It really IS a war on reproductive freedom

There's so much to say about this relatively short article that I don't know where to start. It wasn't all that long ago that contraception wasn't legal for women. Before that, it wasn't legal for men. What's the result? More unwanted pregnancies, more disease, and more backalley abortions. In short, more poverty, more crime, and more danger. But remarkably, it didn't reduce that sinful human sex drive.

Along come abstinence-only education courses. The result of this hear-no-evil teaching method is an increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease. The teens are still experimenting, but without any knowledge of how to protect themselves.

Now the fundamentalist right would like to expand abstinence-only to the entire nation by rolling back legal access to contraception and the ability of women to have abortions. Of course, the most common reason women cite for having abortions is fear that they don't have the income to support a child. Which is why the number of abortions went down under Clinton and increased under Bush (the fundies' favorite prez ever).

Take away contraception and the result is more unwanted preganancies and higher demand for abortions. Take away that right, and the result is a high demand for risky and illegal abortions.

What it all boils down to is that these kooks are more interested in dogma than human life. A small clump of cells is more important than an infant who's experiencing starvation. It's sick, sick, sick. And I never thought we'd reach a point where the Left Behind crowd felt empowered enough to make their move, in defiance of the beliefs of some 75% of American citizens.

From the article:

"By outlawing contraception, you're closer to outlawing surgical abortion," says Matt Sande, director of legislative affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin.

Sande says the 1992 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly upheld Roe v. Wade - the court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion - forces the hand of abortion opponents because it reasoned that abortion was the legal fallback for contraceptive failure.

"So if, as the pro-life community, you're trying to outlaw surgical abortion but the court has told us its legal basis is founded on the necessity of abortion, shouldn't the pro-life community begin to take a look at contraception?" Sande says.

"We're trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the court is pointing us over here," he adds. Those who don't turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point, Sande says, hurt the anti-abortion cause.

There you have it-- a fervent committment to an inherently paradoxical belief. Hallelujah!

(Thanks again to the mysterious Cipher for passing this on.)