Comments for Choice 2.0

Comment on Stripping Women’s Coverage by Setting the Bar Low on Women’s Health

Setting the Bar Low on Women’s Health — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:43:37 +0000

[...] their cue from federal elected officials, numerous counties and municipalities are considering the removal of abortion care coverage from employee health insurance [...]

Comment on Who Does Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly Really Represent? by Small Town Politics

Small Town Politics — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:13:50 +0000

[...] was unanimous because Mayor Keith Weatherly presented it as settled legal matter. (Check out our previous post for background on Mayor [...]

Comment on No Justice by Without Honor

Without Honor — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:25:15 +0000

[...] few weeks ago, I posted a piece about a woman in Bangladesh who was lashed for having committed the “grievous crime” of getting pregnant as the [...]

Comment on Who Does Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly Really Represent? by Thief in the Night: Usurping Women’s Healthcare in Local Government | Cakalak Conspiracy

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:11:33 +0000

[...] enlisted his legislative aid, Apex town mayor Keith Weatherly, who just “stumble onto” the “shocking revelation” that his town’s [...]

Comment on Apex takes cue from Stupak by Stripping Women’s Coverage

Stripping Women’s Coverage — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:09:20 +0000

[...] month’s decision by the Apex Town Council to strip abortion coverage from their town employee’s insurance coverage was initiated by Apex Mayor [...]

Comment on A “Super” Anti-Choice Ad by Sean James and Al Joyner Super Bowl ad response: We Trust Women

Sean James and Al Joyner Super Bowl ad response: We Trust Women — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:56:52 +0000

[...] his mom, Pam. If you’ve managed to miss the background on the controversy so far, get caught up here and [...]

Comment on Who Does Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly Really Represent? by chanakf

chanakf — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:38:42 +0000

So here’s a question, and I’m sure someone’s thought of this…isn’t there a way to challenge this stuff based not on the legality of abortion but on straight up equality grounds? Since women are theoretically a protected category (I thought of this while following the Prop 8 trials). i.e., challenge the courts to find one instance of a legal medical procedure which is not included in men’s health insurance or is restricted? It’s tough because there isn’t an exact analogy for men, but as you point out, there could be some equivalents.

Comment on A “Super” Anti-Choice Ad by Tim Tebow speaks out on your womb

Tim Tebow speaks out on your womb — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:27:38 +0000

[...] mentioned in Seth’s earlier post, an anti-choice superbowl ad that Focus on the Family produced is set to air during the [...]

Comment on Stop Stupak! by On Capitol Hill

On Capitol Hill — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:28:00 +0000

[...] Amendment passed as part of the House version of the Health Care Reform bill. (see our previous Stupak blog.) Backed by the Catholic Bishops and anti-choice members of Congress, the Stupak Amendment would [...]

Comment on Anti-Choice Abortion by positivechange

positivechange — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:49:15 +0000

This speaks of a greater understanding and compassion that is required when people must make difficult choices that are not on board with everyone around them. Pro-choice does not have to mean you, as an individual, will ever decide to have an abortion . Pro-choice gives you, as an individual, the ability make the choice that is yours to make. Just as it gives others the same others the right to decide for themselves what is best for them. There is a fundamental feeling of societal imbalance when a country, group, or individual presume the responsibility of telling women what they can and cannot do with their body, and reproductive parts.
As this article suggests, the ability to learn, grow, and expand our thinking is allowed through pro-choice, and may be necessary for those who have previously vehemently fought that right.