Not exact matches
Safe
abortions will never go away as they are still needed to save life (
even in the
early 1900s doctors had to abort babies so at least the mother could live when tuberculosis was the leading cause of death and it was terminal for a pregnant mother).
Even Anna Glazier, a health expert and a strong proponent of greater access to the morning - after pill, stated in
early 2006 in an editorial in the British Medical Journal that greater access to emergency birth control has failed to cut pregnancy and
abortion rates.
The response of the last government was essentially more of the same:
earlier and more detailed sex education, family planning clinics in schools, promotion of emergency birth control (otherwise known as the «morning after pill») easier access to
abortion, all without the need for parental consent
even in the case of underage girls.
So despite the fact that I believe human life is inherently valuable
even in its
earliest form, I only feel a little guilty voting for pro-choice candidates because I'm often convinced they will do more to address the root causes of
abortion — poverty, health care, education, etc..
Or a majority might
even have been assembled to sustain the laws on
abortion, as a majority on the Court had been assembled, just two years
earlier, in U.S. v. Vuitch, to sustain a law on
abortion in the District of Columbia.
But to Mr Balls» «misspeak» on
abortion we must add an
earlier one by Ms Stannard, which implied something very similar, and may
even have led him astray.
Ditto for US Senate candidate Joe DioGuardi, who opposes using any public money to fund
abortions —
even early in a woman's term.