Gosh, yesterday's LA Times story, "Democrats shift approach on abortion," gets so many idealogical things wrong it's almost impossible to address it all here. So, focusing on my two largest bones of contention:
1. While it's commendable to offer services (financial and otherwise) to women who want to have children and feel that barriers are preventing them from making that decision, such programs are hardly the panacea the story suggests them to be. The fact, is some women simply do not want to -- or are not ready to -- have children and, for them, abortion may be their best and only option. To exclusively promote services that neglect that reality does a real disservice to the decision-making process that women go through when they consider what is best for them and their families. Working to prevent unintended pregnancies and offering women tools to help them make a life-altering decision is both important and helpful; villifying abortion is not.
2. The conservative push to frame increased access to birth control as promoting free love begs a knee-jerk, post 60s reaction: "No, that's not what we're doing! Sex? Who said anything about sex? Nobody is talking about sex here!" Umm, my question is, so what if it does? If people are having safe, consensual sex, what problem, exactly, does that pose to the greater good? I'm so tired of this (morality police) idea that we constantly need to assure people that increased access to birth control won't increase sexual actiivty... what if we actually said, "hey, what if it did -- that's STILL NOT A BAD THING?"
Alright, rant aside and with due diligence to reality: #2 is a hypothetical argument. While I personally don't see anything wrong with increased access = increased sex, everyone (conservatives included) should sleep more easily at night knowing that studies show over and over again that increased access does not actually change ( e.g. increase) sexual activity.