>Federal money can not be used to fun abortions, but state money? Yeah, otherwise it's sexual discrimination. Now before you go off on the whole "decision hobby horse", I also believe that federal funds should be used to promote the use of contraceptives and teaching GOOD sex ed. (Not just the abstinence crap - cuz we see how well that works with drinking and drugs). Numerous studies have shown that when you teach people correct methods (and how to apply them), the number of unplanned pregnancies drop. There will still be instances where a contraceptive device (pill or otherwise) may fail, of course, but why take the option away?

First, do you acknowledge you were incorrect before, when you said the bill make it impossible for any low-incoming woman to get an elective abortion?

I have always been fine with money being spent on good sex ed, though I also think it's the responsibility of the parents to teach as well.


>As the father of a daughter, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with this. Some day, and I really do hope it never comes, she might have to walk in and say 'Dad...we need to talk' and boom, she's now (according to these lawmakers) an idiot who can't think for herself, can't make an informed decision or can't be trusted to do so.

No, I'm very concerned. I see these "Heartbeat Amendments" (mainly in the Midwest) and I get very angry about them.

As I said before, I am pro-choice in the first two trimesters, though I no longer debate those who want to set the limit at 20 weeks. Viability rate at 20 weeks is zero, but there's enough evidence on how much the baby's respiratory and nervous systems have developed that it's hard for me to argue for elective abortions at 20 weeks. And truthfully, about 88% of abortions occur in the first trimester and roughly 95% occur at 20 weeks in this country.

But before 20 weeks, I believe abortions should be, in the words of Bill Clinton, "safe, legal, and rare"