Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Emergency birth control backed

Emergency birth control backed

Aug 29, 2007 - 04:04:37 CDT

By AMY JACOBSON
Fargo

One year ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter status for emergency contraception for women 18 and older. Emergency contraception is backup birth control that can prevent pregnancy after sexual assault, contraceptive failure or other unprotected intercourse.

It also is known as the "morning-after pill" or emergency birth control.

Despite its enormous potential, anti-choice groups oppose the use of emergency contraception. In order to hinder women's access to this important method of contraception, they falsely claim that emergency contraception is an abortifacient, and they disseminate other misinformation about its safety and efficacy.

The bottom line is that prevention is the key to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and in turn the number of abortions.

Planned Parenthood encourages parents, politicians, educators and health-care providers to link arms and support access to proven prevention measures like access to birth control, including emergency contraception.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Emergency birth control backed

Comments

cf wrote on Sep 10, 2007 11:28 AM:

" To Deb: It is not dictating. It is a fact of life! We have all had sex ed in health class. Ignorance is no excuse. Actually how many people really don't know that having sex may lead to pregnancy? Now I know that there are circumstances such as DD cases. But if they are never submitted to it they are unaware of it. I am in the health care profession, I am sorry, but you are making people out to be unaware of where babies come from. In this day and age that is backwards thinking. "

gg wrote on Sep 5, 2007 2:55 PM:

" myob, this is not about religion to me. Quite different in fact. But my analogy still is you wouldn't let a drunken driver leagally kill a human being so why is it ok for a doctor to do it? Shaina has asked the same question I did also, which is why is it a life if the mother gets killed but if we call it abortion it is ok? The woman has the right to choose for sure, she has the right to choose to engage in activity that does not result in her pregnancy. Maybe that would take too much self responsiblity to carry out? Again let me say, abortion is an awful thing when there are so many people who would love to and have the ability to have the child and could adopt it. Why is it preferable to murder a human being as opposed to allowing somone who actually wants the child to raise it? "

LJK wrote on Sep 5, 2007 11:35 AM:

" What part of "contraception" is throwing people for a loop? The purpose of it is to PREVENT a pregnancy. No part of that suggests abortion, termination of a life or any other of the hotbed arguments. One would think people would be overjoyed by the idea of preventing a later abortion from happening. You can't possibly think that the only reason people have sex is to procreate. "

MYOB wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Shaina, so "taking a knife after your kids and slicing them up" is the same as abortion? According to your "reasoning" we should give life sentences to any and all women who have had abortion, right? Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, then we should go through clinic records and and charge these women under the law. Oh, don't forget about doctors and nurses. They would be accomplices under "Shaina's Law". I suppose that a girl who is raped and takes the MA pill could get life and her rapist might only get 10 years. Not many would want to live under your rule. "

Shaina wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:09 AM:

" Once egg and sperm met, they are forming a life. Preventing them from implanting doesn't change the fact that a child is already being created. Explain to me why if someone murders a pregnant women it is a double homicide, but she can have an abortion and that's fine and dandy. To me, abortion is no different than taking a knife after your kids and slicing them up. I am not religious, but I believe in natural law where it shouldn't be our right to kill others, even if it is our own child. "

MYOB wrote on Sep 5, 2007 9:05 AM:

" gg, Sorry but I do not understand what kind of analogy you are trying to draw here. I do not support legalizing drunken driving or any other driving by people who are "chemically impaired". I do support the use of the MA pill, a woman's right to choose, and the freedom to use birth control. These are rights in the USA and by exercising those rights an American citizen is not breaking any law that I am aware of. Maybe your religion tells you that you may not exercise those rights. That is your opinion. I respect your opinion but do not have to obey your religion. "

MYOB wrote on Sep 5, 2007 8:17 AM:

" Shaina, why do some people think that abortion is murder? I don't know. But, let's remember that this thread is about "the morning-after pill" which is not a form of abortion. "

gg wrote on Sep 5, 2007 7:24 AM:

