There is nothing jargonistic regarding union. Hence, it should never be given up easily. Even a union will not come by simple, but it has to be nurtured.
The advice is to quit trying to think about techniques on your own, if you would like to keep your marriage! Do whatever is necessary, in the event that you need to remain in the union. Should you prefer to save marriage you must follow the hints to conserve union reestablish the lost relationship and to protect against the issues. A together dating is really a business as well as a arrangement.
Perhaps not merely cash, but you've got to reduce. Keeping in mind the union strong, it is vital to discuss your disappointment and you're upset on a basis to find a solution when you can and also give a wide berth to matters to get worse. A successful marriage isn't some thing which will occur.
Rely on professional advice to enable you save your marriage. Build on this and also you may salvage your marriage. A few people who study marriage have reported that there isn't any special blend of personality traits that results in continuing romance. Responsibility is required by it. Some individuals say that union is ok on the wife for sale beginning stages. In reality, an fantastic union supports you to actually be free to be who you are, because spouses consider one individual's needs, along side their own.
You're definitely not alone, if you are looking for ways to boost your union. Your union does not have to be over. In actuality, it will not be easy occasionally, however there is available Online guidance and counseling, which could be helpful and curative. Often times there are a number of marriages or relationships with familiarity difficulties.
Traveling the second time to precisely the very same road couples want to go through the joys that evaded them the first moment. On the other hand, they keep in touch with family and friends, meet on the web and via networking websites, store photos of events and trips, commemorate anniversaries and create occasionsall on the web and parties. If you would like to locate a handful relationship in the Uni-Corn dating internet site about the people.
At times, love can't be explained in any respect! Quit thinking you have to work hard to make love. It's not possible to fall in love. So, as you're able to fall in love with someone you've never met, if you continue deeply in love with this woman or guy is another problem. Take my suggestions and hit down inside your self and enable the love you've got for the partner provide the strength you ought to face your issues rather to you.
There are a number if you want to drop out of love with a person. Men and women which are truly in love, learn from one person, they respect each other, they value the other person, and they observe that in the absolute best adoring relationships, personal humility enables us to understand the easy notion that wanting to demonstrate you are right if you are plainly wrong, isn't a virtue. Everyone knows a person who's found the love in their life.


The Underhill Combined Sewer Overflow (34-2) Storage Facility & Freya-Thor Trunk project was a $7.8M project constructed for the City of Spokane starting in March 2014, and completed September 2015. The project included construction of a 1,430,000-gallon cast-in-place concrete storage tank and flow control facility, approximately 4,100 linear feet of combined sanitary and storm sewer piping, and associated civil work for street and landscape restoration.
The storage tank was approximately 375 feet long by 105 feet wide with wall heights nearing 20 feet. It incorporated over 6,000 CY of structural reinforced concrete, 38 roof hatches and manholes, and extensive mechanical and electrical equipment for flow and odor control. The associated piping primarily consisted of 36", 48", and 54" diameter reinforced concrete pipe. The tank site is located within an active city park, so community outreach and public relations were critical.
This project was a recipient of the Associated General Contractors NW Build award, 2016.


text:
9 Basic Practice Ideas
Your Blog » 9 Basic Practice Ideas
Previous: Salim Mehajer Ordered To Rip Up Fake Lawn Installed Outdoors His Lidcombe Home
Next: Nebraska Insurance coverage FAQs & Guidelines
The break I use depends on the speed of the cloth and the cue ball variety. If the speed is fast and I have a decent cue ball I like to use the 2nd ball break. On a more rapidly cloth you will locate the 8 balls chance of generating it into the side pocket it far better than on a slow cloth. The very top players, who have levels in the hundreds and countless tournament wins have grow to be the very best simply because they've basically played a lot of eight Ball Pool and refined their abilities. They know how much energy to put on their shots, which spin to use and how to strategy series of shots. Use Miniclip Quick Fire Pool as opportunity to practice as you are not offered a time limit to adhere to so you can place a lot of thought into your shots. Use these games to watch how the cue ball reacts, practice your positioning and spin expertise.The "break" takes place at the beginning of the game when a player breaks up the fifteen pool balls. It is the initial shot. Some players break straight on even though other individuals break at an angle. This is a difficult ability, but the more you do it, the better you will get to the point exactly where it becomes instinctive. You are going to get a lot of practice if you do it for every single shot your opponent requires.Declare "Push out" right soon after a break. The push out rule only applies on the 1st shot following a break. The player about to take the second shot can select to announce a "push out." If he does not announce it, then play proceeds as usual.I don't like to use draw on long shots unless there is no other choice. Its difficult to sustain manage of the cue on lengthy draw shots. I prefer to you use touch shots. The 8 ball is the last ball to sink after all a teams balls have been pocketed. The initial side to sink the eight ball wins the game. If the 8 ball is pocketed even though a teams balls are nonetheless in play the game is lost.Most people go down for the shot and then start aiming. The problem: Their bodies are aligned differently each time. Attempt it the other way around: Look at the line you'd like the cue ball to travel along, although you are nevertheless standing upright. And then just try to put your cue on that line (behind the cue ball) and put your body next to it. Now you just have to move the cue forward and boom - the ball goes down.Regardless of the variations between the eight Ball Poll app game and a game on a actual pool table, I completely really like the app. My biggest explanation for loving it is that you can actually perform on your strategy. Due to the fact the games are so rapidly in the app and the physical limitations (acquiring tired, not physically accomplishing a appropriately lined up shot due to a negative stroke) are removed, the quantity of strategic expertise you can get in quick amount of time is unparalleled.There is no doubt that by playing hours collectively you would discover some thing in eight Ball Pool. When you very first start practicing, location the cue ball directly in line with the rack. The much more in line the cue ball is with the rack, the simpler the shot will be. 2 As you get far better at breaking, you can attempt much more sophisticated breaking techniques described beneath. But whilst you happen to be a beginner, stick with the center placement.Playing pals is easy: sign in with your Miniclip or Facebook account and you are going to be capable to challenge your close friends straight from the game. Challenge friends anytime, anyplace and show off your skills. I do not play a lot eight ball these days and I want to practice up a bit. There is no doubt that by playing hours collectively you would find out anything in 8 Ball Pool. Even much better is to achieve the skill of searching several shots ahead and being capable to leave the cue ball in a position that not only tends to make the subsequent shot less difficult, but puts the cue in a position to make the next leave easier, similar site (kathleenschoonover.soup.io) thus generating the subsequent two shots less difficult.Subsequent, click the kind of pool game you want to play - eight ball, 9 ball, or a Time Mode. The timed game is reminiscent of snooker. If you loved this information and you would certainly like to get even more info relating to similar Site (http://viola02l05741199.soup.io/) kindly go to our page. A ¼ shot sends the object ball out at 48.6º. In playing real time in the 8 Ball Pool app with its shot timers, you might not have time to feel this far ahead. But the more you perform on pondering multiple shots ahead, the greater you will get at it.I have had a number of e mail concerns about the greatest way to break in eight-ball. 5. Pick your spot wisely. Every table breaks differently, [empty] but there are a couple of methods to locate the sweet spot in a hurry. 1st, verify the cloth for inform-tale signs of put on. Earlier players could have identified the ideal cue-ball position for the break, so you ought to see marks for that position, and streaks top to the foot spot. Second, if you know your table ahead of time, verify out an earlier match to see where the players are breaking and what speed seems to be functioning.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A lone tooth found in Argentina may have belonged to a dinosaur even larger than those we know of, but what to call it?
Feedback: Are wind turbines really fans?
Did learning to fly give bats super-immunity?


We provide window cleaning in Sydney specialising in residential, commercial, strata and industrial window cleaning.
Let's face it, there are demands on your time that make chores like window cleaning impossible even dangerous.
Our professional window cleaners are committed to meeting your needs safely using the latest tools and environmentally friendly solutions. Why do we go to all that trouble? We love what we do! We pride ourselves on giving you the best results at a competitive price.
Call us now on 0416 119 328 or email us a for a FREE window cleaning quote.


text:
{ "84192": { "url": "/topic/Bulgarian-Catholic-Church", "shareUrl": "https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgarian-Catholic-Church", "title": "Bulgarian Catholic Church" ,"gaExtraDimensions": {"3":"false"} } }
Bulgarian Catholic Church
Bulgarian Catholic Church, an Eastern Catholic church of the Byzantine rite, in communion with Rome since 1859.
Christians since 864, the Bulgarians were conquered by the Byzantines early in the 11th century and followed Constantinople (now Istanbul) in the break with Rome (1054). In 1767, after more than four centuries of Ottoman rule in Bulgaria, which had placed Bulgarian Christians under the direct administration of the patriarch of Constantinople and a Greek clergy, a number of Bulgars decided to free themselves of Greek domination by seeking union with Rome. Joseph Sokolsky was consecrated the first Bulgarian Catholic prelate in 1859; and, although he was soon afterward abducted by the Russians and interned for 18 years, the Bulgarian Catholic Church grew to number 80,000 faithful. By 1872, however, 60,000 of these returned to Orthodoxy, and the number of Catholics dwindled to a few thousand in the late 20th century.
Roman Catholicism, Christian church that has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it is one of the three major branches of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the…
Church, in Christian doctrine, the Christian religious community as a whole, or a body or organization of Christian believers. The Greek word ekklēsia, which came to mean church, was originally applied in the Classical period to an official assembly of citizens. In the Septuagint (Greek)…
Byzantine rite
Byzantine rite, the system of liturgical practices and discipline observed by the Eastern Orthodox church and by the majority of Eastern-rite churches, which are in communion with Rome. The Byzantine rite originated in the Greek city of Antioch (in modern southern Turkey), one of the earliest and…
areas of involvement


State officials of Gujarat, India were directly involved in the killings of hundreds of Muslims and are now engineering a massive cover-up of the state's role in the violence, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report.
What happened in Godhra, Gujurat?
The Godhra train incident is what most reports about the violence in Gujurat, India point to as the starting point for the barbarism and massacre of Muslims that followed. This is why it is critical to understand exactly what happened there.
Read more about What happened in Godhra, Gujurat?


