<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Following Coakley, Capuano Shifts On Health Care And Abortion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wbur.org/2009/11/11/abortion-exclusion/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wbur.org/2009/11/11/abortion-exclusion</link>
	<description>WBUR is Boston&#039;s NPR News Station, featuring NPR news and programs such as Car Talk, On Point, Here &#38; Now, Only A Game and Radio Boston.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:31:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nina Alonso Hathaway</title>
		<link>http://www.wbur.org/2009/11/11/abortion-exclusion/comment-page-1#comment-3146</link>
		<dc:creator>Nina Alonso Hathaway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:04:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wbur.org/?p=11910#comment-3146</guid>
		<description>We need universal health care, and it is my hope that legislation will include women&#039;s rights to whatever care they need, including abortion.  At long last insurance will no longer exclude people for &quot;prior conditions&quot;, so there is no rationale for limiting women&#039;s rights to the services they need as their &#039;prior condition&#039; is being female, which should be respected.   Any other approach is punitive, prejudicial,  and immoral, and no health bill should be enacted that limits women, with implied judgement against their sexual behavior.  Please note pregnancy does require a male&#039;s participation; it takes two.  Abortion restrictions punish only one party: the woman.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need universal health care, and it is my hope that legislation will include women&#8217;s rights to whatever care they need, including abortion.  At long last insurance will no longer exclude people for &#8220;prior conditions&#8221;, so there is no rationale for limiting women&#8217;s rights to the services they need as their &#8216;prior condition&#8217; is being female, which should be respected.   Any other approach is punitive, prejudicial,  and immoral, and no health bill should be enacted that limits women, with implied judgement against their sexual behavior.  Please note pregnancy does require a male&#8217;s participation; it takes two.  Abortion restrictions punish only one party: the woman.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

