Is this The End of "Pro-Choice"?

Friday, January 25, 2013

Planned Parenthood recently announced they would stop using the term "pro-choice" when talking about their pro-abortion rights agenda. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, discusses that decision and the organization's strategy going forward. 


Cecile Richards

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [81]

carolita from nyc

"Pro-rights" would work for me.

Jan. 29 2013 08:31 PM
Henry from Manhattan

I stumbled upon the new pro-choice shorthand, or slogan rather, that Cecile Richards probably should have mentioned in this interview.

“Not In Her Shoes”

Jan. 29 2013 04:51 PM
Ed from Larchmont

Miss Weddington's (sp?) argument isn't that impressive since she only speaks of the difficulty of getting an abortion and not what an abortion is. I'm more impressed by the argument of the lawyer representing Texas, who said that women do make a choice: when they engage in sex with a man they agree to the possibility of pregnancy, and men do the same.

Brian Lehrer is funny, 'a few thousand marching in Washington'. Is 3-500,000 people a few thousand?

Jan. 26 2013 05:51 AM

Always wondered why "Pro Choice" didn't simply rename itself "Pro Life."

Jan. 25 2013 09:49 PM
John A

David from Fredericksburg, VA,
I'm not sure, but did you mention the Holocaust? Remember that this is NYC and as such the home of many Holocaust survivors. It may be a third-rail issue around here. And I note that 8 of your posts survive.

Jan. 25 2013 05:43 PM
Sandy from NJ

I don't have a problem with the word choice. However, instead of "Pro-Choice", it could be just "Woman's Reproductive Rights". Dumping "Pro" or "Anti" seems less like joining a team.

Jan. 25 2013 05:00 PM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

I am absolutely floored by the deletion of some of my posts.

I vigorously stated my pro-life position. I did not curse, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks.

I am seriously disturbed by the censorship occurring on this website.

Jan. 25 2013 04:58 PM

@Bonnie -- The reality is that 7 in 10 Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade legal. That means that 70% of Americans favor abortion rights. I don't think Brian Lehrer was trying to say that there isn't a pro-life movement, but he was speaking to an influential and incredibly important woman in the reproductive health movement for women, Cecile Richards. Obviously, the conversation was explicitly about the change from "pro-choice" to a more open, less constricted view of abortion rights.

This segment was meant to specifically highlight one side of the argument, and it's a side with which a vast majority of Americans are in agreement. Those are just the facts.

Jan. 25 2013 04:19 PM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

@ Dave from New Jersey

Only rape victims could possibly be said to have a "forced pregnancy" all others are just people trying to duck the consequences of their own actions.

Jan. 25 2013 04:05 PM
Bonnie from Brooklyn

I love the Brian Lehrer show and I'm a financial supporter of WNYC particularly because I find it to be such an unbiased news source that covers issues from all angles. But this is the second time I've heard the topic of abortion being discussed where there was no Pro-Life representation. This being such a highly contested topic should most certainly warrant having representatives of both sides on the air. I also noticed all the callers identified as Pro-Choice, which was convenient or perhaps deliberate screening? That way Ms. Richards wouldn't be confronted with any tough questions or disagreeing views.

And especially today, on a day when hundreds of thousands of Pro-Life Americans are marching in Washington to have their voices heard, this is ignored and instead you're hosting a leader of the pro-abortion movement who is talking about the semantics of labels and words. How very contrived it all seems, and intentionally distracting news from the opposing view. Very disappointing Brian Lehrer.

I do not identify as a Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal. I make my decisions and form my opinions based on rational thinking with all the information I can gather to make them. I often feel WNYC helps to provide me with great, well-rounded information and news coverage. I think it has failed in doing so today, and continuously with regards to the topic of abortion.

Jan. 25 2013 02:48 PM

Seemed like she was avoiding talking about the real reason why she was dropping the term. Doesn't matter though, I never really cared for the "pro-choice" label. I think "pro-access" is a GREAT replacement name, because it better identifies the issues women face today trying to, well, access their legal right.

Jan. 25 2013 02:40 PM
Dave from New Jersey

I'm pro-choice and think we would do well to use the terms "pregnant by choice" to describe their position and "forced pregnancy" to describe those opposed to abortion.

I like using "pregnant" because it focuses on the pregnancy. "Pregnant by choice" means choosing to become pregnant, to remain pregnant, or to terminate a pregnancy. Thus it encompasses contraception, rape, abortion, neo-natal care, etc. In short, it means deliberately becoming a parent - a planned parenthood.

"Forced pregnancy" is provocative, sort of like "pro-life." It turns attention to the pregnancy and the mother and who gets to choose the pregnancy.

Jan. 25 2013 02:38 PM
Roy from Queens

@David from Fredericksburg, VA: Fine, but I wouldn't know about it, unless you told me or I looked for it on the Internet. Remember what I posted about knowledge?

Also, I must correct myself: Teaching abstinence ALONE is a joke.

Jan. 25 2013 01:03 PM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

@ Roy from Queens

You have the misimpression that pro-life people aren't promoting adoption & helping mothers of children they've decided to keep.

One such example is Bethany Christian Services.

Jan. 25 2013 12:53 PM
Roy from Queens

@Peter Griffin from United States: You're so right about free will. I just find it sad that there are people who love and worship God, but don't accept his gift of free will. I do accept it, and that keeps me happy.

Jan. 25 2013 12:51 PM
Roy from Queens

@David from Fredericksburg, VA: That's fine that you have adopted children, but the pro-life community should publicly emphasize more on adoption and sex education (especially the second because abstinence is a joke), if you want to be taken seriously. A baby's a baby; a fetus's a fetus. I don't like the idea of abortion, but no one, not even pro-choice believers, wants to go back to the days of unethical, "back-alley" abortions. Knowledge is power and it's doesn't have to be based on theological faith.

Jan. 25 2013 12:46 PM
John A

Peter Griffin,
You're saying the supreme gift of free will trumps the supreme gift of life of another? Find me a Catholic leader that agrees with you. Sometimes what appears to be logic can be instead be mere rationalization. Please take care.

Jan. 25 2013 12:26 PM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

@ Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

I certainly don't think it's "fine to kill a walking, talking grown human being." I don't think it's fine to kill ANY human being.

I have a weapon for home defense. I pray I never have to use it. I don't support the NRA's extreme positions - many gun owners don't.

Jan. 25 2013 12:07 PM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

Has anyone noticed the irony of the "pro-life" position? They are against abortion and against gun control. It is therefore not okay to "kill" an unborn fetus, but fine to kill a walking, talking grown human being. The "pro-life" faction is also against birth control. Even Ben Franklin knew that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." This should not be construed as meaning that all or most women use abortion as a form of birth control, but you can't have it both ways. Responsible birth control would result in fewer pregnancies which would result in fewer abortions.

1. No woman wants to have an abortion, but sometimes one must.
2. The option should be available. This is called CHOICE.
3. In a relationship, men most certainly have a say; on the other hand, the men would not be carrying the pregnancy to term, so how much say they should have in their partner's pregnancy is between them. Also, should the woman agree to have the baby even though she may not want it, is the man willing to step up and take 100% of the responsibility of caring for it?

Jan. 25 2013 11:56 AM

I don't believe that either side should have an absolutist view. Each situation/person is different. I personally wouldn't get one but that doesn't mean I should judge someone else for their decision.

Jan. 25 2013 11:55 AM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

@ Peter Griffin from United States

Wow, what a bizarre take on free will.

Adam & Eve abused their free will & were cast out of Eden. God's allowing mankind free will does NOT mean any choices made are okay & free of consequences.

Jan. 25 2013 11:32 AM
bobo from 95451

just wait til males begin to bear fetuses en masse. abortions will be $1.29 at wallyworld.

in short, it's not about kids. if it were about kids there would be none on the streets, none in orphanages, none in emergency rooms, and the 40 thousand children under five who crap themselves dead every single day worldwide would have their dime's worth of sugar and salt. it's about power, male supremacist power, entrenched entitlement and hypocrisy backed up with the threat of hellfire and violence.

so what else is new?

