An open letter to activists from NOW President Kim Gandy

November 3, 2004

We will never give up.

As NOW activists gathered at the White House carrying signs that said "Count Every Vote" and "Democracy NOW," we learned that John Kerry would be conceding the election.

Despite pleas for the Kerry campaign to wait for the counting of hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots in Ohio, and for the verification of Florida results that were dramatically contrary to exit polling, the promise of the 2004 election is no more.

But the strength we gained, the alliances we created, the friends we made, the voters we registered, the debates we provoked, the activists we energized, the new feminists we elected to Congress and state legislatures . . . no one can take those away.

Your phone calls to friends and strangers, door-knocking in your own neighborhood or on the other side of the country, marching on Washington, emailing friends and co-workers, writing to undecided voters, organizing actions and events, contributing to NOW/PAC efforts and to campaigns across the country . . . in all those ways and more, you brought us to the edge of victory.

The battle of the last year is over, but a new one is beginning.

We must fight back against Bush's regressive policies on every issue. Now is not the time to be timid — we must not give in to an agenda that endangers our rights, our freedoms, our liberty, and our lives.


We must demand our senators block every Supreme Court nominee, and every cabinet member who would deny our rights and liberties, and that they filibuster over and over and over, to prevent a Supreme Court majority that would turn women's rights and civil rights back to the 1950's.


We must take our fight to the state legislatures, state by state, bill by bill, and enact legislation that will protect us and our families.


We must continue to March for Women's Lives across the country — expanding our million marchers into millions of voices speaking up for women's rights in their communities.


We must intensify our efforts to register, motivate and mobilize new voters, especially women, and recruit and train candidates who support women's rights, so that by 2006 there will be reinforcements for our friends in Congress who are standing up against the right wing's anti-woman agenda.
We must continue to build on the work we've done in the past year, and take the fight for our rights to every level of our government — as our foremothers did in seeking the right to vote. For 72 years they waged the battle for our rights, going from the states to the Congress and back again, challenging president after president, persevering until they won the victory that is the birthright of women today.

We can do no less for ourselves and those we love . . .

It's time. Celebrate our victories, throw off the frustration (yes, even the despair) and join us in the bold fight ahead.

For justice,



Kim Gandy
NOW President

"With women such as these consecrating their lives,
failure is impossible"
— Susan B. Anthony's final public words


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TODAY IN IRAQ MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST, WILL BE LOST, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA CHOSE TO PUT OTHER ISSUES, ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND A THOUSAND YEARS - BEFORE THE MISTAKE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Yeah, Lazyboy, I continue to be mystified that the situation in Iraq, particularly for the trumped up reasons for being there, and the carnage and death as a result just does not resonate with those who consider themselves 'pro-life'.

I am going to make a solemn promise to myself and others both here and every board I post to and in every conversation I have with others:

I will never, ever use the words "pro-life" again. The fact that the war in Iraq can be so dismissed as flagrantly as these anti-abortionists do is something ---they--- will have to face up to on the day they meet their Creator.

Those who worship at the altar of Bush should realize that in supporting this war, they are killing -----pregnant---- Iraqi women and their fetuses. And their defense of that killing not being intentional is bogus. Any time a war is waged it is an absolute fact that --murder--- of innocents will take place. That is not accidental....when decisions to go to war take place, that is intentional!!

Although I've thought at least today that I am coming out of a slump, it is more like a tidal wave hitting me. Sometimes that wave is in low tide, but when it hits, it is devestating.


WARS STOP BEATING HEARTS!!

NOW...If there is such a thing as the 'morning after pill' (see www.morningafterpill.org ) then what does the right wing have to have for examples of 'its cause' ? What are miscarriages but natural abortions... does God sanction them ?

My point is simply make the right wingers job harder for them to do by putting knowlege to work for you !

This is part of a post I made pre-11/2 and now a follow-up...

