Pro-Life Group Debunks Abortion Poll

DRF »

Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I am very pro-choice, but even more than that I'm pro-truth. If everyone just cut the crud and used real facts with no obfuscation, we would still have an abortion debate, but we wouldn't be as angry at each other. It would be easier to communicate and understand each other. NARAL wouldn't have to fine-comb every bit of pro-baby legislation just to make sure that it wasn't an antiabortion law in disguise.

Thank God for Guttmacher!

Pro-Life Groups Praise Enactment of 'Jesse's Law'

DRF »

Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Would this law require a court order to deny food and water even if that was the injured person's wish? If a person in Arizona leaves a living will that says, "If I'm ever in a coma, then take me off life support," would that living will then be ignored?

Jesse Ramirez's case is very different from Terri Schiavo's. Ms. Schiavo's injuries were treated for YEARS before her husband asked to have her taken off life support. Mr. Ramirez was only in a coma for a few weeks. I don't doubt that that was painful for his family, but it is not so rare for people to recover from short comas. The relevant questions here are what Mr. Ramirez's prognosis was and whether he received treatment meant to restore him.

Planned Parenthood Expands to Malls, Suburbia

DRF »

Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Planned Parenthood just can't win. When it builds clinics in poor neighborhoods, it is accused of eugenics. When it builds clinics in richer neighborhoods, it is accused of greed.

PP provides abortions, but it also provides sex ed, prenatal care, disease screening and contraceptive services, and all women need access to those, no matter how much or little money they have.

New 'Pro-Life Pharmacies' Defend Religious, Moral Objections

DRF »

Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"refusing to hand a patient prescription that could be used for an abortion."

So the prescription was for RU-486, mifepristone? Because if it was anything else, then this article is misleading. Sure, medications that prevent implantation don't count as abortifacients from a medical perspective but do from many religious perspectives, but this should be acknowledged in the article. If the pharmacist refused to hand over the morning after pill (often confused with RU-486, even though they do different things and work in different ways), then this is about contraception and not abortion from a medical perspective. Again, some people view both as immoral, but it is a distinction that should be acknowledged in the article. The abortion issue is too closely tied to the sex issue as it is. There is no need to tie them together more tightly.

Speaking of clarifications, it is the FDA that declared, after more than the usual amount of debate and testing, that the morning after pill is safe enough to be sold over the counter. It is perfectly reasonable for Planned Parenthood or anyone else in the country to agree with the FDA's position. Again, it was RU-486, not Plan B, that Planned Parenthood said was too dangerous.

If a pharmacist does not want to fill prescriptions that the patient and his or her doctor have decided are necessary, then that pharmacist needs a new line of work. These places should be boycotted until they can do their duty--and it is a duty.

I notice no one's brought it up yet: How many of these places also have "moral objections" to Viagra? Almost none of the men who get prescriptions for Viagra get them because they're actively trying to reproduce. It is about sex for fun. The fact that we don't hear about moral objections to Viagra suggests that this is more about discomfort with sexually liberated women than it is about discomfort with promiscuity in general.