted to "pro life" issues. The particular show I caught was with a talk show host who was a Catholic Priest and his guests were these two women pro life activists -- one who ran a "retreat" for women who have had abortions and another lady who worked for the show and organized pro life stuff.

Anyway -- The entire show focused on the fact that the latter of these two women had "contracepted" during the beginning of her marriage, and she had participated in the retreat that the other lady offered as a way for her to deal with her guilt and grief at having "aborted" children through her "contracepting." And, they then had a segment from a doctor who claimed birth control pills act as a form of abortion, etc., etc. And they discussed how at first the women who had "medical abortions" did not accept her but once she "educated" them about "contracepting" she was accepted as a grieving member of their clique.

This woman stated that at the retreat, she had been able to break through her grief and guilt and even was able to name two of her aborted children.

So basically, she was married, used birth control for family planning, and now was grieving the "children" she "aborted" through "contracepting."

A big part of this, too, was about blaming the Catholic church who, in the 70's, had told this woman it was okay for her to use the pill.

Emphasis on the terribly part.

It would be fine with me if these people wished only to torture themselves this way, but of course no such luck. That's the problem with the hairshirt mindset, whether Catholic, Muslim or otherwise: everybody wearing a hairshirt wants to fit you for one, too.

How would she calculate the number of "children?" Would that be 12x however many years she "contracepted?"

did the wild thang... yep, maybe once a year every year (naw, not really, I suspect a 'proper wife slave unit' is expected to service her husband regularly). Of course, that way of figuring can't take into account the unexpected blessings of twins or other multiples (and if fertility drugs were used, the sky's the limit for such accidents of birth).

after she ceased "contracepting" to give her first child a companion. Man, this lady is gonna have a hard time naming all these eggs, I mean kids, she "aborted."

Virginity is no excuse, either. Better get humping, ladies. :evilgrin:

Why, just thinking of all the potential humans we've lost through menstruation and menopause horrifies me! Poor little snowflake baies--or, umm, half-snowflake babies, chromosomally speaking. In fact, if we really want to have a "culture of life," we ought to just extract all the eggs from every girl's ovaries as soon as she reaches sexual maturity, artificially fertilize them, and re-implant them.

What's that you say? There aren't enough women to bear all those little snowflake babies?? Nice try, ladies, but you can't fool me. I've seen all those primetime specials about women having sextuplets on Sixty Minutes and such...I'd say we can safely fit at least five fetuses in each uterus at a time. American women are tough, they can take it!

And don't let liberals trick you into thinking that we need social programs for all these joyous mothers-to-be and the little citizens in their wombs...no, no, we wouldn't want to coddle them into laziness, would we? That isn't the American way. Those women can just pick themselves up by their bootstraps (which will probably snap under the weight of a woman and five fetuses, but that's not the point), and work their way to the top! Or rather, their husbands should do it, since the ladies should of course be at home baking cookies and knitting jumpers for their precious darlings.

Ooh, and that's the best part, too. Since all these women are going to be constantly pregnant with multiple children, there's not a chance that their husbands will view them as "sexual objects constantly available for gratification." In fact, using the latest reproductive technologies to artificially impregnate them, there's no reason for anyone to have sex, ever! We'll all die virgins, and God will be so proud of us for keeping our temples pure!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :puke: :puke: :banghead: :puke: :puke: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

"snowflake babies" started within the past year or so) someone linked to a site (?satirical) bemoaning all the babies that are lost each month when women menstruate. It was a hoot.

I became a committed DUbie that night ... all these twisty little minds here!

Dunno if this is the one you were thinking of, but here goes! :evilgrin:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3728812

I laughed, I cried, I peed my pants! :rofl:

Those 'breakthroughs' such as naiming the aborted 'child' and the 'contraceptively stopped' children is a method of mental control through the use of guilt.

...for every sperm he's ever nocturnally emitted or (heaven forbid!) spilled while spanking the monkey?

Sauce (as it were) for the gander, and all...

Just askin'....

innocently,
Bright

How they find that Godly is beyond me. But then I think organized religion is a male contrived plan to keep women subservient, same as the Taliban.

organized religion is a male contrived plan to keep women subservient, same as the Taliban.

Thanks, Erika... :applause:

Griswold. In a time in history when we are depleting natural resources, we have a planet that is over-populated, it is immoral to not practice birth control.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/


A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification." Personally, if you reverse this statement I would be perfectly happy!:blush:

Lessee now... (ahem)

A WIFE will sometimes begin to see HER HUSBAND as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification.

Yup. I have no problem with that. :evilgrin:

I'm hoping we can get it out during the campaign.

And as for Catholics using contraception - as I ask my devoutly anti-contraception parents "how many families of 8-14 kids do you see at your church these days?" They reply that people are "getting better at the rhythm method". Uh, yeah, right.

:eyes:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

Ain't it though - while we're playing roulette...nursing a baby full time (at least every 4 hours) will prevent either conception or implantation (not sure which). OMG - You think they'll outlaw breastfeeding a newborn to save the life of her potential brother?

we call them "mothers."

