"Kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I frankly do not understand all the concern over the loss of reproductive >rights. They are protected by the highest law of the land and I cannot >conceive how any group can overturn that law.
I know this isn't what you meant, but there is one group who can, and one day just might, overturn that law: the Supreme Court. And I think any supporter of reproductive rights *should* be very concerned. Just because a majority of the population supports choice doesn't mean the Supreme Court won't overturn Roe v. Wade. After all, a majority of the voting population wanted Al Gore as president, and look what they got (never mind the chads, it's the two thousand elderly Jews who mistakenly voted for Buchanan, plus the tens of thousands of upright citizens, mostly black, who were denied their voting rights simply because their name and/or birthdate and/or social security number happened to be the same as a felon's). >On the other hand, I believe >that people have a right to speak of their beliefs based on their religion. >Just because they speak up against it does not mean they can overturn the >law. It is certainly not only the Christian right who are pro-life. Whatever their constituency, it really peeves me that the anti-reproductive rights contingent has appropriated the concept of "pro-life" to legitimize their agenda, with the insulting implication that those who favor reproductive rights are "anti-life" (not to mention the equally insulting implication that those who are against choice, even when the life of the mother is in danger, are "pro-life.") Bullshit. The proper appellation for the two sides of this issue are "choice" and "anti-choice." Everyone is in favor of life. -Fred
