Hillary Fights Back Against Bush Attack On Women's Reproductive Rights

Here is her post at Huffington Post (also at Reality Check) on it:

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health and that's why I am sounding the alarm.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They'll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

< Gallup Tracker: Obama By 6 | Appeals Court Reverses CBS Fine Over Janet Jackson's Superbowl Exposure >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No Way! (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    Did Hillary Clinton actually make a posting on the HuffPo with her name on it? And no, I'm not clickin' on that link to find out.

    The very site that played a major role in her campaign's fall; the very site that perpetuated every lie and hateful rumor against her and her husband?

    Why would she do that, and drive readers and ad-money to that godforsaken site? Yuck!

    Because her message is (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    More important than the 'paper' it is written on?

    I Totally Agree (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    The subject she is fighting for is one of extremely high importance, and a topic I take very seriously in my profession. And I remain a very proud supporter of Hillary Clinton -- a truly hardworking and intelligent lady who can overlook all that has been said and written about her to further a cause near and dear to her heart. It is purely for my own selfish reasons (I admit) that I wish she wouldn't give the HuffPo any business after all that they did to her during the Primaries.

    Arianna Huffington's whole career is based on (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:23:43 PM EST
    Clinton hating
    as a Republican she trashed Bill and Hillary Clinton  24/7 on TV and when she changed to independent whatever after her divorce she trashed the Clintons and told lies about them ... and folks who don't remember the 90s certainly must have read and heard her Clinton hating stuff once her net site was up and running.

    Too bad Hillary's article appeared on HuffPost. Too bad .... because from the start it provided a place for the Clinton haters first and foremost. I lost respect for many who knew better but still published  articles there.

    Too bad.


    Arianna Huffington might (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    actually be FOR Hillary. Seems her love for Obama has had its day.

    I Don't Believe It, Unfortunately (none / 0) (#119)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    I'm willing to bet the video doesn't explain the context of what she's saying -- she's basically verbalized the New Yorker cover -- absurd things about Obama that some people might actually believe to be true.

    Huffington actually be FOR Hillary? Never. (none / 0) (#136)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:32:02 PM EST
    It's personal, its psychological ... it is really like a sickness with her. Besides, how would she make her $$$ without Clinton-hate? She saw a good thing when she found it in 1992 and she is sticking to it.

    Why... (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by magster on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:30:45 PM EST
    Because HuffPo has a huge readership base and she cares more about issues than grudges.

    Let's see if DK headlines this. (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    [raises eyebrow] (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    Some brave soul will.  But front paged?  I'm thinking not.  After all, Obama is in Iraq.

    I'm going to take a look. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    Nada. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    Didja see (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    the diary about the "Hillraisers" though?  The vitriol endures.

    I did. Topic is from Huff Post, where (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:02:15 PM EST
    there is also a blurb about N. Pelosi telling Clinton supporters to get over worrying about whom Obama will select as VP.  

    Pelosi's so out of touch (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    That's not what Clinton supporters are worried about.  Half of them don't even want her as VP.  Sheesh, get a clue.

    If Pelosi HAD a clue she'd be racing against other (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:07:24 PM EST
    ... House Dem leadership to denounce it formally on the floor.

    I admit it; I thought Pelosi was lame before it became okay to say she was lame and not be an enemy of feminism.

    :: spit ::

    I wasn't born bad. Devil didn't turn me that way. However decades of watching two-faced enablement of right wing crap helped turn me into a b!tch for life.

    (Pro-LIVES is what we should label ourselves if anyone deigns to ask us Disposable Fertility Pods about what's what.)


    The media seems to be the group most (none / 0) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST
    interested in speculating over VP positions on both sides. Now, if those are Hillary supporters, they did a really great job of hiding it over the past 6 months.

    It's in the diary list on the left (none / 0) (#38)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    and the comments are pretty positive so far.

    unlike the Dem Nominee (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    she's politically mature and holds the American People and Issues that affect them above herself and any personal feelings she might have.

    She doesn't hide under the desk or vote Present when the going gets tough.  She's a fighter and you can expect to see a lot more of this from her over the next four years.


    Unfortunately (2.75 / 8) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    Hillary's example falls short on you. Your comment is funny, but it is kinda humble in a way in that you have accepted that not everyone can achieve the maturity that Hillary exemplifies.

    I'm not a career politician. (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:56:07 PM EST
    There's many things Hillary will do and has done that I don't plan to do.  There's pros and cons to being an elected official and pros and cons to being a private citizen.

