They have to charge for these (even at reduced rates) because federal funding cannot be used for abortions (but can for all their other services).

At some point they have to pay for the costs involved, but PP isn't involved in making a profit on any of their services.

<3 this.

What idiots elected that asshole into office?

I think last year, when I got my last PP pelvic, it cost me around $160, out of pocket. It was based on my household income. If you make an income, you have to show proof of it. If you get public assistance, I think you have to show proof of that as well. My pills were $30 a month. They started out as only being $20, but then increased over time due to funding issues. Costs for all of their services have increased across the board, and the SWOhio office has done away with their mail order pharmacy program in an effort to save money.

She was amazing.

"To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." - Margaret Sanger

Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 217.

Okay, and your point...?

Everyone concedes that contraception is much, much better than abortion.

So...the opinion of a non-medical person in 1938 is supposed to be the final word on whether or not an early abortion is "taking a life." Good one.

How could this happen?
 

Back to the debate on the proper response to what everyone agrees is a horrific situation - namely, medically deficient clinics. Slate ran a very good series detailing the fact that because pro-choicers fight ANY regulation as being an attack on abortion in general clinics like this are not as uncommon as one might hope.

Here's the link to the last entry (because it is essentially a summation; I highly recommend you read all of the entries to get a clear understanding as to how this could - and does - happen. )

http://www.slate.com/id/2286464/

Everyone?

:eek:

Has anyone posted about abortion being more ideal than using a condom/pills?

Isn't Ms. Sanger a heroine to the proponents of PP? She is one of the primary reasons that PP is a viable institute even though some of her reasons for promoting contraception were suspect. She was a believer in eugenics and felt that there were some classes of people who were unfit to procreate. She was an advocate of forced sterilization among other methods.

It is interesting that even she was opposed to abortion as she considered it the taking of a life. I believe that many abortion supporters do not believe it is a life and use this belief to justify an abortion or abortions. The crux of the debate is really whether the child in the womb is a human life form and has rights. One has to deny it is a human life in order to take away its right to life.

"Everyone" encompasses more than just the posters on this thread. If the poster had said everyone on this thread then I agree to your point. But that is not the way I read the post. If the poster meant that "everyone" who was in the community of human beings than I disagree with the poster.

As much as you'd like to believe that there are people running around who think abortion is "fun", pro-choice proponents actually do believe in contraception first. As for Margaret Sanger, she is an early icon of contraceptive rights/ women's health care rights. She has a lot of controversial views. THAT does not mean that everything she believed is correct or believed verbatim by progressive, pro-choice supporters of PP. Unlike conservatives, we can take the good and disagree with the bad without throwing out the whole person. I might also add that in 1938, society was completely different and ideas on eugenics, embryology, medicine were completely different. I'd just as soon take my medical advice from an internet Charlatan than from a physician in 1938 much less take Margaret Sanger's thoughts about the beginnings of life as truth. Cells may be alive, but I have no problem biopsying live cells everyday. The significance put on a clump of cells differs in the eye of the beholder.

Does a heart beat make any difference?