...a Dean of a school of Environmental Studies about overpopulation and his response was that until and unless we address the issue of population control -- which NOBODY wants to talk about -- whatever we do to reduce CO2 emissions, and save clean water and air and other species will be of limited value for a very limited time.

To allow infinite population growth on an finite planet with finite resources is a death wish -- for the planet and its inhabitants.

That was (paraphrasing) his answer.

So it is indeed grossly immoral NOT to practice birth control in this day and age. At one time, we could afford to ignore the issue -- but not anymore.

And not only for contraceptive purposes but disease as well. Can't let on that you can plan a pregnancy or be STD free. :sarcasm:

I got in a mini-flame war a couple months ago with someone on another board about whether the ultimate goal of most pro-life groups was to eliminate contraception. I provided quote after quote, text after press release, and still this woman would not concede that it was likely or even possible.

By providing this woman with the facts, you were interfering with her determination to live in a fantasy world where only other people lose their rights. This woman and others like her are, in many ways, as big of a threat to our freedoms as the right wing idiots who are determined to turn the United States into a theocracy.

when state after state is passing legislation to give Pharmacists the 'conscious clause'. Truly frightening
quote.....
Last year, 14 states introduced 37 bills that would allow pharmacists and other health care providers not only to opt out of abortion services, but to refuse to fill prescriptions for any drugs on the basis of personal or moral convictions.

In addition, nine states introduced broader bills that would permit the refusal of any medical procedure or drug for any reason.

end quote......
http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=1185

in a bill that passed the State Legislature that the Governor signed into law.

It specifically FORBIDS such "moral" concerns for refusing service.

Small victory, at least.

Thank goodness.

will add up. That is what this anti-contraception, anti-choice, anti-woman movement was built on. Little stealthy victories in backward red states. Few people noticed.

that BANS ALL contraception.

creatures left in MO if it passes will be the pasty faced white men who passed it and the sheep, who will be the only creatures left for them to have their way with.

Particularly that of women.

Be the first in your neighborhood to join the Junior Anti-Sex League.

I can't wait to see how this plays out in Nov. '04 and '06....especially since women are the majority of the population and are now the better educated (statistically speaking) of the sexes.

:popcorn:

I believe that the whole goal is forced pregnancy to make sure that there are enough of the "right kind" of babies born (read: white) to make sure that this country doesn't ever get into a situation where white people aren't the majority.

On multiple levels. You didn't hear many of these folks screaming about abortion and contraception when they were sterilizing poor black women without their consent in institutions and hospitals and when white babies were flowing into the adoption industry from homes for unwed mothers. But once middle-class young white women had easy access to abortion, they changed their tunes.

My "big picture" thinking all along has been that anti-abortion groups didn't get really rabid until middle class white people started to realize that there was a dearth of blue-eyed blond children for adoption. And a lot of single mothers who had the temerity to be happy with their decisions to keep their babies.

Everyone knows the real Conspiracy is to prepare us for endless wars.

:tinfoilhat:

and it's not only contraception, although that gets right to the heart of things. It's all about women -- controlling them.

...and that was a LONG time ago. That's what the bastards have been after all along.

We've known what the agenda is but I'm glad it's hit the NY Times. I hope other papers pick up the story. Recommended

I have a lot of sisters, and each of them (except the youngest) has kids. Most of my nieces and nephews are brats. My sisters should have used contraceptives - either that or they should made it a higher priority to raise their children. But they're "Good Catholics" who wanted kids - not because they thought parenthood would be such a joy, but because parenthood is (to them, at least) a badge of adulthood. I sometimes think I love their kids more than they do. I sometimes think they don't see their kids as having feelings, thoughts, and needs.

If the American Life League really cared about children, they would make sure would-be parents understand the responsibilities of parenthood. Giving birth to a child is not proof that a woman ought to be a mother. I think all women should at least try to prevent their own pregnancies until they understand what it means to be a mother, what it means to be a parent.

I know I'm not ready for it. Needless to say, I take my pill religiously. It's really the only "religious" thing I do.

Apparently, these idiots do not remember what happened in Romania during the Cold War where birth control was outlawed. Perhaps someone could send them some photographs of the children in the orphanages and ask them why they want the same thing to happen in the United States?

can be used to fight their religous wars! Instant cannon fodder, just add gun.

The people took him and his wife out, lined them up against a wall and shot them dead.

Within a few days, abortion was legal again in Rumania.

:kick:

As the party leadership sees votes to be had in abandoning abortion, this latest escalation should make the leadership all the more desperate to appear NASCAR-friendly.

Better start rehearsing those 'every sperm is special' speeches, Hillary.

That duplicitous personage!

:appalause:

:rofl:

Where are all those apologists now?

Particularly when you realize that this is essentially defining women's role as a "Baby-carrier."


Sweet David Koresh!! I hate using "slippery slope" arguments, but these fanatics won't stop:

1) Trying to end abortion, by calling abortion murder.

2) Associating abortion with contraception, saying you are killing possible babies.

3) Defining sex as a procreation only activity, thereby controlling your sex-life.

What will it take for people to WAKE THE FUCK UP?!?!?

