Replies

Simon's spokesman Bob Taylor wouldn't say whether the Republican, an abortion opponent, supported the increased access to emergency contraceptives. "There are much more important topics," Taylor said.

A pathetic and evasive response. There isn't a fence-sitter out there who won't notice. This is a professional?

Gophack, I told you that this would happen and that this response won't work. Here is an example of what WILL work:

Note to Gray:
Great way to slow sexually transmitted disease!

Note to Bill:
See above.

3 posted on 4/1/02 6:45 AM Pacific by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Discussing the adverse impacts of abortion as a license to immorality and the impact of that behavior upon THE STATE BUDGET AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING is not running from the issue and can enlist support from constituencies that Simon needs in order to win. Abortion may not be an objectively central issue, but it clearly will be a central political issue in this campaign. Saying that it isn't important when the entire media machinery will center upon it is stupid and will appear cowardly. Maybe sasquatch should be providing Mr. Russo, et al with some training in how to level a witheringly sarcastic quip.

Actually, I never said that the campaign should respond in that manner. I suggested that they acknowledge the facts and move on to other, more pressing matters.

I, personally, think that the spokesman should have said something else, but I also know that Bill Simon is totally pro-life and am confident that he would oppose this.

The fact is, most people don't vote on the abortion issue. It is sad and tragic. But we have to get Bill Simon elected so that these things don't happen.

If you've read my posts on this thread, you know how passionate I am about this issue. But I also acknowledge that most people don't think that there is anything wrong with so-called "emergency contraceptives". First, they don't know that EC's can be an abortifacient. Second, if they know they don't think that it's a big deal because it's only a "day or two" after conception. This isn't an issue that we can address right now in the public at large. And while I think sarcasm has its place in the political arena, I don't think that it works here.

So, instead of address EC's as morally wrong, I would suggest -- and I did through an email -- that the issue that Davis mandated should be addressed as a business issue. By mandating that health care providers pay for EC's, you are increasing the cost of health care and every time health care costs increase, more people fall off the insurance rolls.

In addition, you are mandating that Catholic hospitals -- who are non-profit AND opposed to contraceptives -- to provide ECs. As well as pharmacists prescribing medication without the benefit of a doctor or knowledge of a patients medical history. This creates a potentially dangerous situation, and threatens the health of women. This is not the role of government -- it's the decision of each health care provider and insurer. If someone wants the option of EC's, they can find an insurer who covers it.