Want to help Obama? Elect Kuster, Hodes
Marie Daniels, Bow

For nearly two years millions of us worked to get a Democrat in the Oval Office. We knocked on doors and called strangers despite being a little shy about it. We learned how easily a glue stick seals an envelope and left lots of microwavable dinners for our kids. We brought food to campaign offices and drove people to polls.

Some of us crossed party lines for the first time. We felt inspired to hope for something better and made it happen with our money, time and votes.

We gave Barack Obama the presidency and now watch as the party of "No" thwarts every effort - trashing initiatives but then happily posing for ribbon cuttings in their respective states. We ignore the absurdity of the "Keep your government hands of my Medicare" signs and cringe at Sarah Palin consulting her palm, inventing death panels and chirping about "that hopey changy thing."

If we want Obama to be the kind of change agent we thought he could be, we need to be the kind of inspired citizens we were back then. If we want that change we hoped for, we need to send Obama people to help him. We need to help Annie McLane Kuster (endorsed by NARAL and Emily's list) and Paul Hodes. We need to send them $5 or $50. If we can't give money, we need to give our time. If we can't do that, we need to give them our votes and talk to our friends about giving theirs. We need to be the change we wanted, and want, to see.

We wanted to share it with you a couple of reasons:

1. We (obviously) endorsed both Hodes and Kuster - so we think they are both awesome and would make excellent additions to the Senate and House, respectively!
2. It's proactive.
3. It is a good way to show there are people out there who dealing with frustration in their own, creative ways.

How are you working through your frustration with health reform and your desire for change? Let us know in the comment section.

Check the transcript here:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), author of anti-abortion language in the House health-care bill, tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America" that he's willing to bring down the final bill if abortion language isn't changed: "[T]he bill that they are using as a vehicle is the Senate bill. If you go to page 2069 through page 2078, you would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion. ... [W]e're not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language in there." ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: "Let me be clear here. If the president doesn't change the language, if your language is not accepted, you and your 11 colleagues who voted yes the last time will vote no this time. Does that mean you're prepared to take responsibility for bringing down this whole bill?"

STUPAK: "Yes, we're prepared to take responsibility. I mean, I've been catching it ever since last fall. Let's face it, I want to see health care. But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

Wow. Just wow.

Franken also addressed a NARAL Pro-Choice America luncheon on Feb. 2, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. He fired up a crowd of 500 activists at another rally for health care overhaul in Minneapolis on Feb. 21 organized by MoveOn.org, Organizing for America, local labor groups and Health Care for America Now.

But for now, Franken is not prepared to open himself up to all comers by taking questions from reporters in the hallway on the story of the day, be it health care or any other topic. He says he doesn't yet know when he will be ready to do that. But he said he feels he is still working to make sure his colleagues and his constituents know he is not taking his job lightly and that he wants to be a valuable asset in the Senate.

"People had a right to be skeptical, I guess, that here I am in show business and you know, [ask] 'Is Al going to jump in front of the camera or is he going to be focused on the people of Minnesota?'" Franken said. "But the NARAL thing was the NARAL thing. It wasn't 'Meet the Press.'"

We know we aren't "Meet The Press," Sen. Franken... but can we agree that we might be closer to "Washington Week in Review?" (I'm a huge fan of Gwen Ifill's.)

Which reminds me - I never shared our "highlights" video from our Roe v. Wade 37th Anniversary Luncheon, held in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, February 2, 2010... did I? Watch the short video below to see highlights from Sen. Franken's remarks (and the remarks of a few other guests and speakers):

Personally, the Congressional Record is a bit of a mixed bag this year. I'm from Virginia (don't even get me started about the recent shenanigans there). My hometown representative, Rep. Frank Wolf from the 10th District, got an unsurprising 0 percent pro-choice rating. I was pleased to see that Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb both scored 100 percent ratings. And, of course, my current representative in Congress, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton from Washington, D.C. doesn't get a rating because she doesn't get to vote. (She is pro-choice!)

But, there are a number of new bright spots in the record.

Remember those elections way back in November 2008? While we still don't have a pro-choice majority in Congress, our gains in that election did make a big difference!

Let's look at the Senate. Five former senators who earned 0 percent ratings in 2008 were replaced by new senators who earned 100 percent pro-choice ratings in 2009.

• In Alaska, pro-choice Sen. Mark Begich replaced former Sen. Ted Stevens.
• In Colorado, pro-choice Sen. Mark Udall replaced anti-choice former Sen. Wayne Allard.
• In New Hampshire, pro-choice Sen. Jeanne Shaheen replaced anti-choice former Sen. John Sununu.
• In Oregon, pro-choice Sen. Jeff Merkley replaced anti-choice former Sen. Gordon Smith.
• In New Mexico, pro-choice Sen. Tom Udall replaced anti-choice Sen. Pete Domenici.

And, of course, pro-choice Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota replaced anti-choice Sen. Norm Coleman. You'll recall that there was a long recount in that race, so Sen. Franken wasn't seated for the first six votes, but he did case three pro-choice votes.

So what does the change of these six seats from the anti-choice column to the pro-choice column mean? Elections matter.

How did your senators and representatives vote in 2009? Check out our Congressional Record on Choice. Let us know in the comments if you were surprised by what you found.

Maddow asks, "Who's Afraid of Virginia?" and I would ask, "Who elected this guy?"

Disgusting.

So, clearly Mr. Marshall is callous, but we also can tell you he's hypocritical. Mr. Marshall's egregious statement came during a press conference where he was calling for an end to family-planning services for thousands of women and men in Virginia - services like contraception that actually prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion.

Let's get this straight: First, he said that disabled children are God's punishment to women who choose abortion:

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

Then, he "dialed it back." Well his mea culpa didn't sit well with Virginians. Here are examples of what they said in response to Marshall's diatribe:

"I am amazed that someone has been able to slander my child, my wife and my God in one comment," said Brett Wills, 38, a Staunton paint salesman who is the father of an 8-year-old boy with autism. "To imply that someone's disabilities are an act of God to punish women in an immoral society is just the most outrageous thing I've ever heard."

Jennifer McMillen, whose 8-year-old son has autism and cerebral palsy, said she was outraged. "Quite honestly, I don't care what he intended to say," said McMillen, 37. "His comments were inappropriate and unacceptable, and something needs to be done."

One thing is clear - Del. Marshall's extreme views show just how much he disrespects women and their families. Mr. Marshall's so-called "statement of clarification" will NOT change that fact. Good thing that NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia is on top of it, and holding Mr. Marshall accountable.

We're still waiting to hear anti-choice politicians denounce Mr. Marshall's comments - and something tells me we could be waiting for a long time.

That's good news, right? The vast majority of Americans would agree, but some people took the opportunity to further expose their extreme views. Who, you ask? Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America. These two anti-choice organizations are very critical of this action, and have denounced it with all the hysteria and hypocrisy we've come to expect. Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright said:

... The military should be focusing on "discipline and proper behavior - because lives depend on it - not promoting risky behavior," as reported by LifeSiteNews.com.

Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity commented:

"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions."

And

"It can prevent the embryo from implanting and therefore destroy a human life..."

That's just plain absurd, but still - Monahan went on to claim, "We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications."

Well, I agree with Monahan's latter statement - Women do deserve to know the truth about their medications... and the truth is that EC is simply a concentrated dose of ordinary birth-control pills that can significantly reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant if taken soon after sex. EC does not cause abortion (PDF); rather it is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales for adults in August 2006.

We know one vet that will agree with the independent Pentagon panel's decision, and that's Kayla Williams. Kayla is a friend of NARAL Pro-Choice America and is a former sergeant and Arabic linguist in a Military Intelligence company of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). During her year in Iraq, Kayla spent her time at the forefront of U.S. interactions with Iraqis, while simultaneously navigating the challenges that come with being part of the 15 percent of the Army that is female.

