I look at it differently. I see the feminism in not accepting what they're told, without researching on their own. This is an outgrowth of the women's health movement from the 50s, where it was illegal for women to abort, and it was illegal for doctors (or anyone) to discuss contraceptives. Poor women were locked in the home with huge broods of kids.

As far as I can tell it is still a feminist position to have women in charge of their own bodies. If this place is meant to be a "crisis pregnancy" center... what sort of crisis are they dealing with? Are these center volunteers addressing the crisis of the woman who is coming to them for advice? Somehow, I'm not entirely convinced about this.

The analogy that comes to mind is of an organization that helps drowning people at a beach by staying on the sand, and using a megaphone to instruct someone how to swim, instead of jumping in, getting wet, and helping the drowner.

There are a myriad of reasons why your post is objectionable to me. I'll touch on the few glaring problems, and see how you address those.

I'd like to hear your explanation about the issue with contraceptives then. Contraceptives are not abortion. They're pregnancy prevention, no? I can understand not providing the physical objects, religious reasons and all... but to completely dismiss the idea of contraception as mehtods of pregnancy prevention, to imply that they never work by immediately jumping to the abstinance position is patently contradictory to the idea of "only there to prevent abortion".

And your "defence" begins with PLANNED PARENTHOOD, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, PLANNED PARENTHOOD? Please. You come off like a shill for the religious right. Distract, misinform, do anything you like, except address the concerns in the article.

"People certainly have the right to their opinion. Equally, other people have the right to their opinions about that opinion. (And so on.)"

Read the article about the 21 year old mother that wants to get her tubes tied. She wants the Doctor to change his opinion to match hers, so the Doctor will then perform the operation. The Doctor tells her that he will not perform the operation, and then why he won't perform the operation. She and her husband turn this into "THE WORLD IS TELLING ME NOT TO TIE MY TUBES". I admit I believe the Doctor erred in trying to persuade her to change her mind. The doctor has EVERY right to tell someone that they won't perform the elective surgery they are requesting, and to tell the person the reasons why they won't perform the surgery. And she has every right to find another doctor, which it seemed like was happening in the original article.

"I'm not sure what article you're referring to, but that certainly wasn't Ms. Harding's contention."

Yes, unfortunately, it was.

You see, my comment quotes a source that Ms. Harding used. She follows that quote by telling her audience to remember those male attitudes and male reactions whenever a Man tries to talk about finding common-ground when discussing abortion issues. In effect, Ms. Harding is telling us the despite what a man might say, they're all hating women under the skin. She does this with the following quote:

"This is what we need to remember when men like William Saletan, Ross Douthat, and even our president go on about finding "common ground" between pro-choicers and anti-choicers. It's a lovely idea..."

She goes on to say that if she believed that pro-lifers actually wanted to find common ground she sit with them. But, she is actively telling her audience to remember the male attitude toward women espoused by my source when examining the attitude of Pro-Lifers (men wanting to control womens' wombs) toward Pro-choicers (women wanting control over their wombs) crowd. (Parentheticals added to highlight the analogy)

Saying something where you think it was private, and then uttering an non-apology for the incident only confirms what people think about you.

The reasons why this does matter:

1) "Rusty" made the racist remark on his facebook site, tacitly agreeing that the comment described a facet of his life.

2) His apology, wasn't. He was only sorry if someone was offended by his remark, he wasn't sorry he uttered it. Or if he was, he never mentioned that, AND he furthere attempted to dissemble the apology by implying that Michelle Obama made the statement prior.

3) That he had held positions of authority in the Republican party would not have made mention were it not for position #4.

4) Michelle Obama is the President's wife. By association, that comment is directed at the office of the President. This association therfore categorizies this thoughtless comment about a gorilla as one more incomprehensibly moronic statements from Republicans that cannot handle serving under a Democratic president.

This is the sort of response that people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck inspire. The brash, tasteless, factless nature of these "entertainers" emboldens the less critical to utter these horrible ideas. Their "schticks" are the anecdotal evidence that people unaccustomed to thinking for themselves use to justify Rascism and Ignorance. I am not saying that the Right has a lock on damaging schticks, but since the article highlights a Republican setting the example, it makes sense to look at where they might get justification from.