Whether the right-to-lifers are GOP presidential candidates, Fred Nile, or picketers harassing women outside clinics, I have come to the conclusion that concern for the fetus is not actually their real concern at all. After all, why are they getting so worked up over a non-sentient being when what is actually at stake is the well-being and freedom of the woman who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy?

What I have come to witness for myself is that they are driven by a deep seated disdain for women. They perceive that these women are breaking free of the constraints imposed by the male controlled, conservative, religious society of the not too distant past. Allowing a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, or to allow her to use contraception is just one step closer to their loss of control over the lives of women. Even women who identify as right-to-lifers are themselves, ignorant of the personal situations that confront patients seeking an abortion. Countless stories exist of female right-to-lifers presenting to a termination clinic and declaring that their situation is different to those other women in the waiting room. (Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest and me)

Unfortunately, while modern society has made some progress in affording women equal opportunity, social conservatives are fighting back in the US by doing all in their power to deny women access to safe abortion and now contraception is on the agenda. If they succeed in their quest, equal opportunity for women will be greatly diminished.

Confiscate all church property without compensation. Put on trial church leadership and others for their crimes against humanity and crimes against the individual. Turn over church property to public use. Use confiscated church money to compensate those abused by clergy as well as educating those that have been held in ignorance by religions. When I say churches I also include temples, mosques meeting house or any other property where superstition and mumbo-jumbo is being tough.

@ Paul1405, Stalin.....is that you.....Joey....

If we scientifically measure when life begins, it will show that life begins at conception. Any other determination is faith based.

progressive pat

you write

'If we scientifically measure when life begins, it will show that life begins at conception. Any other determination is faith based.'

Actually also dogma based. How dare we expect humans to behave with any morality. Don't forget pseudo science is always used to justify their godless and totally unrational positions.

"If we scientifically measure when life begins"

Well if you want to bring science into it Pat, first define "life".

Killing is killing. All cells are "alive". Society has agreed that some groups of cells are more valuable than others. Losing a child is worse than losing a leg. So there are characteristics that these groups of cells possess that determine their value. What are these? Lets debate the science, but leave out the moral/religious BS.

My understanding about current objections to 'Obamacare' and the instances cited in the linked NYT article are really not about contraception or abortion. These matters are not (currently) up for grabs.
They are about who pays for/facilitates them. Employers will (again, as I understand it) be compelled by federal law to provide health insurance coverage that MUST include contraceptives.
This means that the Catholic Church - for example - will need to pay for its workers at its schools/hospitals/aged centres/social work to get the pill and other reproductive health materials.
So it is clear - it compels them to pay for services they consider a moral wrong.
Is it a clear attack on religious liberty? You bet.
Even if you accept that contraception is an individual's choice (as I do), surely you can accept the problems with forcing someone to pay for someone else's sexual health choices?