Jan. 25 2013 11:28 AM
Peter Griffin from United States

If human life is Divine, God is the Creator of all life having chosen to cast humanity with intelligence above and beyond all else upon and within the Earth, and the Christian concept is considered and intact (which, in the perpetual debate about abortion within the United States, is the primary impetus)the term pro-choice is most correct, unless its replacement somehow articulates the same principle. As every Catholic schoolchild knows, God granted each of us a freewill, which translates to an ability to choose, and His Book as guidance in making these myriad choices along life's journey. The pro-choice ideal is therefore in mutual agreement with what we are taught as Christian children. Pro-choice does not judge the act of abortion but maintains the integrity of the sacred gift of freewill.

Jan. 25 2013 11:27 AM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

@Choice makes us equal

Baloney! A woman can decide to kill her baby, the father has NO say.

A woman can decide to keep her baby - fork over the bucks daddy. Again the father has no say. Mind you, I've always subscribed to "you play, you pay" but let's not pretend like women are not completely in control in this situation.

Jan. 25 2013 11:26 AM
Greg from Seattle, WA

Pro-Choice should be renamed "Pro-Irresponsibility"

Look, you have a choice for sure.. all the way up until that time you decide to let some punk low life inject his seed in you. 98% of abortions are done because the Mother 'Made a mistake' and doesn't want the baby of some guy she 'accidently got knocked up by'.

You can tell me how its all about 'Women's health' all you want, its all bull and you know it. Quit deluding yourself with rhetoric and ignorance and wake up and smell the coffee. The reason abortion is a bad thing isn't so much about killing a life.. its about breeding irresponsiblity into society where they can just 'get that thing out of me' any time they want.

One of these days there will be an STD that condoms and stuff won't be able to prevent and people will pay for their selfishness.

Jan. 25 2013 11:25 AM
political cynic from Albuquerque NM

I am SO tired of the stereotyped attacks by those who support Roe v. Wade that invariably start with gender based attacks on men as their sexist starting point in this debate.

1. MILLIONS of men are pro-choice (or whatever "label" you want to use;
2. Today's march against Abortion was primarily organized by-and had keynote speakers who are WOMEN;
3. Millions of WOMEN oppose abortion

When you oversimplify into "these MEN" you are: (a) engaging in sexist bashing; (b) trying to create a "men vs. women" mentality on this issue that allows you to engage in illogical ad hominem attacks against individuals rather than responding to the argument that was made; and (c) outright lying and creating a false argument given that many, many, MANY women oppose abortion.

Many people oppose abortion on religious grounds. Many people oppose abortion because they believe human life begins at conception and therefore no one has a right to end that life. THAT argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with men vs. women and attempting to present it as such simply stereotypes "men" with sexist statements in an illogical effort to respond to their expressed concerns.

By the way-I happen to be a PRO-CHOICE male-so yes, I find generalized attacks against "men" JUST AS OFFENSIVE as all you women who make them would find a generalized attack against women.

This about it.

Jan. 25 2013 11:21 AM
Choice makes us equal

Considering how many women every day (millions) get sexually abused by men, raped by men, and coerced into unsafe sex by men. Not to mention the treatment of women as less than cattle in many third world countries, I really don't think men need to have a place in this conversation until they can start minding their manners on a global scale. The day I see men's groups advocating for proper behavior at an exuberent level equal to that in which they embrace NFL and International Soccer, THEN I will say they have an equal voice on the matter. Until then, step up and take care of your own actions first.

Jan. 25 2013 11:16 AM

Progressives should look to the Right when it comes to messaging. Abortion rights is a women's healthcare issue. Do we not recall the GOP ranting about Obamacare coming between doctors and patients, infringing on individual liberty and privacy? That message reflects a fundamental American value that they were able to exploit, misleadingly, in that debate, but that should be employed, accurately, in this one.

Jan. 25 2013 11:15 AM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

@ Roy from Queens

We've adopted 2 wonderful children. Our greatest blessings in life.