I work in a clinic which provides family planning, contraception and abortion. We see women of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, races and religions. They come to us, usually after they have had at least one sexual encounter and/or a pregnancy scare. Some teens truly have no idea when they begin to have sex what the consequences are. Whose fault? the parent(s), the school, the church, the pediatrician, the republicans? Why do we have to find fault? Why not work on correcting the problem. Studies show that with Bush and the Republicans' abstienence only programs, the majority of teens who become pregnant and acquire the sexually transmitted infections are the ones who signed the "abstinence only until marriage" contract. They sign the contract and get no education or information on preventing pregnancy or STI's because they are not going to be having sex. The teens who don't sign, get the info. Therefore, when the abstinence only kids get in a situation, they don't know how to handle it and don't know how to protect themselves. The current administration has put out the word that condoms are not effective in preventing STI's or pregnancy so the word on the street becomes "It doesn't matter if you use a condom or not, it won't protect you anyway". Actually, studies have shown that in couples where one partner is HIV positive and the other negative, condoms are very effective in preventing transmission. The only STI not entirely preventable by condom use in HPV which causes genital warts and cervical cancer. Most women, not teens, but grown women have no idea what HPV is much less what it causes-it is the #1 cause of cervical cancer. The Republicans have ordered the removal of information about the protective nature of condom use from all government sponsored websites, including the Center for Disease Control!!?? Unbelieveable to me the ignorance and the arrogance of these people. The picture of the elderly, white-haired, white males standing around Bush when he signed the "partial birth abortion" ban, all of them with their smug, you know what kind of grins on their faces, makes me sick. First of all, the proper term is mid-term abortion and it was only rarely even performed anymore. It was just a win for the Repubs and the (think they have the) right-to-control-our-lifers to get what appeared to be a victory. We always discuss abstinence, parental knowledge and coersive sex with our teens in our clinic. Now the government says we must discuss "extra-marital abstinence" with all married women. They just keep getting deeper and deeper into our bedrooms don't they? Maybe because they only have sex when they want to concieve a child, they have to live vicariously through every one else's sex lives. Other people have posted the fact that US $ have been withheld from women's health programs abroad because those programs discuss abortion as an option for women. Services that include condoms to prevent the spread of HIV in developing countries. If Bush remains in power, I forsee that coming here. Many of our teens come in without their parent because they have told their parent they are having sex and are told to just stop. Sometimes they are more responsible that their parents and come in for help and education. Sometimes the parent brings them in before they are actually sexually active for the knowledge we can provide that they feel like they can't. I have worked with teens and young women long enough to know that they are not going to stop having sex anytime soon. I have often wondered what the solution to unprotected, unknowledgeable sex is. The only answer I ever come up with is education. As adults we are all responsible for educating our young people, giving them the self-esteem, self-worth, self respect and self preservation to protect their reproductive health and prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually acquired diseases they will live with for life. As for abortion, rarely do I see a woman who is coming in excited or happy about having an abortion. It is a heart-wrenching decision no matter what the reason is or what her circumstances are. We never ask why, sometimes they volunteer the information, sometimes they want to talk about it. We make sure it is their decision, that they are not being forced into having an abortion, and we always discuss the alternatives of adoption and keeping the pregnancy with them. If they have any doubt they are rescheduled. If they are being forced we help them deal with that, minor or adult. It does not matter what HER reason for HER decision is. She is taken care of and supported 100% no matter what she decides or why. The encouraging thing is that almost every woman I have spoken with since Feb. has stated that she is voting Democratic and for Kerry.

They are not anti-abortion they are anti-choice, anti-women and anti-children. We are not pro-abortion or anti-life, we are pro-choice and pro women and children's lives. We want all childern to be loved and wanted. Sure you can have a baby and put it up for adoption. (and we discuss this with every pregnant woman we see and the fact that their are agencies available to help her if she decides to keep it-without winking and saying haha) What kind of life does that child have the chance of living. There are all kinds of people and money out there to get you through a pregnancy. What happens to them after the child is born?
They DISAPPEAR. I don't see all of these Republicans pushing to outlaw abortion, lining up to take home a child of a welfare mother who has no access to health care or birth control and realizes she just can't afford one more mouth to feed, or a drug abuser, or a HIV + woman. Sure everyone wants the pretty little blond haired, blue eyed baby girl or brown hair, brown eyed baby boy, what about the rest? They will spend their life in abuse or neglect, either in the situation they were born into or in the foster care system. What have we saved that life for. I realize every life is precious and God love's all children. My response to that is let God take care of them. They will be much better off with him that here on earth with the hypocritical right-wing "radical" Christians who forced them to be born, who don't want to help their parents get jobs, who want to send all of the jobs their parents are able to get overseas so the owners can get a tax break, and they will have no health care so they'll probably die an early death anyway, in poverty, uneducated, unemployed in the "richest nation in the world". Oh right, you're only supposed to have sex when you want to make a baby. Then why doesn't God take away those hormones in our bodies (yes even our teens have those hormones) that make you want to have sex??? Remember, people used to get married at 14 or 15 and then they had 10 or 12 kids (if they didn't die in childbirth first!!). So, there is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence but you can't only teach abstinence. #1 kids lie. They will promise you anything, yes even Christian kids who have been taken to church by their parents every day the doors were open. So at least arm them with the knowledge of how to protect themselves WHEN the situation comes up and they don't say no. Abstinence only is a GREAT goal. (Hey, now I even have to talk to married women about extra-marital abstinence-oh yeah, I said that already). But all we can do is educate-teens or adults-I cannot and will not go into your bedroom or the back-seat of your car to police you. To me that is an invasion of privacy! But I can provide you with the knowledge to best take care of yourself and make good decisions. How can you make a decision without the facts? It certainly hasn't worked with teens or adults to "just say no" to smoking, drinking and drugs. Why in the world do we think it will work for sex? People must be fully informed with the facts. Teens are not sheep, they are intelligent human beings, if you treat them that way. They don't want to die from HIV or hepatitis or cervical cancer or have herpes lesions or genital warts for the rest of their lives. And most of them don't want to have a baby. They need to be informed and educated. Not told to just say no.
Oh yeah, there are plenty of anti abortion people who come in to my office and ask for an abortion who say "I never believed in abortion, I never thought I would be in this situation" but I guess it's ok for them to get an abortion when it will be affecting their life to have a ("oops" )unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. But you know what, they get treated with as much care and dignity as everyone who walks through our doors.

Another concern is the war on terror and all of that mess. I support our troops 100% but I think this administration has misled them and failed them miserably. I can't even begin to get into that at this time. I realize that Bush is a Christian but I know that in the past, anytime someone begins to talk like they are God or says that God is speaking through them and they refuse to take ANY ADVICE FROM ANYONE ELSE WE LOCK THEM UP FOR BEING DELUSIONAL!!!!!!! One man cannot run this country. That is not a republic or a democracy. That is a dictatorship. America is for ALL people, ALL religions, freedom of speech and freedom of choice. How can one man WHO IS NOT GOD dictate ALL of our lives when clearly half of the people in many states voted against him?
Just read what the people who work for him, say about him.

I heard Tom Brokaw yesterday. He said the first thing that needs to be done in this next four years is to fix the election process. We cannot go through this doubt and fear that our votes will not count every 4 years. Of course the people whom it has benefitted the past 2 elections are not going to want to change. We as voters have to stand up and demand fair and properly run elections with working equipment. We are supposed to be the most advanced nation in the world. And we can't even run a national election where everyone feels confident that their vote was counted.

As for the morning after pill-Do you realize how many abortions could be prevented if only they would let it go over-the -counter??? The sooner it is used the more effective it is and it is perfectly, 100% safe. There is absolutely no one who cannot use this pill. If she is already pregnant, it does NOTHING to the pregnancy. Is it better for a woman, teen or adult, to use this to prevent a pregnancy even if she uses it several times or to go through multiple abortions and/or have numerous unwanted children. Because it is not OTC and if an unprotected sex act (no contraception, broken condom, whatever) occurs on Friday night, she has to wait until Monday to get the morning after pill from her clinic or if she can find a doctor willing to prescribe it, then a pharmacy that will dispense it. If it were over the counter, she could keep one in her medicine chest and take it as soon as the incident occurs. Pregnancy can be prevented 75-89% of the time. The sooner it is taken, the more effective it is.