An annotated bibliography organizes your research by way of APA citations and a short paragraph about each source.For this assignment you will create an annotated bibliography for 5 sources related to an argument for change. One of the sources should address an opposing viewpoint or misconception related to the topic.
The following aspects are required.
4. Sources that are appropriate books, articles, magazine, journal article, organization website, documentary, video blog.
6. At least one source should should address an opposing viewpoint or misconception.
10. Evaluation of the sources credibility.
THESIS STATEMENT: Substance/drug abuse is a common problem among the military personnel that needs to be addressed since it results in family breakups, criminal activities, health-related issues such as addiction, and occupational and social challenges.
Golub and Bennett (2013) argue that drugs and war have a long history since military personnel tend to use drugs as a means of preparing for combat. Studies have also shown that drugs are often used as a means of cultural bonding, enabling military personnel to cope with the psychological and physical impact of service as well as memory and injury. This paper is relevant since it analyses the impacts of substance abuse and the problems associated with misuse and how it affects the families of military personnel. Studies have also shown that drugs have a negative impact since they affect families, health, employment, functioning, and the involvement of criminal justice. In addition, this document is relevant since it analyses the impacts and nature of drug abuse, particularly with the emergence of technological development and medical innovation.
Despite of numerous research studies identifying the negative impacts of drugs and substance abuse, some scholars have come up with information pertaining to the use of drugs to empower military personnel. Ski (2016) says that drugs have been used by the military personnel in the U.S. to build super soldiers during the Vietnam War. Studies have shown the U.S. military used drugs during the Vietnam War to increase their speed and act as painkillers and steroids to enable them to handle extended combat. In addition, studies have also shown that Vietnam War cannot be regarded as a conventional war since it was a formless conflict that lacked tactic and strategic principles. Therefore, drugs were often used as a means of empowering the American soldiers taking into consideration that the Vietcong were fighting in a surprising, unexpected and deceptive way with an aim of negating the strengths of the Americans and taking advantage of their weaknesses.
Larson, M. J., Wooten, N. R., Adams, R. S., & Merrick, E. L. (2012). Military Combat Deployments and Substance Use: Review and Future Directions. J Soc Work Pract Addict. 12(1): 6–27.


Intellectually I know that Jesus died to set me free of that thinking. The thinking that reminds me of the commandments laid out for this rule-follower to adhere to and the condemnation that results from even the slightest deviation from those rules. Rules that were not designed to condemn, but to show us that we could never achieve the righteousness through our own feeble attempts, that our Savior provided to us once for all on the cross. I continually struggle to deconstruct this erroneous thinking that has prevented me from receiving the fullness of His grace and grow in holiness as Jesus would have me.
Am I alone in this? Somehow, I don't believe I am.
So it is prayerfully that I approach the topic of holiness. After all, in this season of my life, with the heaviness of issues surrounding my family, most days I feel as though I am trekking through mud rather than walking on water. How does holiness emerge from this "rule-following Christian girl" while wading through the fallout of much "rule-breaking" in my direct vicinity?
How do I grow in holiness when, because of my own convoluted beliefs, that looks a lot like self-righteousness to those around me who desperately need to see grace?
I know the Lord has me here for a divine purpose. Most likely it's to teach me what it looks like to step off my platform of self-righteousness in order to extend (and keep extended) a hand of grace to those not so inclined to follow the rules. Perhaps He has me here to show me that the exact people He came to save were not those who "think" they have it all together, but those who realize their brokenness, whatever road the Lord has them travel to meet this realization. Maybe it's to help me grasp that in order for those rule-breakers to ever come to know their Savior, they need to see the grace-filled LOVE of people faithfully walking beside them as they traverse the path toward His providential brokenness and thus repentance.
And maybe, just maybe, it's to keep me weak and humble enough to see that I AM one of "those" rule breakers as I revert to fleshly reactions to life's challenges every…single…day.
So how is it that we push toward spiritual maturity into holiness while embracing grace? Grace for ourselves? Grace for others? How do we allow righteousness to increase while self-righteousness decreases? How do we quiet the voice of condemnation while tuning into the Voice that reminds us that the battle over sin and unrighteousness was won on the cross and that we are victorious, saved, redeemed, righteous and loved through our faith alone?
How do we live a life that agrees with who He says we are while breaking free from the notion of who the world says we are?
I realize there are a lot of questions here. But maybe we share the same questions. I only have one true, reliable, trustworthy answer… JESUS. I am thankful that I have a Father who has ALL the answers to my questions. He is sovereign and He patiently walks me through the lessons which will answer the questions of my soul while lifting my gaze to Him as my role model. I am thankful that He is faithful enough to diligently and consistently tear down the lies that I have believed replacing them with truth. I am thankful to have fellow sisters in Christ to share the journey toward the abundant life that Jesus offers. I am thankful for you.


Feeling bad about your daily Starbucks fix? Don't. While it's true that all those $4 lattes could, in theory, buy you a used Mercedes to drive to the nursing home in 50 years, a noted consumer expert advises that it's the big things -- not that little ones -- that can make a really significant difference in your finances.
Elisabeth Leamy, Good Morning America's consumer correspondent, can recite the usual advice from memory: "Switch to low-flow showerheads, save $5. Inflate your tires properly, save $9. Use your own banks ATM, save $3. Pack your lunch, save $7." But that doesn't mean she agrees with it.
"I don't believe in penny pinching," says Leamy. "I like to pinch $1,000 bills." And Leamy says her new book -- SAVE BIG (Wiley; January 2010; $24.95; Hardcover) -- will do just that. Leamy estimates that consumers who follow her advice can save up to $1,176,916.
• Fight junk closing costs when you buy a home and save $2,530.
• Refinance into a shorter mortgage. Save $103,536.
• Appeal your property taxes and save $1,265 a year.
• Buy a dark horse car instead of the most popular make and model and save $ 6,814.
• Pay cash for your car and save $2,608.
• Exercise a secret warranty where the dealer fixes flaws for free and save $1,400.
• Ferociously guard your credit score and save $2,916 a year on your mortgage.
• Undergo rapid rescoring before finalizing a mortgage and save $72,000 over the life of the loan.
• Negotiate for a lower credit card interest rate and save $1,272.
• Price match using simple online tools and save $4,628 a year on groceries.
• Stockpile and save $5,772 a year on groceries.
• Master creative couponing (Click dont clip!) and save $7,956 a year.
• Raise your health insurance deductible and save $2,700 a year.
• Take the over-the-counter version of a drug instead of the identical prescription version and save $1,763 a year.
• Hire a medical billing advocate to fight hospital billing errors and save $6,858.
A recent Consumer Reports poll showed Americans have responded to the recession by ushering in a new era of intelligent thrift; 79% of respondents said they will continue to purchase only what they truly need post-recovery. Two-thirds said that if they were to win $10,000 they would use it to pay down debt or build their savings. Leamy thinks her book will resonate with an audience hungry for a new strategy that's built around significant savings.
Even better, says Leamy, is that many of her cost-saving tactics don't require sacrificing time and energy on a daily basis.
"Save big (not small) and I think you will find that you save something even more precious than money: time. The puny savings ideas other authors tout take a lot of time. They need constant maintenance. They require willpower," she said. "In the face of a zillion different daily deprivations, most people fail. I find it much easier to channel my energy into a few big cost-savers that I only have to tackle every once in awhile. direction.
Leamy, who assures us she has no connection with upscale coffee purveyors, appears on Good Morning America several times a week, digging up new ways to save money, alerting people to dangerous products and giving a heads up about scams and rip-offs. Leamy also reports for World News, Nightline and 20/20 and writes a weekly column for ABCNews.com. Her first book, The Savvy Consumer, was published in 2004.


Researchers at the University of Southampton have found that men still occupy the vast majority of key production roles in the UK film industry.
The Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project Calling the Shots: women and contemporary film culture in the UK has found that only 20 per cent of people working as directors, writers, producers, exec-producers, cinematographers and editors on films in production in the UK during 2015, were women. It also reveals that of all British films in production in the same year, 25 per cent had no women at all in any of the roles.
Women are under-represented across all six key production jobs, comprising only 13 per cent of directors, 20 per cent of screenwriters, 27 per cent of producers, 18 per cent of executive producers, 17 per cent of editors, and disappointingly only seven per cent of all cinematographers.
The study also shows that of those women who are working in production roles, only seven per cent were of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) identity. This makes BAME women less than 1.5 per cent of all key personnel on UK films in production last year.
The low percentage of women directors revealed by the study supports the findings of the recent reports on women directors in the UK conducted by both Directors UK and the European Women's Audiovisual Network. Calling the Shots' research extends the analysis of gender inequality to show that women are vastly under-represented across key production roles throughout the UK industry, making it the most comprehensive report to date.
Women producers fared best in the figures, though only reaching the heights of 27 per cent. Films with women producers are more likely to have at least one other woman in one of the other key roles – yet 43 per cent of films had no women producers at all.
More troubling is the finding that, across all six roles examined, women of BAME identity made up less than two per cent in each category. In fact, of the 13 women who were cinematographers on British films in production during 2015, not one was of BAME identity.
The report was launched at 'Calling the Shots? Counting Women Filmmakers in British Cinema Today', an event at the BFI Southbank with a panel that included representatives of the British Film Institute, and the membership organisation Women in Film and Television, UK, as well as the filmmakers Gurinder Chadha and Hope Dickson Leach. The event attracted audience members from the film industry, film journalism, and the movie-going public.
Further reports on the numbers of women working in the UK film industry will be published, beginning with the year 2003 and for each year until 2015. These reports will allow for an historical analysis of any patterns or changes in gendered inequality in this period. Shelley and Linda are also conducting 50 recorded interviews with women filmmakers working in key production roles that will be stored with the BECTU History Project after 2018.


