[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Surfing! - black321 - May 26, 2022 - 12:36pm
 
ScottFromWyoming - maryte - May 26, 2022 - 11:59am
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - May 26, 2022 - 11:07am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - ScottFromWyoming - May 26, 2022 - 10:15am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - May 26, 2022 - 10:15am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - May 26, 2022 - 10:12am
 
Guns - ColdMiser - May 26, 2022 - 10:10am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - May 26, 2022 - 10:10am
 
Wordle - daily game - Coaxial - May 26, 2022 - 9:52am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Blackbirds - May 26, 2022 - 9:26am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - May 26, 2022 - 8:59am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - rgio - May 26, 2022 - 8:25am
 
• • • Clownstock • • •  - Skydog - May 26, 2022 - 6:37am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - May 26, 2022 - 5:36am
 
What Did You Do Today? - miamizsun - May 26, 2022 - 4:51am
 
Questions. - oldviolin - May 25, 2022 - 8:49pm
 
songs that ROCK! - tulfan - May 25, 2022 - 6:33pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - May 25, 2022 - 6:13pm
 
Lyrics - oldviolin - May 25, 2022 - 6:11pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - May 25, 2022 - 5:43pm
 
Favorite Quotes - tulfan - May 25, 2022 - 5:30pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - tulfan - May 25, 2022 - 5:16pm
 
New Song Submissions system - Isabeau - May 25, 2022 - 4:09pm
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - May 25, 2022 - 4:03pm
 
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum - black321 - May 25, 2022 - 10:16am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - May 25, 2022 - 9:35am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - May 25, 2022 - 9:19am
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - May 25, 2022 - 9:14am
 
New Music - Skydog - May 25, 2022 - 5:41am
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 25, 2022 - 12:23am
 
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here - Red_Dragon - May 24, 2022 - 8:37pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - GeneP59 - May 24, 2022 - 4:05pm
 
Posting Images? - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 24, 2022 - 3:18pm
 
Ukraine - Lazy8 - May 24, 2022 - 1:24pm
 
MQA available on ifi Zen - nickt1 - May 24, 2022 - 1:01pm
 
A Little Psychedelic Jazz-Rock Never Hurts - whatshisname - May 24, 2022 - 5:32am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - May 23, 2022 - 7:25pm
 
FLAC Streaming - miamizsun - May 23, 2022 - 6:16pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - GeneP59 - May 23, 2022 - 5:16pm
 
John Cale - TheKing2 - May 23, 2022 - 2:08pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - Skydog - May 23, 2022 - 1:33pm
 
History of past donations? - Skydog - May 23, 2022 - 7:33am
 
That's good advice - miamizsun - May 23, 2022 - 5:22am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - May 22, 2022 - 4:50pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - miamizsun - May 21, 2022 - 3:29pm
 
Reccomended System or Powered Speakers - miamizsun - May 21, 2022 - 2:29pm
 
Today, I learned... - Proclivities - May 21, 2022 - 7:02am
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - nickt1 - May 21, 2022 - 1:09am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - May 20, 2022 - 7:06pm
 
Neil Young - oldviolin - May 20, 2022 - 6:50pm
 
songs for drella - haresfur - May 20, 2022 - 5:47pm
 
Chicago 25 Or 6 To 4 - Steely_D - May 20, 2022 - 2:42pm
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - May 20, 2022 - 5:41am
 
Online Radio Platforms - Steely_D - May 19, 2022 - 4:03pm
 
Brag about your stereo - miamizsun - May 19, 2022 - 3:16pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - islander - May 19, 2022 - 3:00pm
 
COVID-19 - Red_Dragon - May 19, 2022 - 1:50pm
 
Testing your Metal? - oldviolin - May 19, 2022 - 12:11pm
 
Help Finding A Song - nightdrive - May 19, 2022 - 10:19am
 
What Makes You Sad? - Coaxial - May 18, 2022 - 6:42pm
 
NASA & other news from space - GeneP59 - May 18, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Guided Meditation by Bill - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 2:45pm
 
January 20th, 2005 ~ Boycott And Meditation Day - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 2:34pm
 
Economix - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Japan - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2022 - 10:58am
 
Race in America - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2022 - 7:36am
 
North Korea - Red_Dragon - May 17, 2022 - 9:07pm
 
"2000 Mules" movie purports to prove 2020 election was st... - rgio - May 17, 2022 - 7:02am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:31pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 4:42pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 4:24pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 3:24pm
 
Supreme Court Rulings - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 9:33am
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 8:35am
 
Watching My Mind Slip Away... - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:05am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » The Abortion Wars Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Post to this Topic
Mugro

Mugro Avatar

Location: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg


Posted: Mar 27, 2010 - 6:52pm

NPR Changes Abortion Language

5:39< type="text/javascript"><> pm

March 24, 2010

comments (112)

Recommend (17)

Last week, I wrote a post about how NPR identifies people who support or oppose abortion. It engendered a lively debate inside and outside NPR. Today, some top editors got together to review the 2005 policy and decided to no longer use "pro-choice" or "pro-life."

Here's the memo that was just distributed to all NPR staff:

"NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.

This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.

On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion", but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights".

Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy.

Do not use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain."

Thanks
David

David Sweeney
Managing Editor


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 12:39pm

 rosedraws wrote:

I don't think this will change one way or another with the Health Care bill or the Amendment...
 
No, those women will never get the resources they need.

The answer is Plan B!

rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 12:24pm

 hippiechick wrote:

Abortions are not necessarily available to low income women, esp in rural areas.

 
I don't think this will change one way or another with the Health Care bill or the Amendment...

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 12:21pm

 rosedraws wrote:
I'm very uncomfortable with the recent rage of "Coat Hanger" response to the Stupak amendment on the Health Care bill.

Can someone please explain — based on the amendment, not a blog — What exactly is wrong with the amendment.

Here is a good place to start: LA Times Stupak Amendment explained.  It has a link to the actual amendment — and when you see it, you'll understand why it's so confusing.

From my understanding, the bill prevents public funding for Abortion.  Given the tenor of public opinion in this country, I agree that public monies should NEVER pay for elective abortion. 

Abortions are safe and available — even to low income women.  This Amendment does NOTHING to restrict abortion, it simply takes public money out of it.

How is this "A Serious Assault on Abortion Rights"? 

I think we need to calm down an overreaction to this bill, and not lose focus on the really important issues of Health Care.

 
Abortions are not necessarily available to low income women, esp in rural areas. One of the reasons these women have later term abortions is because they are unable to get to a clinic until they are past the 3 month mark, due to their circumstances.

Women and their drs should be able to make this decision, not Bart Stupak. This is sexual discrimination, imo. The Republicans, for the most part, although this jerk is a Dem, use this as a hot button, to keep constituents paying attention. BTW, the Republican National Committee's health insurance policy pays for elective abortions!

I agree with you Rose, about the coat hanger thing, but I guess they are trying to get their very valid point across.


rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 12:09pm

I'm very uncomfortable with the recent rage of "Coat Hanger" response to the Stupak amendment on the Health Care bill.

Can someone please explain — based on the amendment, not a blog — What exactly is wrong with the amendment.

Here is a good place to start: LA Times Stupak Amendment explained.  It has a link to the actual amendment — and when you see it, you'll understand why it's so confusing.

From my understanding, the bill prevents public funding for Abortion.  Given the tenor of public opinion in this country, I agree that public monies should NEVER pay for elective abortion. 

Abortions are safe and available — even to low income women.  This Amendment does NOTHING to restrict abortion, it simply takes public money out of it.

How is this "A Serious Assault on Abortion Rights"? 

I think we need to calm down an overreaction to this bill, and not lose focus on the really important issues of Health Care.
Southern_Boy

Southern_Boy Avatar

Location: On my way to the beach
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:08am

 Alafia wrote:
The planet is already overpopulated.  ALL of our efforts to conserve resources, reduce pollution and feed everyone will ultimately fail unless we get population growth under control.  Discuss the means for accomplishing this.

 
I don't think the planet is overpopulated. However, based on the way we live, it may not be sustainable. We do not need solutions to the oil "crisis", a definite decision on abortion, or to regulate growth. What is needed is a new way of thinking. We are all too entrenched in our comfort zones to push for change. Our (the world's) leaders are nothing more than power brokers who rule through fear mongering and intimidation. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Not likely to change anytime soon.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:07am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Gay marriage. Bam! Next question.

/winter
 


 
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: planting flowers


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:06am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Gay marriage. Bam! Next question.

/winter
 




ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:05am

 Alafia wrote:
The planet is already overpopulated.  ALL of our efforts to conserve resources, reduce pollution and feed everyone will ultimately fail unless we get population growth under control.  Discuss the means for accomplishing this.

 
Gay marriage. Bam! Next question.

/winter

Alafia

Alafia Avatar

Location: the dojo
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 8:59am

The planet is already overpopulated.  ALL of our efforts to conserve resources, reduce pollution and feed everyone will ultimately fail unless we get population growth under control.  Discuss the means for accomplishing this.


SantaFeGrace

SantaFeGrace Avatar

Location: Santa Fe, NM
Gender: Female


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 8:55am

 JrzyTmata wrote:
YO!! move the debate to where it belongs.

 

{#Clap}   Thank you for finding this thread!
JrzyTmata

JrzyTmata Avatar



Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 8:51am

YO!! move the debate to where it belongs.
musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:37pm

 hippiechick wrote:

The Republican Party; the policy makers
 

Do you know for sure that policy makers within The Republican Party don't really care about abortion?
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:36pm

 musik_knut wrote:


Ummm, yea, we do. Not being a Republican, you're free to be wrong on what Republicans think and care about.

 
The Republican Party; the policy makers

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:31pm

 hippiechick wrote:

As I have said before, the Republilcan Party likes to keep this an issue because it brings voters out. They really don't care that much about the issue itself.
 

Ummm, yea, we do. Not being a Republican, you're free to be wrong on what Republicans think and care about.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:24pm

 rgj13 wrote:
From today's NY Times:

October 13, 2008

Abortion Rights on the Ballot, Again

Once again this year, opponents of women’s reproductive rights have managed to get initiatives aimed at ending or limiting abortion rights on ballots — in South Dakota, Colorado and California. These measures, which violate women’s privacy and threaten their health, have implications far beyond those states. If voters approve them, they will become a weapon in the right-wing campaign to overturn Roe v Wade.

The South Dakota initiative is a near twin of the sweeping abortion ban handily rejected by South Dakota voters just two years ago. To make the ban seem less harsh, its backers have included language purporting to make exceptions for incest, rape or the life and health of the mother. But no one should be fooled. The exceptions were drafted to make it nearly impossible to get an abortion, even during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The measure is clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court rulings, and that’s just the point. The underlying agenda is to provide a vehicle for challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The Colorado ballot proposal attacks Roe v. Wade by a different route. Known as Amendment 48, this preposterous measure would redefine the term “person” in the state’s Constitution to include fertilized human eggs — in effect bestowing on fertilized eggs, prior to implantation in the womb and pregnancy, the same legal rights and protections that apply to people once they are born.

The amendment, which has split anti-abortion groups, carries broad implications, ranging from harmful to downright ridiculous. Potentially, it could ban widely used forms of contraception, curtail medical research involving embryos, criminalize necessary medical care and shutter fertility clinics. A damaged fertilized egg might be eligible for monetary damages.

Noting the “legal nightmare” the amendment would create, and its potential to endanger the health of women, Gov. Bill Ritter, a self-described “pro-life” Democrat, has joined the opposition to Amendment 48.

In California, meanwhile, abortion opponents have put the issue of parental notification on the ballot for the third time in four years. The proponents of Proposition 4 say mandating notification is necessary to safeguard underage girls. But most 15-year-olds who find themselves pregnant instinctively turn to a parent for support and guidance. Far from protecting vulnerable teens, Proposition 4 would make it difficult for young women caught in abusive situations to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents, even in cases where the father or stepfather is responsible for the pregnancy.

If approved, Proposition 4 would inevitably drive some to attempt a self-induced abortion or to seek the procedure later in pregnancy. California voters were right to reject this damaging approach on the first two attempts. They should do so again. 

 
As I have said before, the Republilcan Party likes to keep this an issue because it brings voters out. They really don't care that much about the issue itself.

rgj13

rgj13 Avatar

Location: The City
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:20pm

From today's NY Times:

October 13, 2008

Abortion Rights on the Ballot, Again

Once again this year, opponents of women’s reproductive rights have managed to get initiatives aimed at ending or limiting abortion rights on ballots — in South Dakota, Colorado and California. These measures, which violate women’s privacy and threaten their health, have implications far beyond those states. If voters approve them, they will become a weapon in the right-wing campaign to overturn Roe v Wade.

The South Dakota initiative is a near twin of the sweeping abortion ban handily rejected by South Dakota voters just two years ago. To make the ban seem less harsh, its backers have included language purporting to make exceptions for incest, rape or the life and health of the mother. But no one should be fooled. The exceptions were drafted to make it nearly impossible to get an abortion, even during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The measure is clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court rulings, and that’s just the point. The underlying agenda is to provide a vehicle for challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The Colorado ballot proposal attacks Roe v. Wade by a different route. Known as Amendment 48, this preposterous measure would redefine the term “person” in the state’s Constitution to include fertilized human eggs — in effect bestowing on fertilized eggs, prior to implantation in the womb and pregnancy, the same legal rights and protections that apply to people once they are born.

The amendment, which has split anti-abortion groups, carries broad implications, ranging from harmful to downright ridiculous. Potentially, it could ban widely used forms of contraception, curtail medical research involving embryos, criminalize necessary medical care and shutter fertility clinics. A damaged fertilized egg might be eligible for monetary damages.

Noting the “legal nightmare” the amendment would create, and its potential to endanger the health of women, Gov. Bill Ritter, a self-described “pro-life” Democrat, has joined the opposition to Amendment 48.

In California, meanwhile, abortion opponents have put the issue of parental notification on the ballot for the third time in four years. The proponents of Proposition 4 say mandating notification is necessary to safeguard underage girls. But most 15-year-olds who find themselves pregnant instinctively turn to a parent for support and guidance. Far from protecting vulnerable teens, Proposition 4 would make it difficult for young women caught in abusive situations to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents, even in cases where the father or stepfather is responsible for the pregnancy.

If approved, Proposition 4 would inevitably drive some to attempt a self-induced abortion or to seek the procedure later in pregnancy. California voters were right to reject this damaging approach on the first two attempts. They should do so again. 
Xeric

Xeric Avatar

Location: Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 12:04pm

 hippiechick wrote:

I think the birth mothers should be encouraged to be part of the family. I think that everyone needs to take responsibility for that child, because s/he will need it.
And the father. This child should know the best and worst of all of its relatives, because even if the mother is bat shit crazy, the child will know who his batshit crazy mom is.

but i live in a world full of dreams and possibilities; it's much more pleasant than the suffering of this one.  

 
I agree.  In the cases of which I speak (Montana has "open adoption" laws) those kids do indeed know (well, "know," given their ages) their birth mothers.  Much better than the alternative suffered by a cousin and her child years ago in Wyoming—which was complete secrecy until the kid turned 18, etc.  (Those two eventually forged a fine relationship, but geez.)

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:59am

 Xeric wrote:

A) I don't believe that this is the norm, even on an absolute scale.

B) You want claim that those kids suffer worse emotional damage from being adopted as newborns than they would from being raised by teenaged dingbats who can't begin to handle their own lives?  You do?  Wanna buy a bridge?

Ideally, yeah, babies would only be born to intact families who are ready to raise them.  Ideally.  But dream on.
 
I think the birth mothers should be encouraged to be part of the family. I think that everyone needs to take responsibility for that child, because s/he will need it. And the father. This child should know the best and worst of all of its relatives, because even if the mother is bat shit crazy, the child will know who his batshit crazy mom is.

but i live in a world full of dreams and possibilities; it's much more pleasant than the suffering of this one.  
Xeric

Xeric Avatar

Location: Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:56am

 hippiechick wrote:

imo, the thing that a child wants more than anything is to be loved unconditionally by their mother.  i know about 15 adoptees and in every case, they have suffered severe emotional damage because of it. Several of them are severely emotionally disturbed, including the one who is squatting in my crib right now.

I think we are able to love our children, and our children love us back, because we are able to relate to each other in a way that only blood relatives can. But it seems very hard to make that connection when you are put together by fate, as it were. The children feel huge rejection, and the parents get frustrated and give up.

Also, I assume it's the same way, we put huge shame on girls (not boys) who get pregnant, and we force them to give up their babies. 

These are just observations on my own part. maybe there are 20 good adoptions for every one bad one, i don't know. in any case, just like other things in life, we are faced with huge challenges and we do not yet have clear answers.

 
A) I don't believe that this is the norm, even on an absolute scale.

B) You want to claim that those kids suffer relatively worse emotional damage from being adopted as newborns than they would from being raised by teenaged dingbats who can't begin to handle their own lives?  You do?  Wanna buy a bridge?

Ideally, yeah, babies would only be born to intact families who are ready to raise them.  Ideally.  But dream on.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 13, 14, 15  Next