In her article, Vivian states, "I'm still continually amazed at how they subjugate women's health to their own version of pseudo-morality. Would that such moral bastions support, instead of oppose, social program funding that supports women and children that are already here."

Two concerns are evident to me in this statement:
1) a lack of understanding that a child's life begins at conception (which has been show medically and scientifically thanks to advancement in technology); Having said that, unborn children ARE 'already here'.
2) the fact that millions of women who undergo abortions suffer tremendous psychological depression and trauma (and commonly other medical problems) as a result of abortion.

While current law forbids family planning agencies in the United States from using Title X funds to perform abortions, funds channeled to abortion-providing clinics inevitably underwrite abortions because they are used to offset operational expenses, subsequently freeing up dollars for abortions.

Taxpayer funds should never support an organization that provides services that take and harm life, regardless of whatever other services they provide. If Planned Parenthood completely ceased all abortions, I would GLADlLY support efforts to fund other work done to benefit the health of the woman and child. Until then, my efforts will go toward funding any and all other organizations that truly focus on the woman and her health without compromising them with abortion practices.

Vivian,
You just don't get it. You should be praising Senator Chuck Colgan as I am for making a principled stand (and broadening the Democrat party rather than keeping it narrow as you would like), but then again, I am sure you don't care much for the junior U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, either.

Once a life is formed in the womb at conception, it is a moral obligation to try and protect that life. Although the ultra liberal lefties, yourself included of course, have been losing the Pro-Life argument incrementally and slowly ever since the misguided decision of Roe v. Wade, you all just don't get that the American people are not in favor of abortion on demand.

Some in the Virginia Senate like Whipple, Howell, Saslaw and others are so militant in their pro-abortion stances that they only see red. They try to block any reasonable measures to ensure a woman is fully informed before she takes a life. Understanding on your part would be true justice.

So maybe you should try to back up your liberal "feelings" with statistics for once.

Anonymous, until every woman decides not to terminate, I'm afraid you won't be persuaded or understand that women are indeed informed. Why oh why is a woman making this decision thought to be uninformed or deceived?! Women are perfectly capable of making this personal decision for themselves in consultation with the person or people of their choice. They don't need you or others like you to "help" them. As if a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, (or who even suspects she might be), and doesn't want to be, doesn't begin thinking immediately of what she is going to do.
And I'm sorry Cynthia, to be the one to tell you this, but your tax dollars have been used to kill innocent people since day one of the Iraq War.

Just as a random musing insert: if taking a morning-after pill prevents fertilization, and so does abstinence, and preventing fertilization is supposedly a very bad thing because it has the possibility of becoming a somebody, consider this: every egg you ever had has the possibility to become a somebody. Just having a period every month is a bad thing because you didn't let that egg get fertilized and have a kid with it.
It's hard to understand why anyone would want that.
Another one: have you considered how many sperm die every time you have sex? They all could have been babies, too. Are you saying that's bad, too?

Why can't we accept abortion for what it is? It is an unwillingness to accept responsibility for a CHOICE ALREADY MADE. Whenever a woman willingly engages in vaginal intercourse, there is a possibility that she will become pregnant. If a pregnancy is "unwanted," then there is one surefire way to make certain that it does not occur - don't have sex. People who advocate for abortion rights want to have their cake and eat it too.
Allow me to make an analogy. Let's say that I want to skydive. I love the thrill and exhiliration of falling weightless through the sky. I relish the rush of the wind in my face. However, I also don't want an "unwanted parachute failure." No matter how careful I am, there is always a possibility that my parachute will fail. If it does, I have no CHOICE but to accept the consequences of my decision to skydive and the risk that I undertook in doing so. The great thing about abortion is that it requires no annoying personal accountability for decisions. I get to be as careless as I want, and when my "parachute" fails, I have a magic button that I can push that will put me back on that plane, having never made the jump.
As strongly as a person may advocate for a woman's right to choose, why does no one advocate for a woman's responsibility for the consequences of her choice? I think we can all agree that no pregnancy at all is preferable to an "unwanted pregnancy" followed by an abortion. The difference is that some of us are willing to be responsible enough to recognize that if we don't want the risk, we shouldn't engage in the risky behavior.
I add here a caveat: Notice that above I talked about a woman who WILLINGLY engages in vaginal intercourse. Cases where women are the victims of rape or incest, as well as situations where a pregnancy jeapordizes the life of the mother, present more complicated moral issues.

my apologies for the sin/rape comment. Yes, that was overkill.

but you did say:

"situations where a person irresponsibly and willingly engages in vaginal intercourse and then aborts the fetus because a pregnancy is too much of an inconvenience fall EXACTLY within the analogy I made."

Of all the women who have abortions, I'm not sure who your above statement excludes. Is there a way to "responsibly and willingly" engage in sexual intercourse. We both agree birth control is a good option for prevention. I guess our disagreement is instances where a woman does get pregnant.

It sounds like you'd have more respect for a pregnant woman who chose not to abort. Accepting the consequences? I guess your entitled to your opinion. But the thing is that whether or not our opinions our satisfied, the woman is still left with difficult choices, and a difficult circumstance. Calling pregnancy an "inconvenience" truly belittles the possibility of undergoing the burden of life-altering body endurance for nine months, career disruption, and a life sacrified to be a mother.

Now, you may at this point say, "she should have thought of that before", but what good is that advice after the event? She can't go back and reverse time. But she still has to make choices in the here and now. You can scold her if you want, but I don't think your scolding is a reason for her to carry a fetus, and be a mother, if she is unwilling and unable.

Listen, having an unwanted pregnancy, is - for both men and women, often but not always a lapse in judgment. We don't ask that you reward our lapses, but we do ask that you stop condemning us as we commit the the responsible act of getting back on our feet again. You've made mistakes. You've had to bounce back. So do we.

In that process, we need control of our destiny. That is why we should have all options available: abortion, adoption, or parenting. As you said, these are not easy decisions to make, and no one should make them for us. But government is doing just that through its anti-abortion laws.

How a couple chooses to bounce back from an unintended pregnancy is something they need to figure out on their own. And doctors shouldn't be hand-tied in helping them. And women shouldn't have decisions about their body be taken from them.

How is taking the life of your child ever a solution? I am pro choice, after your child is growing in your body, you have the choice if you will raise her or someone else will raise her.
I have 9 kids, my body, my choice. I had one at 18, I am glad I did not kill her, it changed my life to mother her, but in the best way possible. Pro-deathers are not telling the truth, I know many, many mothers who ended their child's lives, none of them ever got over it.
Rape victims who ended their child's lives said they got over the rape, they never got over the cold blooded murder of their kids. Other rape victims said they are glad something wonderful, their child, came out of a hateful crime. Don't take my word for it, they wrote a book. I've been raped, I don't say this carelessly, it devastated me. But abortion isn't the solution.
I know many single mothers, they have it tough, but not near as tough as the married, but killed their kids to be "happy" ones do. Post Abortion syndrome is very real.
A friend stood outside planned parenthood, she said she witnessed many mothers go in and end their children's lives, some with the fathers, some with their parents, and NONE of them looked happy or relieved when they came out, they all looked devastated. The sad thing is, they will continue to look that way for many, many years.
How is abortion a good choice? I don't see it.
If the funding is cut, maybe it will force us all to come up with solutions we can ALL live with.
By the way, my daughter recently married, she had her first kiss on her wedding day, I know this because they agreed to be chaparoned on every single date. Abstinance is possible, they did not suffer for it, in fact they are two of happiest people I know.
Fetus is latin for baby.