Thursday, January 22, 2009

Blog for Choice

One of the things that I find most disturbing in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate is the use of language.  Being Pro-Choice is NOT the same as being Pro-Abortion.

Choice entails many things. Being able to choose from a variety of birth control methods that are covered by health insurance.  Educating our youth on how to prevent pregnancy with a variety of methods.  Abstinence is certainly a viable option and is indeed the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.  It should not however be the only thing we teach.  It is completely unrealistic to believe that all teens are going to abstain from sexual intercourse outside of a committed relationship.  Some will, certainly, but others will not.  Those that do not chose abstinence deserve to know their options.  Educating them on the proper use of pregnancy prevention would greatly reduce the numbers who turn to abortion.  And finally, it is a woman's choice to do with her body as she sees fit. 

Pro-Life is all well and good.  I'm for life.  But it needs to include support for the mother before and after birth and not just criminalizing abortion. Telling a young, single woman that she MUST have her child and then doing nothing to support her is as heinous an act in my eyes as the abortion itself is to a Pro-Lifer.

Woman have been finding ways to end and prevent pregnancies for as long as man has been around.  Our knowledge of the human body and medical methods have improved to the point that we can be successful more often than not in preventing pregnancy or ending it without destroying the health of the woman.  If you look at abortion rates, legal and illegal, around the world you often find the highest rates where reliable birth control is limited or missing entirely.  With comprehensive family planning assistance that includes education and reliable birth control, abortion rates will drop.

This is what I mean by Choice.  It is not limited to abortion but instead relies upon education and access to birth control.  I support President Obama and his efforts.

When all is said and done, both sides want to see fewer abortions. 


skyewriter said...

I agree.

We need to change the discourse.

Like you said: pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion; whoo-hoo let's all get pregnant and go get abortions! Stupid, right?

Fertility/pregnancy control is about access and women's health. It's not "birth" control. It's control of a woman's right to determine whether or not she wants to get pregnant.

It's control over a woman's right to abort a baby conceived in rape (we need look only to Africa to see the millions of babies in places like Zimbabwe and Darfur that are being born in this type of circumstance).

It's about a woman's right to CHOOSE.

That's it.

That's what Roe v. Wade guarantees women. And isn't it horrifying to think that PROTECTING women's health is something that the pro-lifers don't EVEN consider in their froth?

PS: I had to share my verification word because it made me laugh out loud.

Congbom: A musical condom :)

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should look at the "choice" Planned Parenthood offers their customers. What is the ratio of abortions to adoption? Any idea? Google it...then try to justify why I have to contribute to the $300,000,000 they receive from taz payers every year....Choice...yeah right...wheres my choice to not fund abortion?

Stacy Hackenberg said...

Two things, Anonymous: You must not have read very carefully because you've missed my point. I am not Pro-abortion.

Planned Parenthood does a great deal more than provide abortions- they do cancer screenings, pregnancy options counseling, testing & treatment for STD, contraceptives- you get the picture.

Number two-

If you don't have the courage of your convictions to post a comment with your name, I will no longer allow you to post comments.

skyewriter said...


There was a time after I graduated undergrad that I was without health insurance.

I could not afford the cost of an annual pelvic exam (including pap smear for cervical cancer and other health issues) with an ob/gyn attached to a medical group or hospital. (They wanted $500.00 for a new patient account and the necessary office visit, exam, lab fees, etc.)

Planned Parenthood was a place I could AFFORD to see a doctor, get my annual health screening and get birth control. There are even some Planned Parenthoods that provide pay-as-able services. I could afford to pay the modest fee at the time (all together $50 plus $12.00 for a packet of BC Pills), but I know for every person like me in 1994 without health insurance OR an income, Planned Parenthood was and is a place for women without any means to get medical services.

By bringing Planned Parenthood into this you turn it into an issue of access and ethics. Doesn't every woman deserve to be able to be healthy?

Sidhe said...

Hmmm...Anonymous, what is the ratio of abortions to adoption? I googled it and I still don't know and I'll tell you that the number of adoptions in this country is not enough because of this tidbit published by the Adoption Institute: "In 1999, the latest year for which totals have been finalized, there were about 581,000 children in foster care in the United States. Twenty-two percent of these children -- about 127,000 kids -- were available for adoption." You know what that means, Anonymous, that means that there are children waiting, WAITING to be adopted in this country but nobody wants them because they are: drug affected babies; older children with behavioral issues caused by abuse and neglect; and children with disabilities that require special care. Just go to AdoptUSKids and take a look at all the children waiting for a family. So, please, please do not use adoption as your logical solution to abortion (because it is simply not logical). If you don't want to fund abortion, don't get one,'s your choice. BTW, I think your figure of $300,000,000 is BS (where'd you get that number?) and most public funding of abortions (Medicaid) is limited to rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Finally, our tax dollars fund a lot of things that not every citizen agrees war, get over it.

Sorry for the rant, True Blue, but as a former foster care worker who had to see children passed from home to home to home because we couldn't find anyone to adopt them I've become quite cynical on the topic.

bret said...