    Sorry (2.83 / 6) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:02:22 PM EST
    I was responding to the maturity thing, which clearly Hillary shines on. Perhaps you see her support of Obama as political pandering, or dishonesty meant only to save her a$$, but I see it as a great example of leadership.

    Besides, most ordinary people like myself, do not get so personally involved with Pols as if they are watching a tearjerker that never stops. The suspension of disbelief during this campaign has been quite amazing to behold. I do not quite get it.


    That's been quite obvious. (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    I do not quite get it.

    I second this comment. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    heh! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    Hahahahaha (none / 0) (#65)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:25:39 PM EST
    Besides, most ordinary people like myself...

    Sorry, but that was funny for some reason.

    Are you related to Sparkle Plenty, by any chance?


    I just watched it. (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    I suppose, since I'm a woman, her position about this means less than Obama going to Europe and the Middle East.

    Because, God knows, Obama will save us from the Europeans and the Iraqis and the Afghanis.

    But he won't save us from ourselves.


    It's also about the Fourth Amendment (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    ... being secure in one's person, but Obama's not fighting for THAT either.

    (And neither, in their way, are fauxgressives of all genders and stripes who regard abortion rights as ickily being in the boutique women's aisle of "special" interests.)


    Calling Obama (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    You need to chime in on this one ASAP. Especially considering the last few weeks of inartful gaffes....

    He's had days to respond. (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    Obama is not out front on women's issues. If you have expected him to be the best candidate for women to vote for, you are going to be disappointed.

    Seems A Fine (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    Candidate to all the women I know. That notwithstanding, it would serve him well to speak to the latest BushCo stealth attack.

    He needs to make a statement (5.00 / 13) (#25)
    by lmv on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    As the appointed party standard-bearer, Obama is obligated to say something.

    It speaks volumes that he hasn't and that his campaign doesn't understand what a vital issue this is to American women.  (Not even a cursory statement?)

    No birth control pills.  No IUDs.  No morning after pills.  

    Why isn't a married man and father of two daughters outraged?  


    Because he's not sure when life begins (5.00 / 13) (#36)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    and supports abstinence education. This will give him some time time to come up with a secular reason to support it. Remember:

    I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

    from his "Call to Renewal Speech" on June 28th.


    This is not encouraging. (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    Quite The Contrary, IMO (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:14:52 PM EST
    For someone, Obama, who personally is troubled by abortion, and who as a politician has a 100% pro choice voting record, I think it shows a firm belief in the separation of church and state.

    I just have to ask. Is there anything Obama (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    does or says that you won't defend?  

    Heh, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    Are YOu Joking? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    Because I point out that he is 100% pro choice, and point out that commenters for McSame are lying about his record, I am an obama cultist.

    That is hilarious..  


    100% pro choice? (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:22:23 PM EST
    I'm not seeing it.

    Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    says this:

    The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), saying his 100 rating by the fund for consistently backing pro-abortion legislation makes him the best choice for president.

    BFD. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    That is all.

    yeah, and to thank them for their endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:12:16 AM EST
    Obama decided to tell the world that mental distress may not be a good enough reason to allow a late term abortion.  After all, if a woman is "feeling a little blue", it may mean she shouldn't be allowed to make a choice about her own body.

    Planned Parenthood (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    made the endorsement after Obama talked about mental distress.

    Well That Is Obviously YOur Problem (3.50 / 2) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:24:35 PM EST
    Nothing can help you, evidentially.  I found out the hard way.

    You are related (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by pie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    to Sparkly.  I knew it.

    When Obama tells me unequivocally that he's pro-choice, I'll believe him.

    Sorry, sister, that I'm not taking your word for it.


    Not joking. The statement you cite (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:17:24 PM EST
    from Sen. Obama portrays, to me, a man in a state of flux on his views on a woman's freedom to choose.  Yes, I know Planned Parenthood of IL and NARAL say nevermind.  Just giving you my impression after reading the Obama statement you provided.

    Obama's Views On The Subject (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    Are the same as Hillary's. I did not like the fact that both democratic candidates were deeply religious. Fortunately,  both are strong on the separation of church and state, unlike the GOP.

    Upcoming gig at Saddleback and (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    emphasis on faith-based initiatives notwithstanding.   I cannot envision Hillary Clinton ever making the statement Obama did on abortion though.

    No Sh*t (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    She is way more restrained. Much better speaker, imo.

    Her religious-ness has never bothered me (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:02:37 PM EST
    heck, at the first Faith Forum when they had her, Edwards and Obama, I felt like they were violating her privacy, lol!~ But that's what I like about her in this area. She would never compromise my rights because of her religion, imo. I'm so glad she spoke out about this.

    Obama, I'm not so sure about. It may just be his pandering style and tendencies to not draw some hard lines, but I would really like to see him start taking the lead and being FIRM when issues like this come up. He has to be getting briefings. He was usually 24hrs behind Clinton with his press releases during the primaries, but it's been almost a week. Neither candidate always backed their releases with words to the press, but they at least had something on their site so we knew they were aware. If Hillary were still in it, they would have both addressed the toxic produce by now . . .  just sayin'  :(

    This is a huge issue and would have gone a long way with Clinton women (and some men) if he had shown it was on his radar. I don't know if it would get my vote, but it would be a step in the right direction.

    I keep waiting for him to prove my gut feeling wrong . . .


    No, they aren't. (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by tree on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:14:25 PM EST
    She is much more private in her beliefs and has always been much more upfront with her concern for the separation of church and state. He, on the other hand, has recommended adding a cabinet level Secretary of Faith. He's also positioned his Christianity in the forefront of his campaign since its very beginning, sending out brochures with prominent pictures of himself behind the pulpit and waxing on about his call to faith leading him to his run for office.

    Come on...that isn't true, is it? (none / 0) (#140)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:16:58 AM EST
    That can't possibly be true.  A Secretary of Faith?  There is no way anyone would propose such a position in the US Government.  Where did you ever hear of that?

    This is what he actually said (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:27:52 AM EST
    I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration.

    According to the NYT: (none / 0) (#146)
    by tree on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    The program would "be central to our White House mission," he said, and would consider elevating the director of his Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to a cabinet-level post.



    I can probably answer that for her: NO (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    I have to hand it to you (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    You are relentless in your support and determination to see good in the candidate.  I truly hope that your vision is correct and not myopic as I believe it to be.  

    You may not be convincing a soul, but you are truly dedicated.


    Despite the protestations, (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by tree on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    sometimes you can tell a cheerleader by his poms poms.

    Not My First Choice (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    And more to the right than I prefer, particularly on the war and crime, but waaay better than McSame. The thing that really gets me is that he is so similar to Hillary in his positions, that I think most people here are only caught up on style. Yes, I like Hillary's style significantly more than Obama's, enough to vote for her, but to think that Obama has such a different platform or would lead the country in a different direction than Hillary is absurd, imo. They are both core democrats hovering near the center.  The problems I had with Obama are the same ones I had with Hillary. I Just do not like his preacher like quality, but that is hardly a dealbreaker for me.

    As far as I can tell he is all we have at this point.


    First of all, his and Hillary's positions are not (5.00 / 12) (#81)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:42:19 PM EST
    the same.  He doesn't know what he believes because he changes his mind depending on whom he is trying to persuade.  And when his positions end up similar to Hillary's it's because it's "whatever Hillary says."  Just like in the debates, all he did was parrot her.  He doesn't have an original idea on anything.  Secondly, we are not "only caught up on style."  We care about experience and many other things.  Third, what a joke to think that Hillary and Obama would govern the same and would lead the country in the same direction.  In case you haven't been paying attention lately, Obama has consistently moved to the right on many issues, so far that he's Republican Lite.  Prime example is FISA.

    I'm still not convinced (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by sj on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    And you still sound myopic to me.  You keep addressing what you believe about what other people think ... without ever quite managing to hear to what it is they really think.

    But cheer away.  As near as I can tell you mean well.  It only gets irksome when I'd like to chime in at the end of the day and the 200 comment limit has been reached by all the cheerleading.  Mind you, you're not the only one, but you seem to be the kindest one.


    I hope you are right about him. (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    When I read that James Cooper (D) of Tenn. is on his health advisory committee I almost choked.  Jim Cooper is the one who stuck his knife in Hillary's plan back in 1993.  He is a blue dog democrat and conservative. Sure Hillary's plan wasn't perfect but there were Democrats who wouldn't go along or in anyway help with a health care plan because it was " a big government program" and they were conservatives who didn't like those things.  Obama could get a better advisor to help me "hope"

    THe Only Problem That I See (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
    With Obama is that he is a secretly programmed socialist, communist or fascist, that, if elected, will become a right wing dictator much worse than Bush. It could happen.

    When GWBush was running there (none / 0) (#149)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    were many people who questioned his credentials and lack of a record.  The media ignored us because they hated Gore so much and were willing to give GW a pass.  Bush's supporters gave flip answers to legitimate quesions much as you are doing here.

    Lack Of Record? (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    I don't think so. His record was legendary.
    George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United ...



