"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-00723C.23394210122007@news.giganews.com...

An officer of the Religious Police in every bedroom.

---
The Dog Whistlers: The One Question the "Pro-life" Presidential
Candidates Don't Want You to Ask

Cristina PageSun Dec 9, 6:49 PM ET

98 percent of American women have done it.

37 million Americans are currently doing it.

Most of the GOP candidates oppose it.

What is it?

If you said "sex," you were close. The answer is "use contraception." In
recent weeks, the GOP candidates have been asked a lot about their views
on abortion but not one has been asked his position on contraception (or
even prevention in general). Really big oversight. Maybe its because
everyone just assumes they all support contraception. After all, who
doesn't?

If their statements and actions are indicators, most of the GOP
candidates oppose contraception. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul,
Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson all define life as
beginning at conception or fertilization, in other words when sperm
meets egg. (It's worth noting that there's no medical way of knowing
when sperm meets egg. According to the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, a fertilized egg isn't even considered a pregnancy.)
This "life at fertilization" assertion is what is called in the business
"dog whistle" politics: a political message only a specific constituency
can hear. The reason, of course, to keep the message on one frequency,
is that in most cases the issue is deeply unpopular with most of the
American people. The candidate's whistle, in this case, is a pledge to
support the anti-abortion movement's campaigns to roll back access to
contraception.

If a candidate pledges to define life as beginning at fertilization,
then anything that prevents implantation will end a life. And pro-lifers
insist the pill does that. Birth control then becomes abortion, and as
we know, abortion gets banned. Why hasn't the media sunk its teeth into
this little curiosity? At the very least, it would make for some really
great TV. Someone needs to ask any of the GOP candidates (except
Guiliani) whether he supports access to birth control. 91 percent of the
American public (the majority of the pro-life public included) does so
strongly.

Along with pledging to give a fertilized egg full constitutional rights
candidates prove their anti-contraception credentials in other ways.
McCain boasts that he has consistently voted against funding pregnancy
prevention for poor women. Romney vetoed an emergency contraception
bill, calling it an 'abortion' drug. Ron Paul opposes federal funding
for any contraceptive service.

These guys may try to outdo each other on anti-abortion rhetoric and
explain, unflinchingly, how doctors will be thrown in jail when Roe
fails (an inevitability in their minds). But it's the contraception
question that really scares them. Because once the presidential debate
focuses on how the candidates plan to alter the average American's sex
life (made possible thanks to family planning) it is lifted from the
pink ghetto of "woman's issues" and becomes a concern of male voters too.

Study after study proves that contraceptive use is the only way to
prevent abortion; the places on earth contraception is most available
are also where abortion is most rare. According to Save the Children,
the countries where infant and maternal mortality are the lowest is
where contraception is used the most (because planned pregnancies are
healthier pregnancies.) Using abortion rates, maternal and infant death
rates, as measures, it's undeniable: the most pro-life thing a president
can do is support the right to use contraception and make it widely
available. The public knows this. And sometime before the primaries the
candidates must be made to state openly whether they support
contraception. Because the candidates know those professional pro-life
dogs are still listening for the right whistle.

---
http://tinyurl.com/24oxwf
--
John #1782

I would almost 'pay' to hear each candidate express their honest views
regarding the use of contraception. Would give the caring American public
more insight into the true character of each candidate, wouldn't it? But of
course, they would have to respond in an honest, forthright, manner. That
just might prove to be a bit too tough a task for several of em'.

Excellent question to pose, however; one *needed* to be posed, and one
which, hopefully, *will* be posed at some point during the campaign.

Greywolf