I could go on, but I'm tired and depressed. I will get over it and I will fight for our right's as women and children. That is the battle I have chosen. I will support the people who are fighting for our environment and our troops and the loss of jobs overseas and the unfair tax breaks to the wealthiest minority of this country, and skyrocketing health care and drug costs, the danger to social security for me and my children, etc, etc etc. But I am only one person and I have to chose a battle. And since I work with women every day who are in my clinic trying to get affordable health care and birth control, who have lost their jobs and therefore their insurance, this is my battle. To prevent every abortion from happening that I possibly can. Because, you see, I am not pro-abortion or anti-life. I am pro-choice, pro-life, pro education.

You don't get it. You are losing big time, and the tide is going out. The more the Democrats support sexist anti-family agendas the more they LOSE. Turning a political back on men, on southerneres, on christians, and even on married women does not amount to political leadership nor win elections. The losers whine and whine, but most of the people don't support either kind of sexism. The failed social experiment of feminism has destroyed millions of families and hurt millions and millions of chlidren. Many of those hurt children have grown up and become voters and are working hard to lead the country back to a family friendly nation. The Democrats badly need to end their flirtation with anti-men, anti-family agendas and adopt leadership positions that supports married women and men, and helps children -- supports families.

As long as Democrats keep ignoring the hadwriting on the wall in blazing neon, they will go further and further from any positions of power in America.

Bob

Compare the numbers of legal abortions in the U.S. to the death toll in Iraq. Oh wait... that's right, you can't... the abortion numbers are so astronomically higher.

and innocent Iraqi civilians have been murdered and oppressed by the Hussein government for years... and you didn't even care.

Hi diamondlil,

Please excuse the posts by the freepers who can't spread enough hate on their own forum so they come here sometimes.

One of the dumbest things is they think by making something illegal it will prevent it and force their will on other people.

I guess they haven't heard that rape is illegal. Maybe they haven't heard that drugs are illegal?

The morning after pill is an example of how little they really want to reduce abortion rates. If it was over the counter it would make such a difference.

Dear "stick"

If you read my entire post you would obviously know that I care very much about all human beings, especially the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, who are in Iraq fighting so you can be here safe expressing your opinion on the internet. And when or if will they be able to come home to their families?
I will respond in full to your post after I get off work today. I will be EDUCATING these human beings on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and subsequently unwanted, abused children and/or abortions. What are your plans for the day?

Oh wait, that's right, we're not in Iraq for our freedom, we're there for ... what? WMD???

ask 100,000 dead iraqis if their lives matter.

diamondlil et al

The fight for Women's Rights ultimately rests upon the 4th Amendment rights to be 'secure' in your 'person'... basically PRIVACY RIGHTS. When Adm. Stockdale said a woman owns her own body, and what goes on in it, he wasn't kidding and he was/is a conservative. There are ways to find support within the so-called conservative group. Even Barbara Bush is pro-choice. Press them on it....

As I've said, the 4th Amendment is the key.

ask 46,000,000 dead Americans if their lives matter.

(by the way, I was pointing out that you most likely never stood up for these Iraqis when Saddam was killing and oppressing them)

I happen to disagree that your child's life/death is a matter of your privacy, but I'll ignore that for now and ask the obvious question... If a baby is halfway out of his/her mother's body, why should it be legal to punture his/her skull and mutilate the brain? Partial-birth abortion no longer falls under the "in the mother's body" argument. Let's just pretend that your finger is in my mouth for some reason... in this case, what I do with you is now a matter of my privacy...?

why don't you do your research and find out exactly what the facts are before you run off at the mouth, speaking of which I doubt any of us have any desire to have our finger or anything else near your mouth, pretend or not

This is part of a letter to U.S. Senators from a the Association of Reproductive Health Providers...

"We are writing on behalf of thousands of health care providers to urge you and your colleagues to oppose federal legislation criminalizing safe abortion procedures (S. 3, the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003").

This bill is deceptive, is based on a number of flawed assumptions, and is unnecessary. First, "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term but a non-scientific and politically biased rhetorical expression invented by activists to convey misrepresentations about safe and medically necessary abortion procedures. The term "partial-birth abortion" is not used by any of the major national medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP).

Second, the bill is deceptive because it does not specify any particular stage of pregnancy-contrary to assurances by its sponsors that the bill's intent is to focus only on third trimester abortions.

