Most Comments

  • (9)

    by bayprairie

    Sorry I am so late. I worked until 1 a.m. last night (5th) and then had to rise at 6 a.m. for an appointment with the endocrinologist at 8. That was 23 hours ago, and I am just now catching up on things.

    At a press conference on January 4, the National Organization for Women announced "Enraged and Engaged: Women's Campaign Against Alito," part of a joint campaign with the Feminist Majority Foundation, the National Congress of Black Women, National Latina Institute and the National Council of Women's Organizations.

    The video of the press conference is available at this page: C-SPAN: Supreme Court and then look for a link entitled: Press Conference by Women's Organizations Opposed to Judge Alito. I am sorry I cannot link to the video directly. It's a javascript that has to be called from the C-SPAN page. If you do nothing else, watch this video please.

    :::more below the fold:::

  • (9)

    January 26, 2006

    Honorable Dianne Feinstein:

    I must write, tho I hardly bother anymore, to state how ashamed I am of the Democratic Party.

    I watched every day of the hearings for Alito. Disorganised, inept and ultimately just weak. For this most vital nomination. The thing for which you all lied and kept your powder forever dry.

    Yes, you did, you were eternal virgins for the next "fight".

    In how many elections did you drag out, and dust off, "Its for the Supreme Court"?


    As the Democratic party morphed more and more to be a lesser version of the MODERN Republicans (I would not fuss if you were old time moderate-to-liberal Republicans) there really is no reason to struggle anymore. Why bother to wish you all were better? You are not.

    If only the small number of you still alive would break off. Many of us would follow. Instead we will pull back from national politics and work locally.

    We dismiss you. For your failures.

    Close the casket on the party. They fight for NOTHING. Certainly not for people.

    First voted in 1972. Did not vote for Kerry in '04, why bother, the Republican machine would continue to hound him and he proved HE DID NOT FIGHT.

    One point, lest you think I was not paying attention, the Navy records. No excuse, release them. The February 2003 medical records, no excuse, release them. He released neither.

    The hell with you all. Yes I am angry. You bet I am.



    Barbara Boxer
    Nancy Pelosi

    w/ attachments

    Andy Stern, David Broder column, WaPo

    July 26, 2004

    "It is a hollow party," Stern said, adding that "if John Kerry becomes president, it hurts" chances of reforming the Democrats and organized labor. [...]

    Later in the day, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney told The Post that Stern's attitude "is not justified." Sweeney, also a product of the SEIU, the largest and fastest-growing union in the AFL-CIO, said the process of change is already underway within labor, adding that he is impressed with "the unity and solidarity" of Democratic support for Kerry. "I'm optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party," he said.

    Stern made it clear that his complaints long preceded Kerry's nomination. He said that when Clinton was president, he demonstrated how little he cared for the Democratic Party.

    Calling the former president "the greatest fundraiser of his time," Stern asked: "If you think the Democratic Party is valuable, why would you leave it bankrupt?"

    Other elected officials are equally indifferent to the party, he said, adding that if Kerry is elected "he would smother" any effort to give it more intellectual heft and organizational muscle.

    I notice Sweeney took the loss on CAFTA very seriously: You don't deliver.

    And immediately post Nov. 2, Stern changed the manner in which SEIU supports the party in its quadrennial thrashing. I think they trust you (the group "you") as much as I do.

    You don't deliver.

    George Felos, atty for Michael Schiavo:

    March 18, 2005

    And the bill was passed because, ultimately, not one Democratic senator got up and said I don’t consent to the bill being heard at this time.

    And I want to say to ... the Democratic senators, don’t do this to Terri Schiavo again. To have this woman’s wishes now, to have her feeding tube inserted by a subsequent act of Congress before she dies, would be a horrific act upon her body.

    And if the Democratic minority doesn’t stand up for Terri Schiavo, then they deserve to be the minority party.

    If they can’t stand up and one person say, no, we’re not going to ramrod this through. If they can’t stand up for the civil liberties of each and every one of us, then they deserve to be the minority party and the dwindling minority party. It’s time for them to stand up. Yes.

    But you did not. You all hid. And before you hid, you cut deals in the cloakroom. And in case you think I was not paying attention, Yes Levin changed "may" to "shall" and yes, Wyden manoevered a delay. But first Reid caved.

    You never stand up.

    Jonathan Turley on CNN

    January 14, 2006

    NGUYEN: Yes, going through the motions, but what are we truly learning?

    Jonathan, let me ask you this very quickly.

    Do you think he will be confirmed?

    TURLEY: I think he will, and he will owe that to the Democrats. I think they have done a perfectly horrible job in advancing their interests here.

    They lacked strategy, direction, discipline. There's little evidence of a Democratic Party.

    And I think most of us are very surprised about it. If they can't muster their troops on this one, I don't understand when they could.

    NGUYEN: Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, thanks so much for speaking with us this morning.

    I agree.

  • (9)

    They are a wonderment

    Washington -- Judge Samuel Alito is expected to win confirmation to the Supreme Court today, after Senate Democrats led by the party's former presidential nominee John Kerry failed Monday to block Alito's nomination. The Democrats' maneuver exposed divisions within their party and prompted warnings from Republicans that it would come back to haunt a Democratic president. [...]

    Nineteen Democrats voted to end the filibuster, joining all 53 Republicans who attended Monday's session.

    Kerry's move to force a filibuster vote heightened the scrutiny by activists of a handful of moderates of both parties, including Feinstein, who already had announced her opposition to Alito.

    Sell me a bridge!

    Two weeks ago on a Sunday talk show, Feinstein seemed to rule out a filibuster of Alito, saying,

    "I don't see those kinds of egregious things emerging that would justify a filibuster. I think when it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there whether it's gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface. Now, I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

    But Feinstein spokesman Howard Gantman said the senator's statements never ruled out support for a filibuster.

    Ever pliable... and DiFi loves TV, if she can appear to discuss what is already decided (her vote), she will be there.
    We know her well in San Francisco.

    "Senator Feinstein has carefully over the last couple of weeks been going through the transcript, she's been carefully going through (Alito's) lack of responsiveness to a number of questions on very serious issues facing our nation," Gantman said. "She went back through his earlier writings, through his court cases, and Senator Feinstein reached the point where she felt she could not support ending debate on this."

    Sell me the Bay Bridge too!

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who voted to sustain the filibuster but had disagreed with Kerry's decision to use it, said the problem was President Bush's failure to consult with Democrats.

    Reid argued that former Democratic President Bill Clinton had avoided nasty confirmation fights by pre-clearing his nominations of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer with Republicans.

    Bush actually consulted with Reid on O'Connor's successor, heeding Reid's recommendation of White House counsel Harriett Miers. But Miers' nomination was soon withdrawn under fire from conservatives who suspected her ideology and qualifications.

    Reid called Miers "a good woman treated so poorly -- and the people who destroyed her are being rewarded by the Alito nomination."

    Well, the Republicans have a demanding base.... notice who got "rewarded".

    Kerry announced his filibuster on the liberal blog Daily Kos, and after returning to the Senate Friday, he said he was taking a stand on principle. "This is not the vote of Monday afternoon," he said. "This is a vote of history."

    And history is announced on Daily Kos? I don't think so... more likely histrionics take place on the pages there. About it. The FP is populated with Democratic party organiser wanna bees. Lordy, can it get more tawdry? Deflation is on the horizon. Deflated jellyfish is not a wonderful sight...

    Poor Democrats. They hung themselves with the Gang of 14. Pure numbers game. You are 44 in the senate, a filibuster requires 41, meanwhile 7, supposedly of your own party are a standing group against filibuster. It would be hilarious if it were not tragic. And obvious from minute one last April.

    Seven Democrats who were part of a bipartisan group labeled the "Gang of 14" had indicated Alito's nomination didn't meet the extraordinary circumstances that could trigger a filibuster.

    Trigger Cops vs Jellyfish. Down for the count... years ago.

    Besides the fact that the filibuster was a hopeless cause, Senate Democrats and consultants worried that the move would put Democrats in Republican-leaning states in a bind during a midterm election year when they had a chance to retake their Senate majority.

    Kerry's filibuster robbed these "red state Democrats" of anywhere to hide, forcing them to cast two conflicting votes -- one pro-Alito vote Monday to end the filibuster and another today against Alito's actual confirmation.

    One of those Democrats up for re-election this year is Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, who voted against the filibuster but said he would vote against Alito.

    Yes the Democrats used Bill Nelson of FL over the Schiavo mess, they needed his seat badly and could not risk him being plastered with "You killed Terri".

    The Democrats lost 2002 for the machinations to "win".

    Can they do anything but protect Republican interests?

    They lost the ground game in FL in '00, by not being ready. Quess who was ready, with litigation written and a plan to fight thru the last elector. Not the Democrats. They trumpeted they had - scream now - the Kennedy machine on the ground in FL. Keep screaming.

    The party to save Nelson of FL. It's a hobby.

    The party of the Davos whatever. More hobbies and pastimes. Please, go back to Davos. Alito was lost many years ago. The battles that never were.

    DiFi and Blum are, I am sure, preparing for the annual drop in at the Villa d'Este on Lake Como...

    Alito hearings and votes are tiresome responsiblities squeezed in. It is a haphazard game, at best.

    And get ready for the Big Whopper, you knew it was coming:

    Plus, he said, "It doesn't look good to push a filibuster and lose. You want to save it for the next time when you might be able to win it."
  • (9)

    ...what do we mean, exactly? For these days it has little to do with the real political conflicts of this age.

    There's a political model for governmental regimes that uses a circle as metaphor. For illustrative purposes, I've overlaid it on the political compass that is in such fashion with bloggers today.

    You put liberal democracy (lowercase "l" and "d") at the bottom of the wheel, and total dictatorship at the top.

    Now, rather than define left vs. right in terms of economics, you define it in terms of basis for political debate: ideology vs. identity.

    • As you move left, you have more conformist pressure in ideology.
    • As you move right, you have more conformist pressure in identity, race and religious dogma.

    Push far enough and the two sides meet again at the top, with the conformist pressure having become total authoritarian control by the government: dictatorship.

    For example, Hitler was the extreme of the right, and his dictatorship was defined by notions of race and genetic superiority, as well as Christian Crusade. His contemporary rival for power in Europe, Stalin, was the extreme of the left, and his dictatorship was defined by notions of GoodThink and correct ways of thinking. Yet in effect upon the populace, the result is the same: no freedom. What's more, both vectors towards the top appeal to a pro-government form of nationalism. Either way, the effect upon the population -- the "peasants," as our own plutarchs in the West call us -- is much the same: total authoritarian control, little or no liberty, little or no privacy.

    Today we're seeing the left push ever further up on the left side of the wheel, wanting more control over ideology. Thus quaint notions of freedom and equality are ditched for the ideology defined by the rulers: Party first, and Party always.

    On the right, they've already pushed far up the wheel. What became clear to many in the aftermath of Katrina is that much of the right's basis of authority is based upon race. "Those people" are undeserving, the Right says. And this goes back to Reagan, and how he scapegoated all the nation's problems on poor, unmarried, black mothers, appealing to people's unexamined and deep-rooted racist attitudes perpetuated by a culture that allows everything from the grossly disproportionate public spending in minority neighborhoods, incarceration rates and crime rates, to stupid jokes (like Bill Maher's tasteless attack on Danny Glover last week, asking in an accusing tone, "Have you ever been on a college campus?").

    What we see of these pushes by both parties towards authoritarian rule is the abandonment of the people and any effort to build an egalitarian society, a "liberal democracy" (small "l" and "d").

    In his comment to Matsu's post on the modern political ideology, pennywit writes:

    Today, I face two increasingly unpalatable choices. In the GOP, the far right continues to build a bridge to the 16th century while the party's moderates (three at last count) cling to some vestige of what the party used to be. The Democrats, meanwhile, alternate between milquetoast "moderates" who are scared of their own shadows, Beltway insiders who are afrai of losing what little power they have, and far-left firebrands whose politics I find no more palatable than Jerry Falwell's.

