BlogHer - Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Is He a Threat to the Pro-Life Movement? - Comments

Believing that life begins

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:37:50 -0500

Believing that life begins at conception is NOT a religious belief, therefore not all people that are against abortion base that belief on religion or God.

There are many pro-life atheists out there, here is just one woman's beliefs on the issue http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/Parliament/8383/atheist.html

John McCain is very Pro-Life.

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:26:07 -0500

McCain has always been Pro-Life. There seems to be a lot of misinformation on this thread about what it means to be pro-life. Implying that people who are pro-life don't give attention and care to children and mothers is just an ignorant statement. I'm pro-life and we work within the pro-life movement for ALL life. We believe that defending human life doesn't end after birth, it applies over the entire course of life, from conception to natural death.

I'm Roman Catholic and I've been involved with our mission team for the last four years. Every year we travel to Nicaragua to work with the poor. Our work includes building houses, as well as, working with a local Church and 2 schools to help the children. We work closely with the Nuns who have taken the orphaned children in off of the streets to take care of and educate.

Instead of bashing pro-life people, how about sharing your stories about what kind of service work each of you are doing to better the life of a child.

I simply say pro-abortion

shellie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:17:42 -0500

I simply say pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

(I'm pro-abortion.)

"Late term abortion" as bull

shellie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:08:54 -0500

"Late term abortion" as bull crap? Thanks, I thought I'd heard that only in very serious medical cases would something like that be done. Do you have a cite handy?

But didn't Obama himself use that term, talking to a rightwing group this summer? Saying that under certain reasoning about the law, "We can prevent some late-term abortions."

Semantics debate (Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life)

JeffAHayes — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:25:15 -0500

I JUST NOW got an email that there was "a response" to a posting I made way back before it was clear whether Obama or Clinton was going to win the primaries, lol... Came to see and there have been SO MANY POSTINGS since then I have NOWHERE NEAR the time to read and/or decipher which posting is the one in question, BUT I see the issue of the term "Pro-Life" has come up, and A BUNCH of the overwhelmingly "Pro-Choice" members of this group (myself included) don't like that term and think there ought to be another term for it and some don't seem to understand why there isn't.

I'm not sure if this has been hit yet, but it's simple. NOBODY understand SPIN better than the RELIGIOUS WRONG (right vs. wrong, get it?)

It's up to THE REST OF US to start using our OWN euphemisms to DESCRIBE THEM! They chose terms like "Moral Majority" of which they are NEITHER (most of their leaders have been proven IMMORAL -- consider that their co-founder was, infact, the afore-mentioned FRANK KEATING, of the infamous "Keating Five" fame, the head of Lincoln Federal Savings and Loan, the LARGEST S&L that had to be bailed out during the Reagan Administration's $500 Billion S&L bailout AFTER John McCain and four other prominent Senators BARELY escaped federal charges for giving him political favors).

They CHOSE "Pro-Life" because they COULD and they KNEW that if they called the clearly ANTI-ABORTION position "Pro-Life," it would frame their position as totally MORAL and ETHICAL and ABOVE REPROACH automatically in the simple minds of many who can't or won't think beyond such terms to the very difficult choices and circumstances that face many women and families.

Do I "support abortion" or "favor abortion?" OF COURSE NOT! I think ANY medical procedure should be a last resort. I think ANY WOMAN who repeatedly uses abortions as a substitute for sensible contraception ought to be somehow punished or sanctioned (along with her MALE PARTNER(S)! But I also realizes that accidents happen, along with rapes, incest, and various medical problems, and a woman and her doctor need to have the right to make the ultimate decision about her OWN body and health decisions...

We need COMPROMISE. The Pro-Choice side is more amenable to compromise than the "Pro-Life" side, which for the most part would rather see a woman die than have a totally unviable third-term fetus, likely to be born dead, or near death, aborted, due to some strict religious dogma.

And taking this issue to the point that stem-cell research can't proceed using test-tube embryos that are going to be discarded is the MOST RIDICULOUS THING I think I've seen since "Colored Water Fountains" here in the South.