" MYOB, people die every day from speeding and being hit by drunk drivers. Should that be made leagal since that was just a bad chioce by the offending party and they shouldn't be held accountable for it? "

Shaina wrote on Sep 5, 2007 12:10 AM:

" Someone please try to explain to me how abortion is not murder. "

MYOB wrote on Sep 4, 2007 10:36 PM:

" gg, there are plenty of legal drugs causing addiction and related problems. Name one instance when the government has solved a drug problem. It's all about continuing "The War on DRUGS". Oh yeah, declared by Nixon and still going one for almost 40 years. Corporate prisons are now on the NYSE and doing fine. Nope, no drug legalization in our future. "

just a thought wrote on Sep 4, 2007 5:56 PM:

" I guess I'd rather have it available and regulated than have someone sell it as 'black market' pills. "

gg wrote on Sep 1, 2007 8:22 AM:

" MYOB, People die from drug overdoses every day even though it is illeagal. By your thinking should we leagalize drugs? Or perhaps we could focus more on actually providing help to those in trouble. Not just the government, but each and every one of us. "

MYOB wrote on Aug 31, 2007 9:07 PM:

" To what i think: You keep saying "I want" but it is not about what you or I want. We cannot rule the hearts and minds of the population. Even if a ban on abortion were to be effected in the US, abortion would continue. Maybe you are not old enough to remember the pre Roe v. Wade America but I do. Many women and yes, children seeking abortions died from blood loss or infection. Some people even said, "serves them right". MA pill encouraging promiscuity? I think that parents do that when they dress their grade school girls like little hookers but I don't think that they will listen to anyone discouraging that either. "

what i think wrote on Aug 31, 2007 4:54 PM:

" Yeah, teens are unpredictable at best. It's only been a few years since I was one. But I'm not just talking about teens, if you remember -- plenty of otherwise-stable adults are just as irresponsible, thinking they're living out Sex and the City or something. As far as the STDs go -- again, comprehensive education (not just schools, but responsible parents) at appropriate ages will help prevent some of them. What's better, that the couple risks an infection, or that the baby is murdered? I'd rather discourage the MA pill because, like abortion, its wide availability may encourage promiscuity because it's an easy solution. That's only IF it becomes an easy-access drug. Remember, I wanted an emergency-only restriction. I'd just prefer the pill to the kill (ha, no rhyme intended). "

gg wrote on Aug 31, 2007 4:29 PM:

" mry: My point still is there is a dobule standard. And I agree men are not held responsible nearly enough times. Still, adoption is not a punishment, it's a gift and rather than killing the baby, yes it is a baby, put it up for adoption. Do some good for the world instead of living for destruction and self centerdness if that is a word. Believe me, I have heard more stories of mothers having trauma after an abortion than I have heard of them having trauma after giving a baby to a loving home. "

mry wrote on Aug 31, 2007 3:24 PM:

" gg -- to answer your question, the "double murder" law in which a fetus is considered a murdered person if someone kills a pregnant woman was a first attempt to outlaw abortion by legally defining a fetus as a person. The point is that EC prevents pregnancy. It acts to prevent a mistaken sexual encounter from becoming a pregnancy. If you're going to start defining fertilized eggs as human beings, then we have a lot of frozen humans sitting in labs all over the world. And there are a lot more miscarriages every year. Also, there's a lot of vilification of women who get pregnant unintendedly, but no one has yet pointed out that there are men involved int his whole process, too. It takes sperm to fertilize an egg, but yet young men rarely get kicked out of school or shunned by their families and friends for getting a girl "knocked up." Outdated double standard, anyone? "

MYOB wrote on Aug 31, 2007 12:19 PM:

" To what i think: I agree that the "morning after" pill would be preferable to an abortion. But as we learned from the birth control pill, there are sometimes unintended consequences such as an increase in STD's. Having worked with teens for years, I can say that their responses to tough situations are often unpredictable. Suddenly one might decide to run away, take up drug use, or commit a violent act such as suicide. Yes, the "morning after pill" should be available to teens but as you know, many are opposed to its use at all. "

what i think wrote on Aug 31, 2007 10:19 AM:

