Freedom of choice act? We need the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT branded into our constitution.

When the life that a fetus depends on, namely a woman, is devalued, then that fetal life is devalued by default, if by nothing else--it's the chicken and egg argument--which came first in this case? Well, even the Bible states that the woman (Eve) came first--the Bible doesn't mention an initial fetus appearing on earth before any women. The woman produces and houses the fetus, not the other way around as these pro-strife whores and pimps seem to wish.

Remember who stood up against the ERA last time around: the Catholic and Mormon churches, i.e., the worshippers of male gods with rules made by human males on hallucinogens, chasing their second heads around in the Heavens.

Interesting that all major "accepted" religions are male-run, male-centric and now fetus-centric, omitting the ones who are responsible for the existence of all human life on earth: women. These religiosos/machos fear women so much they use their fake (see the 19 million uninsured kids in the USA) love of "children" to justify continued and hideous discrimination against women. Make no mistake: the tenets of these two churches, namely that "women have no true worth other than as the wives and mothers of men" is coming out of their closets (which are huge indeed).

We've seen their true colors come out in the Supreme Court this past week.

There are a lot of sensitive, aware men who support freedom of choice. I signed the Freedom of Choice act as soon as I was made aware of it and have contributed to and supported NARAL for years. I agree with Laura's religious perceptions, but hope she meets more enlightened men than her post alludes to. Not all men follow that stereotype. Good luck, and I'll keep up my efforts to ensure reproductive freedom and vote out the bums responsible for limiting legislation of this type. See www.impeachbush.org