redblueamerica.com

Laughable how these anti abortion pill fanatics twist things around to fit their agendas.

If you don't want to give women their abortion pills. get another job. But in the spirit of Karl Rove Projection Debate, religious right wingers now say the poor wittle pharmacist is being discrimated against. Poor wittle fella.

I guess I do have an axe to grind.

I am troubled by the notion the government believes it can end freedom of religion because women have a right to contraceptives.

I am also troubled by the notion governments believe they can require someone to give up basic human rights to become a pharmacist.

wishnevsky--

Money is not the issue. Freedom of conscience is the issue.

I do not believe the government has the right to take away freedom of moral and religious choice from pharmacists in order to give freedom of choice to women.

That amounts to curtailing basic First Amendment rights so as not to curtail a woman's right to contraception. Becoming a pharmacist does not mean you surrender your Constitutional rights.

The issue here is not whether women have a right to use birth control, but whether the state can force pharmacists to dispense certain medicines in violation of their own consciences. In this instance, giving women a choice means taking away choices for pharmacists.

Giving women a choice cannot come at the price of taking away choice from others. We all have the right to follow our own beliefs.

"Male domination". You give off the impression that women have no contribution to affairs at all. FIRST baby step? Have you not realized that if not for the women in the past, women would not have the right to vote. Women would be unable to have their own jobs. Women wouldn't even be given the option to run for any political office in the first place. Whch their is so many of already.True we do live in a male dominant society, but as the saying goes, "Behind every great man, is a woman." Woman have had their hand in politics long before they had any reasonable rights. They would 'convince' their husbands, fathers, brothers, to vote, support anyone the woman wanted them to while still making them believe it was their ideas. Having a woman president is NOT going to change women suffering from this 'Battered Wife Syndrome' you speak of. I think that women are only depending so much on their husbands because it's the 'easy-way-out' approach on life. Let the husband cater to your every need? Sounds like the wife is too dependent, not weak. After all, you have to have at least a little strength to bring a new life into the world.

However, I honestly don't see how that is completely relevant to birth control anyway. Please stay on topic. I'm all for 'male dominance' to come to an end and have a true equality between the sexes, but as long as men believe they are physically stronger than women and women believe they are smarter than men, with both genders under the false pretense that they are surely better, it is not an option. Back on topic, birth control is an option. tomcatin4u is completely right in saying that birth control is not killing or anything of the sort, but merely preventing.

Too many American women are suffering from what was labeled as the BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME but many just developed that malady on their own .
They think MEN in power will do everything for them and do not think its important if they are given any power over their bodies or souls. If women did have power --then today there would be equal pay--no polygamy---no spousal abuse---no repeated sex crimes - and repeated rapest on the loose.
If women would only read the struggles women have had throughout history and into our own century maybe they'd think it important to take a step and see that we FINALLY have a woman president as the leader of the free world. Maybe that FIRST baby step after 200+ years of male domination might bring BIGGER steps for us.

There's a huge difference between punishing someone for having birth control and forcing someone else to distributed it.

Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. Feel free to contact him.

I gotta confess. I think Wishnevsky summed up the reality of the situation pretty well.

I provide a link to some statistical US numbers from 1969 to 2000.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...

I support providing a wide range of options to women in the unwanted pregnancy category.

The Right to Pursue Happiness.

In this right I include not having children.
Anything stopping this right is unconstitutional.

After forty years, the right to privacy and birth control is pretty well established, as well as being in that class of actions, that although deplorable to some, are inalienable to the extent that they cannot be prevented without destroying any personal rights whatsoever.

I believe that the conservative Supreme Court said something similar in its ruling in the Texas Sodomy laws a few years ago.

Trying to enforce an unenforceable law is one of the best ways to breed disdain for the government in the population. The Drug Laws are the prime example. You might think that the public moralists could have learned something from the Prohibition Debacle, but unfortunately that is not the case. We have to learn this lesson every generation.

Birth Control, Abortion, Adultery, Sodomy, Drugs, Suicide, Gambling, there are so many laws the government has no power to enforce, and very little power to punish after the fact. Most of them have something to do with sex or shortcuts to personal happiness.

The old blues song had it right. "All the money in the world spent on feeling good."

And you know, i used to sell National Review when i was a teenager, and i think it is getting more petty and strident as time goes on.

There is such a concept as liberty, and that implies making choices and accepting the consequences. The Supreme Court accepts that, has for years, you would think the Conservative press could too. If you look at the Roe v. Wade and Connecticut contraception decisions, the thrust is that there is not enough Federal power to monitor every womb in America.

If you can't control something, there is no sense in banning it, and hoping for the best.