Finally, abortions during the third-term are already illegal in almost every state except to save the woman's life or health, and are rarely performed. This legislation is unnecessary and is an example of political ideology trumping science and appropriate medical decision-making.

Published literature attests to the fact that placing restrictions on abortion services is harmful to the health of women and that medical decisions should be left to health care providers. ARHP is concerned because S.3 dictates health care methodology to the clinicians who must provide medical care under the most difficult of circumstances. Restrictions imposed by the government on abortion services will not reduce the need for abortion or the quantity of abortions performed, it will only make abortion less safe."

If you are truly interested in facts, visit this website, specifically this page:
http://www.arhp.org/advocacy/FAQs.cfm

I'm not very interested in "facts" if they contain the phrase "medially necessary abortion procedures..."

Additionally the Association of Reproductive Health Providers is clearly not an unbiased group. Would an organization which advocated choice make this statement: "This bill is deceptive, is based on a number of flawed assumptions, and is unnecessary. First, "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term but a non-scientific and politically biased rhetorical expression invented by activists to convey misrepresentations about safe and medically necessary abortion procedures." They advocate abortion... it's what they do. And this is their propaganda.

if you're interested in facts, the name of the organization you cited is the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (not Providers)...

stick

You are implying that fetal rights trump the rights of the mother. BTW, is there such a thing as fetal rights...when legally IS conception anyway, stick ? Have you heard about the 'morning after pill' also ?

To my perspective, stick et al, are like those moralists who worked against Paul Ehrlich's work fighting syphilis, who viewed the disease as a punishment from God. Using that line of thinking, God via miscarriages (a natural abortion) would be a responsible party occassionally...

Stick does have a valid positon only after the first trimester in my lights, however. I would like to know what his/her position is on "When does life begin" ? Medically, I'll stick with the system we've evolved legally so far.

What the so-called partial birth bill does is require that the woman's life is always sacrificed. This is a very rare procedure used in instances of illness or trauma to the woman. Not having the bill leaves the decision of what to do with the woman and family. The partial birth bill in effect is the government saying the woman will always be sacrificed. That is why the courts are kicking it.

Cloudy

Thank you for clearing this up. I think stick's problem is a tactical one now for the "Pro Life" movement, which looks to be more of a 'fetal rights' movement. With the so-called morning after pill, their protests at clinics etc. etc. have more of less had the wind taken out of their sails.

I've checked the web and it looks like the defining moment legally is the 24th week or sixth month. I don't understand the Constitutionality of dictating to a woman who according to Roe v Wade and the Fourth Amendment is entitled to security to her person ... Your post, Cloudy, has helped clear things up for me. Thanks.

yw

I wish the media had made it clear also during the past year or so. guess that doesnt suit their rightwing agenda tho.

The defining moment "LEGALLY" is not necessarily the defining moment. A child has a heartbeat by something like 25 days and brain function at 40 days. That certainly constitutes life. Of course, life begins at conception, but it is undoubtedly tangible within 5 or 6 weeks.

Are you serious? Don't lie to yourself... None of the major news outlets have a rightwing agenda. Well Dan Rather might...

Hang on... I better go catch you because you're definitely not paying attention and you definitely just stepped off the left side of the Democratic party...

stick

A fetus may indeed have 'functions' after a certain time period...but a fetus is not viable outside of a mother's womb until after the 24 week/6mo time period the law observes since it cannot breath on its own. A fetus may have rights now in the case of a pregnant woman's death in during commission of a felony I understand now, too. This is the "Lacy's Law" issue.

I think pregnant Democratic mothers to be should also have two votes !

But seriously, with the 'morning after pill' your movement is simply vindictiveness directed at women if you simply won't allow the contraceptive information/knowledge out to them that allows for termination of even a possible pregnancy. I now hear WalMart won't allow the 'morning after pill' to be sold in its stores...very weird. Normally pharmaceutical companies rave over Bush policies; here they are bowing to conservatives pressure that ultimately could cost them sales.

Another good reason to boycott Wal-Mart.