In a blog post for VetVoice - the online home of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans - Kayla blogged about sex in the military and her support for the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act:

Women in the military may not like to talk about it, since many of us are still fighting to prove that we belong in the military and do our jobs well. Quite frankly, I don't want to talk about sex in a war zone - I want to talk about how women are proving ourselves not only competent but indispensable in counterinsurgency.

But the reality is that humans do have sex. The Army even lets married soldiers live together in Iraq. Condoms are sold at the PX. And - tragically - nonconsensual sex happens too; the DoD reports that reports of sexual assaults are on the rise, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Go Kayla! - and thank you for your service.

One final note: In an editorial, The New York Times agreed with Kayla and applauded the Pentagon panel's decision and even went a step further, calling for an end to the anti-choice policy that prohibits servicewomen's access to abortion, even when they use their own money:

Next, Pentagon officials and members of Congress need to address the callous treatment of servicewomen with regard to abortion. Under current rules, military doctors may perform abortions only in cases of rape, incest or when the women's lives are endangered. And even in cases of rape and incest, the women must pay. It is outrageous that politics is allowed to interfere with the health care decisions of women who wear the nation's uniform.

Be sure to read the entire column and share it with your friends and family.

Personhood Mississippi, led by Les Riely of Pontotoc, delivered petitions with signatures of 105,167 people on Tuesday. The group's goal is to extend rights to fetuses and stop abortion in Mississippi. Similar efforts have been under way in several other states, including Colorado, Florida, Montana and Nevada.

In Colorado, the Denver Post noted:

So-called "Christian soldiers" announced Friday that they have handed in the thousands of signatures needed to place the Personhood Colorado amendment on the 2010 ballot. But proponents of the anti-abortion measure fell well short of the 131,000 signatures submitted for a similar amendment in 2008. This year they will be handing in only 79,817 signatures, just 3,770 more than then 76,047 valid signatures needed for the Secretary of State's office to certify the initiative for the ballot.

Thankfully, our colleagues at NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado are working hard to defeat this extreme measure in their state, just as they did in 2008.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T: An independent Pentagon panel's decision to ensure military women have access to EC at military health facilities received excellent coverage in The New York Times this weekend. The "Gray Lady" even called for an end to the anti-choice policy that prohibits servicewomen's access to abortion, even when they use their own money:

Next, Pentagon officials and members of Congress need to address the callous treatment of servicewomen with regard to abortion. Under current rules, military doctors may perform abortions only in cases of rape, incest or when the women's lives are endangered. And even in cases of rape and incest, the women must pay. It is outrageous that politics is allowed to interfere with the health care decisions of women who wear the nation's uniform.

It's a must read, and a must share.

Things May Go South for Some Women in North Carolina: This week, we learned that county employees of Wake County, North Carolina, might lose abortion care from their insurance policy. NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina calls this move "a slap in the face to every female employee" and is standing up to this attack on choice at the local level.

Because Crazy Talk Never Goes Out of Style: All this unexpected snow in Washington, D.C. must have sent crazy dust across the country. This week, we had not one, not two, but three extreme examples of crazy-talk from anti-choicers. Let's file these under ARE YOU KIDDING US WITH THIS?

Via Hotline's Wake-Up Call, courtesy of the Associated Press:

A Tea Party organizer in eastern WA who told a crowd that she'd like to "hang" Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) says her remark "was taken out of context," and that she meant she'd like to "hang Patty Murray, by vote."

Uhhh, WHAT? Statements like that have no place in the political dialog and, in fact, are downright scary.

The New York Times' Caucus Blog reported on a speaker, Jason Mattera, who bashed President Obama at the infamous Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). That alone doesn't surprise anyone, but highly-insensitive remarks like the one below gave cause for a double take (or read, rather):

He then mocked what he described, with a Chris Rock voice, as "diversity," including, he said, college classes on "cyber feminism" and "what it means to be a feminist new black man." Describing the latter, he said: "Think of a crossover between RuPaul and Barney Frank."

REALLY, Mr. Mattera? Really?

Finally, Ken Blackwell - senior fellow at the Family Research Council, visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law, and chairman of Ohio Faith and Freedom Coalition - was at it again this week, this time attacking Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee for a top job at the Justice Department:

If Mr. Obama is serious about civility he needs to withdraw Dawn Johnsen's nomination. If she is confirmed, we will see a radical anti-Catholic, pro-abortion zealot influencing policy th[r]oughout the Justice Department--but also policy throughout the entire federal government.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Ironic that Ken Blackwell is calling someone other than himself a radical and a zealot.

The Problem with Pro-Choice Men?: Nope, that isn't a set-up to a lame joke, but rather the subject and headline of an article that ran in the Daily Beast.

Pro-choice activists argue that there's more to the issue than one poll, however. Ted Miller, Communications Director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, points to South Dakota. When a legislative ban on abortions was defeated in 2006, anti-abortion activists claimed that a similar bill, with exceptions for rape and incest, would pass in the next legislative cycle. In 2008, the bill, now with exceptions, was handily defeated again, and both pre- and post-polling showed men and women equally against it.

... Miller says that NARAL's ongoing research project among young voters has found that of those who "were supportive of a woman's right to choose... almost all the young men talked about women in their lives who had gone through the experience of choosing abortion."

We thought it was an interesting piece, and would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

Finally, we'd like to offer pro-choice Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) our best wishes for a speedy recovery following his diagnosis of stomach lymphoma. The entire staff of NARAL Pro-Choice America will keep you and your family in our thoughts and prayers.

I've been following #FocusOn on Twitter (yes, I'm one of those Twitter people), and I've already seen some great responses.

To participate, just tweet this and fill in the blank: FocusOnTheFamily is anti-choice & anti-gay. When its SuperBowl ad runs, I'll join @naral & #FocusOn _______________ http://bit.ly/b9RoSE

You can also join the fun on Facebook.

Here are my personal favorite tweets so far:

• @RekzDX72: I'll join @naral & #FocusOn MY Family
• @cburley: I'll join @naral & #FocusOn *real* family values
• @madlolscientist: I'll join @naral & #FocusOn my gay friends
• @corvaire: I'll join @naral & #FocusOn Puppy Bowl w/Kitty 1/2-time!
• @chickgonebad: I'll join @naral & #FocusOn pure joy & love

And of course I really love this one!

@HSlater351: FocusOnTheFamily is anti-choice & anti-gay. I'll join @naral & #FocusOn a $10 donation to support choice http://bit.ly/b9RoSE Pls RT

So what will you #FocusOn? Tell your friends on Facebook or Twitter!

I'm a big football fan, and I'm really looking forward to the Super Bowl. Spending time with family and friends, eating good nachos, maybe having a beer - you really can't beat it.

But this Super Bowl is going to be different.

Unfortunately, it looks like CBS is going ahead with Focus on the Family's ad.

The ad likely will focus on the story of Pam Tebow, the mother of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.

We've heard from a lot of supporters - asking where we stand on all of this - so we put together this short clip about our support for a woman's ability to make the choice that's right for her and her family:

Anti-choice politics have no place in the Super Bowl, so when the ad runs, focus on something else - anything else - besides Focus on the Family.

to tell the truth about Focus on the Family's agenda, and what you plan to focus on instead when the ad runs.

Me? I'm going to focus on... our great, pro-choice activists!

As a proud progressive, I know I don't have to convince you that Focus on the Family wants to take choices away from women, including the choice to use birth control or access abortion if necessary.

So I wanted to leave you with a few facts and outrageous claims the group has made, so that you will be ready to tell your friends the true agenda behind the Focus on the Family ad when your friends ask:

• Its web site urges women facing unintended pregnancy to seek "wise advice" because "the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult."
• In 2008, Focus on the Family endorsed a divisive anti-choice "personhood" ballot measure in Colorado that would have banned abortion and threatened birth control. Fortunately, pro-choice Coloradans, led by NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, resoundingly rejected this measure.
• Focus on the Family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support California's discriminatory Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. The organization's founder, James Dobson claimed that gay marriage will "destroy the Earth."

