Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Democratic Fusillade | Flower Power »

Friday, May 5, 2006

Against Abortion?

Posted by on May 5 at 7:56 AM

Then you had better be for the use—and wide availability—of effective contraception.

Today’s New York Times reports that the percentage of women not using contraception has been steadily rising. The headline should be tattooed on the heads of conservative Republicans who think that keeping contraception out of the hands of women is somehow pro-life: Use of Contraception Drops, Slowing Decline of Abortion Rate.

The rate of unintended pregnancies, which had declined 18 percent from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, has leveled off since about 1994…. While the abortion rate fell an average of 3.4 percent annually in the early 1990s, it declined an average of just 0.8 percent from 2000 to 2002.

If the Republican war on contraception—including Plan B, the morning after pill—doesn’t end soon, and abstinence “educators” continue to encourage American teenagers to view birth control as ineffective (and teenagers who obtain it as sinful), the abortion rate will soon be rising. Nice work, sexphobes.


CommentsRSS icon

While in other countries, like Germany, where contraception is widely available and encouraged, the abortion rate is dramatically less than ours. Republicans are stupid.

Dems should be driving this wedge-issue as hard as they can.

It makes perfect common sense that if a conservative is against abortion, that they therefore should be FOR sex education, improving access to birth control, etc,.

Reality is that many conservatives DON'T support improved access to birth control, sex education, etc., meaning that this really isn't about abortion at all and is more about the right's cultural and moral (and probably religious) war against America's openness around sex (relatively speaking).

Dems need to out Republican hypocrisy around abortion, sex ed, and birth control as best they can.

c'mon, don't you know it isn't about reality, it is about "morality."

I would love it if a Dem candidate injected reason into a campaign, but THAT is apparently as unrealistic as a teenager waiting for marriage.

I hate those people!

They aren't against abortion so much as for "consequences" for sex. Any consequence will do.

I agree totally with the suggestion that the dems should beat this issue.

Yes, yes, yes. But I believe the correct, Kristofian term is "libidophobes." (TS)

Dems should use this issue, that's for sure. But I'm not sure that they want to tattoo that exact headline anywhere. Can't the NY Times find a better way to state "slowing the decline of abortion rates"? It reads like a double negative, and I had to read it a couple of times to actually understand what the headline was saying.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).