That, ALONE, is reason enough to NOT elect John McCain in November. The overwhelming promise of stem-cell research (I know there are NOW other ways of creating them, but they're more complicated) may cure MANY terrible diseases! The BUSH administration has STOOD IN THE WAY of SO MUCH SCIENCE to satisfy the KOOKY CONTINGENT of the Republican Party over the last 8 years. He's only FINALLY taking Global Climate Change seriously now that the National Security Agency has deemed it a National Security Issue because they've determined that several of the countries likely to be innundated by flooding as the seas rise will create destabilization in areas of potential conflict that COULD even lead to nuclear conflicts with countries like India and Pakistan... All of 110,000,000-population Bangladesh (formerly called East-Pakistan after it was broken off as a part of India after the British Empire gave up India after WW II) would be under water with just a couple meters of sea level rise.

But the upcoming election is in REAL TROUBLE NOW. Sadly, the American electorate, on the MASS SCALE, is VERY simple-minded. They see this "cute" Sarah Palin, this "Hockey Mom" from Alaska who looks COMPLETELY NON-THREATENING, and A LOT of women who WERE pro-Obama have suddenly switched to McCain based just "on a feeling," without learning ANYTHING about Palin, who is SO FAR TO THE RIGHT she makes Dan Quayle (the last such cynical V.P. choice) seem like a liberal.

This woman's idea of "hunting" is shooting wolves from a HELICOPTER, for starters! She "claims" she said "no thanks" to the $400 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, although she both CAMPAIGNED FOR GOVERNOR IN FAVOR of that, and ONCE SHE WAS governor, although she didn't BUILD the bridge, she still TOOK the money, and used it for other things!

So... I have an Idea... Let's start A NEW NAME MOVEMENT... Between now and election day, let's all who plan to vote Obama call ourselves PRO-AMERICA, and label the McCain supporters (who also support continued WAR IN IRAQ) PRO-DEATH...

After all, it DOES seem to be all about Semantics, huh? Who would YOU vote for... the PRO-AMERICA Candidate, or the PRO-DEATH candidate (ANTI-LIFE is another option, if you prefer).

Thoughts???

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Rethink your reproductive rights

over_gulf — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:49:48 -0500

You are stumped because your looking at it all wrong. Try looking at it from another perspective.

semantics and responsibility

kbr — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:27:35 -0500

If we want to discuss semantics and the "choice" of words used, would you console your friend who miscarried a "wanted" child in the first trimester, "It's okay it was only a fetus." I don't think so. This is not an easy issue but the fact is with any right there is also responsibility, and for the most part people have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

You want to say that making an irresponsible, drunken person own up to the consequences of an accidental pregnancy is any different than them being responsible for a DUI. All of our actions have consequences. Carrying a baby to full term and putting it up for adoption is not asking someone to be a parent but to accept the consequences for their behavior. Too many people are able and willing to raise children to let irresponsibility become a reason for allowing abortion. There may be times when abortion is a medical necessity for that reason I don't believe it should be illegal. However, too many women argue those circumstances to excuse the use of abortion as birth control. And that is inexcusable.

Good luck with that

margaretty — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:20:28 -0500

Have the baby and give it away? Not likely, because the propaganda that tells girls they must have that child implies they should keep it, too. It doesn't tell them they must keep their own bodies healthy during pregnancy, much less before that.

Are you sure you want the baby damaged by too many drugs, too much alcohol, not enough good nutrition? These children are often heart-breaking. And many of them are available for fostering, and then adoption, if you'd like to try it. I know of some.

I'm sorry you could not bear a child when it obviously means so much to you, but there are thousands and thousands of children in this country to nurture, if that is what you want to do. You may have loved that little being in a petri dish, but not all people feel the same way. And those who do not should not be forced to have a child who will grow up unloved, unwanted, and undisciplined, destined to be a sadness to all of society. Until we as a society are ready to give that child all it needs, we should not require that it exist.

We need to remember that "my" experience is not what everyone else experiences, so "I" should not speak for everyone in absolutes.

Being pro-choice says that if a woman chooses to have a child, no matter how it is conceived, she can; if she chooses not to, even after conception, she doesn't have to.

You say you want people to be responsible;you want people to take consequences. That implies that having the child is a punishment for irresponsibility. If a person has unprotected sex and gets HIV, that person suffers. If she conceives, and bears an unwanted child, the child and all society suffer.

What is pro-choice really?

k.d.lemon — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:51:38 -0500

This is something I don't really understand. What are abortion rights? One post implies that if you get drunk and sloppy and get pregnant you should get an abortion. Or if you are poor you should get an abortion.

What??

Next, what is with all of the partisan dialog? Many posts imply that if you are a democrat you are "pro-abortion rights". And if you're a republican then you are automatically "pro-life". Can't anyone have their own voice other than that of their political party?

It's an us vs. them mentality that is what is currently wrong with this country. It is what the Bush administration did to us - separated us by party line, and implied that one party is better than the other. And if you are on the wrong party you are bad.

So, that is what I am getting from some of these posts - that Republicans are bad. Democrats good. And that all democrats are the same and will do everything along party lines. And Republicans the same.

Well, I think that is incorrect and foolish way to think.

What about voting for someone REGARDLESS of their political party. I say vote for the person, not the party, because, hopefully, if they have any integrity, they will not be a puppet to their party.

I also think that we need to vote for a person based on more than one issue. And I hate to say this, but I don't really think Abortion is a priority issue at this time. The war, the economy, health care, the lack of honest, integrity and responsibility in the government are some of the many more pressing issues that americans are concerned about.

So, I will say here, that I am a democrat voting for McCain. Why? Because I think he is a standup guy, who follows his conscience, who is willing to listen to others, reach across party lines, unite others, work with others and try to do what is right and I think he is in this to help.

I am also a Democrat who is against abortions. I have gone back and forth on this issue. At first I was like, pro-choice - women should be able to decide their own body issues. Then I started thinking about the fetus, and if it matters when it becomes human - at conception? at birth? I concluded that no it doesn't matter. It is a human life whether there's a soul or not. I am into Science Fiction (yikes, nerd alert!) and I was thinking that life forms come in all different shapes and sizes - and not all looking like fully formed humans. So why are we willing to abort/kill a fetus even if it is not fully formed, because we all know what it is going to be (otherwise why abort?)

Then, in the case of rape/incest or some medical issues - abortion would be warranted and necessary.

And then there's the Responsibility issue. That is a pet peeve of mine in general. People not taking responsibility for their actions. Blaming other people, etc. for anything. So, in this case, If you're going to have sex, take some responsibility. Use contraception and use a condom for protection. What about Aids/HIV? Aren't we still needing to be responsible about STD's? Then why not pregnancy?

One post said that we shouldn't let ''those republicans'' pass larger legislation that would help increase accessibility to contraception (cause that would diminish the reason for abortion!? What??) Yea, knowledge and instruction on safety on how to prevent STD's and pregnancy is a bad thing! Thats crazy talk.

And finally, what made me against abortions forever (except in the case of rape/incest/medical emergency), is this: I cannot have children. I have blocked tubes, I have had procedures and my husband and I have gone thru in-vitro fertilization twice. And when they fertilize the egg and is ready to be implanted into your womb, they take a picture of it in the petrie dish, and label it with your name as your baby.

And when it didn't work both times, it was devastating! Because, believe it or not, we saw our baby in a petrie dish and loved it.

And I am not alone. There are so many women in my situation. T

There are many posts that say we should call pro-choice 'women's rights'. Well, that is also taking care of this woman's(me) rights to have a baby. If it was, you'd all be supporting Responsibility, and promoting childbirth and adoption. Have the baby and give it to someone who can't have kids. Like me.

You're ON TARGET, Emma -- not Pro-Life, they're Pro-Control

JeffAHayes — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:34:58 -0500

Not long after the Supreme Court made abortions legal nationwide, when what I prefer to call the "Religious Wrong" started organizing and got some SMART PEOPLE involved (they generally seek only smart people at the top, because it's easier to lead less intelligent people amongst the masses... the "lambs."), they picked the term "Pro-Life" because they quickly realized the great POWER of slogans and terminology, and knew that if they called themselves "Pro-Life" that EVERY TIME they were referred to in the media -- even in some NEGATIVE WAY, they'd still be called "Pro-Life."

But from the beginning, those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear realized what they really are is PRO-CONTROL. Certainly, from the start, there were some who strongly believed that life began at conception, and more who believed that abortions at later terms were murder... And today that dictum has been so thoroughly espoused by their leaders for so long that it's now a sort of "fact" nobody in their movement even thinks about...

But the REAL ISSUE is that about 1973 we were hitting THE PEAK of the sexual revolution, a time when men and women were beginning to feel it was OK to have "free sex" in or out of marriage, and frankly, far too many didn't give enough thought to protecting themselves from STDs or pregnancy.

The very thought, however, that single men and women could now, legally in most cases, have sex anywhere, any time they wanted to, so long as they were of legal age, simply OUTRAGED many of "the righteous." While they railed against this (and many still do), they realized they weren't being, or going to be very effective with THOSE arguments... However, FORCING WOMEN WHO BECAME PREGNANT as a result of their "lascivious behavior" to keep their babies... well THAT was something they COULD push for, with a STRONG MORAL CRY -- they're BABY KILLERS!

Frankly, before Roe v. Wade, MANY states and localities outlawed abortions, anyway, which was what required the case that went to the Supreme Court to begin with, so this was NOT "something new in the past 50 years," Emma. Prior to the past 50 years or so, the women either had the babies, or DIED TRYING.

So, yes, while the "Pro-Life" movement IS PARTLY about "saving the lives of the unborn" (what a contradiction in terms), as you pointed out, almost without exception, the very same people who are "Pro-Life" also STRONGLY support the death penalty (including G.W. Bush, who I BELIEVE holds the ALL-TIME RECORD for being the governor to sign the most execution orders, at something like 135), are generally pro-war, usually oppose and want to see all pornography and anything else nudity or sexually oriented outlawed, although MANY of them have very little problem with gory war movies... Many of them are gun owners and NRA members, although I KNOW there are also some true pacifists amongst their ranks (although they are a minority).

But as I said before, for the most part, the people with the militant "Pro-Life" mentality are "Christian Jihadists," with a mindset not far different from that of the Islamic Jihadists, just not as extreme. They should be given their due respect, and the "silent majority" which tends to just ignore them as a "fringe element" needs to pay them more attention and get out and VOTE in greater numbers when these hornets get stirred up.

Ohio had an anti-gay-marriage amendment on its ballot in November 2004 (spurred by VERY poorly timed efforts by some gay activists earlier in 2004), which brought the Christian Jihadists out IN DROVES, kept the polls running past midnight and gave Ohio to G.W. Bush... Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election.

Those of us who THINK about this sort of thing REALLY need to convince our "ho-hum" apathetic friends who really DON'T UNDERSTAND how everyone's freedoms can be eroded by these fanatics to GET OUT AND VOTE!

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Religion or politics?

emjokedz — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:20:34 -0500

What I REALLY don't get is when this became such a political issue. Women have been dealing with unwanted pregnancy for THOUSANDS of years. Why has it, suddenly in the last 50 years, become the CRAZY, political, nightmare? Is it because women started asking for rights, so someone out there felt compelled to takes something else away to even the score?

Incidentally, my mother teaches at a VERY conservative, private, religious university in the midwest. When she brings up the the topic of abortion, she tends to get a lot of preachy, righteous talk about how "it's killing a life because life starts at conception". She then brings up hydatiform moles....and everyone gets stumped. I love it.

You kind of NAILED THAT, too, Margaretty

JeffAHayes — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:43:13 -0500

Part of the problem with the degeneration of society worldwide is that both the LEAST RESPONSIBLE and the MOST RIGIDLY RELIGIOUS people seem to be the ones who continue to have the most children, at a time when we REALLY need to be DECREASING the human population because there's no way to deny that increasing human population DIRECTLY correlates with increasing water and air pollution AND Global Warming.

The ignorant and irresponsible both don't care and/or are too ignorant and irresponsible to do anything about it. The rigidly religious STRONGLY believe in not only their right, but their RESPONSIBILITY to "go forth and multiply" -- particularly so they can increase the proportion of THEIR, RIGHTEOUS NUMBERS.

Soooooo, there's really NO PURPOSE of arguing with the people who are avidly opposed to any form of abortion (or in MANY CASES, any form of birth control whatsoever, other than the "rhythm method," or "early withdrawal") because those people are almost entirely convinced they are speaking from DIRECT DIVINE DICTATES and NOTHING is going to change their minds.

Frankly, I'm NOT a "supporter" of abortion, myself. I think it's a sad fact that there are as many as there are. And I think late-term abortions should be reserved for extreme cases. BUT, the simple fact that people ARE irresponsible with sex, that condoms DO fail, that birth control pills don't always work, and that MANY people aren't ready to be a parent, can't afford another child, or whatever the case is, makes at least first-term abortions something that still SHOULD BE a decision solely between a WOMAN and her DOCTOR, PERIOD.

We live in a society with many diverging viewpoints, where individual freedom, by definition, also means political and social COMPROMISE, regardless of what strong religious views some people might hold. If those people don't like that, they should move to another country where such freedoms don't exist. Might I suggest Iran?

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Postscript -- I would note that with a population that is 97% Roman Catholic, abortions WERE in Italy until about 20 years or so ago, when the Italian government FINALLY realized just WHAT kind of burden that was placing on many of its poor families, where, say, the poor farmer's wife, aware they could barely afford to feed the 10 children they already had would HIDE her NEXT pregnancy, then quietly sneak away somewhere to have the baby, smother it, and bury it in a field somewhere, and he'd discover the skeleton the next year while plowing his field. It's a sad fact, but without the availability of LEGAL abortions, ILLEGAL abortions WILL still exist, and they will make things worse for EVERYONE.

Separation of Church and State

artpax — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:26:03 -0500

The founders of the U.S. got it right. Views that allow for no other reasoned views are dangerous. I'm a very peaceful person but I am willing to do everything I can to protect individual freedoms. Even to protect the right to speak freely by these people who would enslave me.

I know very little about the Tamil violence in S. India but intolerance and rigitity are certain key factors.

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

responsibility

margaretty — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:10:31 -0500

So, you want to take the least responsible people, those who get drunk, for example, and have unprotected sex, and you want to force them to become parents? Oh, sure, good idea. Gosh, I wonder if this kind of thinking has anything to do with the number of kids who don't graduate from high school now?

You said THAT right, Nancy!

JeffAHayes — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:05:33 -0500

The major religions controlling people through fear is a theme going back THOUSANDS of years, and those who continue to use the MOST fear to control their followers are, by nature, the most repressive, the most aggressive, and generate the most violent followers, i.e. Islamic jihadists who blow themselves up for the "glory of Allah," or extreme Christian fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions because they're "protecting the unborn."

Without exception, the Christians who do these things are those in churches or sects that teach a version of Christianity where being "Godfearing" is emphasized more than the LOVE of God. A now-defunct alternative newspaper here in South Carolina once published a lengthy article by a graduate of Bob Jones University who was gay, and had been DEEEEP "in the closet" until after he graduated from Bob Jones. It's been 10 or more years since I read the article, so I'm not sure, but I believe he had also been self-loathing and self-repressed at that time, because he actually BELIEVED what he had been brought up in and what was being taught at Bob Jones at the time.

