Comments on: Senate Race Heats Up Over Abortion

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:38:20 +0000

I am strongly pro choice, at any time, for any reason. I am also a fiscal conservative, but a social libertarian. I only voted for Coakley in the primary because she, once, stated that she would not have supported the health bill because of the abortion compromise. Where does Kennedy stand on abortion. It is a pity that I find myself constantly faced with a choice of making a one issue vote, or considering other issues. The President, seemingly seeking to move blue collar democrats from the religious right, is selling out on women’s rights issues. What is Coakley going to do.It is troubling that a two party system, with two party primaries, favors candidates who avoid the center. Does anyone else feel the IQs dropping, every time we have an election?

By: SouthendBos

SouthendBos — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:59:14 +0000

Amen, Anna. The problem is unwanted pregnancy – not abortion. Stop unwanted pregnancy (contraception) and you’ll stop abortion.

By: Anna

Anna — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:21:36 +0000

These abortion arguments are so disingenuous. No one ‘likes’ abortion. The fact remains though, the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws have the highest rates of abortion! Restrictive laws do NOT lower abortion rates. Legal or illegal, women who do not want to carry a pregnancy to term will have an abortion. Why are we still thinking this way? Support comprehensive sex education and contraception if you truly want to lower the rate of abortion.

By: David Kimball

David Kimball — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:04:58 +0000

I would take what Brown’s daughters said a little more to heart if they had explained what Brown does and does not believe in with regards to abortions. To just say that Coakley’s comments were wrong is not sufficient. Maybe they were. But if they were, I would like to know in what ways. Otherwise they are just tearing down Coakley for what they accuse her of doing in tearing down Brown.

By: Col

Col — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:56:48 +0000

This headline–as with so many buzzing around at the moment–is confusing the issue. Since the debate, I _repeatedly_ see “abortion” conflated with “contraception.” Just because a Catholic hospital might be opposed to both (once hopes, opposed proportionately to each’s perceived gravity), I think that any hospital should be required to supply emergency _contraception_ to a rape victim–and that’s the real controversy here over Brown’s earlier proposal. He waffled all over this during the debate, refusing to come out and say that yes, his proposal had indeed supported just that position, that certain hospitals could refuse to provide this treatment if they objected to it.

Surely Catholic hospitals should prefer emergency contraception, which PREVENTS pregnancy (and therefore later abortion) to abortion. But Brown wanted to let them off the hook for either procedure. That adds insult to the injury of a crime victim.

He still has yet to say that he has reversed this position, saying only that a victim of rape deserves “immediate attention.” That’s far too vague, and his is a dangerous position.