Friday, February 11, 2005 Birth control, abortion, and being Pro-Birth vs being Pro-Life It seems as if most people, while professing to be anti-abortion, ARE NOT( thankfully!) anti-birth control (except for a few nutcase pharmacists who refuse to fill women's prescriptions for the Pill). Well, Sen. Harry Reid has come up w/another great idea by introducing the Prevention First Act, which would help reduce unwanted pregnancies by providing better access to birth control. NARAL has taken it a step farther with an open letter to pro-lifers, inviting them to join the campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which will ultimately reduce abortions. I think for Dems, this is a winning approach to an issue that has so few winners. Let's be clear on this: Being anti-abortion is not extremist. But outlawing abortion is extremist. Being pro-active about preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs is not extremist. But withholding birth control, withholding factual information about birth control, or withholding birth control health care for women is extremist, and not what the majority of Americans seem to want. And given the fact that so very many social programs have been cleaved away by Bush's budget, ranging from drastic cuts to every area of education to food stamps and federal housing, we should applaud any attempt to reduce unwanted pregnancies. It is one thing to say you value babies and want them to be born, but quite another thing to say that you want these babies to born and then actually have programs in place to feed, clothe, house, provide medical care for, and educate them. If you're like Bush and merely want babies to be born, then you are simply PRO-BIRTH. If you want "wanted and desired" babies to be born, and then provide for all the many needs that babies and children require, then you are PRO-LIFE. Life is much, much more than the conception, gestation and birth process, and I wish that Bush and the Religious Wrong could get that through their thick fundamentalist skulls. |