As an EX-Bob Joneser, he had incredible insight into the thinking of the radical Christian conservative, and while different from the Islamic Jihadist, it's almost as scary. Part of their "Godfearing" belief is that God is watching everything they do, and that God HATES all the evil in the world and EXPECTS every "good Christian" to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to STAMP IT OUT. Thus, if they don't do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to not only lead the kind of lives they believe God wants THEM to lead, but also try to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to live that sort of life, as well, they believe they're STILL condemning themselves to HELL.

THAT'S why so many of these people are working so hard to make abortion, pornography, alcoholic beverages, and anything else they consider immoral ILLEGAL... They believe they have a DIRECT MANDATE FROM GOD to CONVERT EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH or else FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

To me, their thinking varies from that of the Islamic Jihadists ONLY in the lengths to which most of them are willing to go in order to achieve their objectives... In other words, very few of the "Christian Jihadists" are (yet) willing to become suicide bombers and so forth... And fortunately, it appears there's a much smaller percentage of Christians who hold this sort of view than there are Muslims (there are a certain percentage of Jews who have similar extremist views, and I'm not sure WHAT gets the Hindus riled up, but there are thousands of deaths attributed to Hindu violence in India every year, as well).

This is EXACTLY WHY "freedom of Religion" should, by default, also mean FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Is He a Threat to the Pro-Life Movement?

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:16:53 -0500

Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Would you vote for him if he was?

There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether or not John McCain is pro-choice or pro-life. Why is that?

Up until a few hours ago, I would have said I thought he was pro-choice. Maybe it has something to do with Republicans For Choice supporting John McCain?

Our first choice, Rudy Giuliani, did not win. He ran a campaign with a risky strategy and it didn't work. But our number two choice did win...John McCain. McCain came in second in a survey of our membership.

While he is personally "pro life" he has time and again reached out and worked with people across the spectrum. We know we can work with him to create common ground that will allow moderates and conservatives to come together to rebuild the GOP.

But apparently, there is quite a bit of evidence that he is pro-life. What do you think? Is John McCain a pro-choice Republican? Do Republicans just want Democrats to think McCain is pro-choice? Or, is he attempting to play both sides of the issue? Nooooo, politicians never do that. So then, why does there seem to be a perception that John McCain is pro-choice?

Let's take a look at some of the evidence that supports the fact that John McCain is Pro-life, and why he would be bad for the pro-choice movement.

The REAL John McCain is not the "moderate maverick" the pundits like to swoon over. The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress.

If elected president, he has pledged to be the anti-choice movement's most faithful ally, carrying their water and enacting their dangerous agenda: "If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement." [Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.]

On March 27, Elizabeth Shipp, Political Director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, answered member questions about John McCain.

See transcript from NARAL Pro Choice America Choice Chat

This is from a post by Emily Douglas at RealTime - Pro-Choice Group Endorses McCain...

Despite being a vocal opponent of legal abortion, McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would lessen the need for abortion, like a bill expanding access to contraception. As NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan wrote on Bush v. Choice this morning, John McCain is not the "moderate maverick" the media makes him out to be. All the way back to 1987, McCain has never received higher than a 10 percent approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"Most Americans don’t know that John McCain is extremely anti-choice," Keenan wrote in a letter to supporters this morning. Indeed, McCain has bucked the party line on touchy issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. But on choice, he has been consistent -- consistently opposed. A spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America added, "We clearly categorize John McCain as anti-choice based on his 25 years of voting against women's health and privacy. McCain has gone even further than Bush in calling for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Describing McCain as anything but anti-choice is quite a stretch."

So, what do you think? Is John McCain a pro-choice Republican? Or, is he a card-carrying pro-life conservative? If elected, would he be a threat to the pro-life movement? Or, would he be a threat to the pro-choice movement? Does his position on women's reproductive rights affect whether or not you would vote for him?

Also See:

Why I'm Pro-Life by Shannon at BlogHer

and

Why I'm Pro-Choice by Marie Niles at BlogHer

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog