The Red and Black

"Consequently, medically unsafe abortions would occur, risking both the lives of the mothers and unborn babies."

Really? As opposed to the legal abortions that don't risk the lives of unborn babies? What is the matter with you? Are you really that ignorant or just trying to be sarcastic? Get a clue.

Dear Shannon,
"Consequently, medically unsafe abortions would occur risking the lives of the mothers and unborn babies."

I think the whole point of an abortion is to terminate a fetus- I'm not sure how a "medically unsafe" abortion could risk the life of an unborn baby. Also I think the correct term used for a baby still in the womb is fetus. This is an important issue which should get proper attention but this op-ed article is poorly written.

As opposed to Jennifer, I think this is a fantastically-written article. I just think she doesn't agree with the content. People think we're in the clear because the election's over -- but the fight is really just beginning to prevent a monumental(ly bigger) mess that Obama will have to clean up.

Well, no matter how dumb the article is, I don't see why CONTRACEPTIVE birth control should be restricted for any adults.

Abortion is another issue, but hopefully can be moderately resolved.

This article is comprised of good points, but the medically unsafe abortions risking the lives of unborn babies comment sank it like the Titanic.

I hope this doesn't happen. I don't understand why the government seemingly would rather have more people on government assisted programs instead of making birth control available. Birth control is much cheaper (and easier to take care of) than a baby for me right now, probably so for most young people. Making birth control harder to get for individuals will lead to more unwanted pregnancies.

It would be helpful if the author could give us at least the slightest clue what the "proposed regulations" are. Where can we view them? What, exactly, will the regulations do? How close are they to getting introduced into law? How do we know the author isn't just making this all up?

Wow. That first comment was ignorant.

Restricting access to birth control is as dumb as abstinence-only sex education. Women should have control of their reproductive rights.

It'd be nice if some facts were included in the article. I know it's an editorial, but as it stands the argument has no factual basis.

So, just because you want something, someone should be made to go against their morals and be legally forced to give it to you? I'm sorry, but what special certification did you receive that enables you to tell a pharmacist or doctor that what they want in life isn't important compared to what you want?

Women should not be denied access to birth control, and especially not in circumstances such as rape or incest. I won't deny that point. However, the restriction of "birth control" is a somewhat understandable issue. I think a distinction needs to be made into the wording of such a law, anyway: Are you talking about prophylaxis, or merely products like Plan B, which are a different subset with different modes of action?

Either way, nothing in the world should give you the right to march up to a doctor and demand that he or she perform a medical procedure that he/she is uncomfortable with. If that is in fact a law, it is absolutely ridiculous. There are doctors that are willing to do those things, and to expect other people to do them against their will and against their conscience is reprehensible. To demand the same thing of a pharmacist is equally ridiculous. Why does your right for gratification trump his or her right to sleeping peacefully at night? Most pharmacists won't have a choice of what prescription to fill if they work at a corporate pharmacy. But what happens if their pharmacy fails to stock that drug because the company doesn't believe in it, or if the pharmacist runs a small hometown pharmacy and doesn't feel the need to carry or dispense such drugs? Are they still supposed to procure you some and dole it out to you just because you want it?

Please. When I graduate with my DVM, I'm not going to be performing declaws or tail docking. There's no way in hell I'd walk up to a pharmacist and ask them to do something they believe to be amoral. By the way... did we really have to bring Catholicism into this? The idea that a Catholic pharmacist wouldn't give out drug to an unmarried woman is silly: They wouldn't give it out because they don't believe in contraception, not because the woman is unmarried. A hardline Baptist or even Islamic pharmacist might be more threatened by an unmarried woman receiving contraceptives than a good ol-fashioned Papist. Let's not single anyone out.

Maybe you need to take a good look at your own sense of entitlement and think about what it means for the people who have to serve you. We ARE people, too.

Abortion - our national holocaust.

1. Pharmacists do not have the right to deny birth control. This issue was settled a few years back when someone in New England sued Walmart (which was the only pharmacy in her town) for refusing birth control. The women won the case.

2. Doctors have the right to refuse to perform abortions, and the concept that they couldn't is ridiculous. Why would a regular family practitioner, who has not been trained to perform abortions, be required to perform them? The law says that abortion clinics cannot refuse to perform abortions for certain individuals, which makes sense. That being said, I have never heard of an abortion clinic who refused a client on moral grounds.

3. Young women in their twenties get more abortions than any other age bracket. (If you want to break it down more, those in thier early twenties more than the late twenties.) That group would be the most affected.