Any lurking Freepers chew on this - A basic tenet of conservatism is LESS INTRUSIVE government. How is it conservatives support the Talibornagain ?

this is a position so insane that, should the Repugs ever go near it, it will be the end of their party (both meanings) . . .

I hope this movement picks up more steam. I hope the anti-birth controllers swarm through the conservative world and take over the vanguard of right-wing politics. I hope dozens of these guys come on talk shows calling for an end to pills and condoms for all time.

That's what I call assisted political suicide.

Shout it from the rooftops, you woman-hating freaks. See how much support you get.

C'mon, stand up for your beliefs!

And Welcome to DU, Nabeshin!
:toast:
:hi:

control! It worked for the Catholics.

And God made these herbs that can be used as contraception. Of course they are not 99.99% like the pill but I am sure they were used in olden days.

*Neem Oil, a tree from India, with numerous uses, used for just about anything and everything. Quite a bit of scientific research is available about this herb, for both general uses as well as contraceptive uses. Most of the research has been conducted in India, the tree's native home. There are commercial preparations available that can be used for contraception for both men and women. For women it is used vaginally as a spermacide, and men use it orally as a daily contraceptive to induce temporary sterility. I can't vouch for its effectiveness or safety. I encourage you to do your own research.

Queen Anne's Lace Seeds can also be used as a daily contraceptive or only during fertile times as an implantation inhibitor.

* Pomegranate (Punica granatum) a fruit used by ancient women to prevent conception. This is more for historical interest. Rudolf Fritz Weiss notes the seeds contain an oestrone identical to the genuine hormone and states Punica seeds are the best source of plant oestrone to date. What this all means in the big picture, I have yet to figure out! But this may have something to do with its historical uses as a contraceptive. On an interesting note, I found a Roman statue of a woman holding a pomegranate in her hand, and just before that a painting (on a card) done by a famous painter way back when (don't recall his name off the top of my head) of a woman sitting at a table, her expression is distant and quiet, in her hand she hold a pomegranate with a bite taken from the unpeeled fruit.

Implantation Inhibitors: Some herbal contraceptives have the ability to interfere with implantation, the actual effect in the body can vary from herb to herb, but the end result makes it difficult for the egg to implant or maintain its grip on the uterine wall. Implantation occurs about 6 days after the egg has been fertilized. If the egg is unable to get a grip on the uterine wall, it cannot survive, it begins to break down, and menstruation will arrive as usual.

*Queen Anne's Lace Seeds (Daucus carota) also known as Wild Carrot, the seeds seem to have the best reputation for contraception. Women from the Appalachian Mountains to India have used the mature seeds to reduce their fertility. This herb is in use today, and has some documentation to it's effectiveness, both in scientific studies and through individuals who've used it, qal seeds seems like a good reliable option, I tend to put more faith in this herb than any other contraceptive herb that I know about to date.
It doesn't need to be used daily to be effective. If a woman knows she was exposed to sperm during a fertile time, QAL seeds can be used like an emergency contraceptive, an after the fact preventive. One of its biggest advantages is that it can be taken on an as needed basis, making it useful for women who have sex infrequently. Again, knowing when you are fertile has its advantages when using QAL seeds.
The hardest part will probably be obtaining the seeds themselves, so its handy to acquire them before they are needed. I've managed to find a few sources to purchase the seeds from. The plant also grows wild in many areas, though positive identification is a must. Scope out patches while the flower is in bloom in August and return later to collect the seeds. To the inexperienced, wild carrot could be confused with other poisonous members of the carrot/parsley family. Once familiar with the plant it is easy to identify, the flower in bloom is very distinctive, and just remember Queen Anne has hairy legs (the stem is hairy rather than smooth) Follow the link for more information.

Rutin - This is found at local health food markets, it is also known as Vitamin P. Susun Weed writes it can be used to prevent pregnancy, when taken in tablet form in doses of at least 500 mg daily for several days preceding and following ovulation, or when taken after fertilizing intercourse and continue until menstruation begins.

Neem Oil has also been found to prevent implantation. Testing so far has involved rats; the implantation inhibitory effects were seen in as many as 10 days after fertilizing intercourse occurred, although it was most effective if used within 3 days of fertilizing intercourse. At this time, I really have no idea what a safe human dosage would be. Its more thoroughly researched uses include a spermacide and oral contraception for men.

Herbal Contraception

Numerous herbs have been used historically to reduce fertility, and modern scientific research has confirmed anti-fertility effects in at least some of the herbs tested. Herbal contraception may never

Before experimenting with herbal contraceptives, I think it's important to spend some time learning to tell, with accuracy, when you are fertile each cycle. Once ovulation occurs, menstruation should follow in about 14 days. If you can identify when fertility passes each cycle, you'll know when to expect menstration - based on signals your body has given you, rather than an estimated guess (calendar methods). This way - you know if and when menstruation is late. The date ovulation occurs can vary from cycle to cycle, even if we cycle very regularly, our bodies can do the unexpected.

http://www.sisterzeus.com/HContra.htm


EDIT: to add http://www.sisterzeus.com/Vit_C.htm

I think I will be having nightmares about the Handmaid's Tale tonight. Useful info to have on hand, perhaps. Thanks.

what a bunch of idiots. yes, please make this a main point of the repuke platform. let the world see the American Taliban in action.

go over well w/ the masses.

us into a third world country is to do away with contraception.