    That is the record of Texas,not (none / 0) (#151)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    particularly of GWB.  Administratively, GWB had very little substantive sucesses to show for his terms in office.  The Democrats/GOP did almost all of the work of governing, as the state of Texas has a weak role for the governor.  In fact their legislative session is about 4-5 months long.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    Bush and his side kick Abu Gonzales prided himself on these executions.
    What did Tucker answer? Carlson asked.

    "Please," Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "please, don't kill me."

    Sister Helen Prejean

    Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. To pay for the cuts, he sought (unsuccessfully) federal approval of a plan to privatize Texas' social services. Education reform was a priority throughout his terms, with legislation emphasizing local control of schools, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Controversy has followed, with charter schools mired in financial scandals and protests against one test determining a child's promotion. After winning reelection in 1998, Bush began his bid for the presidency and was not as involved in the 76th Legislature in 1999.


    There was plenty of information about GW's record and positions, I dispute your rather apologist contention that there was any shortage of records available. GWB's positions were clear as a bell and his trail of failures were hardly a mystery.


    So then why (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by sallywally on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:50:13 PM EST
    shouldn't Obama, especially now as the leader of the party, and in his mind soon the leader of the free world, make a statement on this? So his 100% pro-abortion record doesn't involve supporting birth control, since that's what this is now about?

    All across the world, birth control is a human rights issue. If women in America won't be able to get birth control and Obama doesn't care enough even to comment, how likely is it that he will rescind Bush's refusal to fund planned parenthood type clinics in the third world?

    The only thing this has to do with the separation of church and state is that now he is the state and he is to keep his religion out of it. If he supports abortion, this is far less drastic.

    There's simply no reason he cannot or should not comment on this and every reason he can and should. It's not just an American thing. It's a global thing.


    Well Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:53:21 PM EST
    So then why shouldn't Obama, especially now as the leader of the party, and in his mind soon the leader of the free world, make a statement on this?

    That's what I have been saying. Totally agree.


    What makes Obama a Democrat? (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    Has he taken the party platform?  Does he fight against Republican cr*?  Does he promise to push back on all the conservative, fundie Christian baloney?  Has he promised to appoint liberal judges?  Did he protect my 4th amendment rights?  Does he stand by Democrats when they're being attacked by the Republican sh* machine?  Does he proudly proclaim that the Democratic party has the better platform and better ideas on social policy?  I haven't heard it.

    Does "present but not voting" (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:35:45 PM EST
    count towards his so-called (in your words) "100% pro choice voting record"?

    is this the same guy (5.00 / 9) (#99)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:18:11 PM EST
    who suggested the womenfolk speak to their Pastor, husband or father before making such a big decision like abortion?

    Yeah, pro-choice through misogynistic eyes.


    Or, (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    pro-choice, just not for the pregnant woman.  Doctor, pastor -- all for their choice.

    I wonder if MO uses BC? (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    Maybe she could go without until he decides (if she does) . . .

    It's not just the denial of access for some women, it's also the damn wording of defining BC as abortion.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#131)
    by suisser on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:11:02 PM EST
    I have been looking for this quote for a while. Thank you!

    We called last week on this (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    and Obama hasn't called back.  It's too late now.  He's too busy getting votes in Germany or something.  

    Hopefully he'll be quicker with this (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:04:19 PM EST
    As my senator, I wrote Obama over three months ago about FISA. I received his response today  Birth control can not be retoactive!

    BO's too busy courting the Fertilized Egg Vote (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:18:21 PM EST
    ... to make any new, clear and unequivocal statements affirmatively defending women's right to medical and moral privacy.

    He's definitely in favor of a woman's right to choose his sole option for her to relinquish her destiny to what her doctor, pastor, Barack Obama and every second schuck in the land who wants to tour her personal business decide for her.

    However, if that throng of advisors, welcome or not, drives her crazy THAT doesn't count towards her well being.


    Good for Hillary (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    Has Obama weighted in on this issue yet? What about Dem leadership or other members of Cogress?

    Pelosi has weighed in with Clinton. (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    Clinton is 2 for 2 this month.  Good job.

    According To Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    They are.
    What about Dem leadership or other members of Cogress?

    Hillary said that the Senate and the House is acting against this BushCo stealth measure.


    And Mr. Obama has said what? (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    Oh, sorry - he has to figure out how to copy HRC's statement and then issue his own in, oh a day or two from now.

    Always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to women's rights.  And we're supposed to trust him on that issue?

    Someone here recently mused about (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:49:55 PM EST
    what a President Obama's nickname would be.  You know - we've had Honest Abe and Tricky Dick and Slick Willie, so how do we imagine Obama would be dubbed by the blogosphere?