" MYOB, suddenly you're concerned about the life of the "fetus"? And only because it might affect the mother's life. If the mother's that depressed about her situation, how likely is it that she's going to commit suicide to "solve" it? Maybe it happens, rarely, but it must be ten times more likely that she's going to end the baby's life, not hers as well. And as for lack of support, you and I pay taxes so that unwed mothers can get money from the state when their families shun them. Besides, if we want to talk about depression, let's talk about the psychological ramifications of having an abortion. Ultimately, I'd much rather see the morning-after pill available to women (even the dumb, selfish ones) than abortions. Even though I believe that day-old fertilization is alive and a human with a soul, if we could outlaw abortion in favor of the morning-after pill, I'd see it as a step in the right direction and SO much more humane. "

gg wrote on Aug 31, 2007 8:04 AM:

" MYOB, its called give the baby up for adoptoion and know you gave a child to a good home who couldn't have their own. Example. My uncle and aunt tried for years to have a child but couldn't. When they were about 40 years old, they adopted a baby boy from a 17 year old mother who made a mistake and got pregnant. That saved their marraige as the stress of not being able to have a child almost drove them to divorce. My uncle died of cancer about 5 years ago, their son was 12. That boy was everything to him, all becuase of adoption. Now imagine had that 17 year old chosen abortion? What could would have come from that compared to the joy she was able to provide for a couple of strangers who couldn't have their own child? "

MYOB wrote on Aug 30, 2007 10:08 PM:

" To what i think: Thank you for your clarification. You stated "as in, my life or mental health is in certain danger." What about the mental health or life of the stupid, drunken 15 year old. Would it not be better to let her have a pill that prevents the pregnancy(the "morning after" pill) rather than to let her become pregnant and because of her mental state, lack of support from family, become despondent and take her life and that of the fetus? "

what i think wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:16 PM:

" Yes, MYOB, that is what I'm saying. I don't believe abortion and morning-after pills should be out there to make way for womens' stupid mistakes. That's why in my last post, I talked about emergency situations only. It's not an emergency if you were dumb and did it yourself. Yes, it would be hard to be 15 and go through pregnancy and birth, but I don't think "hard" is a good enough reason to end someone else's life. "

MYOB wrote on Aug 30, 2007 4:56 PM:

" To Her Body!: Seems to me that if you had your way by prosecuting parents of a pregnant teen-for what you didn't say- then there would be a lot of girls crying rape to keep their parents out of jail. (if you provide exceptions for rape) And what about the boy in all of this? Do his folks receive a "get out of jail" card? Looks like we would definitely need a huge addition to the Bismarck Pen. "

gg wrote on Aug 30, 2007 4:39 PM:

" No one has answered my question about why it is a baby if somone kills a pregnant mother, but abortion is ok because it really isn't a life. That seems contradictive to me. "

Her body: wrote on Aug 30, 2007 4:11 PM:

" I also believe that if a pregnancy does occur it could be the hand of a greater being trying to place a baby in a home of waiting parents through adoption. And, if you're 15, get wasted, and have sex, the parents should be prosecuted to full extent of the law - sorry, again, no responsibility needed in raising kids. Why doesn't this whole thing just start there? "

Her body! wrote on Aug 30, 2007 4:07 PM:

" Everyone talks about "it's her body and her choice to take the pill or whatever..." If it's her body why doesn't she take responsibility BEFORE unwanted things happen? A woman needs to be aware that her body is made to have children, and take precautions ahead of time and be responsible. Casual sex is irresponsible and in my day there were names for those who had it. But if they must take 10 minutes which could change the next 60 years, then at least be mature enough to think ahead and be responsible for "her body". I'm so sick of "her body" after the fact. Just another way to allow our society to be irresponsible and lazy, and still come out smelling like rose, while a life that was made is snuffed out without a thought. What kind of society can be so cold and cruel and non-caring, and just pop the pill and walk away? "

MYOB wrote on Aug 30, 2007 3:48 PM:

" To what I think: So what I hear you saying is that you want the emergency contraception in the case of rape but if you were 15, stupid, got wasted and had sex then you wouldn't qualify for the morning after pill? Is that what you are saying? "

what i think wrote on Aug 30, 2007 2:51 PM:

" I am against abortion, but if I were raped I know I would want an emergency contraceptive -- and that's where the word EMERGENCY comes in. As in, my life or mental health is in certain danger. Not as in, I'm 15 and stupid enough to get wasted and have sex, not I'm 26 and my model's body would be ruined, not even I follow a faith with followers who would look down on me for my bad choices (and I am a Christian, by the way, but don't discredit me because of it). I agree that comprehensive sexual education, at an appropriate age (what 4th grader needs it? Focus on junior high and above) and including the benefits of temporary abstinence, would be mostly a benefit (I missed out on many basics because Christians are so skittish about sex). Now unless you were raped, you DID have a choice to have sex. And you think you have the right to choose not only for yourself but also for the human who can't speak for her/himself?? How about the generations of human beings that didn't have a choice whether to live or die? The problem with the choice argument is that a woman is choosing for many more than just herself. "

JustFacts wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:24 PM:

" MYOB: Where did someone say they supported laws to deny rape victims access to medication to prevent conception? "

MYOB wrote on Aug 30, 2007 1:13 PM:

" Rape happens. How anyone could support laws that would deny rape victims the "morning after pill" to prevent pregnancy is beyond my understanding. So what crime did the rape victim commit in your eyes? If the rape victim's rights are so miniscule as to rank below that of a single cell floating down her oviduct, why should the perpetrator of the crime even be charged? "

gg wrote on Aug 30, 2007 7:39 AM:

" I see what two cents means though. I know people that were on the pill and still got pregnant or used condoms and still got pregnant. It can and does happen. If you have sex, it could happen and if it could happen, ending the life is an awful thing to do. What did the baby do to deserve death? That is why I am a firm believer in adoption. "

MYOB wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:14 PM:

" To Two Cents: Yes you can have sex and there is no possibility of conception! Think about it. "

Two Cents wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:04 PM:

" If two people never have sex, there is no possibility of them ever conceiving a child. Agreed? If they do engage in sex, no matter what pills or contraception are out there, there is a chance, no matter how remote, that they could conceive. To me, that is the choice. Am I ready & willing to deal with the consequences by having sex? If you are not, then don't have sex. Otherwise, you are begining the process of creating life by merely taking that chance and making that choice. This argument of when life begins cannot be agreed upon, but we can all agree upon when the line is crossed and there is a chance of conceiving. That should be the main concern, not "What forms of medication can we create to skirt the rules in our favor to indulge in our selfish sexual behavioral patterns." "

JustFacts wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:52 PM:

" Space does not permit providing quotes, but here are some citations. England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31; Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2; Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2; Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146; Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160; Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3; Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943; Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31; Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3; Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63; Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders 2003, p. 2.; Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17; O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29; Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3; Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39. "

gg wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:48 PM:

" By the way, how do you define life? Is it a heartbeat? A thought? A movement? Well by week 5 the heart starts beating. and by week 8 the fetus develops fingers and toes and moves. Another thing I have always wondered. If a woman has an abortion it is ok becasuse it is choice but if someone kills a pregant woman and her baby it is two counts of murder. Doesn't that contradict the whole fetus isn't a life thing? Or is it a life only if the mom doesn't want it? "

gg wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:41 PM:

" If you choose to have unprotected sex and you get pregnant, you dont have to kill the baby. My wife was adopted. I have two cousins that were adopted. I have friends who have adopted. Do you have any idea how many loving homes would love to take those children in that you regard so lightly with your choice? Only a completely heartless person would take away that child's right to a good life. If you dont want the baby, give it up for adoption, let someone else have the benefits of being a parent. "

Deb wrote on Aug 29, 2007 4:49 PM:

" mry - you took the words outta my mouth. "

mry wrote on Aug 29, 2007 4:29 PM:

" "JustFacts:" Please provide a link to the scientific study that decreed that "life" begins at fertilization. Peer-reviewed, and published in an academic, not political or religious, setting, please. "

JustFacts wrote on Aug 29, 2007 4:04 PM:

" The argument against abortion is not based on religion. A person might be motivated by religion, but the argument itself need not be religious. Science, not religion, demonstrates that a human life exists at fertilization. Science, as well as the makers of emergency contraception, acknowledge that it can prevent an embryo from implanting. That is not contraception. "

DennisB wrote on Aug 29, 2007 2:23 PM:

" Face it everyone, contraception is a good thing from both points of view. Let it go! Some comments for the thread--prolifers, keep religion out of your argument. It makes your position weaker while arguing your point. Try to focus on when life begins. With all these symantics I have to ask, would a post-birth abortion be murder or a choice? "

MYOB wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:46 PM:

" A fertilized egg is not a baby. A rape victim would not be taking a pill that would kill a baby just a fertilized but not yet implanted cell. The anti-abortion people - I know, you prefer pro-life - are basing their arguments on their religion, not science. I respect that but at the same time recognize that many times they are shaping their arguments around their own religion and life experiences and should not assume that everyone wants to see religious beliefs become the law of the land. Reading some of the opinions, I think I detect an element of satisfaction that without abortion or contraception someone will be forced to rear a child that they didn't want. Who will receive the punishment in that case? By the way, where in the Bible is abortion prohibited? Lastly, how does "pro-life" people feel when pro-life candidates become warmongering politicians? "

mry wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:47 PM:

" If the so-called "pro-life" movement supported life, this group would also promote comprehensive sex education so that young people would, as "cf" assumes "KNOW where babies come from" before having sex. They would support good child care and education for children, health care for all, and support for parents. Until I see an expansion of their message, I will continue to call them "anti-choice" as they are against my right to choose what happens within my body, imposing their morality on me. And ladybug, I'm adopted, too, but still support women's innate right to control their own bodies. Emergency contraception is an excellent, last-chance option for preventing unwanted pregnancies. Its side effects insure that this will not be used as a regular form of birth control, and I hope that it will be widely available to those women who need it. "

Point to Ponder wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:54 AM:

" I agree with Anti-Sexual Assualt Advocate. there is no reason why a rape victim should risk pregnancy as a result of being sexually attacked. I have a point to ponder: if you are "pro war" does that make you "anti-life"? "

Pay attention wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:48 AM:

" I think many of you are missing the point. Emergency contraception is another form of birth control, same hormones as daily birth control pills only a higher doseage. This debate is not about abortion it is about birth control! "

FDS wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:34 AM:

" Just a point - emergency contraception is good for everyone who would desire it. It is not abortion. It stops CONCEPTION - therefore it is birth control. The fact is, birth control is the best way to reduce (perhaps end?) abortions - along with education. This is the middle ground the majority of the population would like to see. I get very angry when I hear it stated that women should pay these big consequences for having sex - that is extremely paternalistic, isn't it? I get being against abortion - so wouldn't it make sense to take practical steps to reduce them through education and available BIRTH CONTROL?! "

Deb wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:30 AM:

" to "cf" : you say "If you CHOOSE to have unprotected sex, you must live with the consequences" - oh really? says who? why do you get to dictate the actions in other people's lives? what if I don't want to have a child but I want to have sex? It might be construed as self-indulgent, but who are you or anyone to say that I have to have the responsibility of raising a child because I decided to have unprotected sex? If I take the Plan B pill, the pregnancy is avoided without ever allowing the egg to implant on the uterine wall. No pregnancy - no abortion - no child. Seems like a win-win-win to me. "

Concerned wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:11 AM:

" I think the issue here is not random, unprotected sex . . . think of those who have been violated against their will that will wake up each morning with living proof of that trauma right in front of their eyes! Imagine a 12 year old whose body is matured but she is not being raped by some sadistic idiot! No way is her body biologically ready for that assualt! On the other hand, if it is being used as a way to keep from paying consequences for thinking with the lower half of your body, perhaps a 2 X 4 upside the head is a good idea! "

ladybug wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:55 AM:

" I must agree, calling me anti-choice is not called for unless I can call you anti-life. I take this stance, not because of religious beliefs or a morality issue. I take it because I'm adopted. That being said, I do believe emergency contraception is necessary - but I believe it should be administered by a physician in a prescription only setting. It's perfectly understandable when people don't want to report being sexually assaulted. I didn't report it when I was. But therein lies the problem. If we don't report it, it's more likely to happen to someone else. By offering the medication only to those who come in, it's further incentive for that person to step forward. Call me insensitive if you want but remember, I've lived through the possibility of being aborted and have been assaulted. I think a woman should have the option to terminate then and only then. Someone who accepts the risk of consensual sex should accept that no form of actual birth control is 100 percent. Anyone who willingly has sex and finds out their pregnant should have one of two options - keep the baby or put it up for adoption. For these people, there should be no third option. I say keep the emergency pill for those who have more weighing on their minds than the drunk one-night stand they just had. "

UND Student wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:47 AM:

" Well unfortunately the same "pro life" people are also often against birth control and comprehensive sexual education. You can't have it both ways... "

another view-point wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:35 AM:

" I am pro-life, not anit-choice. Let me put it this way: I do belive fully that women should have a choice when it comes to THEIR bodies and THEIR lives, however when the decision that they are making affects another body, another human life -A LIVING BABY- we need to have laws and regualtions in place! Why should there be a difference between a life in or out of the womb? The choice made at that point is no longer just affecting the woman, but a new person that she has created! "

cf wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:58 AM:

" If you CHOOSE to have unprotected sex, you must live with the consequences. Too many people are self indulgent and do not want to be responsible for their actions. If you are having sex, protect yourself! There is enough education to go around with this subject, ignoring your responsibilities with sex causes unwanted pregnancies. You know this BEFORE you have sex just HOW babies are made. If you do NOT want a child then protect yourself. Pretty simple really. "

Anti-Sexual Assualt Advocate wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:53 AM:

" There is at least one instance in which access to emergency contraception is critically important. In sexual assault cases, most victims, research indicates as many as 75%, never seek medical services following the assault. For these victims, having access to EC in which they are not required to answer questions or justify to anyone why it is needed it critically important and a progressive move forward towards providing services for victims. "

UND Student wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:44 AM:

" Well calling "pro-life" people anti choice makes more sense. You're essentially against giving women the choice of what to do with their bodies (and just giving them the "choice" to have sex isn't good enough, some women don't have that choice). I would consider myself Pro Choice, but calling me anti-life or pro-death would be a misnomer. I'm not for abortions for every pregnancy! I'm not even sure if I'd have one myself, but I think women should be able to make this choice about their bodies, not some legislator in Washington. "

pro choice wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:08 AM:

" I am pro choice - meaning that you can make a "choice' whether you want to have sex or not. Your "choice" should not involve avoiding your responsability after you have made your decision to have sex. People need to grow up and take responsability for their actions. Planned parenthood is a joke that is screwing up the lives of young women. "

Pro-Choice wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:12 AM:

" I'm not about to say that abortion is a right road to take, but for all the anti-choice groups out there, do not ever forget that the more you push for women to go though with unwanted pregnancies the more you take away their freedom of being a woman. It's their bodies, their choice. Lets try and keep it that way. "

Question wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:10 AM:

" Why is there no Planned Parenthood in Bismarck? "

Life wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:52 AM:

" Nice spin Amy. It's interesting how you use the term 'anti-choice' as opposed to pro-life. How about if I refer to you as anti-life, or better yet, pro-death? "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.