The more we learn about pregnancy and the entire process, the more we know that we know very little about it. My hubby was told in med school by a fertility researcher that it's a one in a million chance for a zygote to make it to term.

Here's my thing: even without b.c., we women naturally abort many, many zygotes a lifetime. Life may begin at conception, but it often doesn't make it much further. On top of that, even though it may get to implantation, it's not guaranteed to make it any further than that. That woman may have "aborted" those babies without contraception even having anything to do with it.

If every woman natually aborts five babies a lifetime (so early that she doesn't even know it, let alone later ones she does know about), then that adds up to billions and billions of people in Heaven who never even lived. That sounds odd to me.

King David wrote in his psalm (translated, of course) that God knits up up in the womb. Now, I know knitting, and I know that it takes a long time and a lot of work. A sweater doesn't exist just because I bought yarn, needles, and a pattern and cast on the first stitches. What if something goes wrong in the knitting early on? Knitters rip it all out and start over. Sometimes we just let the sweater sit for awhile until we figure out how to fix it and then still often rip it out and start over.

What if God does the same thing? What if it's all far more complicated than we think it is? What if God really is in charge of the whole process, contraceptions or not? Abortion and contraception is as old as Eve's daughters--you can't tell me that the two midwives working for Israel when it was under the Egyptian Pharoah's thumb weren't using contraceptives on their patients or even some forms of abortion. Slaves in that situation wouldn't be healthy enough to have good pregnancies, especially over and over, as happens with some women.

I just don't understand why they're hung up on one problem and not seeing how God's in charge of the whole thing anyway. No contraception method is perfect, abortion can't always be done, and children are knitted works in progress. Why can't they be merciful to the mothers and the children?

Why are they not merciful to mothers and children? Because in Genesis, their favorite quote is the part where Eve is punished. Adam gets punished too, but that doesn't make tool use illegal for men. Or careers other than farming.

What I've never understood, and I went to an evangelical college and lived in women's dorms, is why so many women hate themselves for any teeny little thing. They hate themselves for being too fat, too skinny, too ugly, too pretty, too sexy, too whatever. That poor woman now hates herself for "aborting" children who probably wouldn't have made it anyway. *sigh* That's what we really have to fight--self-hatred.

Genesis again. Women are blamed for paradise being closed to humanity. Not just Eve who according to the myth questioned blind obedience and listened to the talking serpent telling her that god lied. She asked questions, got answers, and made a choice to test the hypothesis presented by the serpent. Turned out the serpent was right, but Eve never gets credit for that part. Instead, eve is vilified and all of her daughters with her by simply being female.

Adam never questioned a thing, he was always doing what someone told him to do whether that someone was god or Eve. Of the three, Eve is the most praiseworthy character.

It isn't just christian mythology, the ancient Greeks blamed women for all the evils in the world and it filtered down through the ages. Even though Pandora was created for that very purpose. Because he wanted to punish Prometheus, Zeus gave her intense curiosity and a box she was told never to open. Pandora resisted temptation placed there by Zeus for a good long time before she finally gave in to the impulse also placed there by Zeus and opened the box.

Who is really to blame? Pandora for opening the box, or Zeus for giving someone insatiable curiosity and warning them never to look inside a box given them. Also keep in mind who placed the evils of the world inside the box to start with.

This is why evangelicals and other arch-conservatives hate it when you examine root causes. It's because mythology is fraught with them. Examining them too closely exonerates women and places the deities in a much less complimentary light.

Most of the women I knew at college, though, just rolled their eyes at the Garden of Eden story. They knew the whole story wasn't being told half the time. Read the text carefully--she turns to Adam, who, in other words, was standing right there all along, just not talking. We used to talk about it in the dorms.

Usually, it seemed something more along the lines of not being good enough. Even though they were evangelicals, they were well aware of several of the top women saints, especially Mary. They always felt like they weren't good enough. The evangelical preachers we had to listen to in chapel were great at exploiting that guilt--they were always exhorting us to spend more time in prayer, more time reading and memorizing the Bible, more time being better women and less time worrying about how we looked but more time worrying about keeping our bodies pure as temples for God and dressing right . . . It really was crazy.

I started really liking Jung in college--the collective unconscious seemed to explain so much for me. Myths, especially Biblical ones from the Old Testament, were around us and through us every day. People spoke in Biblical terms constantly, and it made sense to wonder why some dreamed of fire whenever they spoke out against the system--remembering the witch burnings? It was an odd place to go to college, that's for sure.

In christianity, it's Mary. A virgin, yet she is a mother. If you ask several religious people what is meant by "virgin" you generally don't get the original meaning of the word: young unmarried woman.

The point being driven home is that Mary never had sex. Therefore, no woman should either. And if she does, she has to want kids as a result of sex. And she sure as hell shouldn't enjoy sex. Sex sex sex SEX. Obsess obsess obsess.

Then sometime in the 80s, a woman who was an unmarried virgin wanted to become artificially inseminated and the Catholic church rose holy hell. How dare she?