My comment re stick:

pepperoni pizza

that is absurd... then democratic and republican mothers should be able to vote for their under-age kids as well. (no, actually they shouldnt)

I have a question. If abortion should be legal because a woman should have control over her own body, then shouldn't men be able to have paper abortions?

If you look at current child support laws, for a man to pay 17% of his income for 18 years means he is essentially working the equivilant of 9 months, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, or in other words, he is forced to use his body for something he doesn't want for the same amount of time that a women would be pregnant.

Medical risk? Men make up 95% of workforce deaths.
Choice? While up to around 1200 pregnancies are due to alleged rapes, the vast majority of pregnancies were due to consensual sex. So women had the choice to keep it in their pants just as the men did.

I just wondered if equality meant true equality. After all, if you are going to give the rights of choice to 50% of americans, shouldn't the other 50% have them also?

I wondered because I noticed that there were forums for women, blacks, am indians, hispanics, children, and every other group except men.

I have 2 little boys. I am worried because they are not given the same rights as other Americans.

good point

NOW is out of touch with the common sense and good will of Americans. NOW does not believe that in the absence of wrongdoing both parents should be allowed a meaningful part of their kids' lives. They have fought a long hard battle to separate millions of good dads from their kids, and have won. In doing so, they are losing the war. Common sense tells us that two good parents, both ought to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives. JK won 63% of the vote in his home state of Massachusetts. The following is the exact wording that 85% of voters in Massahcusetts voted YES for:

"Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for legislation to create a strong presumption in child custody cases in favor of joint physical and legal custody, so that the court will order that the children have equal access to both parents as much as possible, except where there is clear and convincing evidence that one parent is unfit, or that joint custody is not possible due to the fault of one of the parents?"

Only 15% said no. Geesh, I wonder where they are NOW?

By this logic, I guess you're saying that since a law doesn't prevent something from happening, then that law must be stupid.

OK, then, perhaps you'd like the "stupid" rape and drug laws repealed?

Actually, people don't think passing a law makes something stop. A law simply makes something illegal and defines the punishment if the law is broken. A person still has the free will to do whatever they want, but the law defines the consequences, if any, for certain actions.

All laws "force the will" of people on other people. For example, all laws prohibiting murder force "the will of the people" (i. e. you and me) on those who would like to murder. All laws prohibiting shoplifting force "the will of the people" on those who would like to shoplift.

The Right to Vote is a failed social experiment? Women allowed to go to college is a failed social experiment?

Providing sex education to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies is anti-men?

You have some VERY odd perspectives on the Feminist movement and underestimate the accomplishments of such.

HATE is not a family value.

White men are not an oppressed group in our society. Perhaps if you educated yourself on the facts, you would not feel so slighted that you have to pay child support for your children.

Any group in our society that even in the absence of wrongdoing, routinely has their children stripped away from them, qualifies as being oppressed. Money is money, but what is more important than the ability to spend meaningful time with your kid(s)? Perhaps an education on the facts is in order for you too.

i hear a great deal about choice......and i fully support it. all women (and men) have a choice of what to do with their bodies BEFORE THEY CONCEIVE A CHILD! why do we continue to call abortion our "right to choose"? barring unusual circumstances (such as rape) most pregnancy occurs between two consenting adults. adults = grown people who understand basic biology.

some so called women's issues are completely ridiculous. i believe that women are entitled to equal protection under the law - not preferential treatment. when two consenting adults choose to have sex and conception occurs, all rights to the fetus are automatically shifted to the woman. if women have a "right to choose" then men should be entitle to the same.

NOW is not the National Organization for Women - it has become the National Mafia Against Men. We have to be honest with ourselves. Do we want equal treatment or are we expecting preferential treatment. Shouldnt' rights be equal regardless of race, religion, or gender?

You are making a very big and frequently innacurate assumption that all pregnancies that end in abortion are due to people not using contraception. Contraceptive failure (even when used approrpiately) is a fact; some people choose to terminate for various reasons after contraceptive failure. Abortions later in gestation (after the frist trimester) are usually due to medical reasons that negatively impact the mother and/or the developing fetus; frequently the decision to terminate is heartbreaking because the couple does want to have a child. Should these people not be able to make decisions such as this because they chose to have sex?