Lets break down the VERY profitable Planned parenthood (the not for profit organization had $1.017 in revenue, of which $336M was in public dollars) -right from their 990.

Their excess revenue was $112 the do they retain a 501(3)c status?

Now to your ignorant point that they provide other services....of the roughly $700 million in revenue that didnt come from us taxpayers, the vast majority comes from ABORTIONS of which they did 290,000 at an average cost of $400. Wow...amazing that that number is pretty dang close to their total annual revenue.

So again I ask you, why do I have to pay for abortion.

And what is the ratio abortions to placements at Planned parenthood, after all, sint an adoption another "choice" a pregnant woman can make.

I'll save you the time, Planned Parenthood refers 1 expecting mother to adoption agencies for every 138 abortions --wow, thats some choice.

Stacy Hackenberg said...


I won't dispute your figures. Planned Parenthood is not the only 501(3) C to make a profit.

They have however been affected by the economic downturn and the Madoff scandal and have laid off 20% of their workforce.

Must not be making quite as money as you think.

skyewriter said...

So now it's about money?

I am assuming, Bret, that you are anonymous from earlier.

I've read about the sting options to which you refer. It is NOT systemic as the "whistle-blowhards" would like the public to believe.

Unless you've been in a Planned Parenthood, see the work they DO, you cannot rely on second-hand "knowledge" from those with an obvious bias.

Let me ask you one question:

If Planned Parenthood were breaking the Law (as you insinuate here), where's the legal suits being brought against them? Where are the criminal charges?

Crickets from you, Bret?

Yeah, that's right, because there are NONE. At least NONE from CREDIBLE, UNBAISED SOURCES (websites) NOT RELATED TO A PRO-LIFE POSITION.

Read through archives of big newspapers and see if you can find one, just one case about the criminal behavior you are claiming here.

The only ones who are making headlines when it comes to PP, are the illiterate, tin-foil hat wearing, whackjobs who kill doctors at them or blow up the clinics. How does that meld with your sense of "Right to Life"?

Sidhe said...

Bret said, "Now to your ignorant point that they provide other services...."

wow, now I wish I had never gone to Planned Parenthood for treatment of pre-cancerous cells on my cervix. Since I couldn't afford treatment at any other womens health clinic, I'd probably be dead now. Thanks alot, Bret. Your concern for womens health is admirable.

bret said...

Wow...where did I insinuate illegal actvity?...what I questioned, but your way too emotional to absorb, is why should Planned Parenthood have a profit of $112Million...shouldnt that pap smear have costed you a lot less?

Heres a nice stat that smacks the whole theory of PP does other stuff other than abort babies": “against 264,943abortions, Planned Parenthood saw just 12,548 prenatal clients. This means that it was 21 times more likely that a pregnant woman coming into a Planned Parenthood clinic would receive an abortion than receive prenatal care." ouch

Further, you would agree that with the exception of birth control, men dont really benefit from giving tax money to PLanned Parenthoo; what do they offer males? N.O.W. has sued the government for grants being given to charities who work predominatly in inner cities and with men to help improve fatherhood...why did they sue...becasue the charity was geared mostly toward men....sorta like PP is mostly geared towards women.

No criminal charges??? You are aware that Kansas PP was just nailed with 107 counts of illegal late term abortions, arent you? How about PP protecting rapists? Heres a little list:

Heres a scary video, of a PP worker advising a supposed 13 year old girl on how to avoid parental notification AND how to statutory rape charges for her adult boyfriend:

Hows that for crickets?

To Sidhe: I volunteer as a guardian ad litem, I work with adult recovering addicts, work with a pregnancy center and feed the homeless on the weekends. The fact that you were a paid foster care worker means nothing to me. But since you want to call my stats bogus, heres PP's 2006-07 annual report, showing the amounts of reveneue (1.017B), tax funded grants (336M) and NET profit (112M), educate yourself:

bret said...


Why do I have to help pay for your treatments? If you beleive that to be valid, then let me know your address and I will send you a direct portion of my childs next visit to the hospital.

Stacy Hackenberg said...

Enough is enough folks.

If it's not obvious by now, no one here- Sidhe, Skye, myself or Bret- is going to change their minds. Let's agree to disagree.

There will be no further comments allowed on this post.

bret said...

GO figure....theres the liberal way...our talking points are getting ripped apart...attack the messenger..if that dont work, leave the playground and take your toys with you. It sure is a mighty big tent you dwell in...everyones invited, unless you have a different opinion.

Enjoy this:

Stacy Hackenberg said...

I don't agree with you. Sorry to disappoint. I do, however, support your right to hold your opinions and against my better judgment I published your comments from the beginning of this exchange.

I had hoped for a civil and rational debate but did not get it. There is too much emotion invested in BOTH sides. When I said there will be no more comments, I meant no more. FROM EITHER SIDE. I published this last one of yours solely so I could reply.

Comments on the post are CLOSED.