The point of “punishment” is to change behavior and, in part, stop similar crimes from happening again. In this instance, removing the abortion providers serves the same purpose as putting drug dealers and trafficers away for long times as opposed to drug users.

I would have no particular qualms against charging women with something, perhaps a low level felony for a first time conviction and a significantly higher level for a second time around, or maybe a very long period of probation for first offenders that would convert to prison time for a second offense.

My bottom line is to have something that denies access to abortion across the board except in instances where the actual life of the mother is in danger. I’d be willing to add an exception for rape or incest as long as the rape is reported at the time (not two months later) or someone is actually charged with incest. Charging providers takes care of that. I’d also extend the murder charge to everyone in the “provider loop” from the “doctor” to the nurses to the people who answer the phones.

But I don’t ask you to see (nor did I mean to imply) a parallel between the execution of a criminal and abortion. These are two different issues, and a person can be perfectly consistent with any of the possible four variations.

That’s the limit of the “conservatives in the mist” game that I’m willing to play….

Possibly convicting them to the death penalty even, same as other murderers?

Or do you merely want to fine the women in question? (in which case rich women will simply pay the fine, and it wouldn’t deter them)

This has always been vague to me, but since anti-abortionism is such a strongly felt attitude among Republicans I’d like it clarified, one way or another.

Let’s put a watch the ‘uptick’ in such terminations of innocent lives as compared to lives lost in those ‘horrible’ wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, henceforth.

I’m guessing that as the war fronts continue to improve, due to the continued courageous nature of our Armed Forces, deaths will continue to fall.

By the stroke of his almighty pen, President Obama will send thousands of others to their deaths.

As memory serves, if there was one place the Reagan administration, the Vatican City and Arab Middle East countries converged at the U.N., it was to push back against old Europe and communist countries that were hell bent on bringing about what Planned Parenthood does so horrifically well.

As for Obama, we know he has a crazy record on abortion. However, I don’t see congress letting him get away with his far-left, Pro-Choice agenda. I have spoken with democratic congressmen and senators who told me they will do everything they can to block FOCA from passing.

Through all this, values voters must be diligent in demanding that the Pro-Life movement is respected and taken seriously.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1117

For years the government has been cutting what little funding was available for “abstinence” ed

from the Boston Globe

Over the last eight years, a cottage industry of “abstinence-only until marriage” purveyors became a McMansion industry. Funding increased from $73 million a year in 2001 to $204 million in 2008. That’s a total of $1.5 billion in federal money for an ideology in search of a methodology. And half the states refused funds to pay for sex mis-education.

So yeah, it’s a bias article, it’s what google coughed up. But it does give hard numbers.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/01/03/the_truth_about_teens_and_sex/

We can argue about how well the money has been spent… or wasted in this endeavor. Personally, I think it’s been a big waste. Some kids are going to have sex - and those that do should know how to minimize the risks.

Then again, if it’s blowing that hard, you may want to consider a 5-wood.

Cheers !