Jan. 25 2013 11:13 AM

It is amazing how many of the men who posted here just simply do not understand the complexity of reproductive issues. I have sat with so many women listening to their tragic stories of miscarraiges, stillbirths, and babies who stood no chance of surviving for very long out of the womb. I've sat with women who have lost babies in the first few weeks of life, and women who've lost babies at an older age. I've sat with women who've had round after round of IVF only to be pressured to have selective reduction so they would have twins instead of triplets. I've sat with women who have nearly died during pregnancy and/or delivery. Women who've had surgical deliveries that were such an emergency that there was no time for anesthesia. Some of the comments here about the reasons why a woman would terminate an early pregnancy are simply disgusting in terms of the assumptions that do not reflect the true complex reality that women face when dealing with the joy, sorrow, fear, empowerment, and responsibility of reproduction. Ed Larchment, you know nothing.

Jan. 25 2013 11:09 AM

Why is everyone hating on Ed? He disagrees, so what. If your own argument is any good, it will stand on its own. The only time a different point of view causes so much vitriol is when a person feels their own argument is flimsy. Its true of both sides.

Jan. 25 2013 11:09 AM
steve from chicago

Isn't 45 million abortions enough for your pro choice folks. If that isn't genocide what is genocide?

Jan. 25 2013 11:09 AM
Lecher from Rhode Island

Actually it's all about the inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE - PERIOD.
Dig out a sea turtle nest and destroy the eggs: Felony as you’ve killed an endangered species (ie: sea turtle)
Destroy the eggs of a horned owl, eagle, piping plover, etc. etc.: Felony as you’ve killed an endangered species
Destruction of a human embryo is nothing other than the murder of a human being: a human being whose life is separate and distinct from its mothers. Did the baby chose death over life: NFW
Let your voice scream out for the sake of the voiceless: “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb!”
BTW: It is NOT about woman’s HEALTH: according to Planned Parenthood statistics 98% of ALL abortions are performed for reasons of CONVENIANCE!
Lastly: Since when does planning for parenthood include KILLING YOUR BABY ?!?!???

Jan. 25 2013 11:07 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Women have choice.They have a wide choice of contraceptives. They have a wide choice of whom they choose to spread their legs for. But having made their pre-intercourse choices, they should not have the right to kill the human life that has formed in her womb just because she feels like it.

Jan. 25 2013 11:07 AM
G. B. from Brooklyn, NY

The new phrase that should be used instead of Pro-Choice should be "PRO-FREEDOM".

Families, women in particular, are part of the greatest "Free" society in the world. They should be free to make their own decisions, free from government invading their privacy and forcing them to do something with their own body against their own will.

Freedom has been used as a bludgeon by the right for anything they disagree with, and for years they have won the war of words.

No one can argue that freedom in our country is a good thing.

Jan. 25 2013 11:04 AM
J.G. from Pennsauken, NJ

Lordy, Lordy, look who's 40!

Jan. 25 2013 11:04 AM
mytwo cents

They should not abandon the name Pro Choice, they should instead refer to the opposition as Pro Lie instead of pro life. The opposition cares not about life, they just care if a woman is having sex and enjoying it. They hold pregnancy as a mantle of punishment in their warped minds. Why do you think they are also against birth control, they are against the HPV vaccine, they have excuses for justifying rape, they are against universal health care. Call the other side what it is, Pro Lie, the conservatives are Pro Liars. Ed from Larchmont, you are a Pro Liar.

Jan. 25 2013 11:03 AM
ann in nyc from Manhattan

I'm totally for choice, and have thought ProChoice a good term, but I have to say that the ProLife term always bugs me because I am pro life in the greatest way, pro woman's life and our right to choose. It's totally confusing and unfair that ProLife is antiabortion (anti women's life) but wins the use of that precious word, Life. I'm for a new term that gives lets me be recoginzed in favor of life+women's right to choose.

Jan. 25 2013 11:02 AM
BL Show Moderator

Some comments have been moderated. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief. Thank you.

Jan. 25 2013 11:00 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Men have no choice. They have no rights. They have no children. They have whatever the female fuehrers allow them to have. Fathers have been totally written out of history.

Jan. 25 2013 11:00 AM
T from Connecticut

If it is about a woman being able to make her own personal choices: have the baby, adoption, abortion, etc. why not just Pro Woman?

Jan. 25 2013 11:00 AM

I am often asked (sarcastically) by my Catholic family why we call it CHOICE, when really we are pro-abortion. My answer is that we are not suggesting that everyone should go out and get an abortion; we just want the option available. Also, I have met many women at various rallies in support of abortion rights who say that they could not have an abortion themselves, but are not opposed enough to abortion to want that option denied to other women who may want one. In both these situations, it is the CHOICE is what we ask for!

Jan. 25 2013 10:59 AM

Brian -- great question about playing music to the fetus. Of, course, she refused to answer it.

FWIW, I'm pro-choice but Cecile harms her own cause.

Jan. 25 2013 10:59 AM

Typical liberal overthinking.

Buzzwords and shorthands are USEFUL. That's why Republicans put so much effort into choosing them and framing arguments with them.

Jan. 25 2013 10:58 AM
John A.

Its ironic that at the point when Roe was enacted, people were talking about new freedoms. Now, a generation later I do often see how people say they aren't free, they say people will Always have premarital and extramarital sex, so why try to control it? Lack of self control is (also) not(!) a freedom.

Jan. 25 2013 10:58 AM
Carol Roye from Westchester, NY

Abortion is also a health issue. Let's not lose sight of that. Women who can time their pregnancies are healthier women. Risks for poor maternal and infant outcomes are having too many pregnancies and pregnancies too closely spaced. Women die from pregnancy-related causes. Infant mortality in this country is shamefully high. THis is a health issue, for women and infants. To me, the issue is access to reproductive health care, including abortion is an issue of being pro-family --

Jan. 25 2013 10:58 AM
Suzanne from Brooklyn

Pro-choice is simply a factual description of what the ethos behind this mission is. Choice to use birth control and to control fertility and our bodies. It's academic whether it's political, because like it or not, this is STILL a political fight, sadly enough, as politicians continue to challenge and erode reproductive rights. You need a nice, simple word for what the mission is, and a lot of the suggestions I'm hearing here are wordy and fuzzy. Why try to abandon a 'political label' -- why enable women to keep thinking that this is settled law when it clearly is not, any more than access to sex ed is established?? This is contentious turf and will remain so.

It's also a very easy phrase to grasp. Pro -- in favor of. Choice. Easy.

But then, maybe I'm old fashioned. I also have no problem with "feminist", although I still find myself defining what it is that I mean by this -- that women should not be told what they can't or must do because of their gender.

Jan. 25 2013 10:58 AM
Marilyn Bellock from New York, NY

I think "pro-choice" perfectly describes the essential argument at hand - whether or not someone is going to take away from women their right to choose what to do with their bodies. However, if that now seems "old-hat" I would recommend "pro-privacy."

Jan. 25 2013 10:58 AM
burtnor from Manhattan

Agree with others here who ask what the new term will be. A well constructed phrase to embody a position is essential as a communication tool to frame the issue and persuade. You can't express all the aspects of an issue every time you mention it. And it doesn't fit on a poster.

"Women's ability to make her own decisions" doesn't cut it for compelling rhetoric. It's not ability we lack. It's policy endorsement. And "Access" is just too amorphous. Surely we can find an engaging appropriate term.

Jan. 25 2013 10:58 AM
thatgirl from manhattan

Okay, Ed--so don't get an abortion. It's your choice!

Jan. 25 2013 10:57 AM
Andrea Shane from NYC

To address Ms. Richard's use of the word "decision": You can't make a decision if you do not have a full spectrum of choices. The anti-choice contingent would have your decision be made between having an unwanted baby and keeping and having an unwanted baby and giving it up for adoption.

Jan. 25 2013 10:57 AM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

"70% of the people in the country believe that the right to safe, legal abortion should remain the law."

And what percentage of people can name their congressman, identify North America on an unlabled map, or recognize the Declaration of Independence?

Law by the sheeple is always a bad idea.

Jan. 25 2013 10:57 AM
Tim W from USA

Our country's freedoms peaked in the last century. Now political movements are based on what freedoms they want to abolish. Freedom is about allowing people to make their own choices - whether that is a gun purchase or control of your own body. Too many people focus on wiping out hard won freedom and our nation is following the world's retreat from freedom and democracy and back to where citizens turn into subjects.

Jan. 25 2013 10:56 AM

I don't agree with the arguments of either side, I find them both ridiculous. But in my own journey to find a position on this issue, the one question I have difficulty answering is at what point does a "fetus" become an individual? It cant be birth, and it can't be conception, so when?

I agree with Ralph Nader on this issue, I don't like abortion but you can't outlaw it, so lets do everything we can to prevent them in the first place.

Jan. 25 2013 10:56 AM
Amy from Manhattan

The problem I have w/"pro-choice" is that it's associated too much w/abortion alone. I'm in favor of full reproductive rights, including not only abortion but also contraception, the right not to be sterilized without consent (which still happens), & the right not to be told how many children they can have.

Jan. 25 2013 10:55 AM

I think the "young people don't want labels" argument sounds like pandering. Our media is FULL of memes, quick phrases, slogans and bullet points. No one is allowed to make a nuanced point any more.

Jan. 25 2013 10:55 AM

How about Pro Life Choices?

Jan. 25 2013 10:53 AM
Aaron from NYC

While not opposed to Roe, I was never comfortable with "pro choice" because it implies an ethical argument that individuals, not society,can decide when life begins. The court decision itself was an act of society delimiting where personal choice begins and ends- it did not allow third trimester abortions, for example.

Jan. 25 2013 10:53 AM
margaret deher

"reproductive privacy" might work as a catch phrase.

Jan. 25 2013 10:53 AM

Guns don't kill people. Pro Choice people kill people!!!

Jan. 25 2013 10:52 AM
hank from NJ

Who cares. Its like Liberal to Progressive.. The word Pro-Choice or Pro-Life will have the same meaning if you change them.
Pro-Life changed to - Please dont kill me Mommy.
Pro-Choice changed to - Get this darn evil thing out of me.

Jan. 25 2013 10:52 AM
The Truth from Becky

Choice. Period.

Jan. 25 2013 10:51 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Marriage is obsolete. Men have no rights in their children. IN our Brave New World of the 21st century, it's time to face up to reality, and start producing our future consumers/producers/soldiers in baby factories run by either the state or private corporations. We can produce to be healthier and thereby cut down medical expenses in the future. We can produce better workers and soldiers in labs than by the random and obsolete "cottage industry" called "the family" or "marriage." Family and marriage are just relics from the past that are little bearing in today's highly individualistic world.

Jan. 25 2013 10:51 AM
Joel from Nyack

Isn't dropping the term "pro choice" backing off because of pressure from the right.

Jan. 25 2013 10:51 AM

I think she has the Tea Party wrong. They, more than any other political group, are most likely to support her argument that government should stay out of her life. The wants to drop the political labels, but seems to have no problem using them.

Jan. 25 2013 10:50 AM
sp from nyc

Here's the deal: I won't interfere in whatever superstitious idiocy you choose to believe, and you won't interfere with my body. Republicans want to shrink government until it's small enough to fit into a woman's uterus.

Jan. 25 2013 10:49 AM
Andrea Shane from NYC

"Pro-choice" is not a political label. It is a "label" that reflects a value that says women have the right to chose what happens in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Planned Parenthood's abandonment of this simple phrase is shocking and disappointing.

Jan. 25 2013 10:48 AM
PJ Mom

This is about PRO WOMEN'S HEALTH!!

Jan. 25 2013 10:48 AM
JessicA from Long island

Its Your Choice!

Jan. 25 2013 10:47 AM
Roy from Queens

Why doesn't the anti-abortionists emphasize more on sex education and adoption?

Jan. 25 2013 10:47 AM
Felicia from Harlem

I cringe when broadcasters say "abortion rights." While access to safe, legal and affordable abortions is a key right, it is only part of a wide range of attacks against women's reproductive freedom--which would include freedom from forced sterilization, forced adoption, restrictions against contraception and the exploitation of poor women/women of color in reproductive technologies.

Jan. 25 2013 10:47 AM
Robert from NYC

But what are they replacing it with? I don't see that nor have I heard that hear yet.

Jan. 25 2013 10:45 AM

When every woman has her time of the month, every month, a potential life is flushed down the toilet.

Ed, should every one of those lives be brought to term? And who would pay for them?

Jan. 25 2013 10:44 AM
John A.

