Hey Dan, I think you should do some posts about the Quiverfull movement, and related movements (like the homeschool movement). Use No Longer Quivering, Homeschoolers Anonymous, and others to show the damage that these lifestyles do, and reveal the ridiculous claims of the movements behind the anti-abortion movement (like the idea that people who have been homeschooled shouldn't comment on homeschooling because they haven't homeschooled others).

Show what they want our families to look like.
"So... the abortion rate is now where it was before abortion was legalized."

This is a misreading of history. Abortion was already legal in a lot of states, including big states such as New York and California, when Roe was decided. I'm not sure where Dan got the opposite idea.
A snow day here in NY. Dan, you are wrong. American conservatives don't care about sex and female sexuality. They just say this. In reality, they care about lowering taxes on the 0.01%, the tens-of-millionaires to billionaires. They realize that gay rights is no longer going to get the evangelicals out, but abortion gets the evangelicals *and* appeals to the otherwise democratic leaning Latino and Latina voters who are likely to be Catholic. Have you talked to young adult Latina women? Many are passionately anti-abortion.

It's all about the money. The effect is to trample on women's rights, but the real anti-abortion and anti-contraception push is, as always, a calculated political move to keep the tax laws favorable for ultra-wealthy. It may or may not win at the white house, but it's a guaranteed win in >50% of state legislatures and majority of US Congress, and maybe even the Senate, given that strongly pro-women's rights voters are concentrated in a minority of states.

Look at the mainstream media scaring up the sheeple about kids taking marijuana cookies in CO -- again, a calculated political move to scare people to anti-drug Republicans.
Ha! The point is not now and never has been about saving fetuses - it has always been about punishing women for having sex. That's why they object to contraception. If the Religious Right gave a damn about preventing abortions, they'd be all over the place housing out free contraceptives, instead of fighting them tooth and nail. But what they really want is for women to be forced to bear children as a result of having sex. It's a great way to keep women captive to men they'd rather dump. This is also why they went so apeshit over Murphy Brown.

The truth is, their real target isn't Roe; it's Griswold and always has been. Every now and again, one of them will slip up and admit this publicly.
@delta - I agree that the 1% doesn't give a damn about anything but tax rates, but the troglodytes they rabble-rouse definitely do. They care about it enough to put it above getting rear-ended w/o lube by the 1%.
Oh, and the HPV shot does NOT lead to sex in teens.

Girls and boys should both get it.
@2 Minderbender makes a good point. Abortion was legalized state by state before it was made legal for the whole country, and we should view these figures in that context. The same thing happened with suffrage, abolition, civil rights and now gay marriage and marijuana.

Contraception and accurate sex ed are so win-win that it's hard to understand why anyone's against it. They save the individual and society money, time and emotional complication. I guess when you spend thousands of years with personal conduct being the only readily accessible way of controlling pregnancy and preventing STDs, societies develop traditions regarding chastity, moderation and self-discipline that are difficult to discard once technology gives us a way to have our cake and eat it too.

I think it's kind of like recycling or littering. What if they invented a type of wrapper or receipt that would just dissolve if dropped on the sidewalk? How long would it take for people to overcome their, "Oh NO NO! Only bad people litter! That's lazy and dirty and—what do you mean that's okay now?"

I'm glad that this issue addresses the question of whether the boa constrictor restrictions have affected the abortion rate or not. If it can be shown that they do not, a few people in the anti-abortion movement will stop seeking them.
The "prolife" messaging has always been a thin veneer over a violent extremist religious movement. If they were truly interested in reducing abortions they would at least support the "lesser evil" of birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Planned Parenthood and their allies are responsible not just for reducing the danger associated with abortion, but in actually reducing the number of abortions that have to be performed. Hopefully their good work can continue until every healthy pregnancy is taken to term because every conception is either planned or a happy accident.
It, the procedure is indeed more "rare" (as in "safe, legal & rare"). So, this is good news.
Gun violence is the lowest is been in years, and declining, but the stranger pushes for prohibition weekly.

And the rhetoric used is just as garish and emotional.

Generally speaking liberals want to ban guns, and conservatives want to ban abortion. Both say its to save children, and that its a epidemic that requires legislation that lacks any casual link to the "issue"

A measured approach is probably better in both cases, with a high dose of education.

My favorite is that both issues have nearly split support in polls, and only really exist to argue about so that we can avoid any deeper issues. Usually when either pops up I look around to see what got buried in the recent news.
Hi Dan. Don't forget that contraception was illegal in many states until the 1970s, especially for unmarried people. Wikipedia: "Although the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive in 1960, contraceptives were not available to married women in all states until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and were not available to unmarried women in all states until Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972."

The pill also became available to the masses around that time. I'd say that the availability of contraception might have plenty to do with the reduction of abortion rates.
Sorry, 10 ... I call bullshit on your comparison. Most liberals are not trying to ban guns, they are trying to pass sane laws regulating the use, possession and purchase of guns. The right is trying to ban abortion, not regulate it for safety. Both bearing arms and obtaining an abortion are constitutional rights that have been affirmed by the SCOTUS. One should be no more difficult to exercise than the other. The anti-choice crowd are not much concerned with the rights of those who have been born, only the rights of those who haven't been.
While I am all for increased access to and coverage of contraception, I hope it won't become a universal requirement, which would both erase and tax gold star LGs.
@13, I am a "gold star gay;" I have not gotten anywhere near a hot wet pussy since the day I was born. Not sure what you mean by erase, but as far as taxes are concerned I believe that universal access to birth control would be a GREAT use of my tax money. This planet already has too many people on it, and too many parents are giving birth to children they can't afford to raise well. Birth control methods including the pill and sterilization should be handed out free to anyone who asks for them. Buckets of free high-quality condoms should be as commonplace as drinking fountains. From a strictly cost-to-benefit ratio it makes sense β€” how much does it cost to keep a poor woman's baby on welfare and food stamps?

In response to Dan's post, I say: right on. And it's amazing that they have gotten away with calling themselves "pro life" for so long when it's perfectly clear that pro life is a complete misnomer. They stop giving a shit about fetuses the moment the fetus exits the womb. Although they appreciate the value of an actual live baby in the sense that it's a punishing burden on a woman who committed the sin of having sex outside of their narrow set of approved circumstances.
@14: Some parts of the planet are overpopulated, others not. A society needs a 2.5% fertility rate to maintain adequate propagation.
@15 I would totally have a kid by now if I could afford the daycare. Fertility is a function of economics and trade offs more than anything else.

Isn't this just the replacement of clinical abortion with DIY Plan B? Or does Plan B fall under the banner of contraception?
@16: Please do anyways. The planet needs more children of smart people, even if it means tight times for all involved.
@17 No. According to Guttmacher's previous data, the abortion rate was actually highest in the 1930's, when it was illegal in every state. [Not being able to afford another child during the Depression, contraceptives illegal, and lack of sex ed].
Second, the abortion rate in Northern Europe is 1/3 the rate of the U.S., so if we adopted their policies [sex ed + contraception], it might be possible to cut the abortion rate drastically.
Finally, an NIH study this past year found that by providing free contraceptives of choice to women who had already had one abortion in St. Louis, the repeat abortion rate fell 80% compared to the control (Kansas City).
Contraception is clearly the single most effective way to cut down the abortion rate.
I don't get this article: so not liking abortion means you're anti-birth control? Really? Many, MANY anti-abortion people are for birth control, including the government giving it out.

Also, it doesn't take into account people who don't like abortion and are "anti-abortion" but don't want it to be illegal. One can be opposed to something, while NOT wanting to see it illegal, you know? I personally hate abortion and would never again speak to woman if I was with her and she got one. But I would NEVER want to see it illegal. I guess I don't exist to the Stranger...

...but than again, I'm a bisexual man, so I already didn't exist to this rag.
Many, MANY anti-abortion people are for birth control, including the government giving it out

Really? Please provide links to a web site, news release, or other far-reaching pronouncement from a group with this principle. I'm sure these individuals exist, but they're just individuals. It's the organized groups that are pushing to reduce access to both abortion and contraceptives.
Mr T - Universal access is one thing; universal requirement is another. That everyone should be able to find coverage for contraception doesn't seem to contradict that people who have no use for such coverage should not have to have it imposed upon them.

I find a difference here that others may not between something even entirely financed by a general fund into which everyone contributes and making it personal by writing it into an individual's insurance policy.

As for erasure, isn't the prevailing sentiment that all fertile people require access to contraception? I suppose there's a chance it doesn't negate me out of existence, because I haven't a clue whether or not I'm capable of reproducing.
First, this article said NOTHING about organizations. It just assumed that pro-life people were anti-birth control. That is not the case, as this poll shows:…

Second, my point still stands: the moron who wrote this article assumes that everyone who doesn't like abortion wants it to be illegal. That is NOT THE CASE AND I'M PROOF OF IT! I look at abortion the same way I do Dan Savage's books and shows: I want absolutely nothing to do with something that vile, disgusting and absurd, but I don't want to see it made illegal.

@23: There's a difference between considering something morally acceptable and being in favor of it. For example, I think marijuana use is morally acceptable but I'm against it. You still don't have any evidence of pro-lifers wanting the government to provide people with birth control, as you claimed.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.