CNBC's Jim Cramer said Friday Schlumberger latest earnings report signals more pain for oil and gas services companies in the near future.
"Schlumberger basically just lowered the boom, saying, 'However, for oilfield services, the market outlook for the coming quarters looks increasingly challenging.' In other words, the worse is not over," Cramer said on "Squawk on the Street."
Cramer also said the company expects oilfield activity to be further reduced.
The oilfield services company reported earnings per share of 78 cents, beating analysts' expectations by 1 cent, but posted less-than-expected revenues of $8.47 billion.
The slowing in drilling activity will eventually raise prices, Cramer said.
The company's stock was down more than 3 percent Friday morning.
DISCLOSURE: Cramer's trust did not own Schlumberger stock when this article was published.


Föreläsare: Anna Bredström: Senior Lecturer at the Institute for Research on Migration, Ethnicity and Society (REMESO) at Lindköping universitet.
Anna Bredström is a senior lecturer at the Institute for Research on Migration, Ethnicity and Society (REMESO) at Linköping University. Her research focuses on bodies, health and medicine, and she is currently working with the VR-funded research project Swedish Genes? Ancestry and Ethnicity in Human Genetics Research where she, together with Shai Mulinari (LU), examines the politics and ethics of translating Human Genetics Research to popular science and clinical medicine.
Alla seminarier är öppna för forskare och studenter om inget annat uppges. Alla event följs av mingel/post-seminarium.


text:
One of the areas where we saw an opportunity to act more responsibly was in the way we manage the resin we buy. As we are handling more than 120,000 tons of plastics pellets each year, we recognise the importance of preventing any pellets to be released into the environment.
For the sites that use resins we made an official commitment last year by signing the international Operation Clean Sweep® (OCS) pledge.
This programme is designed to prevent loss of plastic granules (pellets, flakes and powders) in the plastics value chain and their release into the environment. Read more about the six commitments of Operation Clean Sweep.
Following our diligent mapping of handling of plastic pellets and a serious risk assessment, new procedures, training material and governance structures have been integrated in our environmental management system.
To highlight our commitment internally but also in the supply chain we have developed pictograms to support the communication of this important initiative.
< Learn more about sustainability
More sustainable stories
Promoting awareness and biodiversity
Solar panels at production building roof
Changes in work shift system promotes better work environment
View all stories >


This is a mail phishing scam and we are alerting consumers to not return the card or provide any personal information.
The mailer doesn't identify the name of the insurance company.
The mailer doesn't give an agent or broker to contact.
The card gets returned to "National Processing Center," which is not an insurance company.
The mailer gives no information about the policy.
The Virginia Better Business Bureau issued a consumer alert about the mailings in 2013.
A handful of companies are authorized to sell final-expense life insurance policies in Washington, which typically are purchased to cover funeral expenses. Before you buy any insurance, you should make sure the person or company selling the policy is licensed to do business in this state. If you are interested in finding one of the companies that sells final-expense life insurance, you can contact our consumer advocates at 1-800-562-6900 for a list.
Read more about life insurance and what to consider before you buy it.


Juluca is a two-drug combination of dolutegravir, a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), and rilpivirine, a HIV-1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI).
Juluca is specifically indicated as a complete regimen for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in adults to replace the current antiretroviral regimen in those who are virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL) on a stable antiretroviral regimen for at least 6 months with no history of treatment failure and no known substitutions associated with resistance to the individual components of Juluca.
Juluca is supplied as tablets for oral administration. The recommended dosage is one tablet taken orally once daily with a meal. One tablet of Juluca contains 50 mg of dolutegravir and 25 mg of rilpivirine. If Juluca is coadministered with rifabutin, take an additional 25-mg tablet of rilpivirine with Juluca once daily with a meal for the duration of the rifabutin coadministration.
The FDA approval of Juluca was based on two pivotal phase III clinical trials, SWORD-1 and SWORD-2, which evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to dolutegravir plus rilpivirine from current integrase inhibitor-, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-, or boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen in HIV-1-infected adults who are virologically suppressed with a three or four-drug regimen. SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 were replicate 148-week, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority studies designed assess the antiviral activity and safety of a two-drug, daily oral regimen of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine compared with current antiretroviral therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per millilitre (c/mL) at Week 48. Results showed the 2-drug regimen achieved non-inferior viral suppression (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL) at 48 weeks compared with a three- or four-drug regimen in both pooled and individual analyses of the SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 studies (CAR 485/511 [95%], dolutegravir + rilpivirine 486/513 [95%] [adjusted difference -0.2% (95% confidence interval CI: 3.0%, 2.5%), pooled analysis]). Virologic suppression rates were similar between treatment arms.
Juluca is a two-drug combination of dolutegravir, a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), and rilpivirine, a HIV-1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). Dolutegravir inhibits HIV integrase by binding to the integrase active site and blocking the strand transfer step of retroviral deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) integration which is essential for the HIV replication cycle. Strand transfer biochemical assays using purified HIV-1 integrase and pre-processed substrate DNA resulted in IC50 values of 2.7 nM and 12.6 nM. Rilpivirine is a diarylpyrimidine NNRTI of HIV-1 and inhibits HIV-1 replication by noncompetitive inhibition of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT). Rilpivirine does not inhibit the human cellular DNA polymerases α, β, and γ.


