American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that birth control pills should be available without a prescription as they are in most countries. That could drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country.
http://news.discovery.com/human/health/should-the-pill-be-sold-over-the-counter-130104.htm

@Ryan,
You can click on the [Reply] button to link your comments directly to the one you are responding to.
Atlant's "assertion" is perfectly fair, please refrain from using your "Patch" position as a bully pulpit to support your friends.

@Really?? I am not attempting to bully anyone. I have no problems with people arguing the topic at hand and, since this is an opinion piece, I'm sure the writer expects that. I'm simply asking that the argument not be made personal. I apologize if my response was received as anything other than how it was intended.

Ryan O'Connor: What you describe is exactly what Scott Morales did in his recent article that Tony Shinella strongly defended. If you want people to refrain from assumptions and conjecture on this site, you may want to start with Editor Tony Shinella and work your way down.

Ryan:

You know, if I didn't *KNOW* that Republicans were often absolute hypocrites when it came to sexuality, I might agree with you. But our recent history is chock full of Republican women who've had abortions, excuse me, "D&Cs" when it was convenient for them and Republican men who bloviate endlessly about the horrors of gay sex and then get nabbed in airport restrooms and highway rest stops.

So no, Ms. Pratte is definitely not getting any "free pass" from me on this issue.

Oh right, Ashley Pratte wrote this commentary too.
I wonder if she was looking in the mirror when giving herself that quote?

Does she address herself as Ashley Pratte in the third person when talking to herself?
"What does Ashley Pratts want for breakfast?""That's a good question Ashley"

How really interesting that hypothetical number, 55 million, is. It is almost matched, digit for digit, by the number of unborn human beings who were killed in the womb in the last forty years. If memory serves me here, though, the number of abortions is about 2 million lower than the number of women whose lives may have been saved. This is, I should think, a failure on the part of the abortion movement. They must work harder to save more figmental women. Of course, the other side must congratulate itself with the fact that 2 million fewer actual babies have been killed in forty years than non-existent women have dies. And, then there is this, all of those 55 million imaginary women of child bearing age may actually have given birth to many millions more fictional children whose lives have been of such great benefit to all; more than making up for the missing millions whose lives never even happened. All in all, I would label Roe v. Wade an outstanding achievement for accountants and book keepers.

Abortion or welfare are the ONLY options? Last I knew same sex couples are always happy to adopt children since they have no way to biologically produce their own.

> But in a society that lives by high moral standards they are both
> reasonable and attainable.

Here in the modern world, it is possible to have sex without there being a high likelihood of the woman becoming pregnant. And, as has been observed many times by many conservatives here on Patch, there are forms of sex that *NEVER* produce a baby (even among heterosexual couples!).

There's no longer a need to equate "high moral standards" with abstinence from sex.

On the other hand, one way we actually *COULD* help ensure both a decrease in abortion *AND* a decrease in welfare would be to make effective contraception available to and affordable by all. So what do you say: are you in? Contraception availability for all?

Actualy Im far from a liberal. Im also a realist. To tell someone they have to have a kid that they already know they cant afford realy leaves few options. Yes there is adoption. Problem is , after carrying for 9 months many will change their mind and keep the kid that they already know they cannot afford. Yet the kid still needs HC and to eat. If they are not paying for it , that means I am.

The government doesn't force those who don't believe in contraception to pay for others.

You don't think you should have what you want included in YOUR health insurance?
Health Insurance is part of your compensation package, why would your employer get a say in how you spend your compensation?

Your saying he should get to say how you SPEND your compensation, I don't agree.

Sometimes I come off with crazy stuff. What can I say. Im not sure whats scarier, the fact that I have to explain it, or the fact that after explaining it some still dont understand.

You let your boss tell you how you can spend your compensation? Pretty weak.

So you believe you have the right to tell your employees how they can spend their pay?

Your employees don't have to pay for their insurance?
I pay for mine.

Most employers subsidize the employee health as part of a compensation package.
There are many different options when it comes to selecting a plan(s) that is/are offered to the employees.
As an employer, you must determine many things, i.e. whether you want to include domestic partners for coverage. waiting periods, etc..
Each decision affects how much a plan costs and plays into whether it is affordable or not.
If my prospective employee doesn't like the compensation package being offered, they can go elsewhere.
How is that in any way related to telling an employee how they an spend their money?

But why do think you should get to mandate what kind of insurance benefits your employees pay for?
Should you be able to keep your employees from buying alcohol?

You sound like a Socialist.

You also seem to want to dictate what the insurance they pay for includes.

Typical response of a Socialist......

I don't know anyone who doesn't pay for their insurance.