Why should they object? The woman was attaining Mary's ideal. Baby, but no sex. But the point wasn't to actually emulate Mary's accomplishment, it is to emulate Mary's obedience.

You see more unattainable ideals for women by looking at body types. You can't be rail thin unless you give up eating. Or obsess over your weight and exercise to excess.

In 19th century China the unattainable ideal was foot size. The most desireable foot was one that was an inch wide and three inches long. What woman has feet like that? Foot binding to the rescue! And soon no upper class woman in China could walk without pain or assistance. Then social climbing middle class Chinese women couldn't walk either, the laborers had to walk, they had to do the work.

There are a lot more examples of unattainable ideals and people who cause themselves untold pain and misery trying to attain them.

John Milton: Let me give you a little inside information about God.

God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it.

He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time.

Look, but don't touch...

Touch, but don't taste...

Taste, but don't swallow...!

Ahaha! And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing?

He's laughin' His sick, f*ckin' ass off! :evilgrin:

full term but abort naturally do so because there is something wrong with them to make them nonviable. Not every fetus is meant to be born, even in the absence of contraception and abortion.

I get so sick of right-wing fetus-worship. If they had one-tenth the concern for the well-being of actual children, this would be a much betetr society--and many women who abort because they lack the wherewithal to raise a child properly would probably carry to term instead.

It isn't about saving the "innocent little babies" at all, but about keeping women in their place and preventing anyone, but especially women, from having sex for pleasure rather than procreation. Pregnancy leading to unwanted children is just an albatross they want to hang around women's necks to punish them for daring to have sex.

I also think that a lot of pro-lifers believe abortion should remain available for them and theirs, just not for anyone else. We know there is a strong rumor out there that Bush himself had a girlfriend abort a baby in his younger years. And Dan Quayle once said in an interview that if his daughter became pregnant, it would be up to her to decide whether to have an abortion.

And, frankly I would be very surprised if Bush's busy twin daughters haven't racked up at least one abortion between them.

I thought it was the only thoughtful public utterance of his life.

They say they want God in charge, not man, but they seem not to understand that God's always in charge--no b.c. system is perfect.

The pro-lifers I know are mixed. Some really are about self-hatred, and some really are all about power. The men I know seem more concerned that they have no choice in the choice option. If they want the child or not, they are deep down angry that they can't make anything happen either way.

Most of the pro-lifers I know really are about the babies, though. They love children so much that they can't understand why anyone would kill one (and yes, that's how they look at it). They just can't put themselves in another woman's shoes and see things through her eyes.

I usually get through to them on the economic argument, though--abortions go down when the poor aren't so poor or have health insurance. They also freak out when you tell them that at least half of all abortions are done by married women. They can't wrap their heads around that one. If they're really pro-life, they should be pro-national health care and national day care.

Chimperor's first term?

Still have friends there. ;-)

"I also think that a lot of pro-lifers believe abortion should remain available for them and theirs, just not for anyone else. We know there is a strong rumor out there that Bush himself had a girlfriend abort a baby in his younger years. And Dan Quayle once said in an interview that if his daughter became pregnant, it would be up to her to decide whether to have an abortion."

You are correct on this, IMO. For one thing, before abortion was legal, it was available to the wealthy through understanding doctors or convenient trips overseas. And as for a Bush girlfriend having an abortion, it's a bit more than a rumor. People know who she is and have asked her to come forward, which understandably for the quality of her own life, she has declined to do.

regularly signs antiabortion petitions and newspaper antiabortion ads. But when I asked her what she would do if she got pregnant before finding the man she wanted to marry, she said she would have an abortion, of course. Teh disconenct is astonishing.

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
When the Anti-Choice Choose
By Joyce Arthur


'From a clinic director in a mid-western state: "One of the most remarkable cases was a woman who came and said she was the Right-to-Life president in her county. 'But,' she said, she 'had become pregnant and had to have an abortion.'"'

'The medical director of an Indianapolis clinic recalled one prospective patient who phoned to ask whether the clinic had a back door. He said no. How, she asked, could she get inside without being seen by fellow picketers outside? Pointing out that two orthopedists practiced with him, the doctor told the woman "she could limp and say she was coming to see the orthopods."

'"The sister of a Dutch bishop in Limburg once visited the abortion clinic in Beek where I used to work in the seventies. After entering the full waiting room she said to me, 'My dear Lord, what are all those young girls doing here?' 'Same as you', I replied. 'Dirty little dames,' she said." (Physician, The Netherlands)''

'"In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'" (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)'


http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:TIEFkgj8RPEJ:mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html+pro+choice+never+again&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=firefox-a

That has got to be the most eye-opening article I've ever read here.

Thanks for posting!

You should start a separate thread for this so we could kick and recommend it onto the front page. I would like nothing better than for the world to see what hypocrites these women are.

something I have known, in my heart, for a long time. I've started a new thread in GD. Thanks for suggesting it. I sometimes assume that everyone here already knows all this.

This is the typical hypocrisy of the right, isn't it? Very much like the IOKIYAAR principle: "It's OK if You Are a Republican."

well thought out laws to force them to provide medical care and education benefits for all those children until their 18, you'll see how fast they drop that nutty idea.

