The HHS needs to be purged of Bushes religious zealots who are trying to impose their religious beliefs on all of us through health regulations. McCain has also been an enemy of contraception. The Bush policies in disregard to reproductive health will not change with McCain.

So, it isn't Leavitt's aim to redefine birth control as abortion.

Uh. Let's say it like it is — he says that's not his aim.

He can say whatever he wants, or more to the point whatever anyone else wants. The only thing that matters is what he does.

A day will come when we all learn to ignore press releases. Just ignore them, completely, as the utterly vacuous fluff that they are. When a guy like this writes something like that, journalists will simply say, "Leavitt had no meaningful comment on the matter" and that will be that.

Nice fishing expedition. My guess is that if there hadn't been instant outrage, birth control would have been defined as abortion before anyone could say "I'm not a feminist."

Why can't things mean what they mean? Why can't abortion mean the termination of a pregnancy, and birth control mean the prevention of conception?

One definition of a politician is a character firm in the belief that a word and/or phrase means only what he or she want it to mean, no more and no less. This definition was established long, long ago, even before Lewis Carrol personified it, skewered the arrogance of it, and demonstrated the fragility of the egos that spawn it. Too bad these Humpty-Dumptys keep getting elected and appointed.

with Ms. hillary out of the race[ whom I was supporting for her positions on women's rights and all]; all we've got left is

"Ms." Obama. in fact, in many ways, from april on, I thought he was better on this[ hillary and the catholic vote in PA?]

those idiot " hillary voters for mc cain" women whom are so mad that their girl did not get nominated; all oughtta go to www.NARAL.org/johnmccain and see what he will do. [I sent that one to my sister- whom thinks mc cain's the best for our country!]finally, what he's about, is SLOOOOOOWLY leaking out! but the blind will still lead the stupid, of course- that " blind" being the national media.

it would allow for some practitioners to refuse to dispense birth control if they personally define it as abortion"

Well, I thought feminism was all about personal choice and respecting differences and not "judging" others. Yet somehow if a person "chooses" to do something different than feminists dictate tolerance goes out the window and judgments come fast and furious.

When feminists like something they say, "It's the law!" and harrumph that everyone should obey. But when they don't like a law, they encourage kindred souls to ignore the law.

When feminists see abortion opponents showing "silent scream" type graphics and/or the clinical photos of partial-birth abortions they cry "Foul!" and say such horrific shots are inimical to reasoned "discourse." On the other hand, when abortion proponents show pictures of women who died from back alley or self-performed abortions they call it "the truth."

When men balk at being forced to pay for children they did not want, feminists show hardened hearts, quipping that the man should have kept his pants on. They care not a jot about what kind of job the man will to work or for how long. He must be held ACCOUNTABLE. When a woman says she's "not ready" to have a kid, they deem pregnancy a threat to the women's health (that is her mental health: being bummed at the idea of raising a rug rat) and DEMAND that she be allowed to abort her way out of responsibilities.

Over and over we see this double-standard: Men are considered adults who have obligations and don't deserve compassion. Women are frail children who have option and deserve every out they pout about.

I don't have a problem when others choose to do something different with abortion or birth control than I do. What I do have a problem with is them forcing their choices on everyone else. If you don't like birth control, don't use it. That's fine. But if you're a pharmacist or doctor, you don't get to push your agenda on me. That's taking unfair advantage of the power differential inherent in the provider-patient relationship.

If I walk into a pharmacy with a prescription, I expect to have it filled. If one particular pharmacist can't do it, fine. There needs to be someone on call who can, though. Same thing with doctors. If one can't/won't prescribe birth control, find me one who can. It should be the responsibility of the provider, not the patient, to find a replacement.

Lastly, there will be some pharmacists who think they can not only refuse to fill a prescription, but confiscate it as well. That is absolutely unacceptable. Again, the choice not to use (or even dispense) contraception is fine, but forcing that choice on anyone else is not. Taking a prescription and not returning it is theft, and I would fully press charges if that ever happened to me.

You often make interesting points, despite your overly emotional rhetorics; but here, I really, really have to disagree. Dr_Dredd above has already expressed the main reason with respect to the topic of "practitioners not wanting to dispense birth control out of personal beliefs". If I need something -- an operation, treatment, medicine -- to which I am entitled by law (no crime involved) and a doctor doesn't want to give it to me because of his/her beliefs, this is not my problem: the doctor him/herself, or the hospital, should find me one who would. It's up to the hospital and employment laws to decide whether or not this doctor should be kept; but it shouldn't be my problem. By wanting the legal operation/treatment/medicine, I have done nothing wrong, and I don't deserve to be denied it.

Feminism may well be all about choices and respecting differences and not judging others. This doesn't mean someone has the right to "choose to do something right" if it harms others' rights to get that which they are entitled to by law. Feminism is not in favor of theft per se, for instance, no matter how much this pains the heart of potential thieves and prevents their 'right' to 'be different' from the mainstream of non-thieves.

I haven't seen people (among which feminists) forbidding the use of "silent scream" type graphics; I have seen them protesting against it and presenting arguments, which you can counterargue if you want. You're welcome to say why you think these shots are congenial to reasoned discourse if you have good arguments for that. If you also have arguments against photos of women who died from back alley or self-performed abortions as relevant, they please present them.

I actually agree that men shouldn't be necessarily forced to pay for children they didn't want -- the law should take the situation of conception into account, on a case-by-case basis: in each specific case, did the man exploit the woman, or did the woman exploit the man? (Not, it may very well be that the real situation in most cases is that the man did exploit the woman in some sense, and should pay. That's an empirical question; I don't see the statistics in your post.)

You are clearly overstating your case, MerelyMortalMan, and making yourself look wrong, aggressive, enmical without this being at all necessary. Dialogue is open. Get your arguments ready. Don't disparage other participants. Don't exaggerate, don't overstate ('women are frail children...') or else you'll be ridiculed by other people.