    Well, I would like to suggest that if Obama is elected, he might come to be known as...


    for the stunning silence that ensues whenever there is a big issue that demands his attention.


    "Crickes" (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:55:00 AM EST
    it is, from here on out.  In my circle we call him "Present", but "Crickets" makes more sense and is more fun to say.



    um ... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:55:51 AM EST
    there IS a "t" in "crickets".  I just forgot to put it there in the subject.  But I'm still on my first cup of wake-up coffee, so ... that's my excuse and I'm stickin' to it.

    These are times when I seriously laugh (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by masslib on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    at people who said all three (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) "suck" on this issue, and Clinton is actually the worst.

    No Chit (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    Makes my head pound as only someone about to those their civil rights head can!

    This is why I'm a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    and NOT a McCain supporter.  Next person who calls me a jock strap is really going to get it.

    sighhhhh (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    I thought maybe Daily Kos had mellowed a bit.  But the current sentiment is that the only good Hillary supporter is one who supports Obama.  I'm not a "good" Hillary supporter.  

    Do People Really Call You That? (5.00 / 16) (#20)
    by flashman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    Every time Clinton jumps on Bush and his gang, my heart sinks a little more that she isn't our nominee.  Who else fights the way she does?  I'll answer that; nobody.

    Who else fights the way she does? (5.00 / 17) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    which is why she had to go.  cant have a real progressive with a real progressive agenda in the oval office.
    congress might actually have to, you know, DO SOMETHING.

    That's it. That's why the msm went against her. (none / 0) (#125)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    The tragedy was that the far left were convinced by such a shallow smear campaign, then worked against the most progressive candidate in the field.

    your link....what part relates to your comment? (none / 0) (#145)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:36:42 AM EST
    don't see post about a "smear"...help.

    last time i checked, it was (1.00 / 0) (#123)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    still july, according to the calendar. plenty of time for the SD's to come to their collective senses, and nominate sen. clinton.

    the reason there appears little difference between sen. clinton and sen. obama on the issues is because he waits to see what her's is, then copies it, nearly word for word. i don't believe he's actually had an original thought.

    i understand he has a history of this.


    you may be on to something (none / 0) (#142)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:53:14 AM EST
    Rassmussen had a poll last week with a Hillary v. McCain question.  Where McCain v. Obama were virtually tied, Hillary was a solid 9 points ahead.  If she's no longer in the race and Barack is "our" Nominee, why is Rass asking a question like this?

    I strongly suspect some Supers -- perhaps many? -- are experiencing Buyer's Remorse and are laying the subtle public groundwork -- via things like this poll question which moves Hillary back on-stage -- for her to be nominated.

    Only time will tell.


    Well, you know, when no one has done more (5.00 / 23) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:04:03 PM EST
    for women's issues than Obama, it's a given, isn't it, that whatever Hillary is saying, he would say, too - but for the fact that he is ever so busy in Iraq...

    Oh, how I yearn for a nominee who might actually get a little hot under the collar about this move by HHS, and use his bully pulpit - currently being filmed 24/7 and sucking all the oxygen out of the arena - to call BS on those responsible for it.

    What we will likely get?  A speech, or a lecture on morality, and a stirring reminder of the heavy burden of conscience carried by health care providers, who are, after all, people with feelings, too, ya know? [and they vote, too, so gotta be careful!]  Maybe he can remind us that it couldn't be that hard to just find another pharmacy, find another doctor, find another hospital; hey, I think the Lieberman Cab Company is still in business.

    I don't care about the NARAL endorsement, and I don't care about the voting record.  This is a person who acts only when it is safe to do so, after others have taken the heat, and he can see what political price he will have to pay for agreeing.

    No spine, no courage, no core.

    Just kill me now.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    ...when no one has done more for women's issues than Obama,...

    Did he or a surrogate (Wait, tell me it wasn't Hillary??)* actually say that?

    Did I miss one of his brilliant speeches where he proclaimed to be the Almighty on Women's Rights and Issues?

    Good-gawd, the audacity of this man knows no boundaries.

    * She's, undoubtedly, been strong-armed into doing and saying everything to raise him to the high Heavens (short of actually carrying him on her shoulders) that I would fully expect her to say it (sigh)


    It's amazing (5.00 / 16) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    That we have someone who is no longer in the race showing tons more leadership on so many issues (this being the most recent) than either of our two main party presidential candidates.  What a shame.

    She's a leader. They play one on T.V. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Lysis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    Nope. Doesn't "need" to say anything. (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    Besides, it would detract from his international tour where he's showcasing his diplomatic and national security credentials.  Talking about women's issues might make him look weak and beholden to special interests.