By defining adult the way you do, are you allowing those who have sex but don't understand basic biology to have abortions? It's very sad how many people really don't have the understanding we'd expect them to.

I'm assuming you mean the "paper abortion" and not the right to force a woman to go to term or abort? The rights up until birth are actually the rights of the living, sentient woman necessary for any chance at birth superceding those of an unborn potential life that has limited chance of survival prior to fetal lung development. I agree this country needs a massive overhaul of child support/custody laws.

I'm not much of a NOW or feminist supporter, I consider myself a humanist.

Plain and simple, NOW doesn't believe there should be any sort of assurances that both parents be allowed a meaningful part of thier kids' lives, even in the absence of wrongdoing. NOW is perfectly fine with making visitors out of otherwise good parents. If you agree with their stance on that issue, support them. If you believe that two fit parents ought to each be allowed a meaningful part of their kids' lives, then don't support NOW, or any candidate that NOW supports.

Of course, this last election is an indication that is already happening.

I don't support NOW, but if they happen to support a candidate I think is best for the job I'm not going to vote against the candidate

If that candidate has anything to do with legisltion that effects children, it is doubtful that they are the best candidate.

so I SHOULD have voted FOR Jim Gerlach or Bush? These candidates were not supported by NOW and most definitely were not the best candidates.

oh, i understand the concept, sister. i just don't agree with it. i don't believe we can truly gain equality by denying equal rights to others.

so angry I could spit, i didn't assume that all pregnancies that end in abortion are due to people not using contraception. please read my post again. i am completely against abortion on demand - just as strongly as i oppose superiority over equality. if one "parent" has the right to choose, they should both have the same right.

i am a woman and i am a divorced, custodial mother. i feel that my sons should have the same rights, opportunities, and responsiblities that my daughter does.

To my knowledge, there was only one presidential candidate guts enough to say, in the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be able to share meaningful time with their child(ren). I would not be so pretentious as to tell you who to vote for. All I'm saying is that if a candidate is gonna be squirly about something as fundamental as the ability to be a meaningful part of your own kid's life, then you might not want that person setting policy for you child(ren).

You have to admit, that bar is set so low that any worthy candidate should pass the test. Unfortunately, too many candidates have been squirly about issues that matter most - our children.

To be honest, I haven't seen or heard much discussion of the much needed overhaul of our child support/custody laws in the public forum at all. The only time a vote comes down to a single issue for me is when everything else is equal, which pretty much means I am not a single issue voter. The point to my previous posting is that I will neither vote for a candidate nor vote against a candidate based solely on what organizations or people support that candidate and vice versa.

To get to the heart of this thread which has partially disintegrated into a heated discussion of father's rights, perhaps you can provide a statistic:

What percentage of the unmarried and pregnant women who come to you say that their partner is not interested in having a child, or is not interested in supporting a child?

I have done numerous searches on the web for recent information on abortions and can find nothing up to date. Someone stated that 46 million babies were aborted; where did that information come from????? Was this in any particular year?

According to The Alan Guttmacher Institute, referred to by PPFA, there were 1.31 million abortions in the U.S. in 2000.

See PDF file w/statistics available on pages 6 & 7, which also show the decline in abortion rates during Clinton's presidency. You know, a DEMOCRAT's presidency.

Too, too sad that Bushco's governmentwon't tabulate/publish abortion rates under his reign.

I would guess 46 million would be an intentionally exaggerated statistic from the "Pro-Life" movement. Or maybe it's a cumulative all abortions (spontaneuous, therapeutic and elective) done all over the world since abortion was legalized and tracked?

I'm not asking for any special rights for fathers. The thread was about NOW. I simply stated that "NOW does not believe that in the absence of wrongdoing both parents should be allowed a meaningful part of their kids' lives." I believe that is asking that mothers be provided the same rights as fathers. But, more importantly, it as asking that children be allowed meaningful time with each parent. NOW doesn't agree with that. To that end, it is out of touch with the basic rights of people. NOW needs to re-evaluate its stance on this issue. Even in Massachusetts, 85% of voters disagree with NOW on this issue. That is a statistic NOW shouldn't continue to fight.