Require the churches to provide for needy families with more than 3 children. A previous poster suggested that welfare laws take care up the first two or three, but no new benefits for added for any after that.

That's when the churces can step in.

Unfortunately, that's not what will happen in the real world. The poor will be abandoned by the pastors denying applications for aid. Or aid will be granted but it will come with so many strings attached that it will be impossible to move.

Parents, watch for the return of oblate fathers. (Oblates were priests raised from an early age to be priests. I don't know if there were oblate nuns. This could be as early as infancy or as late as toddlerhood. I'm not sure if this was one way a poor family could lessen the number of mouths to feed or if nobles had to pay a pretty penny for the privilege. Most medieval families had to make huge donations to send a family member to become a nun, monk, or priest, ensuring that the clerics were all of "good" family.)

before Roe vs. Wade we all knew that Catholic medical professionals would not help with either birth control or abortions. However this is new for protestants. Even their ministers had small families. It will be interesting to see if their members will obey any better than modern Catholic families obey. I doubt it.

Also I think that it is only fair that we have another welfare reform aimed at this problem: aid can be given for families with up to 2-3 children BUT any additional children will have to be raised on the same money. Ditto with college subsidies - no family can be granted assistance for more than 3 children.

I know a family who had 9 children to prove that God would provide for large families: they received food stamps, medical assistance, AFDC, college grants for all of the oldest children and of course, all the other assistance programs that were prorated per number of family members.

God did provide. He provided a government that had programs to take care of the needy. Even when they were irresponsible.

most social programs and what they deem "entitlements". The fact they themselves have used them is irrelevant.

the women have fewer children. Many have attributed it to being more educated, but it may be that couples with fewer children don't have to struggle as hard to support themselves, and it was noticed by young couples, who could turn their back on "tradition". Unless you are a farmer, having a lot of children will keep you poor.

Fundamentalist religions tend to keep people poor and uneducated, that way they can control them more easily.

zalinda

:applause:

abortion wars from the beginning.

These sick people just don't like the idea that people could be having sex for FUN and ENJOYMENT only!

Fits all their actions from hatred of gays to marriage to abortion.

Next will be people co-habitating without the benifit of marriage - gays not included, of course.

I've been warning people about this for years; some listen, most don't.

Sex is bad, bad, bad. Only reason to have it is to make a baby. and even then the woman is not expected to enjoy it!

Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad!

It will make you scream your goddamn head off.

In the article, a woman representing an organization dedicated to lowering the rate of teen pregnancy (her group is presented as positioning itself as moderate) says that the left has missed the boat by being too science-oriented and not considering morals and values. There is a line in there crediting the right with saying it's not just about body parts. No, we must consider the soul, because it is invisible and we have no proof that it is there.
Another great line is from the pharmacist/legislator in Illinois who says he is "going to understand it my way." How this man has avoided service in Bush's administration must be one of the wonders of the age.

They claim to want to reduce abortions, yet when they are presented with evidence that comprehensive education and availability of contraception effectively do that, as is the case in Denmark, they reject it. They have no problem the death of more "babies" in order maintain their anti-sex and anti-woman agenda.

:grr:

next target was contraception. That was back in the eighties. She also said that in-vitro fertilization should be outlawed.

She was a mover and shaker in our state's Republican party, and an unapologetic adulterer.

who were anti-choice. The gall!

I bet these anti-choice adulterers feel guilty, and instead of changing their own behavior, they punish others for it!

a little aired out dirty laundry tends to make the pompous humble. thankfully i have no such friends like that. but if i did, a little private investigation and media expose' would make an appearance. i like to think of it as lancing a pustulous boil on someone's soul -- good for the health.

Someone once said "All movements go too far". I don't recall who said it, but he/she was right.

Our Democratic leadership have GOT to get it thru their thick heads:

Don't go "asking" bush or other repuke assholesk what their position on issues are, and expecting and answer - it will never come. Look at cheney's energy meetings records, and bunkerboy's military records.

Go on the offensive. State the obvious:

bush*(and the repukes)is AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL!

bush*(and the repukes)is for OUTLAWING ALL FORMS OF ABORTION!

Say it LOUD!

Say it OFTEN!

Get EVEYONE ON THE SAME PAGE!

Let THEM respond to this - and they surely will, along with whining that "how could we make such an accusation" crap.

Let THEM be put on the spot for a change.

GO ON THE OFFENSIVE!

was really about ... on the part of the religious hardright. It's about the subjugation of women, and control over them and their bodies from A to Z; then it's about control of the ultrarich over the poor (and destruction of the middle class). Their leaders want to return us to a rigid patriarchal society.

I think that it is critical that, when a progressive is confronted with the topic of abortion, that they insist upon breaking down the discussion at the onset. For example, "I'm pro-life; I don't believe in abortion." I ask, "What are we talking about? A late-term procedure? Because those are only done in the direst of circumstances, and, if you were in that situation, you wouldn't want the state taking options and decisions away from you and your doctor. Or are we talking about the Morning After Pill?" When I break it down like that, I get quickly get them to be pro-reproductive-rights.