    [that's snark, folks.  Well, mostly snark.]

    Yeah, because there are no women... (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:17:54 PM EST
    in Europe.

    He's Too Busy (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    "Appearing Presidential" in photo-ops with foreign leaders, dignitaries and U.S. troops stationed abroad.

    Oh, and he needs to collect those passport ink-stamps at the various airports to BOOST his "foreign policy credentials." +rolls eyes+

    Maybe he'll return with a bunch of souvenirs and Hard Rock Cafe city-T'shirts* to show he's now fit to be President.

    *Don't laugh; I used to be crazy about that one-upon-a-time, and I remain the proud owner of 33 Hard Rock Cafe T'shirts from 33 cities in 5 continents. Hey, maybe I should run for President in 2012!

    Please read, esp if you're sure you know how (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    IUD's work

    From Planned Parenthood:

    How Does an IUD Work?

    [Note that the ParaGard and the Mirena are the two forms of IUD]
    Both the ParaGard and the Mirena IUDs affect the way sperm move, preventing them from joining with an egg. If sperm cannot join with an egg, pregnancy cannot happen. Both types also alter the lining of the uterus. Some people say that this keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.

    The progestin in the Mirena IUD helps prevent pregnancy. Progestin works by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs -- ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. Progestin also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.


    That's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:41:50 PM EST
    So, basically, does that mean that the IUD is just a birth control pill delivered via a different mechanism?

    Well, one is mechanical, as it were (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    and one is chemical, so only one can be a pill.

    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    it seemed that Teresa is saying that the IUD delivers a pill-like chemical. (I thought it was mechanical too.)

    Sorry, we're getting way OT here, but I just get fascinated by any biology talk.


    That is my understanding as well. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    An IUD is not a physical barrier to prevent sperm and egg from a meet and greet, but rather a delivery device of the same hormones that the pill delivers, albeit via a much more convenient method.

    IUDs (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:59:12 PM EST
    Nobody knows why IUDs work.  One understanding is the the foreign object in the uterus disrupts the normal process of pregnancy.  The fertilized egg does not adhere and grow.  That's why some religious people believe is a form of abortion.  But nobody knows why they work. For many women, those who cannot take the pill, or use other contraceptives, IUDs can be their only choice.

    Thanks. This has been one of the few (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    times that I've actually learned stuff on TL. Kinda cool when that happens.
    IUDs: Understanding their Mechanisms of Action


    IUDs produce a local foreign-body response in the human endometrium. This foreign-body reaction results in the release of white blood cells, prostaglandins and enzymes.1,2

    For many years, researchers and clinicians believed that a normally fertilized egg entered the uterus but could not complete implantation in a hostile endometrium.

    New evidence gathered over the past 15 years, however, suggests otherwise.3-7

    Few, if any, fertilized ova actually reach the endometrium.3

    Studies also suggest that medicated IUDs containing copper interfere with sperm motility and integrity.1,4

    Hormonal IUDs also interfere with sperm motility via thickening cervical mucus.1,2

    Thus, the weight of current evidence suggests that the main mechanisms of action of IUDs occur prior to fertilization, although a secondary effect of inhibition of implantation cannot be completely excluded.

    question (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    does it matter what really happens with the BC if it becomes written that some forms of BC including the Pill and IUDs are abortion?

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:40:10 PM EST
    I thought I was losing my mind there for a moment.

    Good on Hillary! (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Little Fish on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    I'm glad Sen. Clinton is using her political capital for this issue.  It's really too rightwingnutjobby for me to even believe that it's coming up. WTF, yo.  WTF.

    Meanwhile, the presidential candidates took some time out to issue this statement: "crickets."

    Pay attention, Sentator Obama. (5.00 / 11) (#96)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:12:47 PM EST
    This is what LEADERSHIP looks like.

    Interestingly, are condoms okay? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    They prevent fertilization.

    Nice how that works -- when they work, of course, and if guys are willing to do the work.

    After they consult with their pastors on use of condoms, as Senator Obama certainly would advise.

    For the love of Heaven (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by jxstorm on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:30:43 AM EST
    please make Hillary the nominee!  Its not too late!

    Technically, (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    don't The Pill and IUD's prevent fertilization?
    [The Pill} work[s] by stopping ovulation (release of an egg) and by inhibiting the movement of sperm.
    [[IUD's] work by changing the the the lining of the uterus and fallopian tubes affecting the movements of eggs and sperm and so that fertilization does not occur.
    And therefor would be considered contraception, and not abortions, no matter which of the two definitions of the beginning of pregnancy providers of gvt-funded healthcare are allowed to accept?