    Despite the scorn heaped on Lieberman by the Kosettes and the lack of respect that Republican firebreathers show Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee, I often find myself in that moderate middle ground. And though survey after survey tells me that I am hardly alone in this position, Snowe Country has rapidly become a political no man's land, leaving me with few, if any, worthwhile choices at the ballot box.

    What pennywit is saying is what millions of "We the People" can see, whether we all can articulate it or not. "My vote doesn't count," "What's the point of voting?" and "They're all the same, anyway," are similar declarations of this realization that our two-party system is all about who will hold the authoritarian sword over the people, and not about representative government at all.

    In a separate comment on the same thread, pennywit says:

    The Democrats have sunk a lot of effort into being the default party -- that is, the people you vote for when a particular Republican is repugnant. But given that it is possible for the GOP to put forward a non-repugnant candidate, this is a losing proposition for the Democrats.

    But when both parties are pushing up either side of that circle, the people are left alone ... at the bottom.

    Caveat: Nothing in real life is as clean or simple as theory, and there's no question that the Democrats and Republicans also use conformist pressures from the "opposite" side. For example, Republicans certainly trumpeted their own brand of ideological pressure upon the population. To a degree, their attitudes are born out of religious dogma and identity, but as they couch their arguments more in terms of civil ideology they are borrowing from the "left" in this model. And on the other side, the Democrats seem to covet right-wing appeals to identity and religion. Their recruiting of political candidates like Bob Casey, Jr. are manifestations of this.

    To be sure, there are many ways to break down and analyze the political landscape. Still, I find this model illustrative in deciphering the differences and similarities between the two parties -- especially in how they are behaving today, in this election year.

    Your thoughts?

  • (9)

    In the headlines, the reproductive rights battle has been over South Dakota's new forced-pregnancy law. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. digby reports about the Republicans' full-on assault on birth control altogether. First, he quotes from the Kos enterprise:

    Today the United States Senate is considering a bill that would have a serious and damaging impact on health coverage for women across the United States. The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (HIMMAA), introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) would allow insurance companies to ignore nearly all state laws that require insurance coverage for certain treatments or conditions, such as laws that require them to include contraceptives in their prescription plans.digby seems to get what's at stake here:

    This development is very interesting in light of the new emphasis on birth control among strategists in the Democratic party. The next battle is already being fought out on the edges of the abortion debate. If this goes the way of Democrats' previous brilliant strategies in the culture wars, within five years we'll have jettisoned our argument about Roe altogether and will be fighting with all our might to preserve Griswold, which the other side will be arguing is a matter of states' rights just like Roe. (No "streamlining" necessary.)

    You'd think that common sense would preclude this, but it won't. Common sense says that regulating guns in a country of almost 300 million people is the smart thing to do....

    ...But more than anything else we must accept the fact that these people are serious. They want to outlaw abortion and they want to curtail people's access to birth control. They aren't lying. And as they've shown with gun rights, they are in it for the long haul. We must be just a stubborn as they are and seek to wear them down rather than let them wear us down.

    This is not an issue for tweaking. Let's tweak on the Ten Commandments or public funds for parochial schools or something else if it is necessary to adjust for this family values crap in order to win elections. State mandated forced childbirth and denial of access to birth control cannot be negotiated or finessed. This one's going to have to be fought out head to head, day to day to a final reckoning. That's what they are going to do and if we don't recognise that and act accordingly, we will lose.
    The question is this: Where to we turn to? After all, the "big tent" Democrats -- a favorite meme from the Big Box Blogs of the past year -- are siding with the Republicans:

    Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson and U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP Committee), today announced a landmark agreement between key stakeholders on a broad-ranging health insurance bill to provide more affordable health insurance options to America’s small businesses and working families.Who says Republicans work their nefarious plots alone? Senate Democrats are right alongside in the effort to ban birth control.

    I'm sure Bob Casey, Jr. would approve.

  • (9)

    Well, it is to laugh really.

    The umpteenth Democratic pass out, pass over, lie-down-fall-down cream puff move: "I have not read it", they (nearly) all said.

    Clinton hiding from reporters behind the 4' 11" Barbara Mikulski (Dana Milbank), Kerry flipped (WaPo and The Hill) and then he flopped, then he tipped over -- he just does somersaults. Nobody sane can watch it by now.

    They aren't spineless anymore, they are fucking fried shrimp. Small ones...

    ...and then I toured the Big Box Blogs... who all shriek they want better, more better, best, bestest from their (you should excuse the commonness of the phrase) Fighting Dems.

    They want the fried shrimp to... well, a long list of things dead and butterflied shrimp just cannot do...

    Such drahma. So late. And so fake. Crocodile tears. Hot and cold spigots.

    I say to them:

    get your tongues out for Reid, the way you all did for a damned year. That casino hack with the lobbyist children - and the visible G-spot for rightie pro-life Catholic judges.

    Here are the DC Dems:

    But for a handful, they are all "Blue Dogs"

    Here are the "incestuous amplification" Big Box Bloggers:

    Tiniest pink fight promoters -
    Don King is not threatened

    It's a set.

    In case you had not heard (nor caught C-Span last Sunday) the likes of Carville, Begala and Kamarck (all DLC branded on their aging haunches) are "take the party back" people. Really. The kids at Harvard's Kennedy School for Government were not too impressed either...

    The tired trio exuded flop sweat thru the event. No surprise, flop sweat is something the party has down pat.

    Shrimp, dead but still sweating - and flopping.

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    UPDATED: Thursday, 12:17 PM, PT:

    Think Progress is reporting the first poll on censure:

    First censure poll released.

    46 percent of Americans (48 percent of voters) support Sen. Russ Feingold’s censure resolution, while 44 percent (43 percent of voters) oppose the idea, according to an American Research Group poll.

  • (9)

    from Talk to Action

    Down through the ages, women and men have used just about anything they could think of in their attempts to prevent pregnancy, from vaginal plugs of crocodile dung to the lowly lemon. And the crusaders of the religious right waging today's war on sex tell us that every one of them was wrong. According to them, the only method that's God-approved is Natural Family Planning, or NFP.

    NFP is a more sophisticated version of what used to be called the "rhythm method" - which was based only on the date of a woman's last menstrual period, although the term is still used as colloquial shorthand for NFP - but the goal is the same: "abstinence from genital contact and sexual intercourse during the fertile phase of the cycle as the means to avoid pregnancy."  Even when couples use NFP conscientiously, the failure rate of is estimated to be about 10%. But now, it looks as though something even more troubling about NFP could be what happens when it works.

    New research indicates that the success of NFP depends on rigging the reproductive odds in favor of producing embryos that are unable to implant - you know, the same mechanism that the religious right condemns as "abortifacient" in its campaign against birth control pills, even though that postulated mode of action has never been demonstrated.

    But if and when a blastocyst does fail to implant, well ... as Judie Brown is so fond of saying, "the woman's body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die." And it now seems quite plausible that Brown and other "pro-life" luminaries are encouraging their faithful followers to let untold millions of their "tiny babies" die in obedience to God's law.

  • (9)

    The House passed an anti-abortion bill in Louisiana by a margin of 85-17 that goes as far as rejecting exceptions for rape and incest.

    The bill contains language allowing for medication to be used to block fertilization, therefore apparently eliminating the need for exceptions.

    Gov. Kathleen Blanco says she will sign the bill when it comes to her desk, but at a rate of 85-17, it seems that the bill is nearly in place.

    What has happened to abortion rights? Have we been sleeping? With all the women who have had abortions and those who haven't but support the right, how has progressed this far? I mean, I'm really wondering here. This is insane. According to the article, 11 states have introduced similar bills. Where is the outrage? I'm sickened. Is there anyone out there listening?

  • (9)

    This is not a movie review, but a general complaint. Is it possible we're living in the 21st century? Not judging by the stories we're telling, which recycle the same staid gender roles. I'm taking about the summer blockbuster movies Superman and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

    I was pretty disappointed with the characters written for women in both films. This is not an indictment of either Kate Bosworth or Keira Knightley (Superman and Pirates, respectively). I'm sure both actors were doing the best they could with the material they had. But have you ever seen a worse Lois Lane? I didn't feel she was a crack reporter, driven to nail a story down - she seemed to be there as the damsel in distress. Yes, Margot Kidder fulfilled the same role in the Superman film of 1978, but at least there were gestures towards her career: the balcony scene where she gets out her pad and pencil for the scoop on Superman, and the general indication that she had drives and desires, and led an autonomous life.

    In fact, having recently viewed Superman: The Movie, I was stunned by a scene I'd forgotten: there's a long sequence where Superman and Lois Lane fly above Metropolis at night, just after the balcony scene mentioned above. The audience gain access to Lane's thoughts during an unrushed monologue where she muses on what is unfolding before her. This places the whole audience in sympathy with Lane, and places our subjectivity squarely on a female character's shoulders.

    I got the sense from the 2006 Superman script that it could've cared less what Kate Boswell's thoughts were, or what drove her, besides the socially sanctioned love for her child. Speaking of child - how boring is it to have her kid be male? For God's sake, at least take a bit of a risk and make the child female - that way we would've had more interesting ideas raised about gender and the whole "superman" mythology. But, no - they had to keep that whole Christian Father/Son thing chugging along.

    In Pirates, there's a wonderful moment where Keira Knightly, as Elizabeth Swann, is aiming a gun at some barrels of gunpowder. You think - yes! - they've given her some action, something interesting to do. But the inclusion of her fiance on the barrels, along with a swaying boat which, in her female incompetence, she is unable to contend with, means that the satisfaction of blasting the Kraken's tentacles is left to the ever-shaky Johnny Depp. Yawn, sigh. Well, what was I thinking - they'd let the female character actually do something?

    The Pirates script even has a promising set-up where Swann has to disguise herself as a sailor and work on a ship incognito. The writers could've taken this in any number of interesting ways, having fun with the role reversal, undermining gender expectations, etc. But her passing as a male member of crew is left largely unexplored. Disappointing.

    Am I too optimistic about gender roles crumbling in this new century? Hollywood seems stuck in reverse with its unexamined assumptions about men and women, endlessly recycling the same old stories…

    Blur penned these lyrics in 1995:

    This is the next century
    Where the universal's free
    You can find it anywhere
    Yes, the future's been sold

    Every night we're gone
    And to karaoke songs
    How we like to sing along,
    Though the words are wrong

    It really really really could happen
    Yes it really really really could happen
    When the days they seem to fall through you
    Well just let them go

    I share Blur's thinly-veiled skepticism. Chances are, the plum roles will continue to be written with men in mind, until more women move into directing and producing. Then maybe we'll have a fighting chance of having complex, interesting leading ladies: in short, humans, not cardboard characters.

    It really really really could happen.

    Lyrics: Blur, "The Universal", The Great Escape

  • (9)

    The FDA has shocked me. After stonewalling their own doctors and scientists, the politicians in the agency have decided to act rationally, perhaps as a ploy to help the Republicans you've seen frothing at the mouth over the past two years whenever they talk about sex to seem more reasonable.

    It's a partial victory:

    Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor's note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the
    Food and Drug Administration told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    The compromise decision is a partial victory for women's advocacy and medical groups that say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies.

    The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, they can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.

    I hope the nutters out there will note that last sentence. The fact is that Plan B prevents conception. With this "morning after" pill, there is no abortion at all. It's not even an issue.

    What's at issue for Plan B opponents is whether the man's sperm can claim dibs on a woman's body, even if they're just wiggling around in there without fertilizing an egg (conception), without even an egg's being there to be fertilized. It's one of the most absurd arguments for patriarchal privilege out there.

    Of course, we can expect the nutters to continue to distort and lie about Plan B. Anything that gives women power over their own bodies is bad, according to them. Just wait. You'll see them all over cable news today (if you can stomach watching that crap).

    The fear and unreason is already out there:

    Bravo folks! let's give our kids one more reason to have sex like rabbits!

    "Yeah, it's much better to have pregnancy as punishment! And kids will have sex because the girl will then get to take a pill!"

    Don't worry, though. It seems that most people see the positive side. This could reduce the number of aborted pregnancies significantly. That should be good news for everybody.