Log in

No account? Create an account
Abortion is preventable
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Preventing abortion's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Friday, April 18th, 2008
4:28 pm
Take A Stand!

Please endorse--and tell all your friends about:

Pro Every Life, Pro Woman, Pro Reproductive Justice for All: A Manifesto

Cosponsored by the Nonviolent Choice Directory, www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com, and Turn the Clock Forward, www.turntheclockforward.org

If you believe in both the unborn child's right to life and the right of women to freedom of conscience in making nonviolent sexual & reproductive choices, then kindly please, stand up and be counted!

Monday, December 10th, 2007
11:51 am
Article: Selective Parenting
This article on the abortion of fetuses with disabilities was posted a little while ago in a pro-life community, and I thought it would be interesting to discuss here.

ArticleCollapse )
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007
1:56 pm
I just discovered this community, and I'm very happy it's here. I'm pro-life and have gotten into conflicts with both pro-lifers and pro-choicers over my belief that trying to criminalize abortion is not beneficial to women or to the goal of ending abortion. I'm very focused on ending abortion through pregnancy prevention and helping women in unplanned pregnancies, and I think it's important to have this common ground where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree. I'm looking forward to being a part of this community even if it's not as active as most.
Thursday, October 11th, 2007
1:59 pm
A Voice in the Wilderness
Howdy.  I've been a regular subscriber to a number of abortion related communities, but this is my first time here.  I've been reading some previous posts like "Contraception for Life" and "A War We Can All Support", and I'm glad to see there is a community dedicated to finding a way to reduce abortion - not by criminalizing it, but by actually addressing the root cause behind it. 

It's just too bad there are such large gaps in between posts.  So ...

I'd like to see if I can somehow help revitalize this community, and (more importantly) have some real-life impact in general, yet I can't convince myself that simply donating money to any particular group would make any long term difference one way or the other.

I'm going to start by doing more research on our governor / state legislature, and see what they've done (and can do) to improve health care access and sex education to make both as comprehensive as possible; even so, as one person, I would be hard pressed to get any attention ... so I welcome any suggestions.
Saturday, July 7th, 2007
6:08 pm
Emergency contraception access
I created a community called ecaccess, which is meant to be a grassroots network of people across the United States that can help women access emergency contraception, either with resources, directions, monetary assistance, or delivering/mailing it to the woman. If you are interested in being a part of this effort, please join, and let others know.

Friday, May 5th, 2006
12:01 pm
new community
techieguru, if this is OT, I'll delete right away.

That being said, I just recently started a new community, abortion_news and I am looking for new members.

What is abortion_news?
I created this community in order to serve a need on LiveJournal for users who want to be informed about current events regarding abortion/reproductive choices. Think of it as an abortion news rss feed for your friends' page.

So what is posted?
Only news articles -- and occasionally commentary -- will be posted to the community. On the extremely rare occasion, a blog might warrant a post.

Articles will come from all sources, from LifeNews to Choice! Magazine, the grand sum of which should result in a balanced news feed.

Who can join?
The community is open membership, and ideally all sides of the abortion debate will be represented.

Who can post?
Any member of the community can post, and posting is moderated so that only articles are posted.

Isn't this community like abortiondebate?
This community is not designed replace abortiondebate, abortabortion, or any of the other abortion discussion communities out there. Rather, it's to serve a need to share (and discuss) current events about abortion, while the other communities are driven by the users' posts.

Come check it out!
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006
12:11 pm
New Pill under development

Birth pill 'may cut cancer risk'

Experts are developing a contraceptive pill they hope will not carry the raised risk of breast cancer associated with the current combined pill.

It is hoped the new pill, which may actually protect against the disease, could be available within five years.

Professor David Baird, of the University of Edinburgh, said it might also treat fibroids, endometriosis, and pre-menstrual syndrome.

However, experts have warned the work is at a very early stage.

The pill is based on the drug used in the controversial abortion pill − RU486.

It would stop the monthly cycle of periods by blocking the hormone progesterone, which helps the body prepare for pregnancy.

The rest of the article.Collapse )

It's probably too much to hope that the Religious Wrong won't object to this.

Current Mood: interested
Friday, March 24th, 2006
3:08 pm
Letter to the editor: Contraception for Life
Due in part to helpful input from this group, I wrote a LTE which was published in the Trenton Times on Tuesday. I wrote:
If you look around the world, abortion rates are lowest not where abortion is illegal, but where contraception is widely available and there is social pressure to use it. Even with all the division in the US over the abortion issue, I know quite a few individuals who consider themselves strongly "pro-life" and who are also very strongly in favor of contraception.

Yet, I have not been able to find any "pro-life" organization or group that is pro-contraception. "Pro-life" groups are willing to say that abortion is murder, that pro-choice advocates are baby-killers, that Roe v. Wade is like the Holocaust, that abortion is the defining moral issue of our time. This is extremely strong language, and only acceptable if you really mean it.

