More contraception means more sex,.... more abortion

Birth Control and Contraception do not cut abortion numbers.

One study, based on Centers for Disease Control data, established clear links between birth control and increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). STD increases are a very reliable indicator of increased sexual activity and show that contraception is wrongly perceived as low-cost insurance — a perception that motivates increased sexual activity.
And more sex means more pregnancies. Why? Because contraception is far from 100% effective, and with mass distribution of contraception comes a commensurate increase in sexual activity. More pregnancies will result because contraception fails in predictable percentages.
It is noteworthy that failure rates are highest in Planned Parenthood’s customer base:

Failures are highest among cohabitating and other unmarried women, among low income, African-American and Hispanic women, among adolescents and women in their 20s. For example, adolescent women who are not married but cohabitating experience a failure rate of about 47% in the first year of contraceptive use.

In Sweden, between 1995 and 2001, teen abortion rates grew 32% during a period of low-cost condoms, oral contraceptives and over-the-counter emergency contraception. Similarly, National Review recently reported that “out of 23 studies on the effects of increased access to ECs, not one study could show a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions.”

A recent ten-year study in Spain was reported to have found the same thing:
[C]ontraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.

Planned Parenthood’s own affiliate, the Guttmacher Institute, showed simultaneous increases in both abortion rates and contraceptive use in the U.S., Cuba, Denmark, the Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea. Guttmacher cites other countries as evidence of the opposite relationship, but it is noteworthy that many of those countries already had high abortion rates, often as part of existing coercive government policies.

Planned Parenthood’s Frederick S. Jaffe, in Abortion Politics, admitted that “…even if everyone were to practice contraception, and use the most effective medically prescribed methods, there would still be a very large number of unwanted pregnancies.”

Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts [former director of Planned Parenthood of England] 1976 (even as early as 1973) quoted in Sex and Social Engineering by Valerie Riches.- “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate…”.

In Abortion, he noted, “…those who use contraception are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion…”

(*)(*)(*) Alfred Kinsey, 1955: “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.”

Sociologist Lionel Tiger, 1999: “With effective contraception controlled by women, there are still more abortions than ever…[C]ontraception causes abortion.”

(*)(*)(*) British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981: “…women…have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”

Conclusion. Real-world studies show that contraception has not reduced, but has instead increased unintended births. Therefore, President Obama’s recent HHS edict has a very questionable basis in fact. It has also alienated a large swath of the electorate and is in all likelihood unconstitutional.

It seems that in this case, science has taken a backseat to ideology, and as a result, Catholics and other faiths are being systematically mistreated as a result of their religious beliefs.

That makes this a case of bad science and religious bigotry.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/2209/72/


A STUDY....

Contraception. 2011 Jan;83(1):82-7. Epub 2010 Jun 17.
Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997-2007.
Dueñas JL, Lete I, Bermejo R, Arbat A, Pérez-Campos E, Martínez-Salmeán J, Serrano I, Doval JL, Coll C.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, E-41009 Sevilla, Spain. jlduenas@us.es

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
This study was designed to acquire information about the use of contraceptive methods in order to reduce the number of elective abortions.

STUDY DESIGN:
Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.

RESULTS:
During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

CONCLUSIONS:
The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.


The Guttmacher Institute notes that in the United States, 54% of women seeking abortions were using contraception in the month they became pregnant.16

In Sweden, K. Edgardh found that despite free abortions, free contraceptive counseling, low cost condoms and oral contraceptives, and over-the-counter emergency contraception (EC), Swedish teen abortion rates rose to 22.5 per thousand from 17 per thousand between 1995 and 2001.17

The Guttmacher Institute's own study in 2003 showed simultaneous increases both abortion rates and contraceptive use in the United States, Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea. The study also claimed, however, that abortion rates went down after fertility on some of those countries had reached very low levels and became constant, particularly in South Korea. Critics note, however, that In the United States, lowered abortion rates were also due to state laws restricting access to abortion.


Michael New Ph.D., (Feb. 2007), for example, found that pro-life legislation such as laws requiring parental involvement in the abortion decision, requiring informed consent, imposing Medicaid funding restrictions, and banning partial-birth abortion, reduces minors' abortion rates. Parental involvement state laws resulted in a 30.5% decline, and Medicaid funding restrictions which result in a 23% decline.18

In an earlier (2006) study, Dr. New also found that after states passed and enforced parental involvement laws, abortion rates among minors were reduced. When these laws were repealed, abortion rates rose, and dropped again when new parental involvement laws were again passed and enforced.19

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/2209/72/

 

INDUSTRY COMMENTS.......


Pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute has repeatedly reported on major surveys that show 56%-58% of all women having abortions were using contraception the month they became pregnant.

Alan Guttmacher [former President of Planned Parenthood] stated, "...when abortion is easily obtainable, contraception is neither actively nor diligently used...there would be no reward for the woman who practices contraception...Abortion on demand relieves the husband of all responsibility; he simply becomes a coital animal." [Rutgers Law Review 22, 1968]

Alan Guttmacher Institute researcher Stanley K. Henshaw: “Contraceptive users appear to have been more motivated to prevent births than were nonusers.”

Alan Guttmacher Institute researcher Stan E. Weed: “[F]or every 1000 teens between 15-19 years of age enrolled in family planning clinics, we can expect between 50 to 120 more pregnancies.”

Infamous “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey, 1955: “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.”

Sociologist Lionel Tiger, 1999: “With effective contraception controlled by women, there are still more abortions than ever…[C]ontraception causes abortion.”

National Survey of Family Growth- Contraceptive failure rates show 7% for the pill, 16% for the condom, 22% for the diaphragm, and 30% for spermicide. Figures are even higher for unmarried people.

British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981: “...women...have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.” ["Sex Education for Bureaucrats," The Scotsman, 29June1981]

Planned Parenthood's Frederick S. Jaffe, in Abortion Politics, admitted that "...even if everyone were to practice contraception, and use the most effective medically prescribed methods, there would still be a very large number of unwanted pregnancies."

"...even if women use 95 percent-effective contraception, seven out of 10 will eventually face an unwanted pregnancy," reported "The Successful Animal", Science 86.

Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts [former director of Planned Parenthood of England] 1976 (even as early as 1973) quoted in Sex and Social Engineering by Valerie Riches.- “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate...”.

In Abortion, he noted, "...those who use contraception are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion..."

At another time he said, "No society has controlled its fertility...without recourse to a significant number of abortions." [Malcolm Potts, "Fertility Rights," The Guardian, 25April1979]

Dr. Larimore prescribed the pill before, tried to prove by research that it had no 'post fertilization effect', but instead found 94 studies proving that "post-fertilization effects are operative to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy."

Published research in 2000 in the science journal of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Dianne Irving, a bioethicist at Georgetown University and a former bench biochemist with the U.S.‘s National Institutes of Health, said the need for more study is “non-existent” because “years of scientific studies around the world” have established the link between contraception and abortion.
Malcolm Potts, the former Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said in 1979, “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”

The U.S. Supreme Court also admitted the connection while upholding the “right” to abortion in their 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception,” the justices wrote. “For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”

In Canada, the “birth control pill”, was legalized in 1969, the same year that abortion was made legal. The following year, Canada Statistics reported 11, 152 abortions. Today that number is sadly 106,418. A ten-fold increase in abortions since 1970 has occurred during a period of unprecedented contraceptive use. The World Health Organization reports that “among Canadian women age 15–44, 86% report using contraception [the pill]”.

 

If any "pro-lifer" tries to convince you that their "end-game"....IS NOT to ban just abortion, but to ban contraception as well.

Consider the above. CM's website clearly promotes that agenda as well. "When" they get rid of abortion....they'll go after The Pill and IUDs...then cervical caps and condoms.

It's not about "saving the unborn" at that point (rarely is)...it's about controlling women.

 

Guttmacher Institute Claims Contraception Lowers Abortions, Data Shows Otherwise (10/09)

The new report issued earlier this week by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute claims promoting expanded birth control and contraception has lowered abortions worldwide. However, firm statistical evidence from various nations shows abortions increase despite contraception promotion.

The report from the Guttmacher Institute, a former affiliate of the Planned Parenthood abortion business, has already been panned for relying on pro-abortion groups to draw its conclusions and promoting a dubious number of how many women have died from illegal abortions worldwide.

The Guttmacher study also claims "increases in global contraceptive use have contributed to a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions."

It claims "positive global trends in increased contraceptive use" have helped "lower unintended pregnancy rates and declining abortion numbers."

"The rate of abortions in a given country corresponds mostly to the rate of unintended pregnancy, which in turn corresponds closely to rates of contraceptive use," Guttmacher claims.

However, recent news out of England dispels the long-held myth that promoting contraception and birth control reduces the number of abortions.
According to the London Daily Mail, teen pregnancy rates in England are now higher than they were in 1995 and pregnancies among girls under 16, below the age of sexual consent, are also at the highest level since 1998.

That is despite the British government spending £300 million (that's over $454 million for those of us in the United States) in an attempt to cut the number of teen pregnancies in half by promoting comprehensive sexual education.

The British teen abortion rate, according to the newspaper, has also climbed steadily since 1999 when the government released its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy.

That would be an aberration were it only an isolated case, but it is not.

Last year, officials in Sweden reported that the number of abortions increased 17 percent in Sweden from 2000 to 2007 despite sales of the morning after pill increasing during the same time period.

The morning after pill became a drug that could be sold over the counter in Sweden in 2001. In that time, sales of the drug tripled in the nation's capital and doubled nationwide.

Still, new national figures show 37,205 abortions in Sweden in 2007, up approximately 17 percent from the 30,980 done in 2000. In Stockholm, 10,259 abortions were done -- a 6.9 percent increase in just one year from the 2006 figures.

Meanwhile, last year the number of abortions in Scotland rose for the third straight year despite a heavy push for women to use the morning after pill.

Abortions in Scotland rose four percent according to a report from the British National Health Service and now number 13,703. That increase came after NHS reported 13,081 abortions in 2006, up from 12,603 the previous year -- an increase of nearly 3.8 percent.

Not only is the increased promoting of the morning after pill resulting in more abortions, not less, the number of women having repeat abortions is increasing as well.

NHS reports more than a quarter of women, 26.3 percent, who had an abortion in Scotland last year had at least one prior abortion before that. That's 3,600 women who had one or more abortions prior, according to the government's statistics.

Finally, a report from Planned Parenthood of Western Washington shows abortions are on the rise in Washington state even though it participated in Washington state’s Take Charge pilot program.

Take Charge is a Medicaid section 1115 Waiver program initiated in 2001 to provide free contraceptives to low-income women not already covered under Medicaid. It was originally funded for five years in 2001, then extended for three more years, and comes up for renewal in 2009.

Yet the PPWW annual report indicates abortions rose 16 percent from 7,790 in 2006 to 9,059 in 2007.

Abortion advocates have claimed higher use of the Plan B drug through over the counter sales will result in a drop in unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1796/72/

 

Churchmouse, if birth control really did reduce abortions, would you be in favor of it, or not?

 

WHAT ALL THIS SAYS IS THIS......contraception does not lower abortion rates. People think that our kids are not educated and that we need more and more. These studies show differently.

I do not want all birth control banned...just the ones that might cause a death to a life started.

There is no method that is 100%....unless its sterilization or abstinence.

But there are methods that are acceptable and do not kill.

 

I blame television.

Since the invention of television the abortion rate has increased 6 bajillion percent

And especially cable TV

With the spread of cable tv the rate of STD infection has kojubled.

Contraception without education = Baby Maybe

Also, I blame the rise of "conservtism" for AIDS. After all, over the last 30 years with the rise of "conservatism" the increase in AIDS infections has risen in parallel.

AND I consider vitamin-d a "gateway" drug because at some time 100% of drug users have used substances containing vita-d.

You know, if I keep this up I'll qualify as Rand Paul's VP candidate.

 

So you'd keep condoms legal? And easily accessible?

- - - Updated - - -

You joke....but after they go after abortion and contraception....censorship of the media would be next.

 

And there ya go folks, what I have said the pro-lifers ultimate goal is and has been all along, (I have even read it on pro-life sites before they learned to bury it so it is not so obvious to the casual readers), they are against ALL abortions and want them ALL banned and they want ALL contraceptives banned and taken off the market. Once one understands this truth one understands that these people are fanatics that want to control your lives and force you to live your life by their belief system, nothing could be more Un-American than that IMO. So next time a pro-lifer says they only want an inch, realize that what they mean is they will take a mile if given the opportunity, keep it in mind when you vote or one day you, your wife or daughter will have no rights when it comes to birth control.

 

The study you cited concluded this:

"CONCLUSIONS:
The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation."

NOT that "more contraception causes more abortion." That is a bizarre notion.

Please provide an unbiased source for your Kinsey quote. I could not find a credible source for it.

 

None of these studies actually establishes a link between increased use of contraception results in an increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Correlation does not imply causation. Suggesting, "STD increases are a very reliable indicator of increased sexual activity" only demonstrates an increase in unprotected sex or ignorance of proper contraception use. Condoms have proven to be extremely effective in reducing the rate of infection.

Just because something has been made more available doesn't mean people will use it. A more effective study would show the rate of EC use verses the rate of non-EC use and the result of pregnancy/abortion in those two groups.

Another forged link. Unless the study actually shows the rate amongst groups who use and don't use contraception, then the conclusion is junk. How can we know for sure that the increased rate of contraception use hasn't kept up with the increase of abortion? Or that the reason for having an abortion has increased in Spain despite the increase in contraception?

 

Consider where ground zero of the pro-"life" movement is located; the Vatican. The pro-"life" movement is merely a foreign, non-organic implant fostered by the Catholic Church. And you wonder why they oppose contraception?

 

As a counter to the right-wing site used here.

1. The Daily Mail is a rabid right-wing newspaper in the UK, usually read by such people as the EDF, it has been taken to court on numerous occasions for reporting fallacies concerning immigration, homosexuality, teenage pregnancy and abortion .. I would not trust it to kill a fly when rolled up, it's best use is when regular toilet paper runs out.

2. Study conducted by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis that shows that free contraception substantially reduces the number of unintended pregnancies - http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/

3. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/

4. Freely available contraception is not the only answer, there is a need for better sex education .. it is not that contraception is failing, it is more that education is failing - "the U.S. still has the highest rate of unintended pregnancies in the developed world, and public policy has a lot to do with it, including lack of access to reliable sex education. (The CDC study, after all, found that 31.4 percent of pregnant teens didn’t use contraception because they “thought they could not get pregnant at the time.”) Crucially, economic barriers to accessing healthcare can make all the difference. After all, for higher-income women, the rate of unintended pregnancy has declined since 1994 by 29 percent; unintended pregnancies among women living below the federal poverty line rose 50 percent in the same period." - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6102a1.htm?s_cid=mm6102a1_w

5. It's great the way that right-wing papers pick a date out of thin air so long as it gives them the headline, what that paper doesn't tell you is that teenage pregnancy rates in the UK have hardly changed, and according to the Office of National Statistics are at their lowest since records began - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1...wales/2011/sty-conception-estimates-2011.html

NB: I note that the UK figures reported on your linked site do not have any links to the source data.


6. Abortion rates in the USSR were exceptional high due to the high cost and unavailability of contraception, which lead to an abortion culture, after the break up former Soviet Union countries saw a huge decrease in abortions due to the cheaper more available contraception, some Eastern European countries saw a drop of over 50% - http://paa2010.princeton.edu/papers/100705

7. The abstinence only approach has been shown to be, at best, only effective in small groups . .where as a comprehensive and abstinence sex education has the highest level of success across the whole social range - http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf

Now would you care to make your own arguments instead of using the copy & paste method.

 

I blame the lack of Ascots....since men have given up wearing ascots as much abortions rates have sky rocketed. Let's all stop abortion by wearing ascots.

 

That Right Wing site.....sited Guttmaucher over and over....also non-biased studies by hospital and research firms. What that site showed medical research that goes against what you are implying. And it makes sense.

You know that you have birth control...and abortion on the back burner and you are more comfortable having sex. It might not be as exciting but its there.

Nic Wallenda...walks across the Grand Canyon...no net, nothing to stop the free fall should he slip. He did the same thing over Niagra Falls...with a tether. Which one do you think he was more afraid to do, had more anxiety? The one with the safety net...the one without one?
Which one would people more likely to do? Canyon, no net....FAlls...a net?

People are more likely to have sex with birth control....because it's a safety net....and should that fail....abortion is a backup.

Did you see what Guttmaucher said about this.....most abortions happen to women who are on birth control. It does not stop abortion....women use it more as birth control.

Whether it works or not....abstinence is the ONLY FORM that works for those who do not want to have a child.

 

That shows how much you know. I am NOT CATHOLIC. I work with all religions...including atheists at Right to Life.

You would have to admit however a lot has happened to stop abortion in the past years....so they must according to you be doing GREAT WORK. LOL Look at the laws this past year enacted to halt the number of abortions being performed. Wow.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/10/no-surprise-time-magazine-said-pro-abortion-movement-losing/

______________

Even Time Magazine said.....AND THEY'VE BEEN LOSING EVER SINCE

Writing in the January 14, 2013, issue of TIME Magazine, journalist Kate Pickert documents the hard-fought victories the pro-life movement has experienced in state legislatures over the past two decades.

"In the past two decades, laws like the ones that govern appointments at Red River have been passed with regularity as pro-life state legislators have redrawn the boundaries of legal abortion in the U.S. In 2011, 92 abortion-regulating provisions--a record number--passed in 24 states after Republicans gained new and larger majorities in 2010 in many legislatures across the country. These laws make it harder every year to exercise a right heralded as a crowning achievement of the 20th century women's movement. In addition to North Dakota, three other states--South Dakota, Mississippi and Arkansas--have just one surgical-abortion clinic in operation. The number of abortion providers nationwide shrank from 2,908 in 1982 to 1,793 in 2008, the latest year for which data is available. Getting an abortion in America is, in some places, harder today than at any point since it became a constitutionally protected right 40 years ago this month.

As memories of women dying from illegal pre-Roe abortions become more distant, the pro-choice cause is in crisis. In 1973, female lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights said Roe v. Wade was "a tribute to the coordinated efforts of women's organizations, women lawyers and all women throughout this country." Writing a new playbook for the pro-choice cause--one that ensures that Roe is not overturned and that access to abortion is preserved and even expanded--would require the same kind of coordination. If abortion-rights activists don't come together to adapt to shifting public opinion on the issue of reproductive rights, abortion access in America will almost certainly continue to erode.

The smaller number of doctors willing to perform abortions has likely contributed to a fairly steady drop in the overall abortion rate, from about 30 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 1981 to about 20 per 1,000 in 2008, according to Guttmacher. Widespread access to birth control, which the pro-choice movement strongly supports; changing attitudes about family and fetuses; and state regulations are also cited as reasons. In theory, a lower rate of abortion might be something for both sides of the abortion debate to share credit for and even celebrate. But it also illustrates the ultimate challenge for pro-choice advocates. Their most pressing goal, 40 years after Roe, is to widen access to a procedure most Americans believe should be restricted--and no one wants to ever need.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2132761,00.html#ixzz2aTLgHiAy




http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130114,00.html


So if you say it starts at the Vatican......then CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM, IT'S WORKING.

 

No they used specific quotes from them, they did not cite their sources .. anyone can cherry pick the items that best suit the argument.
What medical research, not one of the items quoted actually stated that there is conclusive evidence, not a single one.

So you don't want people to be comfortable when having sex?

and you want to remove that safety net despite the fact that it won't stop people having sex .. hmm ok, sounds really like the punishment angle again to me .. I know lets remove safety belts from cars, it is after all only a safety net and without them people will drive slower, or better still remove all medical help for people .. after all its only a safety net and it will make people more aware of the dangers around them.

Did you not see that the reason for it was because most cannot afford it, look at the figures . .a reduction of 29% in abortions from women at the highest earnings level, an increase of 50% for those at the lowest end of earnings.

and there we have it, its not about whether it works, its about make sex a punishment

BTW : The combination of comprehensive sex education alongside abstinence teaching IS the most effective method of reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.

 

Is Churchmouse against birth control because she wants people to suffer the consequences of premarital sex? Is that what you are implying?

 

No one said you were. Now calm down, please.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/10/no-surprise-time-magazine-said-pro-abortion-movement-losing/

Passing more restrictions maybe a victory for you politically and your egos but it hasn't affected the abortion rate, the legality or public opinion on Roe v Wade. The fact is, the pro-"life" movement has been losing steam since the 80s and most notably since the 90s after all the clinic bombings/assassinations. It's support base has only increased because the definition of being pro-"life" has widen enough to allow those who still promote legal abortion to be considered pro-"life." It use to be those considered pro-"life" wanted to protect the sanctity of fetal life but not anymore.
Support abortion to save a mother's life? You're Pro-"life!"
Support abortion for rape/incest victims? You're Pro-"life!"
Support a ban only on partial-birth abortions? You're Pro-"life!"
Support stem cell research? You're Pro-"life!"

The pro-"life" movement has been reduced to not stopping legal abortion, but only restricting access to it in a handful of circumstances. In the 80s, you tried to push the Human Life Amendment, but failed. Now your victories are small potatoes like banning "partial-birth" abortions, which even pro-choicers have supported.

It is getting harder and harder to find pro-"life" politicians. All of the republican presidents since Roe v Wade have either supported Roe v Wade or supported abortion in a few limited scenarios...but never were any of them truly pro-"life" in the sense of their movement's philosophy. Even Romney made millions off of abortion and the right-to-life groups just turned the other cheek.

 

Why don't you tell me, it wouldn't be the first time you have known what I am thinking would it.

 

I had asked her if she is motivated by a desire to punish people for immoral behaviors, but she never directly answers that question.

 

A factor worth studying. Wearing before, during, or after? And, I prseume you want it worn on the neck?

 

and she never will.