    And therefor they would not, theoretically, be something women under gvt-funded health-care would be allowed to be barred from accessing?

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion."

    They don't prevent fertilization. (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    They prevent implantation. Eggs and sperm are free to "meet and mingle", but not to set up housekeeping.

    The pill (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    DOES prevent ovulation.  It also creates a  mucousy hostile environment for sperm.  Sperm can't get to the egg.

    IUD's also partially prevent fertilization.  There are at least two forms of IUD's.  Copper IUD's release copper, making the environment "hostile" to the sperm.  Hormonal IUD's release progestin, creating a mucousy hostile environment for the sperm.  Either IUD prevents implantation IF the sperm overcomes the effect of the copper or the progestin.


    Okaaay (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    So why do I keep finding stuff like this?
    There are many different types of the combination oral contraceptives [pills]. The estrogen and progestin prevent pregnancy by suppressing your pituitary gland, which stops the development and release of the egg in the ovary, called ovulation. The progestin also helps to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg and changes the lining of the uterus.

    One type of pill contains only one hormone, progestin, and is called either the "progestin-only pill," or the "mini-Pill." It works by suppressing ovulation and helping to prevent the male's sperm from reaching the egg

    How IUDs Work
    In the United States, women can use either of two types of IUD: one contains copper (Copper T 380A, brand name Paragard®), and the other contains the hormone levonorgestrel (LNG, brand name Mirena®). How do they work? [...] Both products prevent pregnancy mostly by keeping a woman's egg and a man's sperm from meeting. Copper disrupts sperm movement. The hormone helps block sperm from getting into the uterus.
    Although, as a backup, it seems both the pill and IUD's also attempt to make the uterine lining inhospitable to fertilized eggs for the rare chance that fertilization should occur, so that argument could be made I suppose...

    Great description!!!! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:02:58 PM EST
    But, sadly, a faulty description, (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    as has been explained by several others here.

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by lmv on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:03:51 PM EST
    Was that snark?

    The whole point of HHS' action is to give government funded providers the right to claim The Pill and IUDs cause abortions.

    The research has been inconclusive but the theory still exists that The Pill might have an additional benefit aside from preventing release of an egg.  In the rare case an egg is released (and that does happen), the theory is that The Pill might make the uterine lining inhospitable to fertilization.

    You do understand that point, right?  If something prevents implanation, the fertilized egg gets flushed.  If you believe life begins at conception, you would consider that an abortion.



    If I sounded a little flip, (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    it's because I did a stint at teaching sex-ed to 13 year olds. I deserve a medal.

    this day and age (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:22:52 PM EST
    I would think that would be like a swimming class for ducks.

    Unfortunately, you're almost right. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    Many of my students were sexually active, but that didn't mean they knew much about what they were doing. I was showing a short video one day about a coral reef spawning, and some of the kids wanted to know if the female divers were afraid of getting pregnant swimming around in all of that coral sperm so I gave a short lecture on "inter-species" dating. A parent called to praise how I had handled it, and the next year I found myself assigned to teaching sex-ed. I have to admit it was fun.

    I'll never forget (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    when I was in grad school, and I had to teach Intro Bio to undergrads as a TA, finding out that they knew nearly nothing about the biology of sex. 18 and 19 year olds, and they didn't know the basics of reproduction. I used to make them say 'penis' etc. out loud because they were embarrassed to say these words. It became a joke that we started each class with. We had a good rapport and they really started to learn a lot about anatomy and sex.

    When we did fetal pig dissections, I took special pains to make sure they really learned the reproductive anatomy of mammals. Even though we covered the whole gamut of biology, I considered it my main responsibility that they leave that class understanding how to get pregnant and how not to get pregnant.

    We really don't do a very good job with teenagers and sex ed.


    No, we don't. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    We should be ashamed that we allow our children to go off into the world not knowing more about one of the most important facets of their lives. I was an oceanographer (physical, mostly)and decided to share my love of science with kids for a couple of years. It was always easy to talk about "fish sex" with them, and when I found my teacher bearings, human sex wasn't that much harder. I think teacher comfort level is important.

    well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    I was not suggesting that the MSM actually gave them any useful information.  only that it keeps them hot to trot.

    misspeach, the snark comment wasn't @ you (none / 0) (#85)
    by lmv on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:48:10 PM EST
    it was at the commenter above.

    (whom, I suspect, is not a woman.  I could be snarky about need, but I won't.)

    The intent of these regs is clear:  to classify BC as abortion.