If you do mean it, you have a moral imperative to promote contraception. If you believe that birth control pills and IUDs are also infanticidal, that only increases your moral obligation to promote barrier methods such as condoms.

Pro-life groups don't approve of contraception, but surely it isn't worse than what they characterize as mass slaughter. If the lesser evil of contraception prevents countless murders, you'd better encourage it for the sake of the greater good.

I've putting supporting links and additional arguments here in my LJ. If you like this approach, feel free to use my wording in LsTE to your own local or national newspaper.

Current Mood: satisfied
Sunday, March 19th, 2006
12:33 am
Just the people I've been looking for!
I'm trying to draft a letter to the editor, and I'm wondering: do you-all know of any groups, organizations, or religious denominations that call themselves "pro-life" and are also pro-contraception? I know there are a lot of individuals like that -- such as you guys -- but I can't find any organized group.

And yet, you know, if you say abortion is infanticide and compare it to the Holocaust, you'd think contraception would be the lesser of two evils. *Way* lesser.
Thursday, March 16th, 2006
10:35 pm
Political Letter Regarding Abortion Ban
I wrote this political letter to several of my politicians in response to the abortion ban in South Dakota. Warning: it's *seemingly* pro-life with a tinge of pro-choice-ishness.

Read more...Collapse )

Current Mood: productive
Wednesday, March 8th, 2006
7:49 pm
Contraception proposal
Male temporary sterilisation.

If it turns out to be possible to safely offer men the clip (as opposed to the snip − the pun just cried out to be made), would you support it being made available free of charge, or at least cheaply, by the Government (obviously with the mandatory advice to still use condoms as well to prevent STIs)?

I personally think it would be a great idea, as I'm sick of contraception being the woman's problem all of the time.

† i.e.: with no worse side-effects than a woman on the Pill or fitted with an IUD could reasonably be expected to endure.

Current Mood: curious
Monday, February 13th, 2006
11:47 am
thumbs up
Hello everyone, I just joined this group a couple weeks ago. I suppose if I was pressed for a clear-cut answer, I would self-identify as pro-life if I were asked, but I really hate the term because it's such a heavy term.

Anyway, I just want to say that I am so happy that groups like this exist. Political views aside, we agree on the reduction of abortions. I'm happy that we can unite instead of continuing to bicker (and getting nothing done).
Friday, February 3rd, 2006
5:30 pm
This has been brought up on a few pro-life groups.

Women Sue Wal-Mart Over Morning-After Pill

BOSTON − Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.
Full article.

My only thoughts are:
  • What is the real reason why Wal-Mart are being dicks about stocking a prescription medication?
  • Why doesn't Massachusetts have a fixed formulary of medicine that has to be stocked by all pharmacies, instead of using the vague term commonly prescribed medicines?
  • I hope the women win, and/or that Massachusetts changes its law to be more explicit about what pharmacists must stock.
  • A pro-life group or groups should support the women too, to get the point across that EC ≠ abortion.
Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Current Mood: annoyed
Sunday, January 29th, 2006
10:39 am
Pregnant Teenage Mothers Need Help
Guess what! I just signed up for a rather pro-life-ish volunteer opportunity. The program is for teenage girls who've had unplanned pregnancies. They need caretakers to look after their children during the day so they can go get their high school education. I'm going to be one of those caretakers! One thing I think is great about this is that it gives us pro-lifers an opportunity to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to encouraging people to choose life. Providing free childcare services for young women with crisis pregnancies is one way we can reduce reliance on abortion services without sacrificing the wellbeing of women. I can't wait to get started. This should be an interesting experience :)

Current Mood: cheerful
Saturday, January 28th, 2006
10:36 am
Excellently written article

From last Sunday.

Written by a prolifer.


 Seems to reflect the common values of this group.

January 22, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor Three Decades After Roe, a War We Can All Support By WILLIAM SALETAN Washington

EVERY year, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers add up the fetuses killed since Roe and pray for the outlawing of abortion. And every year, pro-choicers fret that we're one Supreme Court justice away from losing "the right to choose." One side is so afraid of freedom it won't trust women to do the right thing. The other side is so afraid of morality it won't name the procedure we're talking about.

It's time to shake up this debate. It's time for the abortion-rights movement to declare war on abortion.

If you support abortion rights, this idea may strike you as nuts. But look at your predicament. Most Americans support Roe and think women, not the government, should make abortion decisions. Yet they've entrusted Congress and the White House to politicians who oppose legal abortion, and they haven't stopped the confirmations to the Supreme Court of John G. Roberts Jr. and, soon, Samuel A. Alito Jr.

You can tell yourself that the pro-choice majority stayed home in the last election, or that they voted on other issues, or that Democrats botched the debate. But those excuses are getting tired. Sixteen years ago, as the behavior of voters and politicians showed, abortion was clearly a winning issue for you. Now it isn't. You have a problem.

The problem is abortion - the word that's missing from all the checks you've written to Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Organization for Women. Fetal pictures propelled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act through Congress. And most Americans supported both bills, because they agree with your opponents about the simplest thing: It's bad to kill a fetus.

They're right. It is bad. I know many women who decided, in the face of unintended pregnancy, that abortion was less bad than the alternatives. But I've never met a woman who wouldn't rather have avoided the pregnancy in the first place.

This is why the issue hasn't gone away. Abortion, like race-conscious hiring, generates moral friction. Most people will tolerate it as a lesser evil or a temporary measure, but they'll never fully accept it. They want a world in which it's less necessary. If you grow complacent or try to institutionalize it, they'll run out of patience. That's what happened to affirmative action. And it'll happen to abortion, if you stay hunkered down behind Roe.

Roe is 33 years old today. It freed us from ham-fisted criminal laws that pretended to solve the abortion problem. But it didn't solve the problem, and it never will. It gave us the opportunity - and the challenge - to help women exercise choice before, not after, fetal development. In the moral arc of history, abortion was a step forward from infanticide. Abortion pills that act early in pregnancy are the next step, followed by morning-after pills, which prevent implantation. The ultimate destination is contraception or abstinence.

For several decades, abortion-rights advocates have tried to change the subject. The real question, they argued, was who should make the abortion decision, not what that decision should be. With the question put that way, they won. But they never faced the question of abortion's morality. So the debate became a contest between the two questions. A decade ago, with the coinage of "partial-birth abortion," pro-lifers gained the upper hand. President Bush focused the debate on a culture of life. When the question is "what" instead of "who" - morality instead of autonomy - pro-lifers win.

The lesson of those decades is that you can't eliminate the moral question by ignoring it. To eliminate it, you have to agree on it: Abortion is bad, and the ideal number of abortions is zero. But by conceding that, you don't end the debate, you narrow it. Once you agree that the goal is fewer abortions, the only thing left to debate is how to get there. As a politician might put it: "My opponent and I are both pro-life. We want to avoid as many abortions as we can. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn't."

Isn't that better than anything you heard from John Kerry?

The problem with using restrictions to reduce the number of abortions isn't that the restrictions are judgmental. It's that they're crude. They leap too easily from judgment to legislation and criminalization. They drag police officers, prosecutors and politicians into personal tragedies. Most people don't want such intrusion. But you lose them up front by refusing to concede that there's anything wrong with abortion. You have to offer them anti-abortion results (fewer abortions) without anti-abortion laws.

</p>The pro-choice path to those results is simple. Help every woman when she doesn't want an abortion: before she's pregnant. That means abstinence for those who can practice it, and contraception for everybody else. Nearly half of the unintended pregnancies in this country result in abortions, and at least half of our unintended pregnancies are attributable to women who didn't use contraception. The pregnancy rate among these women astronomically exceeds the pregnancy rate among women who use contraception. The No. 1 threat to the unborn isn't the unchurched. It's the unprotected.</p>

Solutions are already on the table. Give more money to Title X, the federal program that finances family-planning. Expand health insurance and access to morning-after pills. Educate teenagers about sex, birth control and abstinence. Many of these ideas are in the Prevention First Act, which Democrats ritually file and Republicans ritually ignore. Some pro-choice activists would go further, by pushing for more contraceptive diligence in the abortion counseling process, especially on the part of those women who come back for a second abortion. What's missing is a clear anti-abortion message to unite these proposals.

A year ago, Senator Hillary Clinton marked Roe's anniversary by reminding family planning advocates that abortion "represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women." Some people in the audience are reported to have gasped or shaken their heads during her speech. Perhaps they thought she had said too much.

The truth is, she didn't say enough. What we need is an explicit pro-choice war on the abortion rate, coupled with a political message that anyone who stands in the way, yammering about chastity or a "culture of life," is not just anti-choice, but pro-abortion. If the pro-choice movement won't lead the way, politicians just might.

William Saletan, Slate's national correspondent, is the author of "Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War."

Saturday, January 21st, 2006
12:06 am
Contraceptives and Abortion
I got into a debate about this issue in a thread to a post in this community, so I wanted to put the question to the community at large:

What effect do you think contraceptive use has on abortion rates?

If you believe that contraceptive use decreases abortion rates, please explain why you feel this way and provide supporting evidence (if possible).

If you believe that contraceptive use increases abortion rates, please explain why you feel this way and provide supporting evidence (if possible).

If you believe that contraceptive use has no effect on abortion rates, please explain why you feel this way and provide supporting evidence (if possible).

If you believe that contraceptive use has mixed results on abortion rates, please explain why you feel this way and provide supporting evidence (if possible).

I look forward to your responses.

Current Mood: curious
Thursday, October 27th, 2005
2:24 pm
I've been lurking the community for a little while now and have finally decided to introduce myself.

My name's Kaleigh and I'm eighteen. I'm a political moderate and a registered independent, raised in a family of hard-line republicans. Being an independent/moderate doesn't mean I feel neutral about anything, though -- I just enjoy the freedom of supporting a myriad of facets from all over the political spectrum without having to be judged right away based on being either a 'convervative' or a 'liberal'. I'm really not a fan of extremists and I consider myself to be very open-minded.

I digress. I'm a strong advocate for women's abortion rights but I feel like preventing abortion is sort of a mission of mine. If the world depended on my labeling myself either pro-life or pro-choice I'd have to call myself pro-choice EVEN THOUGH I hardly ever feel that abortion is the right choice. I entirely believe that women should reach for healthier, less controversial means of handling pregnancy. However, I often feel that so many "pro-choicers" advocate abortion almost to the point of rewarding women who abort. My intention is to never imply that it's the right thing to do because I don't believe that it is however I will always recognize that it's none of my business to tell women collectively what is right and what is not right by standing up for a woman's right to abort regardless of my personal opinion regarding her situation. In contrast, I feel that a hefty sum of "pro-lifers" are out there to punish women who seek abortion and strive too hard to do away with abortion all-together. That terrifies me -- I don't think the government should be nudging it's way into my bedroom or anyone else's; taking a woman's right to abort away from her is apparently restricting her freedom.

I could write a lot more about the way I feel toward abortion and whatnot but I feel like I may have already caused enough waves and perhaps I should ease into this a bit more slowly ;) I enjoy playing an active role in this community from here on out, however.
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005
11:14 am
sister group on myspace

I saw that there were no good places on Myspace, other than debate groups to discuss ways to decrease the numbers of abortions. So I used the genius of this group and mirrored it on www.myspace.com ! Feel free to spend comments and ideas!


Current Mood: accomplished
Tuesday, September 20th, 2005
8:32 am
i recently got a job as a clinic tech at a planned parenthood clinic and will be starting my formal training next week.  (i have been a volunteer there for the last 2 months.)  this is not my first job in the reproductive health field, but it is my first time working with patients face to face, and i am VERY excited about it.  i feel like planned parenthood is a leader in providing affordable and accessible reproductive health care, and i am honored to be a part of that program.

our clinic is a non-abortion facility, so all we do is prevention.  as a tech i will be dispensing birth control, scheduling appointments, counseling morning after pill patients, giving depo shots/pregnancy tests, providing general bc/ec/std/hiv info, and prepping patients and exam rooms for general gyn care.  i will also have the option of getting hiv pre- and post- test counselor certified.

this really is my dream job.  i have always believed in a womans right to have an abortion, but i also believe that it is most ethical and efficient to try to prevent as many abortions as possible with effective sex education programs and easily accessible birth control methods.  i have been a little disappointed that most of my fellow clinic techs support the mission of pp (they have to to work there), but not with the same passion that i do.  for them its more 'just a job,' and it does show sometimes.

but my goal in working at this pp clinic is to reach girls before they a pregnant with a baby that they dont want or didnt intend to have.  not to mention, before they catch some std that they cant get rid of.  i know some days i will be more successful than other days.  and i know that i will meet girls with stories that make me cringe.  but i also know that those girls i do reach will keep me going.

Current Mood: hopeful
Friday, July 29th, 2005
9:09 am
My governor is a dick
This week, our illustrious governor, Mitt Romney, vetoed a bill that would allow EC to be sold without a prescription and mandate that it be offered to (offered to, not forced on) rape and incest victims in the ER. He ran as a moderate Republican and pledged to support the will of the people of the state who, he has said countless times, clearly support abortion rights, even though he's always been "personally pro-life." Read his equivocating here. There are also links to related news items and letters to the editor on that site.

Right now I think the only life he's interested in is that of his 2008 presidential candidacy. He had to run as a moderate Republican to win in Massachusetts, which is just about the bluest of blue states (maybe it comes in second to California?); he needed the governorship in order to have some sort of political history to run for president; now he needs to come across as a hard-line pro-lifer in order to woo Republican primary voters.

For the record, I am pro-life. EC will reduce the number of abortions, so I am heavily in favor of it. And yes, I know that sometimes it works by stopping a fertilized egg from implanting. But that happens so frequently even among couples who are trying to get pregnant, with nobody knowing, not to mention no fetal development has occured (it's not even called an embryo at that stage yet; it's a zygote or blastocyst), that I can't equate prevention of implantation with abortion.
[ << Previous 20 ]
My Website   About LiveJournal.com