It's important that, as pro-choice Americans, we support every woman's ability to make the decisions that are best for her and her family - but Focus on the Family wants to take options away from women.

So please Go to ProChoiceAmerica.org/SuperBowl to find out how to use Facebook, MySpace or Twitter to give your friends and tens of thousands of football fans a way to tell the world that they disagree with Focus on the Family's agenda, and that they plan to focus on something else when the ad airs.

Wow. In just a week, more than 48,000 people joined us in calling on CBS to drop the Focus on the Family ad from the Super Bowl line up!

Clearly CBS heard the loud public outcry. But with more than $2 million on the line, CBS dodged the outrage by abruptly changing its policy about airing advocacy ads. Now, the network says it will show ads that are "responsibly produced" during the Super Bowl.

So now that Focus on the Family's ad will probably run, what are millions of pro-choice viewers to do?

The night of the Super Bowl, when the ad comes on, we want you to Focus On... Something Else. Anything else!

Focus on your best friend's artichoke dip... flossing your teeth... the Puppy Bowl... the finer points of astrophysics... You get the picture. When the ad runs, just make sure you are focusing on something other than Focus on the Family.

Tell the world (okay, your friends) that you plan to Focus On... Something Else through Facebook or Twitter.

First, say how you really feel about Focus on the Family's anti-choice, anti-birth-control, anti-sex-education, and anti-gay agenda, and then be sure to share what you plan to Focus On when the ad plays. (And fan us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter so that you can hear from us the night of the Super Bowl. We'll share the great feedback we're seeing.)

What do I plan to Focus On during the Super Bowl? Probably trying to make my friends' little baby laugh and thinking about how lucky I am to be surrounded by amazing family and friends.

Kristin Koch is the Deputy Director of Communications for Online Advocacy Strategies for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

I have huge news!

After years of struggling to make sure women serving in the military overseas have access to emergency contraception, the Department of Defense has just approved a policy that would guarantee access!

This policy shift from the Defense Department is a major victory for women's health and women's rights, and will help the 350,000 women who serve in the military or depend on military facilities for health care.

Until now, if a woman serving in the military stationed overseas is raped, there's a good chance she won't be able to get emergency birth control that can prevent a pregnancy, simply because the base's health facilities don't stock it.

What could only make this situation even worse is the fact that anti-choice politicians have fought for years to keep it that way.

It's probably not surprising that the Bush administration is to blame. In 2002, the Department of Defense issued the same recommendation that it did today, but then-President Bush's political appointees overruled it without explanation.

To add insult to injury, anti-choice groups like Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council, along with members of Congress who oppose birth control like anti-choice Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak from Michigan, have since opposed efforts by members of Congress to fix this problem.

Fortunately, unlike his predecessor, President Obama supports the decisions of medical experts and policy recommendations based on science-not politics.

Now we just need to make sure that anti-choice ideologues don't threaten military women's access to emergency contraception again. Send Secretary of Defense Robert Gates a quick note supporting the policy and urging him to stand behind it.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has been fighting to change this outrageous unacceptable policy for years. In just the past few months, we worked with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) to introduce the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act. This bill was a legislative response to the political interference during the Bush era.

Washington. D.C. - Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement in response to a jury's conviction of Scott Roeder as guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Dr. George Tiller.

"The jury examined the facts of this case and rightfully convicted Scott Roeder for the brutal murder of Dr. George Tiller inside his church in Kansas. Our thoughts are with Dr. Tiller's family and friends. Even though this conviction brings a murderer to justice, it won't replace the husband, father, and grandfather they lost last May. Dr. Tiller was a tireless advocate for reproductive health who called on us to 'trust women' to make the personal, private decisions that are best for them and their families. We will continue to honor his legacy of compassion and resolve.

"We also call on opponents of a woman's right to choose to end the practice of inflammatory rhetoric and tactics that inspire this kind of violent action from the most extreme factions of the anti-choice movement. No other abortion provider's family should have to endure the tragedy of seeing their loved one killed for providing an essential and legal health service to women."

Learn more about violence against abortion providers and their patients.

Thinking about Focus on the Family in my house any day of the week kind of turns my stomach, but on Super Bowl Sunday? Well, that just crosses the line.

Not that I'm a huge football fan. Baseball is my game (Go, Nationals!), but I have always loved the Super Bowl. Whether I host or go to a friend's house, it's one of the few nights where so many people gather to watch sports. It's festive and loud, involves over-eating... and for those of us who don't discuss the finer of points of offensive strategy, there's the half-time show and, of course, the ads.

We've all scrutinized Super Bowl ads. With my group of friends, ads spark the most conversation, laughs, or boos (my favorite: the E-Trade babies). And I'm sure that at least some percentage of the anticipated Super Bowl viewership of 100 million pays close attention to the ads, too.

That's one big reason why CBS's approval to run an ad by Focus on the Family during the Super Bowl is so troubling. We're talking about approximately 100 million people who will be exposed to an organization with an unmistakably anti-choice, anti-birth-control, anti-sex-education, anti-gay agenda. We did a cursory review of the Focus on the Family web site and found this doozy: in one section about abortion (yes, there are more than one) women facing an unintended pregnancy are counseled to seek "wise advice" because "the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult." Yeah, there is no way you can make this up. Focus on the Family is not some middle-of-the-road, ho-hum organization.

For CBS to suddenly change its "no advocacy in advertising" policy to consider "responsibly produced" ads is a cop out. CBS is trying to justify its decision by changing the rules in the middle of the game and no one is fooled.

That's why I hope you sign our petition calling on CBS to drop the Focus on the Family ad so that we can go back to focusing on the Super Bowl.

And here's why I trust women: Because women know the situations they are in. They know whether or not the condom broke, or whether or not the baby's father was a rapist or whether he wouldn't step in. They know the risks of having a child, either medically or situationally. And I trust women to be in the care of a physician rather than in the care of an unlicensed quack who uses unsanitary equipment. And I trust women to be in the care of a physician rather than taking extreme measures to terminate their pregnancies.

"Trust Women" means understanding a woman's right to make decisions about her body. It means trusting that we can, and must, make our own decisions regarding our reproductive choices.

Trust a woman to know when she's ready to have a child. Trust a woman to decide if she's not ready for a child.

All women, regardless of class, income, religion, or color, should be able to make decisions about their own bodies.

For the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, NARAL Pro-Choice America holds Blog for Choice day. To participate, we're reposting some of our best segments related to abortion, choice, and reproductive health. Last August, Dr. Susan Wicklund joined us in studio. We wrote at the time:
A recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights reveals that abortion doctors and clinics face continued threats, assaults, and harassment. Are doctors under siege? Dr. Susan Wicklund, author of This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor, on the political climate after the death of Dr. George Tiller and why she's speaking out.

Like I said, there's a lot discussed, but there are two points in particular I want to focus on. The first is the notion that reproductive rights are human rights. To me, that's the crux of what Trust Women means. Abortion is simply a medical procedure that allows a woman to do with her body what she wants and needs. Having a fertilized egg inside of her doesn't suddenly make her incapable of making decisions, yet she is suddenly deemed unworthy of retaining her rights. The second point is closely linked to the first, in my opinion, and that's education and information. If women are given access to accurate information about contraception, abortion, adoption, childbirth, etc., then why should anybody else be allowed to interfere with her decision and her rights?

I get really angry when I see headlines like the one in this article in GQ about Scott Roeder murdering Dr. George Tiller:  "Savior vs. Savior", with the blurb equating Dr. Tiller and Roeder as men who "believed they were doing right" and as having "convictions".  No one would dare say such a thing about a non-Christian terrorist, that they somehow have a conviction worth respecting.  But when the argument is between the conviction that women are people vs. the conviction that women are subhuman incubators, then all of a sudden this false equivalence enters into the situation.

The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I'm engaging right now), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.