Re: Target policy.

I would be more excited if Target had instituted a policy that forces pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, rather then being able to refer them.

I do politics without a net. Just watched the entire SOTU on C-SPAN.

At one point Bush took credit/noted that the abortion numbers were lower than any time in a long time.

A couple things obviously jumped to mind.

Since 2001, Bush's CDC has been suppressing abortion and teen pregnancy statistics. It's like his claim that his administration has killed or captured X/Yths of al-Qaeda leadership. They don't tell us how many there are, or how many they've caught, but trust 'em.

I really wonder why I don't read more about Bush's suppression of these statistics, which the CDC has collected and reported on at least since 1973 (some efforts dating back as far as 1969).

That was sort of what the whole Stassen debate was about re: abortion rates.

No wonder I like Target.

"I would be more excited if Target had instituted a policy that forces pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, rather then being able to refer them."

Well, I'm glad they didn't, because that's illegal and their policy wouldn't stand. This is much better.

Hi,

Just a couple of questions for ena (or whomever). Do you have reason to believe that abortion numbers are up?

Which do you think would contribute more to lowering abortion rates: being critical of abortion (regardless of your position on Roe v. Wade) or promoting it as a rite of passage (which some abortion proponents do)?

Is it reasonable to support choice, yet oppose abortion, or at least some aspects of it?

This may get me 'deleted', but in the disclaimer for this site, NARAL distances itself from the commentary, yet seems to have first-hand control over who says what. I'm surprised that responders here can't criticize NARAL (as the disclaimer states point blank). Can there be an interesting and honest exchange if certain perspectives are 'blocked'? I always get a little startled when I see what appears to be discourse control on a discussion board, and it usually indicates less than sincere convictions on the part of the host.

Or are the speech limitations on this board limited to offensive comments? For example, if I want to take NARAL to the mat for their positions on d&x, would anything direct and critical be considered offensive, or are all points of view welcome here?

To Anna,

I don't know whether abortion # are up.
I think education and easy access to birth control will contribute to lowering abortion rate.
And personally I think it's totally reasonable to be pro-choice, but very hesitant about promoting abortions.

Since when did it become illegal for a pharmacist to fill a prescription by a liscenced physician? If my pharmacist feels a medication would present a danger to my liver{I take many medications as a diabetic} then should the pharmacist have the right to deny that medication to me?
I know it may seem a stretch to some, but as long as a physician prescribes a particular medication, or a legal drug, it is not for the pharmacist to make a decision based on their personal beliefs to oppose, or deny the physicians determinations.
Otto, you were not here, obviously, when this blog became a free for all, and women were being insulted in the worst manner. It got ugly to the extreme, and I laud Jessica for the policy she has instituted. The discussions are extremely more civil {That is unless I spend and evening at my local bar and enter here belligerent. I am a member here and got deleted, and I thank her for that when I realise what b.s. I espoused}
As to your position on abortions being up, it just the opposite. Why? I believe no one can take credit for that. Rite of Passage? What in the world is that supposed to mean?
Back to abortions being down. I believe one cause is that states are making it harder to have one. I also believe that the e.c. pill that many pharmacists oppose is helping in a large measure in prempting the need for abortion procedures. KUDOS for that.
The final point I make here is that no matter what special interrest groups throw up as road blocks to women having a finality in their personal decisions regarding their say in whether they decide to conceive or what their personal decisions are regarding their sexual personal choices, those road blocks are doomed to failure.

"To Anna,
I don't know whether abortion # are up.
I think education and easy access to birth control will contribute to lowering abortion rate.
And personally I think it's totally reasonable to be pro-choice, but very hesitant about promoting abortions"

Why are you responding to me? I didn't talk on this topic at all. Please read more carefully so you know who you are responding to. You were looking for Otto.

No one promotes abortions. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet this week. It's certainly never touted as a "rite of passage."

Very well put Anna.
I am still perplexed by what the hell the Rite of Passage is supposed to mean as has been proposed by posters here. Do they propose an abortion is a rite of passage? If my question makes no sence, neither does the proposition they speak of. It is insulting to women the every age, and should be regarded as so.

