>>>>>>Of course, there's an amendment in the works which would prohibit any mention of any other choices, but birth enforcement and third trimester abortion, so that anyone can understand what "pro-choicers" mean to offer choose between.
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought the amendment had to do with what is taught in schools? (as if that were not bad enough). I don't see it happening (thank goodness) because that is something that has traditionally been decided by each state (as it is now). That amendment, regardless, will never pass.
>>>>
>>>>Amendment for "birth enforcement and third trimester abortion"? What is this?
>>>
>>>I was referring to no other option other than abstinence to be provided as information on protecting against pregnancy and only birth and adoption as options to pregnancies. I'm not sure what Dragan was referring to exactly since he was being sarcastic :o)
>>
>>Does it mean school programs or general information? I truly hope that nobody alludes it to general media, it would be just too wild assumption, though sarcasm could be very flexible.
>
>Exactly. :o)
>
>For what it's worth, ontheissues.org describes the abortion issue:
>
>Describing abortion as a health issue or as a women's rights issue is a pro-choice stance.
>Describing abortion as a moral issue or as an issue of balancing the mother's rights with the fetus' rights, is a pro-life stance.
>Any reference to "the rights of the unborn’ is a strong pro-life stance, as is defining life ‘from the moment of conception.’
>Any reference to ‘the rights of the mother’ is a strong pro-choice stance, as is defining a ‘right to privacy" (between a woman and her doctor).
>As mentioned above, the most obscure buzzword is that supporting ‘judicial activism’ implies a pro-choice stance, while supporting ‘strict constructionism’ implies a pro-life stance. In nominations for Supreme Court justices, asking this question is the archetypical ‘Litmus Test’ -- liberal Senators spent many hours questioning Clarence Thomas on whether he held a Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution (he did not admit so).
>For serious policy wonks, the most important abortion buzzword is ‘Stare Decisis’ -- that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight

I see it. Every old politicized issue becomes ritualistic.