    OK, the kids used to vote each year (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    for the teacher with the "best comebacks", and I won every year. I have a hard time turning it off. ;^)

    No need (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by lmv on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    Lead with your strong suit. ;)

    OT - I really like that phrase about not setting up housekeeping.  Hilarious!


    You "suspect?" Oh jeez. (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:09:38 PM EST
    You're one of them.

    And in order to be consistent I presume you also feel that only immigrants can comment on immigration threads? Murderers only on death penalty threads? Gays only on gay marriage threads? Minorities only on race-related threads?


    Huh? Easy there. (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    I think you're taking offense at something that maybe you shouldn't.

    As I quoted above, the Pill and IUDs attempt to prevent fertilization from occurring, and, as a backup, try to prevent fertilized eggs from implanting.

    Granted, not being as immersed in these types of birth control as some other are, the first "how do it work?" websites I found were all about how the Pill and IUD's prevent fertilization and very little about preventing implantation as a backup.

    My point, based on that, was that any pill/device that prevents fertilization would be ok under the proposed (and snowball's chance in hell of becoming law) regulations.

    So sue me.


    Ideology Before Science (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by flashman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    See?  You're thinking like a scientist, not like an HHS bureauocrat.

    Biology (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    Fertilization occurs in the oviducts as the egg travels down and the sperm travel up. Post-fertilization, you have a one-celled zygote. Technically, 'pregnancy' does not occur until the zygote implants in the uterine wall. After it implants, the zygote will begin cell division, and then organ development.

    An IUD typically prevents implantation, but does not prevent fertilization. The pill suppresses ovulation, but different forms work in different ways. A diaphragm prevents sperm from making contact obviously, thus no fertilization and no zygote.

    Basically, they've transformed abortion into whatever prevents development of the zygote. Thus, they are against IUD's and the pill and consider preventing implantation of the zygote to be abortion.

    Save the Zygotes!!!


    The way I read the regs (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    is that a pill that suppresses ovulation would probably still be required to be provided, but anything like the morning after pill, an IUD, or a pill that prevents implantation would not. It doesn't matter. The whole idea of preventing women from reproductive health care of any kind is repugnant.

    When I read about things like this I (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    wonder what other evil deeds they are up to. The GOP politicians are completely corrupt, unethical and shameless.

    This is True (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:16:53 PM EST
    An IUD typically prevents implantation, but does not prevent fertilization.

    And the Catholic church has very strong feelings about it-- 20 years ago, my catholic gynecologist refused to give me an IUD because of his belief that it does not prevent fertilization.


    Correction (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    After it implants, the zygote will begin cell division

    should be

    After it implants, the blastocyst will begin cell differentiation

    Once fertilization occurs, cell division occurs but all the cells in a blastocyst are identical, also called a "blob of cells".  After the blastocyst implants, cell differentiation occurs creating an actual fetus.

    Before implantation, no fetus and no pregnancy.  After implantation, fetus and pregnancy.  


    Us biologists (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:26:17 PM EST
    call eggs, once fertilized, zygotes. The term 'blastocyst' refers to the first stage of the zgyote, prior to division. Then commences lots of other jargony terms for each stage of division - 2 celled stage, 4 celled stage, 8 celled stage, etc.

    Your last paragraph is what I already said I thought. No pregnancy prior to implantation.


    gotcha (none / 0) (#107)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    You might want to do a Google (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    on IUD's.  One role of Copper or Hormonal IUD's is to prevent fertilization.

    Birth control encompasses more (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    than the Pill and IUDs.  Some prevent conception, some prevent fertilization, etc.

    And let's please keep in mind that NONE absolutely prevent pregnancy.  The Pill is not 100% effective, especially if taken with other medications.  Have fun 100 times on the Pill, and you might end up pregnant. :-)

    So we never can accomplish complete "abortion reduction," in the latest gosh-ugly term from the evangelical friends of Obama.  And just who defines "rare"?  Are we like meat, to be "medium rare"?


    Thanks, I was discussing (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    what Hillary specifically identified in her comment.

    I keep praying!! (none / 0) (#100)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:23:16 PM EST

    This article and video is NOT ABOUT OBAMA (none / 0) (#118)
    by JSF1 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST

    It's about women's lives.

    Can't we have just one good read without the new man being front and center?

    You're right, I hear you (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:14:57 PM EST
    It's just that it's so disappointing that he hasn't done what she's done. I really, really want him to speak out on this issue. We just want him to be a strong, outspoken advocate for women's rights.

    Leadership (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:15:15 PM EST
    As the presumptive nominee, it's only natural to look to Obama for leadership on these issues. Of course it always reverts to him. It should. He now represents the Democratic Party.