text:
Archived Posts from this Category
Republicans and Over-the-Counter Birth Control Pills: An Authenticity Check
Posted by Kimmie Farrell under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion MisInformation, Abortion Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Rights, Abortion Stigma, Abortion Violence, Abortion.com Facebook, American Women's Services, Birth Control, CPC Deception, CPC Misinformation, CPCs Criminal Activity, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCS), Liberal, Lies, morning after pill, Not Informed, Obama, Obama is Pro Choice, Politics, Pregnancy Test, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, ProLife, Republican Party, Roe V Wade, Voice of Choice, Vote, War on Birth Control | Tags: birth control, Cialis, Democrats and OTC birth control, four hour erection, OTC birth control, over the counter birth control, Republican party and women, Republicans and OTC birth control, Viagra |
[70] Comments
There has been much discussion about birth control pills being made available over-the-counter (OTC), primarily by Republicans as an "answer" to the concerns about the inclusion of contraception in the Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) and the contention that government should not be paying for birth control. Oh, yeah…and maybe a way to score points with women voters.
OTC birth control pills have been discussed in nonpartisan forums, including by professional medical organizations that have supported conditional OTC initiatives. Democrats now respond that it is not a good idea, leading to notions that their opposition is due to Republican support. There are also claims that women's healthcare providers, such as Planned Parenthood, have a financial interest in preventing OTC access. I always hate to see such worthy debates become so mired in political posturing. What were once valid views that could be tweaked and put into public policy are now referred to as political party or ideological positions.
At first blush, it seems reasonable. After all, Plan B emergency contraception – the morning after pill – is now available OTC without age restrictions. Recall that there was Republican opposition to Plan B, particularly whether women under age 17 should have access. President Obama and then-Secretary of Health Sebelius favored an age requirement while most Democrats wanted it available to all sexually active women who experienced failed birth control or something horrible like rape. Eventually, science won. Nonetheless, political gamesmanship governed the debate over Plan B and it now appears to be governing the debate over OTC birth control pills, but with Republicans promoting it and Democrats rejecting it. As our individual positions evolve, there are certain questions we should ask and facts we should know regardless of our political preferences.
Why did Republicans oppose OTC access for Plan B? Some believed that by making it OTC, it would affect or encourage sexuality activity among young teens. In 2004, the FDA considered the OTC application "unapprovable" for that reason. Safety did not matter, nor did the recommendations of professional medical organizations. Sexual behavior was a concern but financial behavior was not – although the high cost of a single pill, as much as $50, for emergency contraception would substantially reduce the likelihood that young teen women would even be able to"abuse" or misuse Plan B was not considered; only immoral sexual behavior was worthy of deliberation in some political circles.
Since Republicans opposed OTC Plan B based on moral and not scientific reasoning, how can they support OTC birth control pills now given that it might indicate women are, yikes, having sex? The answer here is: fill in the blank. There are some who genuinely, however foolishly, hold the belief that the government should not pay for any birth control except maybe sterilization. Many others, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindall, claim that it is "hogwash" that Republicans do not believe in contraception… that anyone over 18 should be able to get contraception OTC so that those individuals and businesses with a "religious objection" will not have to pay. What is noteworthy is that the intent of OTC birth control is not to help women – it is to "help" those with specific religious views.
How can Republicans who support personhood amendments and stringent anti-abortion legislation support OTC birth control? Politics, plain and simple. It is probably unwise to even remotely consider that they have a change of heart or that they have scientific awareness about how the pill functions.
tepherisdeviantart.com
Why are we not hearing from National Right to Life and morality-policing organizations, such as Focus on the Family, that adamantly opposed Plan B and frequently lied that it was an abortifacient? Another interesting question. It is arguable that as much as some Republicans claim that putting birth control pills OTC would take the politics out of contraception, such organizations are simply biding time to get through the midterm elections and get their candidates in office. Later, if birth control pills were OTC approved, then they would come out, well-organized to mislead the public ala Hobby Lobby style seeking to ban some pills because they are abortifacients, imposing age restrictions, pushing for legislation for parental and spousal consent, or prohibiting birth control from being a reimbursable expense under flexible medical spending plans offered through many employers. I am pessimistic that approving birth control pills for OTC access would ever happen without the intervention of the morality policing groups.
Why did Democrats support OTC Plan B? Unplanned pregnancy is a public health and social issue – it is a significant factor in predicting poverty for women and children. Taking birth control pills regularly was and is not an option for all women due to contraindications in health, lack of insurance coverage, affordability, and side effects. Other effective contraceptive choices, like the IUD or hormonal implants, were/are cost-prohibitive for many women while other methods are more likely to fail. Plan B offered a safe way for women to address failed contraception or unprotected intercourse and, consequently, prevent an unplanned pregnancy and birth into negative social and economic circumstances. To date, there is only evidence of Plan B helping women and no evidence of it being misused or used in place of regular contraception.
Why are Democrats opposed to OTC birth control pills? It would be disingenuous to say that Democrats are opposed only for legitimate concerns about women's health. Of course they do not appreciate Republican support for OTC birth control! Framed correctly and without Tea Party-ish nuances, by gosh, women voters might just buy into the idea that Republicans are not out to get women! I do not expect Democrat candidates to agree, so, now that I have said it, let me identify legitimate concerns.
Requiring a prescription ensures that women receive wellness checks for health issues that can arise or become pronounced due to the pill. For younger women in particular, it also ensures screening for sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy prevention counseling. The most significant reason to oppose OTC birth control pills is economic for women. Once a drug is OTC approved, insurance will end coverage. Thus, women of means will continue to have access and even appreciate the convenience of OTC. Poor and young women will be hurt the most. The Republican argument that it will increase competition and decrease price is misleading and could prove wrong. Additionally, OTC birth control pills would not help women who benefit most from other contraceptive methods like the IUD. What about women who need the pill for medical reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy? They may not be able to afford the up to $120 monthly tab either.
We should all favor improving and increasing access to birth control pills and other methods for women. It must be done the right way for the right reasons. Abortion is legal but not accessible to the most vulnerable women. If birth control pills are OTC approved, it does not mean they will be accessible and it could even lead to other forms of birth control no longer receiving insurance coverage. Voters concerned about women's health and reproductive justice should think hard about Republican support for OTC birth control. Then they should contact their elected representatives about a bill to make Viagra and Cialis OTC – just to see if male legislators think men are intelligent and strong enough to assess usage and that they can safely assume the risk of, say, a four-hour erection. Only then might we learn the authenticity of Republican concern for women's health and that their support for OTC birth control pills is not judging the sexual behavior of women in some way.
Pro-Choice: Actions Count More than Words
Posted by Kimmie Farrell under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Centers, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion lies, Abortion Medical, Abortion MisInformation, Abortion Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Rights, Abortion.com Facebook, Birth Control, Catholic, Christian Terrorism, Church, CPC Deception, CPC Misinformation, CPCs Criminal Activity, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCS), Planned Parenthood, Politics, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, ProLife, Roe V Wade, Voice of Choice, Vote, War on Birth Control
In a recent blog, Pat Richards wrote about the term, "pro-choice," agreeing with others that it is out of date. After seeing that last week's listserves, blogs, and news forums I subscribe to had discussed the use of the pro-choice label for those who want to preserve abortion rights – actually, all reproductive freedoms – I decided to jump into the healthy discussion with a few thoughts of my own.
A New York Times article (7/28/14) titled, "Advocates Shun 'Pro-Choice' to Expand Message," is quoted frequently. Planned Parenthood representatives were "shunning" the continued use of the pro-choice label out of a desire to more accurately reflect that "women's health," and not just abortion, are under attack. A January, 2013 article in Buzzfeed summarized polling data collected in 2012 that served as the impetus for Planned Parenthood to begin moving away from the pro-choice label. Questioning if the move would really help the reproductive rights movement as a whole, The Atlantic also published, "The End of Pro-Choice: Will 'No Labels' Really Help the Abortion Debate?" All articles noted that Planned Parenthood does not have a new label of preference – without a replacement or multi-organizational agreement, it is highly unlikely that all organizations will opt to avoid or stop using "pro-choice." It would be a logistical challenge for organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America and, really, whatever one thinks of the term, it is not leaving the American political vernacular anytime soon.
As a leader in providing quality, comprehensive, and affordable healthcare to women and a political force for the same, Planned Parenthood strives to effectively communicate with those it serves – medically and politically. Thus, it is not surprising that Planned Parenthood leadership began espousing a move away from the pro-choice label towards a greater emphasis on individual situations. An individual situation is what first put abortion on the minds of many average Americans who otherwise might not have had a position. In 1962, Arizona resident Sherri Finkbine sought an abortion after learning that the thalidomide she took for morning sickness caused severe and fatal deformities to babies. She ended up getting the abortion in Sweden after significant and costly publicity. A Gallup Poll at the time reported that most Americans supported her decision and during the following years, the majority of men and women believed abortion was a personal decision between women and their physicians. Sherri Finkbine's situation is one of millions of individual situations involving reproductive decision-making that must rely on the freedoms advocated by the pro-choice movement. Good for Planned Parenthood for embarking upon that message. As a former clinic director, I know in real terms that no two abortion patients can be framed in the same box. Ever.
After the Finkbine publicity, "abortion" became acceptable, so much so that activists used "pro-abortion" when discussing legislation to legalize it. According to a 1990 William Saffire column, "pro-choice" was first used in the context of abortion in a 1975 Wall Street Journal article by political writer Alan L. Otten; he used "right-to-life" for those opposed to abortion. "Pro-life" was used primarily in the context of anti-war commentary. In 1976, the New York Times used it to describe plans for anti- abortion-related activities led by pastors. No one likes to be "anti" anything; it makes sense that "pro-life" met pastoral, political, and marketing goals just as "pro-choice" did for abortion rights at the time. Language always changes as the need arises whether political, logical, or definitional.
"Pro-choice" may seem outdated or confused. Some vibrant discussion has transpired in the comment sections of articles and blogs, as well as on sites like the Abortion.com Facebook page, in which there seems to be a general thought that, yes, the term/label may be confusing or meaningless to younger people, but what is needed is more aggressive education about what choice really does mean. Some believe that the pro-choice movement has behaved too rationally as the anti-choice movement bullied politicians so successfully that they instilled fear in them. In other words, all that "pro-life" is about is the fetus, not the woman or her family, and not about life once born. There is also a lot of agreement with something Pat Richards mentioned in his blog – "abortion" (A B O R T I O N) needs to be mentioned unapologetically, without shame and as a legitimate, viable facet of reproductive healthcare.
While many may think of the past 40 years as the most active for the pro-choice movement, the fight for healthcare, and especially to access birth control and safe abortion, has been fought by women of generations long gone. The Comstock Act of 1873 banned the possession and/or distribution of goods or mere information about abortion and contraception. "Therapeutic abortion boards" were established at hospitals in the 1950s for the purpose of approving abortions on a case-by-case basis. The formation of the Jane Collective in Chicago in 1969 was to help women access abortion. Yes, women have always had to fight to get – and keep – their reproductive freedoms. Along the way, the language has changed, and it will again. Young women in particular must join the fight for reproductive freedom before it is too late. The erosion of those freedoms over the past several years should have prompted at least a broad, multi-organizational discussion about how to improve pro-choice messaging long ago.
Anti-abortion advocates and organizations are also writing or blogging about the pro-choice label discussion with spinful abandon. It is probably nice for them to get their minds off of GOP talking points about rape or the ouster of the Georgia affiliate of the National Right to Life for being so "extreme" that it excluded abortion for rape and incest (politically inefficient perhaps?). On the other hand, as we know too well, we must not let their spin become the message about this discussion. Honest people who operate with facts they are not. Pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-women's health, pro-individual freedom – ultimately, actions count more than words.
Chum by David L. Gunn, Jr.
Posted by davidlgunnjr under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Centers, Abortion Clinic, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Doctor Murder, Abortion Escorts, Abortion Heroes, Abortion Information, Abortion Law, Abortion Medical, Abortion Terrorism, Abortion Violence, Abortion.com Facebook, Anti Choice - Anti Life Violence, Bombs, Christian Murder, Christian Murderers, Christian Terrorism, Church, David Gunn, David Gunn Jr., Doctor David Gunn, Escort, FACE Act, FACE law, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Justifiable Homicide, Murder, NCAP, Paul Hill, Politics, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, Pro Life Terrorism, ProLife, Randall Terry, Susan Hill, Terrorism
Appearing on a nationally syndicated daytime talk show five days after losing a parent is not a good idea. Indeed, I am sure that nine of 10 grief counselors would agree that subjecting oneself to a live studio audience less than a week after your father has been murdered is most assuredly unhealthy. When you compound the death with a handgun murder, multiply it by a controversial subject such as abortion, and cube it by a guest list which includes someone who you know is anti-abortion, it can only yield pain. Not your typical blunt object to the gut pain but anguish that leaves you crying open mouthed with no sound.
I was ill-prepared to say the least.
I flew to New York City from Nashville the Sunday before the show aired, or it could have been that same Monday. I don't really remember. In fact, I have remarkably little recall of the show. I do remember meeting Phil Donohue. He was a fixture in my life since childhood. My mom watched his show daily when I was smaller—I'd say I was a child, but I was pretty much a child on that day though I thought I was so much more at the time. I guess everyone looks back on their past selves and says, "damn was I a dumbass." Perhaps not. I do it constantly.
In addition to Phil, I met the producers and the other guests. I do recall what they called the "green room," getting the hair and make-up treatment, someone saying "time will go by quickly," and thinking to myself, "you will not break." In fact, one of my most vivid memories of that day is parroting that simple phrase mantra like over and over again.
Honestly, from a choreography standpoint, the producers did an excellent job. The cast included the following players: Susan Hill, a strikingly beautiful Southern clinic owner and co-worker of my dad's; Ron Fitzsimmons, a tough but pragmatic lobbyist and head of NCAP (National Coalition of Abortion Providers); Tavey Crist, a no bullshit OB/GYN and abortion provider who chartered his own plane to get to New York to serve as a panelist and advocate for his fellow besieged doctors; and me, the open wound. Then there was the as yet unknown anti-abortion activist named Paul Hill. In fact, we almost appeared in that order left to right on the stage, but someone—I believe Dr. Crist—was strategically placed between Hill and I.
The choice side of the cast knew one another and had worked together for some time. I was new and had only recently talked to Susan—she was instrumental in convincing me to go on the show. No one knew Paul Hill, but we all knew he was decidedly of the anti-abortion persuasion likely (as many in the anti-abortion crowd had already done) to explain how unfortunate dad's killer's actions were and to placate those ready to label the anti-abortion crowd as zealots with passive qualifiers, half hearted indignancy, and self serving non apologies.
I knew Paul was there to speak for the other side—the producers told me an anti abortion spokesperson was on the panel prior–and wondered nervously how the show would go, how I'd hold up under Phil's and the audience's questions, and whether I'd keep my promise to remain solid.
When we went live, I blanked out. I have never had an out of body experience or amnesia of the non-drunken variety; however, I honestly have no memory of the show other than small slices. When Paul Hill uttered the soon to be famous words "justifiable homicide," though, I woke up from my somnolence and remembered why I agreed to go on the goddamned show in the first place.
My formative years were spent in abortion clinics. I visited my first clinic when I was 14, attended my first pro-choice rally at 15, witnessed protesters and their ever growing ire for the better part of my life, and lost my dad to a religious terrorist's gun, but I had never heard someone argue it was justifiable, and I was woefully emotionally unprepared for Paul Hill and his advocacy for what he claimed he wanted to prevent: murder.
When he uttered the phrase "justifiable homicide," it was as if Ross Perot's giant sucking sound removed all air from the room. We were in New York City with a predominately female New York City audience confronted by a Southern, Presbyterian minister openly advocating for the murder of a doctor.
Silence typically predicates an eruption, and most of the audience was aghast at Hill's remarks. He, though, seemed to relish the attention. My clearest memory of that day was his analogy about the "justifiable" actions of my dad's assassin. I'm paraphrasing, but he coldly explained that dad's assassin was no different than someone who, when confronted with a mad gunman picking children off at random in a playground, elects to kill the murderer in defense of innocent life. In his view, abortion providers deserved death and deserved it immediately, without remorse, and without consequence.
I did not break. Perhaps a combination of shock and exhaustion prevented the proverbial dam from bursting, but I did not break. I maintained my composure. I did not give in to anger and hate. I did not become Paul Hill.
I did realize, though, that Paul was right about one thing: If you believe abortion is murder, then you believe doctors are murders. If you believe in an eye for an eye type justice as most on his side do, it is only logical to conclude what Paul concluded and said on 15 March 1993: abortion is murder; abortion providers are murderers; murderers deserve death; hence doctors deserve to die. It is very simple syllogistic logic. It is terrifyingly simplistic. It is most assuredly absurd and fucked up logic, but to those of Hill's ilk, it makes perfect sense.
Maybe someone prior to Hill and dad's murder silently advocated for a doctor's murder? I certainly believe Michael Griffin—dad's assassin—did not suddenly become an anti-abortion murderer and terrorist. I think what Hill expressed that day on national television five days after the first abortion provider was murdered was said in private by many on his side for years; however, on that day, he let the genie loose. He had the appalling courage to say what many believed and were waiting to hear. In one hour of daytime drama, the bait blood clouded the water and a national spokesman was born.
Simultaneously, a palpable shift occurred in the audience. It was a man behind the curtain moment. They watched in person how the debate immediately changed, and they recoiled at Hill's arrogance. Doctor. Crist spoke forcefully on behalf of doctors. Susan and Ron remained calm but effective in their defense of clinic owners and staff as well as in their condemnation of Hill. I simply did not break.
I know I participated in the conversation. I have fleeting memories of telling dad's story, talking about the murder, peeling back the skin of the open wound, and allowing a small voyeuristic glimpse of my pain; yet, I did not break. As much as Donohue and the show's producers wanted the money shot, I did not weep. I was not provoked to hysterical anger.
I never viewed the show. I never will. It was the show that launched a murder epidemic which continues to this day. We did not know, nor could we predict, at the stage how serious Hill was and that he eventually murdered a doctor, his escort, and seriously wounded the escort's wife.. We do now, and his influence is as palpable today as it was 21 years ago.
As a result of my performance on the Donohue Show, I suddenly became abortion rights chum the antithesis of Hill's pro-murder anti-woman blood bait. He and I crossed paths many times over the next year while the sharks circled concentrically.
Sex: It's Why We're Here
Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Catholic, Lies, Politics, ProLife, Republican Party | Tags: abstinence, contraception, sex, sexually transmitted infections |
[185] Comments
Let's face it. Most of us are here on this earth because our parents had sex. As honest as this statement is, it likely makes people squirm. Who wants to think about their parents naked, sweaty and humping one on top of the other or grinding side-by-side on the dining room table or in the back seat of the car or in the tent next to you in Yosemite National Park? Certainly, not me. I'd rather scratch my eyes out. Our squirminess and discomfort points to a huge problem in our nation. While the common hegemonic sentiment of America is one of superiority, in reality, we Americans have failed miserably to accept and fully embrace our human sexuality. More specifically, we have failed to apply scientifically-sound and medically-accepted knowledge in public health and public education to benefit those who engage in sexual activity safely and responsibly. And who is responsible for this failure? I'd argue that those responsible are a misguided minority with their knickers in a knot over human sexuality. They go by many names but together they're really the self-appointed morality police who run for political offices mostly on a conservative ticket, who prey on women outside abortion clinics, and who work for or are members of organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Catholic Church or Operation Rescue. These morality cops are all about promoting abstinence only sex education in schools, sustaining propaganda campaigns about the evils of masturbation, telling bald-faced absurdities about a raped woman's body shutting down a potential rape-related pregnancy, denying the spectrum of sexual expression, and ignoring the scientific data about the safety and efficacy of contraception and abortion. Sexual behavior for these folks certainly seems, well, icky on so many levels. And we as a nation pay a stiff (no pun intended) penalty.