Take a page from the Rovian play book. If the Loony Right stakes themselves to a position outlawing birth control, then place ballot initiatives confirming the right to use contraception on the ballots of every battleground state in November 2008.

What's good for the goose...

that the anti-abortion movement at its basis is actually anti-sex and anti-women. I remember back in the late '60s that the original arguments against Roe v Wade were that people shouldn't be having sex outside marriage and if 'bad' girls got pregnant that was their punishment from God. Since the pro-birth crowd doesn't seem to care much what happens after a birth (cutting back on social programs, food for dependent children, etc.) I have a hard time believing they really give a damn about 'babies'. The leaders just realized telling people they shouldn't have sex because God said so was not a viable approach to fighting Roe V Wade so they came up with the 'zygote is a baby' idea. These people won't be happy unless only married (straight) people have sex and every conception becomes birth. Their ultimate motto 'every woman is best when she is barefoot and pregnant'. If I was a woman of child baring age these people would scare the hell out of me. Luckly I'm not of child baring age or a woman and my significant other is passed child baring age so this is not something that will affect me, but I say we fight these people all the way.

We really need to re-frame the debate--label these people as social REGRESSIVES, since a true conservative would want to keep things the way they are...

Then the Republicans will come close to going the way of the Whigs. Most Americans will NOT be told that they have no right to buy condoms for their own use. Any Governor or state legislature that tries to pass such a law will get their asses handed to them.

discussing overturning Griswold in 2006! I personally think that the Bushit twins should be the first to go off of birth control,lets see what happens

The abortion debate has always been about sex. "Good girls" don't have sex, certainly don't enjoy it, and therefore don't end up preggers. Naughty girls must be taught the Christian view that sex is ONLY for procreation and performing an icky but necessary duty to their man.

for a moment, as a married woman I can tell you that if myself and my husband were FORCED to abandon birth control, and subsequently sterilization, in our marriage and breed like rabbits, we probably would never have gotten married in the first place. It most certainly would have led to poverty and divorce.

We decided before we married that we wanted 2 and ONLY 2 kids. That is why we used birth control. Just because a couple has a ring on their fingers does not mean that they are ready, willing, or able to accept any and ALL children "God blesses them with", as many of these Fundies say.

They are in for a HUGE surprise if they think the country will this accept, not only among single adults, but married ones as well.

Personally, I think a major component in all this is also the racial factor. I hear so many of them saying that if it were not for the illegal Mexicans and Muslims in our country having carloads of kids, the US population would be well under the 2.1 children ratio. Take away birth control/abortion, and the "correct" Americans will be forced to breed. Sounds like the policy of the Third Reich to me; more good Aryan stock for the Fatherland.

Just my opinion.

Good post! Many good points here.

reprehensor and I don't have ANY children, which is what we want. One of us has been snipped, and I always thought that was enough.

So which do I risk-- the thought of being raped and becoming pregnant with a rapist's baby against my will in a marriage where I wanted no children? Or going in for major invasive surgery in a hospital (with an immunodeficiency), and risking an infection that is resistant to anti-biotics?

Who'd have thought I might ever have to make that choice?

but this isn't about "life" or children. This is, pure and simply, about controlling women. Keeping them contained. As chattel.

This is very, very scary, and makes me very, very angry.

I've been telling people this for years now. It is a campaign to control women's sexuality, to try to return to Antebellum-style chastity. Look over an anti-abortion group's website. Who do they talk about, almost completely? They only talk about single mothers. that a married woman can also get an abortion never seems to cross their mind - Perhaps because they're deluded into thinking a married woman wants nothing more from life than a litter - Or perhaps they figure the husband calls the shots on whether or not his wife has an abortion, thus rendering it "okay".

First they go after Abortion. Then htey go after contraception. The next step is legislated persecution of unwed mothers. Watch. If this crap we see here picks up steam, there will be attempts by the state to restrict WIC and other needy mother programs only to those women whoare married or find a husbans within an alotted timetable.

but the prolem, as lots of them see it, is that the WRONG people quit having large families. These people see themselves as part of a "browning" population all around them, and they are scared shitless..

In not too many years, the white population WILL be the minority and they fear retribution for all the things they have done for centuries..

you know, i truly believe that there is a difference between being for life, and a belief in life. look, there is a lot of pople in the republican parties that are buisness man, and the only way to have more more money is to have more customer, so if you outlaw a women right to choice or her right to brith control, than there will be more money coming into your pocket, but this is the confusing part, because while these buisness man are for life, than why don't they increase their worker paycheck, and be against war, because in war people die, innocent people die, and they should be for gun control because people die from guns, and they should be for the enviroment because it will protect the earth, since it will effect people in the future, and for groups that will protect children, but a lot of them are only against choice and some as i can see are now against birth control, yet some of these people advocate war and support the death penalty. now, a person who belief in life, these people i like bcause, althrought they are against birth control, they are also against the death penality, they are also against war, and any form of thing that is against life. all i am saying is that there is a major differences between being for life, and a belief in life.

do you guys think that withdraw is a from of birth control, you know when a person have sex without any protection at all, and their only method is withdrawn, is that a from of birth control, because the women is not getting pregnant.

Any course of action intended to somehow prevent or terminate a pregnancy is birth control. That includes everything from coitus interruptus to abortion.

pre-ejaculate fluid contains millions of sperm. Withdrawal works only marginally better than nothing at all.

none at all :)

welcome to DU :hi:

Radical Rightists have been trying to severely restrict or outlaw access to contraceptives for YEARS. Most progressives or politically-aware people on the left and center have known this for at least that long.

Of course, most self-professed "conservatives" deny this--either because they don't want to acknowledge their religious friends' little plans or because they're in denial.

Here in Texas, radical anti-abortionists shoved a bill through the state legislature during the last regular session gutting funding to Planned Parenthood--ostensibly because PP "promotes" abortion, but actually because many anti-abortion activists are just about as hostile towards contraception.

And the corporate media is too lazy or too buffaloed to pay attention.

Opposition to abortion, indifference to public health, opposition to contraception, failure to prepare for pandemics...I'm beginning to think that Republican and conservative activists ought to be stunned and permanently tattooed with "bio-hazard" symbols on their foreheads.

No, all they want to do is ban contraception pills. But try to ban condoms and all the hypocrites Republicans, who happily cheat on their wives will stand against it.

Don't be fooled by the name of this organization, whose honorary chair is that idiot, Patricia Heaton! From their own website:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception

What is Feminists for Life's position on contraception?

Feminists for Life's mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission. Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.
Our membership enjoys a broad spectrum of opinion that reflects the diversity of opinions among the American public.

In the time of the early American feminists, sex between married couples was not always consensual. Many women bore 20 or more children, of whom only half survived. In order to affirm women’s rights within marriage, most feminist foremothers promoted “voluntary motherhood,” whereby women would have the education and right to fully participate in the decision to have sexual relations. FFL likewise supports life planning by focusing on one's education and career plans coupled with mentoring and empowering programs for teens.

done to be a qualified voice on this? She is a woman with an Emmy? Shut up! Republicans like to complain about Hollywood being outside the mainstream, but they turn the double standard when it is someone like this.

The only celebs like George Clooney and Angelina Jolie, Bono, people who have seen and know about what they're talking about should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, you are just as ignorant as the rest of us. Can she have an opinion, yes. But what makes he qualified to be the honorary chair of this organization, featured prominantly on their front page? Literally, it is her Emmy.

cuz if she doesn't...then she is just another conservative looking for a photo opportunity...

(Excerpts)

Heaton was born the second youngest of 5 children in an Irish American Catholic family, and raised Roman Catholic in Bay Village, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, the daughter of well-known Cleveland Plain Dealer sportswriter, Chuck Heaton. Her mother died when she was a small child. She moved to New York City to study with drama teacher William Esper after graduating from The Ohio State University with a B.A. in drama in 1980. Her eldest sister, Sharon, is a Roman Catholic (Dominican) nun and second-grade teacher at St. Mary Star of the Sea in Virginia, and another sister, Alice Cartwright, the second oldest child, lives in Nashville and is married with three grown children, one of whom has ambitions to be an actress. Michael Heaton, the only boy, is the "Minister of Culture" columnist for Cleveland Plain Dealer, and a writer for the paper's Sunday Magazine. He's married and has three young daughters. Patricia is the second youngest, followed by Frances ("Franny"), the youngest, who works in the activities department at Harborside Healthcare in Westlake, Ohio...

Heaton is a conservative, pro-life activist and is the honorary chairperson of Feminists for Life, an organization opposed to abortion. She is a very outspoken Republican and supporter of both President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Although she has been quoted as saying "once a Catholic, always a Catholic," Heaton now attends an evangelical Presbyterian church with her husband and their four sons. She has not renounced her Catholic faith nor converted to Presbyterian faith and may be attending because of family unity.

Her memoir, Motherhood and Hollywood: How to Get a Job Like Mine, was published by Villard Books in 2002. Heaton has been married to British businessman David Hunt II since 1990. The couple has four sons, and they divide their time between Los Angeles and England, where they own a country estate. Her first marriage (1984-1987) ended in divorce.

I wonder how they plan on feeding all the babies born to people who can't afford them? Oh, that's right! They'll just let them die on the street they live on. The survival of the fittest...The Christian Right's motto.

I want a shirt with your signature! I've seen some shirts with coathangers, but they're ugly. Yours is really graphic and makes a statement.

Any sources, or is it your own design?
fsc :hi:

I changed my options this morning BEFORE I read you post and deleted the url! I'm so sorry. You may be able to get it from a DU advanced search on South Dakota's abortion law though.

warned us back in the mid-eighties that if these right wing ideological fanatics outlawed abortion, then contraceptives would soon follow. We read right wing writings from such as Wm. F. Buckley Jr and G. Gordon Liddy. I still have some of these writings from class packed away somewhere. Remember, this was back in the mid-eighties. And, what were the sycophants mainly worried about? Was it the precious zygote? Was it about life at all? NO--it was about the "white" race becoming a minority and losing power. I thought I was reading the Aryan race spiel from Hitler. If abortion is outlawed and we start down the "slippery slope", contraceptives may soon follow.