So, what is NARL going to rename itself to This time?

Jan. 25 2013 10:43 AM
DickeyFuller from DC

Sorry, typo:

Should be: "why don't you commit to . . ."

Jan. 25 2013 10:29 AM
DickeyFuller from DC


Instead of railing against abortion, why do you commit to do ALL that you can to PREVENT pregnancy? That way, abortions will be rare.

The fact that the far right wing wants to also ban contraception puts them in a tiny minority in the country.

You will not change the fact that abortion is legal and safe in this country, no matter what you try to do make it impossible. 70% of the people in the country believe that the right to safe, legal abortion should remain the law.

Light a candle in the darkness. Fund Planned Parenthood and teach sex education in the schools.


Jan. 25 2013 10:27 AM
John A.

As much as I hate the Republicans for their incessant messaging, I must acknowledge that renaming Abortion to Choice was the one earlier and greater success in social marketing that probably spurred them on.
Calling now Abortion a necessity to "reproductive health" seems to insult children as a 'reproductive disease'. I am sorry, but what is the opposite of health anyway?
Ed, V.D. (all kinds) has very frequently caused 180d turnarounds in public behavior. Can't say I'm hoping for this - at all - but with the decrease in overall antibiotic effectiveness by overuse, the nightfall you talk of may be with the next new VD to come around.

Jan. 25 2013 10:26 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn


We know you're Catholic and anti-abortion/pro-life, but your personal opinion should not trump the needs of millions of women who have to make a difficult decision about their potential future children, their bodies, their personal health and all the other variables that are involved in abortion.

Let's say, for instance, that each and every woman who wanted or needed an abortion - outside of those who might die if carrying a child to term - decided to bear those children, despite anything they might know about the child's potential disabilities, possible early death, etc., because they felt the same way you do about "life," but these women decided, instead, that they would have the children and drop them on your front porch because they are all human beings who deserve life and care, would you be able to provide for them all financially, educationally, emotionally, medically? This is what it means to have a child, and just because you are "pro-life," doesn't mean that you would have the means to support them all, but they would still need support. How many severely disabled children who might die within a year could you reasonably care for? How many of them could you carry health insurance for while they spent most of their year in ICU? And how much time would you have to sit at the bedside of each of them and hold their hands while they waited to die? And how much in emotional resources would that take?

And how many of them could you afford to put through college, should they be so fortunate as to survive? You'd still have to change all those diapers, get them all the pets they wanted while separating those with pet dander allergies from the pets. You'd have to buy them school supplies and piano lessons and karate classes and stay home from work with them when they get sick.

There is SO much more to life than "pro-life" that you'd be wishing for an abortion by the time you got your first dozen unwanted children. Having a child is a very personal decision and you should not be the one making it for others.

Jan. 25 2013 10:20 AM

Holy hyperbole Ed from Larchmont.

Jan. 25 2013 10:14 AM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

A rose by any other name...

The whole point, I think, of using the term "pro choice" is that it should be clear that no woman wants or plans to have an abortion, but if or when it becomes necessary, it is an option she can exercise. I am a woman and I would not describe myself as "pro abortion," but I would describe myself as "pro choice" because I would like to know that the option is available to me and to any other woman who wants or needs it. And that is a CHOICE.

Jan. 25 2013 10:05 AM
Ed from Larchmont

Why doesn't Planned Parenthood call its grisly job: Killing your unborn children, for money. That's what it is. And tax money should not fund Planned Parenthood in any way.

On the day of the March for Life you have on the president of Planned Parenthood. Interesting. Please watch 'Blood Money' with Alvita King, neice of Dr. Martin Luther King.

The hundreds of thousands at the march today, and in San Francisco tomorrow, will rival the crowd at the inauguration, but the media won't cover it. Media bias? The largest annual civil rights march perhaps in history.

I invite people to be like Bernard Natanson, who led the abortion rights movement, and then filmed and saw 'The Silent Scream', and became a pro-life leader. Wonderful.

Unfortunately, it will take a whole change in the culture to end abortion. I wonder what it will take to bring about that change? But it's coming, like a thief in the night.

Jan. 25 2013 10:02 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.