It is an insult to women of every age. Hope that makes more sence

It would make sense to me that abortion numbers in younger women would be up, what with the recent regulations in regard to 'abstinence only education," but I'm not sure about overall. Most of the women I know(I'm a college student) are on birth control-and birth control is getting more and more effective thanks to science. I wonder what the truth is on this topic.
And I do know people that promote abortions, but I am certainly not one of them. I believe in simply a woman being able to control when she has children(or not). And also in keeping the population on this planet at a reasonable, maintainable level.

Very well put, Niamh, and best wishes on your college studies.
You pose two points that prompted me to make this post.
I totally agree on your point of a woman having control of whether she wants to bear a child, or not. That is what we are all about here.
The other point was on keeping the population on this planet at a reasonable, maintainalble level.
The Chinese government has instituded a policy of {SORRY! I do not remember if it is one child or two per family.} for quite a while. The religious right has viewed this as anethema since it was instituded.
China is a country roughly the size of the U.S. with a population of 1.2 billion people. India has joined the 1 billion "club" recently as well.
There are important moral questions that will become more imperative as the population continues to grow, especially in countries unequipped in dealing with so many people to provide a decent quality of life.
The most imperative question is do we turn a blind eye to increasing poverty, and the inability of governments to provide the basic necessities, as well as our planetary resources cabable of sustaining the continued rapid growth of human population?
This seems to be an issue the religious right chooses to ignore. Should the right of life be guaranteed when that life faces a future of squaler and starvation?

Robert,
There is some confusion among a LOT of people on the Chinese birth control policy. Yes, only one child per family is allowed in China, but if you have more, you are not penalized. you just don't receive the incentives you might otherwise have been offered.
And in rural communities, in which families need farm workers, they are allowed by policy to have more than one child if they produce girls.
Also, it is not legal in China to kill children, but many rural families, and maybe even some urban ones, may kill children they cannot take care of or that are useless to them in terms of labor, especially girls.

Feel free to collect me if I am wrong. I read this in a book about China a few years back. Maybe it has changed?

*correct, not collect

Hey, Lucius!
Happy to see you posting again, here.
I believe you are correct in the policies rgarding the Chinese government. (Sorry folks, if we have strayed from the original topic of Target}
I did not mean to imply a woman would be forced to have an abortion, past a certain number, though some may feel a loss of incentives is a form of enforcement. And your point regarding rural self policies apllies as well to other countries. Those policies and practiceses are self imposed by the rural culture. A girl child is considered a liability in rural India, since the family must put up a dowerery when it comes time to marry them off. There is a large industry in the adoption of Chinese girls because male childs are so much more valued in rural communities.
There is an epidemic of child prostitution in South-East Asia, because that is the easist way to exploit young girls for economic gain. Not for them, of course. The same apllies to young girls of Eastern Europe who get lured away from home with the promise of honest work, and end up as sex slaves.
SORRY! I got off on a rant again. My point is whether it is a matter of a question of the policies of Target, or pharmacies adhering to the law, or the far more serious problems girls, and women face today throughout the world, they continue to face discrimination and criminal exploitation that should, by now, have been a horrible footnote in human history. We have not progressed by an iota, to this point in history, today.

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, ****religion****, sex, or national origin;...

Good reminder for all of us, Juliet!
Sorry to say that I see many loop holes in regards to Corporate behaviour when it comes to actual practice. Our corrupted government turns a blind eye when it comes up against these ideals. We have an ass of a "president" who just came up with budget plan that further erodes the safety net of the poor and the marginal poor, which will include the middle class, if his proposals pass in this clown act we call our federal government.
"Race", color, or religion? I will not even bother with sex, or sexual orientation. This society is hell bent on becoming WASPS{Read Nazis} again. {By the way,I am a White heterosexual male, so I have no personal ax to gring here} The paradigm is moving in the direction of the few haves, and the many have nots, in their personal lives as Americans. Women are a particular target here, poor women in particular.
There is a cadre of the wealthy boneheads in Washington today,who have their own personal interrests in mind today. See the dvd on enron if you get the chance. A mind awakening experience, as well as anything by Michael Moore