In addition to their narrowly informed heteronormative perspective on sexuality, this minority further constrains natural human sexuality with their religiously informed myths about intercourse being only for procreation. Doesn't that just take the fun out of an afternoon romp in the sack for post-menopausal Auntie Joyce and Viagra-defunct Uncle Tony? Such a heterosexist view clearly ignores the sexuality of our LGBT brothers and sisters. It also ignores the perfectly natural practice of going it alone because, in their worldview, the two concepts—pleasure and masturbation—are the work of Lucifer. And such a view surely ignores those lovely, lively priests with predilections for little boys. But I digress.
Let me say a bit more about some of the religious conservatives' bias in favor of opposite-sex relationships of a sexual nature, and against same-sex relationships of a sexual nature—aka, what is called heteronormativity. The problem here is that they take their sexual bias to an extreme in educational settings. In many states, their bias has rewarded with state funding to discriminate against LGBT children. Specifically, their homophobia is rewarded with adopted state laws – sometimes referred to as "neovouchers" – to transform state money into private Christian school scholarships used at religious-based schools that prohibit gay, lesbian or bisexual students from attending. These schools are essentially given a license to emotionally and physically bully and expel children who fail to be straight.
Abstinence only = Unwanted pregnancy
Listen, I have no argument with being sexually conservative, heterosexual and/or abstinent. It's a right that should be respected just as individuals who are not hetero should be respected. But, I do have a big argument when their penchant for prudery and balderdash leads to serious health consequences for real children. I'm talking about their misguided drive to demand abstinence-only sex education in public schools and as the price to play for charter school funding (at the cost of decreasing public education funding). Abstinence-only sex education is a well-documented financial waste as well as an epic education disaster that has resulted in the United States having one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and the highest rates of sexually transmitted infection rates in the industrialized world. Thanks, in part, to abstinence programs, female teens are more vulnerable to sexual violence because abstinence isn't a realistic response to peer pressure. Among the general teen population, one out of four has a sexually transmitted infection. The STI rate for African American teens averages 50%. And for all teens, if left untreated some of their STIs can cause permanent damage, such as infertility and even death. Of course, the response of the Panties-in-a-Wad crowd, this bastion of heteronormative bias, is to point a judgmental finger at the individual teen and wag their tongue about the evils of having sex. But my response to the Panties-in-a-Wad crowd is to illustrates the impact of states with predominantly conservative and religious views and the teen birth belt.
A further response to this uber conservative minority is say that their work is disingenuous. Teens are sexual beings. Not providing comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education is the moral failure of conservative, religious thinking.
And speaking of moral failure, consider all the bickering over the Affordable Care Act and contraception. Church-going entities like Hobby Lobby, the Catholic Church, and Chik-Fil-A went ballistic over their obligations to provide contraceptive insurance for their employees. Let's be honest here. We're talking about white men making a fuss about paying for health care for the women in their organizations because it goes against their beliefs while making no religiously-informed complaints about paying for Viagra or Cialis for men. Let's also be clear that statistical studies illustrate the majority of women (Catholics, Christian Evangelicals alike) who are married to these men use contraception. Hypocritical much?
Access to contraception, while clearly a smart response to reducing unplanned pregnancies and abortions, is seriously problematic for many who protest outside abortion clinics and for those who legislate morality in the state and federal government. They believe that contraception causes abortion, is dangerous, and is immoral if outside heterosexual marriage. The bigger issue with those who don't believe in abortion or contraception is their attempt to impose their beliefs on others. A comparison of the United States to countries where abortion is legal reveals that other countries have much lower rates of abortion, have healthier perspectives on human sexuality, have better health care systems and have normalized sexual education for children and teens. What we have here in the United States is staggering puritanism informed by a peculiarly aberrant form of Christian ethos that is seriously harming our children with the abysmal failure of abstinence education. So much for the claim to be pro life, to uphold family values.
Those with their eyes wide open have witnessed the stunning waste of taxpayer dollars over legal battles about DOMA, about the Affordable Care Act and contraception, and about targeted regulations against abortion providers based on nothing more than willful ignorance of science and, no doubt, their god-deluded sense of moral righteousness. Like the epic failure of prohibition on alcohol during the early 20th century, this ongoing battle against our God-given sexual nature has failed our nation. Attempting to prohibit or constrain sexual behavior according to the mythically-constructed boundaries of the sexually thwarted and perverted minority, is dishonest, unhealthy, disingenuous, and immoral.
Sexy Sunday: The problems with sex education (velociriot.org)
Theory post about Abortion (violetlightning.wordpress.com)
Chlamydia on the rise in girls as young as 12 (abc.net.au)
Texas Will End Teen Pregnancy By Spending $1.2 Million Telling Teens To Keep It In Their Pants (wonkette.com)
Steep Costs for Abstinence Only Programs (atheistrev.com)
Texas Tries To Combat Teen Pregnancy With Abstinence-Only Website That Doesn't Mention Birth Control (thinkprogress.org)
The Budget: Issue 2 opinion story (niadrutledge.wordpress.com)
Abortion and the Single Issue Voter
Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, GOP, ProLife, Romney, Vote
You have heard, no doubt, people saying that their choice for president is based on sentiments such as "we have shared values" or "he's authentic" or "he's prolife." Political scientist Samuel Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, calls this kind of reasoning "gut rationality." Essentially, people vote by heuristics and go with their gut, with whom they most identify, or with how the candidates make them feel. But such a vote, while rational sounding, tells us that voters often vote with their heart and not their head.
For most prolife voters (and other single-issue voters), emotional voting is a substitute for their cognitive-processing limitations. Most voters simply do not know all that there is to know about a candidate. The information available on the candidate's record, the assessment of the veracity of the information and prognostications for what the candidate might do if voted into office, is a daunting task for political pundits. For ordinary citizens, sifting through this data, if available, could cause an overload for even the most studious.
The average citizen is woefully ignorant of facts and, thus, relies on sound bytes and obfuscatory God terms like family values, patriotism, freedom and progress. In fact, according to political voting behavior expert, Drew Westen, PhD, when given empirical data that pushed voters one way or the other, that had no impact, those facts only hardened their emotionally biased views. In politics, Westen claims, "when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins." It's a sad reality for our democracy when reason and facts lose to emotions, when politicians' sound bytes reign over the complexities within the platform of each candidate aspiring to lead our country.
Not surprising, for most prolife voters, abortion, couched as the all-encompassing prolife moniker, is their single issue vote looking for a prolife candidate. So, if you are that voter, ask yourself how ending legal abortion will improve the lives of single mothers, homeless and hungry families or unemployed parents. Ask yourself how your prolife candidate will address the astronomical rise in sexually transmitted infections in teens (one out of four) in spite of the failed conservative-embraced abstinence-only education in school districts. Ask how ending legal abortion will help the woman carrying a dead fetus at 14 weeks or help the woman with a hydranencephalic fetus. Ask how ending legal abortion will help the woman who is forced to continue her pregnancy despite suffering from affective psychosis and serious hyperemesis gravidurum. Ask how ending legal abortion will help the pregnant woman who does not want to continue the pregnancy, does not want to be a mother, does not want the fetus to be inside her, has no emotional attachment to this thing growing inside her and does not want any outsiders telling her what she can or cannot do with her body. These questions are just about abortion. They're not about the larger issues that support women and their families. They're not about the very real issues that families face as they try to put food on the table, tutor children with their homework, juggle work and family, and juggle finances to pay the rent or buy the groceries. Some say that it's a matter of conscience. They say they cannot support someone who agrees with taking innocent life. OK. But does your prolife candidate support the military's taking of innocent lives in the many U.S. invasions? Does your candidate support capital punishment? Does your candidate support budgetary cuts that break the lifelines for the poor, the disenfranchised and our veterans? And after you've pondered your answers to these questions, issues that the Congress and the president can impact, remember that the president doesn't decide the abortion issue. The only role the president has in that regard is through his judicial appointments, primarily to the Supreme Court.
To sum things up, consider two more questions. First, if you're an antiabortion single-issue voter making your bet on the prolife candidate, ask yourself if abortion is something that is paramount to the safety, prosperity, to the very existence of all in this nation. Second, ask yourself if the end of legal abortion will save the nation from destruction in the long run. I'm betting you cannot answer in the affirmative to either question, if you are truthful.
It's Not Akin: It's the GOP
Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Stigma, Capitol Hill, GOP, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, ProLife, Republican Party, Romney, The Future of Legal Abortion, Vote, War on Birth Control
Our media-saturated culture conditions boys and men to dehumanize and disrespect women in magazines, television, and film and in everyday life. The message is clear. Womanizing is about power and privilege, a sense of entitlement. And in religion and politics, we see the same culture of misogyny. The latest comes from Missouri Republican Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin. Akin, who opposes abortion in all cases, including rape, said, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Mr. Aiken, oddly enough, is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, yet he uses non-scientific reasoning to perpetrate one of the most offensive and ignorant campaign season's comments yet. To wit a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that states, "an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year," in the United States, meaning that about 5 percent of women who are raped do become pregnant. And of that 5 percent, 50% choose to abort the pregnancy. Imagine—Science defying the logic of the GOP.
Beyond what Akin said is the logic that informed his gaffe. If you get pregnant, it wasn't rape. That's it. If you are violently and sexually penetrated by a rapist's penis, against your will, and you are impregnated, then it wasn't rape. But even beyond that logic is his unquestionable stance against abortions for any reason; hence, he believes if you get pregnant, you should carry the pregnancy to term.
This faux science is not new. In fact, his canard has been floating around the anti abortion Republicans for some time. Let's go back to 1998 and a statement from Fay Boozman, the late Fay Boozman of Arkansas. He was running for U.S. Senate, and he said fear-induced hormonal changes could block a rape victim's ability to conceive. In 1995, North Carolina State Representative Henry Aldridge said, "The facts show that people who are raped, who are truly raped, the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant." Then there's a similar statement from 1988. Pennsylvania Republican State Representative Steven Friend said, "The odds of a woman becoming pregnant through rape are one in millions and millions and millions." He said, "The trauma of rape causes women to secrete a certain secretion which has a tendency to kill sperm." One has to notice the covert message that almost excuses the perpetrators and blames the victims of sexual violence.
I'm reminded of an incident at an Allentown PA abortion clinic where a mother and daughter were verbally accosted by a particularly aggressive protester. The mother told the man that her daughter was raped. And rather than back off or show some modicum of compassion, he screamed,"If the child was conceived in rape that's the way God wanted it." [see video]. Essentially, disregard the violence. Disregard her pain. Disregard her humanity. Fr. Frank Pavone said essentially the same thing in an interview years back. He claimed (and still does) the mother was harmed once. Abortion would harm her again and kill her unborn. Again, no regard for the violence, no regard for the woman, no regard for what the woman wants.
The fact remains that Todd Akin will never know what it means to be a woman, to be trapped in a bed, shoved down on a parking garage staircase, or tied to pole in an abandoned basement. He'll never know what it's like to be violently assaulted by some aggressive, indifferent friend or stranger or relative. He'll not know what it feels like having someone gag you, rip off your clothes and enter your most personal, sacred, private part of your body and do so violently, hatefully forcing himself into you, ripping you apart, filling you with unwanted sperm, and knowing you cannot escape the thing growing inside of you. Todd Aiken will never experience being a woman who is pregnant from a rapist and being told you have no choice. Yet, I'm betting, he's pretty self-righteous when he says women should have no choice.
Like the majority of the GOP, including the Vice President hopeful Paul Ryan, Todd Akin's message is clear: No abortion for you! Your body is to support the rapist's fetus against your will. And when you see the face of the rapist in that child, you will be judged harshly if you cannot love that face.
My sense is that this debacle is further evidence of what is known as the GOP's war on women. But right-wing media figures have downplayed and dismissed Republican Congressman Todd Akin's controversial remarks on rape and abortion, calling them "dumb" and a distraction. The public response to Akin's comments more or less drove him to offer a feigned apology. I say feigned because it now it appears that, all the while, the people really in charge of the GOP—fundamentalist anti-choicers among them—have been writing a party platform that not only makes all of that a lie, but is in effect a promise to make the personhood of fertilized eggs the law of the land.
The draft official platform strongly supports a "a human life amendment" to the Constitution:
Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed, the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
Let's be very, very clear that such an amendment—which Mitt Romney has said unequivocally he would sign—would not only criminalize abortions of any kind for any reason, but also would outlaw many forms of contraception, in-vitro fertilization, and treatment of pregnant women with life-threatening conditions such as cancer. Moreover, it would also criminalize miscarriage.
So, there you have some of the facts. The problem isn't Akin.
It's the central position of the GOP controlled by fundamentalists who believe women have no rights. Which side of history will you be on?
Before Roe v Wade
Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Abortion Stigma, ProLife
In 1969, one of my housemates, Michelle, and I offered to drive a colleague from Fort Collins CO to Denver. All three of us worked at Luby's Cafeteria. Michelle and I worked part time because we also attended Colorado State University while our friend, Linda, worked full time. Linda was a 30-something divorcee with two children living in a trailer park with her Baptist parents. She had started dating again and found herself with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. So she arranged for an abortion and needed a ride and an alibi. The story she told her parents (who would be watching her children) was that she was stepping out for the evening with friends and would crash at our house (we were five women who shared a really large rental home). That was her cover story. The real story was quite different. She could not tell them she was pregnant. Unmarried women, according to her parents, did not have sex, did not get pregnant and, sure as hell, did not have an abortion. Linda was convinced that if they knew she was pregnant, they would throw her out on the street.
So, with the best of intentions, Michelle and I made the one-hour trip to Denver with our friend. She was understandably nervous about the arrangement she made over the phone with a strange man, the abortionist. The plan was to meet him at a motel on West Colfax Avenue, cash in hand, where he would perform her abortion. It's kind of amazing to think about legislators and antis talking about waiting periods and ambulatory surgical requirements now. Our friend had an abortion on a motel bed without any assurance that the man was a doctor, without any assurance that the man had hospital privileges, without any anesthesia, without any assurances of sterility, without any guarantees that she would live and without any state required speeches about pregnancy options.
I do not recall much of the trip. Knowing the three of us, we likely chatted like magpies. I also loved to drive. So, zipping down the highway was just a way of life for me. It wasn't until we arrived at the crummy looking motel, that I began to feel afraid for Linda as she got out of the car. She seemed scared. Michelle and I watched her enter the designated motel room and the door close behind her. Our instructions were to pick her up in two hours, as best I can recall.
Keep in mind those were not the days of cell phones. We couldn't text or call her. And we knew not to knock on the motel door. Instead, Michelle and I went to the local favorite, a coffee shop called the White Spot.
They were all over the metropolitan Denver area and had one of the best waffles around. Whether for greasy comfort food, post party munchies or waiting for a friend, the cheap eats at the White Spot were just the ticket.
From the recesses of my memory, I recall feeling anxious while Michelle, a veteran of abortion, seemed more comfortable. I was 20 years old and naïve. I didn't know anything about abortions except hushed conversations about girls desperately scrapping together funds to go to Mexico or Sweden. I didn't know even that much about sex or pregnancy. Thinking about this naiveté (or ignorance) now, as I write this post, reminds me of our 2006 documentary fieldwork with junior high students in Allentown. The kids were making digital stories about issues that impacted their community like speeding, litter, graffiti and recreational parks for kids. In what was likely the hottest day on record, our digital documentary campers were doing fieldwork in downtown Allentown when one of the antiabortion 'truth trucks' rolled down Hamilton Boulevard. One of the young girls, a nine year old, saw the truck and said, "That's why I won't use birth control." I was astounded at her misperceptions (but said nothing to correct her because it wasn't my place). But considering my ignorance back in 1969 and her misperceptions in 2006, there seemed to be little difference in terms of naiveté. But I digress.
After polishing our waffles, swilling gallons of coffee, and polluting our lungs with cigarette after cigarette, we eventually returned to the West Colfax motel. Linda was cramping but seemed otherwise OK. I felt a bit of relief because she was with us.
But by the time we got Linda settled in our house, things took a turn for the worse. She began bleeding really heavily. I drove to the drug store for sanitary pads. But the bleeding worsened still. She soaked through an entire box of super soaker pads in no time. Fortunately, we had enough sense to take her to the emergency room. She survived, thanks to an emergency hysterectomy, a short visit to ICU and several transfusions.
This is before Roe v Wade. Others weren't so lucky.
A Tribute to Being Selfless
Posted by DrK8 under Abortion Information, Free Speech, Germantown Reproductive Health Services, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, ProLife
The Oxford English Dictionary cites selfless as an adjective to describe the relationship a servant has to God and a way of being that has little to no regard for the self. Similarly, other dictionaries define selfless as having little regard for fame, wealth or position; as having higher regard for the greater good. In my experiences, selflessness is a common denominator found in those in the pro-choice community. From lobbyists to legislators, volunteers to friends, counselors to nurses and from doctors to directors, these self-sacrificing individuals work for the greater good of women in need of safe, compassionate abortion services. They endure despite the vitriol of a well-funded, misogynistic minority Hell-bent on returning women to draconian servitude. Every single day, at home, at work, or in their church, doctors and clinic directors know they are the potential target of an unknown 'prolife' terrorist intent on killing them. Professional counselors recognize and must negotiate with the imposters, errant anti abortion moles attempting to discredit the clinics. The mother of a mother-daughter duo bumbled her way through a counseling session with directives and questions that not only revealed her anti abortion agenda but the (alleged) daughter's lack of interest in the charade.
Even landlords have been the object of the fiendish anti abortion activists. When the MD Coalition for Life was upset with abortion clinic landlord Todd Stave because he refused their demands, they began protesting at Stave's daughter's middle school. But, rather than cave in to their demands to oust his tenant, a Germantown, MD abortion clinic, Stave turned the focus to the maliciousness of the MD Coalition for Life and others anti abortion zealots across the nation.
A common tactic, calling abortion-minded women selfish, is ironic when you consider that
the name-callers, the anti abortion activists, are the epitome of selfishness. They demand their free speech rights, their rights to hand out literature, their God-given right to save 'babies' (and sometimes women), and their right to impose their religious views on others. They are a bundle of self-serving, self-centered egotists. The evidence comes from frivolous lawsuits about imagined conspiracies and emotional harm (with NO regard for the emotional harm they inflict on women), from their constant boastful but unfounded claims of rescues, and from their slanderous attempts with police and human relations commissions to frame themselves as victims who are simply saints on a mission.
But the good news is that the selflessness of men and women across this nation who believe in women's reproductive health rights lives on in the hearts and minds of millions. No amount of malevolent actions from the anti abortion-minded will thwart the fortitude, the compassion and the love for women who are in need of an abortion.
A Horse of a Different Color
Posted by DrK8 under Abortion, Abortion Information, Pregnancy Test, Pro Life Deception, Pro Life Lies, ProLife | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Clinic, birth control |
There are anti abortion activists who stand outside abortion clinics with the genuine belief that their presence helps women, that they are heroes in the war against abortion, and that their help will solve all of life's little unwanted pregnancies. But their beliefs and women's realities are, as the saying goes, a horse of a different color.
For the better part of eight years, I've come to realize that most anti abortion activists assume women choose abortion solely based on financial reasons. However, they are erroneous in making such a sweeping generalization. In other words, their beliefs don't match the realities of women's lives. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 74% of women chose abortion because having a child would interfere with her education, work or ability to care for dependents. As with many of the anti abortion activists, the difference between their beliefs and a woman's realities never matters. For many who stand outside abortion clinics, their mission, to save babies and end abortion, is more important than a woman's desires for her own life. These antis believe their pamphlets and offers of money, a free pregnancy test and a free ultrasound are enough to change an abortion-minded woman's mind. They find nothing odd with their invitation, as a stranger on the street, to get into their car for a ride to a prolife doctor's office for a free prenatal visit. They assume that talking to strangers about the content of the uterus and traveling with strangers in their car to an unknown doctor's office for free health care is perfectly normal.
But even with the questionable value of their freebies, there remains the reality of the emotional, physical and financial burdens of a pregnancy. The antis have difficulty accepting the reality that some women do not want to be pregnant, either now or ever. Their pro-natalist rhetoric leaves no room for the statistical evidence that early abortion is safer than childbirth, that post partum depression affects 10-15% of women, or that post partum psychosis occurs in 1 to 4 cases out of 1000 deliveries. Their optimistic rhetoric about adoption as an alternative leaves out the evidence that confirms that some women have a lifetime of regret and anger about giving up their child. They also fail to acknowledge well-documented, scholarly research that details resentful and angry adopted children, some with serious adaptive problems.
For a financial perspective, the government's latest statistics reveal that they annual child-rearing expenses for the average middle-income, two-parent family range from $11,650 to $13,530, depending on the age of the child. Imagine, a single parent of one child, pregnant with a second child, who is considering her options for raising a second child on a salary of $18,700. The annual expenses for the first child, according to the government's calculator, are $7,410; the second is $7,188. So, where does that leave the mother? What are her options for education, being promoted beyond her entry-level position, helping her children become first generation college students? These are only a few of my questions for these folks who badger women with their maternal guilt trips. One year, two years, five years, ten years from now, where will these pronatalists be? Where will these "love the mom, love the baby" people be when the fetus they saved needs braces, a reading specialist, a counselor for an eating disorder, bail money for their fourth underage DUI or financial assistance for college?
From my perspective it comes down to a rather straightforward question: What is the antiabortion activist's responsibility for each fetus they save? Does the responsibility include prenatal care or should it include food, shelter and housing? And how long should this commitment last? Should these antis' commitment to the fetus continue after it's born, like biological parents commitment to their offspring? Should antis ensure estate planning for not only their own children but to all those fetuses they save? Or does the commitment last only until birth?
It seems to me that most antis will do whatever it takes to stop an abortion including offering to pay for a pregnancy test, an ultrasound or a visit to a doctor. Some goes as far as throwing a baby shower, purchasing maternity clothes or buying diapers and formula.
But these piecemeal efforts are like giving a person a fish to eat for a day. What is really needed is an entirely different approach. Rather than give a woman a fish to eat for a day, as the old parable goes, it seems wiser to teach her to fish. In other words, it makes more sense to provide all that a woman would need for her lifetime (including access to her choice of family planning, parenting help, babysitting, job skill development, education and such) and for the lifetime of the fetus saved from abortion.
So, let's be clear. Assuming that women choose abortion because of financial reasons doesn't make it a fact. Assuming offers of freebies are wanted is ignorant and demeaning. But assuming that women accept strangers on the street to invade their privacy AND to accept their offers of health care is a horse of a different color—more like the color of a jackass.
A Meeting with the Priests
Posted by Pat Richards under Aborticentrism, Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Advocates, Abortion Blog, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Centers, Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Information, Dr. Tiller, Pro Life Meeting, ProLife, Roe V Wade, Sanger, Supreme Court, Vote | Tags: Abortion, abortion catholic catholics rights, abortion clinics pill, Abortion Doctor, Abortion Pill, Abortion Providers, Abortion Rights, Abortion Terrorism, Abortion Violence, abortions, advocate, anti abortion, birth control, emergency contraception, history, Late Abortion, Late Term Abortion, Pat Richards, Pro-choice, rights, Vote |
When I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, one thing I did on a regular basis was have conversations with leaders of national anti-abortion organizations. I did so in the hopes that they would get a better understanding of the abortion process, the abortion doctors and the women who desired abortions. If I had any kind of agenda, it was the hope that if these leaders understood more about the reality of abortion, they might be more inclined to tone down their rhetoric a little (and thus be less likely to incite some would-be assassin). Also, to be honest, it was a good way for me to test my debating skills.
One person I spoke to on a regular basis was Father Frank Pavone, the Director of "Priests for Life." We
Father Frank Pavone
met maybe twice a year formally and occasionally ran into each other at protests and other events. I know that Frank was always grateful for my candor. I have to admit it was often a one way conversation in that I was trying to educate him on why clinics did what they did. Still, he always said that he got a lot out of our conversations, but who knows?
One day, during one of our meetings, he asked if I might be interested in meeting with a bunch of "his folks." Not being shy, I said I'd meet with anyone. So, he invited me to come up to Staten Island to his "national headquarters" to meet with a group of his priests and staff. I jumped at the opportunity.
When I arrived at his office I was warmly greeted by the receptionist and other staff. I have no doubt they were alerted to the fact that I was coming. I wasn't nervous at all. Indeed, I felt like some of them were more nervous than me. I have to say I was excited about being in the "lion's den." Frank eventually came out, got me a cup of coffee and we talked for a bit in his private office. He then walked me down the hall to a large conference room.
Seated around a conference table were about 20 priests. I sat at the head of the table. It was a very strange feeling (as a former Catholic) to be surrounded by them but I was not nervous at all. I was totally ready for any of their questions.
I kidded around about being a "former Catholic" then went into a 20 minute monologue. I talked about who our doctors were and what motivated them, I admitted that there were bad doctors that we wished we could close down, I confessed that our clinics are not perfect, that some women do ultimately regret their abortions, that abortion is a form of killing, that late term abortions, although rare, were "gross," that I totally defended their right to protest at a clinic, that women know they are aborting some kind of "life", that our clinics tried desperately to make sure the woman never came back, that some doctors do make a nice living but that a lot of them gave away their services, that the number of abortions fortunately was going down and that a number of clinic staff also talk to their local antis.
When I was done, I apologized for going on so long and said I'd be happy to answer any questions.
You could hear a pin drop. Cue the crickets.
Indeed, it got very awkward so I chimed in and said "C'mon folks, hit me with everything you got!" They chuckled and Frank looked around and said "any questions?"
Ultimately, one young priest shyly raised his hand and said "Do you know Doctor Tiller?
I said I did. Waiting for some zinger about third trimester abortions, I braced myself for the follow-up.
"Well, what is he really like?"
This is it? This was their tough question?
I answered the question but while I was talking, I realized what I had just done. I had thought of practically every charge or accusation that they could come up with and answered all of them as honestly and candidly as possible. I laid it all on the table. Geez, I had told the priests that abortion was "killing" and, after that, they didn't know what to say in response.
Ultimately, at one point some older priest with an edge to him asked me about the "partial birth abortion" procedure. I first surprised him when I said that the procedure, as described by the anti-abortion movement, was basically accurate. That surprised them because they were used to hearing the pro-choice groups say that there was no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." I said I don't care what you call it but there is such a procedure. I then I added that I felt that in some ways the PBA was a more "humane" form of abortion because the fetus was left intact and it gave the mother the opportunity to see it and say "goodbye."
Again, crickets….
You could have cut it with a knife.
All in all, it was an exhilarating experience for me. Frank later told me that it was "fascinating." Whether or not it made any difference is beyond me. But what it did teach me is that advocates of abortion rights just need to be brutally honest about abortion, not try to sugarcoat things and just trust women to make the right decision.
Call (800) 804-8868 for immediate information on Abortion Care.
Abortion Blog Stats
Abortion.com FaceBook
Enter your email address to receive new posts.
Educate Me!
Archives Select Month January 2023 (8) December 2022 (10) November 2022 (11) October 2022 (13) September 2022 (15) August 2022 (15) July 2022 (12) June 2022 (15) May 2022 (15) April 2022 (19) March 2022 (20) February 2022 (16) January 2022 (19) December 2021 (8) November 2021 (11) October 2021 (19) September 2021 (23) August 2021 (20) July 2021 (23) June 2021 (18) May 2021 (23) April 2021 (23) March 2021 (26) February 2021 (23) January 2021 (25) December 2020 (25) November 2020 (26) October 2020 (31) September 2020 (27) August 2020 (31) July 2020 (29) June 2020 (29) May 2020 (30) April 2020 (29) March 2020 (30) February 2020 (22) January 2020 (22) December 2019 (22) November 2019 (27) October 2019 (22) September 2019 (22) August 2019 (22) July 2019 (23) June 2019 (25) May 2019 (22) April 2019 (23) March 2019 (29) February 2019 (27) January 2019 (30) December 2018 (29) November 2018 (26) October 2018 (28) September 2018 (21) August 2018 (25) July 2018 (18) June 2018 (25) May 2018 (33) April 2018 (28) March 2018 (35) February 2018 (41) January 2018 (38) December 2017 (52) November 2017 (60) October 2017 (63) September 2017 (58) August 2017 (57) July 2017 (58) June 2017 (64) May 2017 (32) April 2017 (30) March 2017 (31) February 2017 (27) January 2017 (33) December 2016 (29) November 2016 (33) October 2016 (35) August 2016 (1) July 2016 (1) June 2016 (1) May 2016 (1) March 2016 (1) February 2016 (1) January 2016 (1) December 2015 (2) November 2015 (1) October 2015 (1) September 2015 (1) August 2015 (1) July 2015 (1) June 2015 (1) May 2015 (3) April 2015 (1) March 2015 (2) February 2015 (2) January 2015 (3) December 2014 (2) November 2014 (1) October 2014 (3) September 2014 (2) August 2014 (3) July 2014 (1) June 2014 (4) May 2014 (2) April 2014 (2) March 2014 (4) February 2014 (2) January 2014 (4) December 2013 (4) November 2013 (3) October 2013 (5) September 2013 (4) August 2013 (4) July 2013 (5) June 2013 (5) May 2013 (5) April 2013 (4) March 2013 (5) February 2013 (4) January 2013 (6) December 2012 (8) November 2012 (9) October 2012 (8) September 2012 (9) August 2012 (9) July 2012 (9) June 2012 (8) May 2012 (9) April 2012 (9) March 2012 (7) February 2012 (4) January 2012 (6) December 2011 (4) November 2011 (4) October 2011 (5) September 2011 (4) August 2011 (4) July 2011 (5) June 2011 (6) May 2011 (4) April 2011 (3) March 2011 (6) February 2011 (4) January 2011 (5) December 2010 (6) November 2010 (5) October 2010 (7) September 2010 (9) August 2010 (10) July 2010 (13) June 2010 (10) May 2010 (18) April 2010 (21) March 2010 (24) February 2010 (8) January 2010 (4) November 2008 (4) October 2008 (1) June 2008 (1) May 2008 (1) April 2008 (1) March 2008 (2) February 2008 (2) January 2008 (1) December 2007 (1) November 2007 (8)
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
An Open Letter to Antiabortion Protesters
Ethics 101:The Propagandizing of Anti Abortionists
It's Not Akin: It's the GOP
Turnabout Is Fair Play
There's Good News and Bad News
Where is Lorena Bobbitt When We Need Her?
Time To New President
abortion.ws/2020/08/11/932… 2 years ago
#abortion #rights We're Taking The UK Government To Court Over Abortion Rights In Northern Ireland. Here's Why.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 years ago
Follow @abortiondotcom
Please Opine
Emily on Abortion Commenting
Civil War in America… on Portland to cut trade, travel…
buyabortionrx on The FDA Should Remove Its Rest…
Casino Icon on National Abortion Fund Launche…
kellymirano on US agency says women can get a…
Anonymous on The Donohue Show
Abortion Abortion & Religion Abortion Advocates Abortion Blog Abortion Candidates Abortion Centers Abortion Discussion Abortion Doctor Abortion Doctor Murder Abortion Heroes Abortion Information Abortion Late Abortion Law Abortion Medical Abortion Pill Abortion Rights
Florida Abortion Care
New York Abortion Services
Florida Abortion Services
Abortion.com
Call (800) 451-4328 for a private & confidential abortion care.
Abortion Pill, RU486,