Comments about ‘Obama administration now backs morning-after pills for all girls’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
West Valley City, UT

this is definitely a BLUE vs. RED state issue. The REDS don't want to provide this option to girls because they don't approve of what they did, which means the girl may get pregnant. Then, the REDS don't want sex-ed in schools, which would have helped prevent pregnancy. Then the REDS won't allow "choice."

It seems the REDS are working hard to make sure a girl doesn't have any choice except to have a baby she doesn't want cuz she can't support it on the money she makes from babysitting someone else's kids.

The BLUE state people want to give girls and women a choice beginning with sex-ed and going forward.

the truth
Holladay, UT

Just another example of how the left makes it easier to be immoral.

Ameliorating the consequences does not change behavior, but encourages a behavior.

99.5% of the people will always meet to expectations. Obama just lowered them again.

ute alumni
paradise, UT

the choice was made when she had sex. some still think killing an innocent baby is the issue

Mcallen, TX

With his stand on free contraceptives, abortion, and gay marriage, is anyone surprised with this?

Ogden, UT

@ute alumni -- Plan B doesn't terminate pregnancies; it keeps pregnancies from starting, which is a very different thing. Nothing is killed when a pregnancy is not started. AND the mere act of having sex does NOT mean that the couple are choosing to start a pregnancy.

@the truth -- the main reason for Plan B is to prevent pregnancy when a woman has been raped or abused. Are you saying that being raped or abused is immoral? It sure sounds like you are.

@worf -- the President's stand on free contraceptives, abortion, and gay marriage means that he supports free agency. You have a problem with free agency, which is a basic LDS doctrine?

byu rugby
Crystal Lake, IL

So, anyone can prevent pregnancy and/or kill babies (or as Obama voted for in Illinois, no life saving measures for late stage aborted babies that live). But, we have no expectation of safety in our own homes or privacy whatsoever.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT


It's not that we don't support free agency. It is that we have a right to judge what behaviors are right and what behaviors are wrong when people use that free agency. That is also basic LDS doctrine.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Why is the right so confused?
This is NOT an abortion pill.

Bringing abortion into the discussion shows your intentional deception, or willful ignorance.

Mcallen, TX


Voting means judgement, and is not a violation of free agency.

Just like marrying someone. You make a judgement decision that is not based on free agency either.

Sort out the difference.

Ogden, UT

@m.g. scott 8:30 a.m. June 12, 2013
@worf 1:55 p.m. June 12, 2013

By all means use your own judgment in how you live your lives, and advocate as loud and long as you want concerning your opinions (I often speak of the responsibiity we have to the spirits on the other side of the veil to provide the bodies they need to come into mortality and, therefore, speak against abortion-by-choice). Just don't try to use the law to impose/force your positions on others who don't agree with them. THAT is the violation of free agency, not the fact that opinions differ. The woman shoud be able to decide, not have the decision forced on her.

And, BTW, remember that I am the one who endured six very difficult high-risk pregnancies, four of which self-terminated (miscarried) in the second trimester, because I don't believe abortion is appropriate except in very limited circummstances (the same circumstances found appropriate by the LDS church --- severe risk to the life/health of the pregnant woman, pregnancy caused by rape or incest, and fatal fetal deformities). I "walked the walk." Have you?

Mcallen, TX


My free agency allows me to speak out. Not "impose/force".

I'm not, nor care to be the IRS.

Ogden, UT

@worf 8:44 p.m. June 12, 2013

Speak out all you want. Just don't try to make others act the way you think they should act. Let them make their own decisions, and use their own standards and beliefs when making their decisions.

Spanish Fork, UT

Thanks to Worf & Fury1993: A good rational discussion of opposing views, without name calling or put downs. I wish there were more of this type of exchange on these boards. Good food for thought.

Payson, UT

Why will the FDA approve this company's drug so much quicker than my company's drug that filed phase 2 a year ago?
That seems like favoritism to me and shouldn't be allowed.
What other companies are getting rich off being critical to furthering a political agenda.

It makes me sick. Now I have to go buy another drug to keep me from vomiting.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments