British Expatriate Network

http//www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10374460.htm?1c

Roe V Wade not exactly challenged up front but via the back door. (

annie you may need to elaborate - the link requires registration.

Oops! sorry, try this link,

http//www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/09/BAGJJA8Q1O1.DTL

So really, its cutting federal funds for states who force hospitals to perform abortions. Shouldn't it be up to the hospital, not the state to decide if it will perform abortions?

Yep. That is exactly what they are doing.

It will be interested to see how this one goes. The Federal Government is restricted in what it can do to force states to toe the line, but it is not impossible.

For example the speed limit of 65 mph and the drinking age of 21 are both state matters but the Federal government imposes its will by linking compliance to federal highway funds. The logic being that speed limits and underage drinking directly impact (no pun intended) on highway safety.

The article doesn't say what funding will be withheld so it will be interesting to see how this plays out - whether it is a serious attack on women or just a bit of red meat for the extremist. Sadly the election being over - it may well be the former. evil

You know, according to the exit polls (as reliable as they were...) for the last election, the number of people who believe there should be no abortion of any kind was a piffly 16%. That goes with a number I had knocking around in my head that was 15-20% that I remember from somewhere. You'd think that with such a small minority that pro-lifers would get the message that most people don't agree. But then when you include the theory that you might catch AIDS from tears in an abstinence program you aren't really going for the sensible are you?

But then when you include the theory that you might catch AIDS from tears in an abstinence program you aren't really going for the sensible are you?
Bungle what's this? Are you joking or is this for real? I hate this abstinence program. It's a good idea, but most rapists don't go in for it .

I'm not kidding at all. If yo ureally wanna read it all go here-

http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
http//afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/12/washington-post-has-front-page-article.html

Basically, under the monicker of sex ed, the admin, using tax dollars, is teaching America's children that "a 43-day-old fetus is a 'thinking person,'" that "HIV can be spread via sweat and tears," and that "condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse." And then there's this-

"Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

I think I had a thread on this in here somewhere else. If I did, I apologise. Mindblowing crap or what tho?

So, if you want to marry an American man, learn to keep your yap shut and be a good submissive little Stepford Wife is the moral of this story. :evil:

**** the Fundamentalists is what I say. Or say **** off to marrying an American man.

To be honest, if I was that chick I would have kept my gob shut and let the big mean fire-breathing dragon eat the prince.

But doesn't that mean no abortion in rape cases or if the mother's life is threatened? How many is it if you add people who think abortion should only be legal in these cases?

I don't have a link to back this up, but a few things I've read are in line with Gavin's figures. Basically polling indicates that most people's view on abortion are in line with where current law stands. That is to say that there must always be provision to protect the life of the mother and that the later the termination (i.e. in the pregnancy) the less popular it is - a majority would accept abortions in early pregnancy.

As to the abstinence education, gavin did have a nother recent post and I responded to that so I won't repeat myself, save that to say that the idiotic fundamentalist approach (all sex outside marriage is is bad and there is no such thing as safe sex etc, etc) is actually entirely couter productive because when people do eventually have sex they are ignorant of how to protect themselves and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Thus the rate of STD infection amongst those who abstained is far higher than those who don't (about double as I recall).

It appears, that after all, ignorance is not bliss.

No it means NO ABORTION whatsoever. The thinking being that a child (as is defined) is entirely innocent of any action committed, even one that created it, so must not be punished under any circumstances. Gonna die from childbirth? Then killing another life isn't justifiable to save yours.

Works at the other end as well of course with many pro-choice campaigners essentially viewing early to mid term abortion as every woman's right as there is no life till late pregnancy or even birth. As many as you like, there are no limits to choice. I don't remember the exit poll numbers for this end but I'd guess it'd be around the same as the other extreme. And yet this minority controls the debate.

Does anyone know how the scientists are doing with artifical wombs? I think the advancement of science will make this argument moot in a few years because mothers who would otherwise have abortions would be able to place their children in artifical wombs...just a thought....

And, if it doesn't already, why doesn't the Bush administration federally fun this type of stuff to the hilt as a way of stopping abortions?

Not sure this really offers any answer. Mothers already have the option of going to term and putting the baby up for adoption - which some do. Some might go for some sort of fetus transplant,but I can't see it being a that popular.

Truth is that the only effective way of reducing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions, is education - honest accurate education not the stupid theocratic crap that Gavin refers to in his post.

However the option of a legal abortion will have to remain - we just need to make such cases the exception, not the norm.

Next time you're in the library try perusing "The Paper Bag Princess",by Robert Munsch. it's a childrens picture book, cool ending though :D

Spoilers Here :lol: