A pro-choice choice: Shift course or lose ground

    In A Pro-choice Choice: Shift Course or Lose Ground, author Frances Kissling argues that the pro-choice movement needs to get with the times or risk losing all rights completely. Kissling is an abortion-rights activist and former president of Catholics for a Choice. Her piece is directed towards pro-choice advocates and she is sending them an important and urgent message.

     Dropping startling facts taken from Gallup polls, Kissling states that Americans are drastically changing their opinions from pro-choice to pro-life and this change is starting to show up in the decisions our government is making. She mentions the bill that was passed Friday, February 18, 2011 that will remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood. This extremely beneficial clinic provides reproductive health services to poor women. They serve over 5 million clients a year, 26% of which are teenagers under the age of 19. The house is even proposing a bill that would make it impossible to buy private insurance covering abortion.

     The main message Kissling is sending goes out to the pro-choice advocates who are still using the same tactics and facts that were used in abortion debates in the 1970s. She's telling the abortion-rights movement "to accept its (the fetus) existence and its value." She believes we need to reject post-viability abortions (24 to 26 weeks) except in extreme cases such as the woman's life is in immediate risk or when the fetus suffers from conditions that are incompatible with a good quality of life. She also proposes mandating and funding non-directive counseling on all options available to pregnant women.

     Kissling warns that "the new ultra-conservative members of Congress are fighting to get rid of the legal rights to choose abortion." She strongly believes that the movement needs to start working with the state. She wants to see more responsible and compassionate state policies, even naming the European's system as a positive example for the U.S. to model.

     She closes with a powerful statement: "If we don't suggest sensible balanced legislature and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies- and, eventually, no choices at all."

Montana Has Had Enough of Medical Marijuana

The use of medical marijuana may come to an end in the state of Montana. The state has had a medical marijuana law in action for the past six years and government officials are now feeling “duped” by the citizens. House speaker Mike Milbum says “the medical use had been a pretext for encouraging recreational use and creating a path to full legalization and fears gang drug wars in Montana’s cities and debilitation of its youth.” Milbum feels it’s time to shut everything down and that marijuana use has gone way too far. In 2009, the federal Department of Justice stated that medical marijuana would not be a law enforcement priority. This is the same time that the use of medical marijuana exploded; the number of patients has quadrupled to more than 27,000 and millions have been invested in grower businesses and retail supplier shops.

The main reason for the repeal may be the major changes in Montana’s politics. Republicans surged from a 50-50 tie in the House before last November’s election to a 68-32 majority now. And although party line positions have defined the issue in Montana, with Republicans mostly lined up in favor of restriction or repeal, there is widespread agreement among legislators and residents that medical marijuana has become something very different than it was originally envisioned to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11marijuana.html?ref=politics