If you're going to fight for your cause or debate your belief, do it with facts not emotional "you're going to kill more women" crap left over from the 1960's. Here's an example: taxpayer money ("funding of Planned Parenthood") does NOT pay for, or subsidize abortions. Period. In fact, former (oh how I love saying that word) President Obama signed an executive order to make SURE that taxpayer money, through Obamacare, didn't pay for abortions and it specifically stated that ANY medical facility that refused to perform abortions would NOT be penalized (funding wouldn't be withheld). Abortions are funded through donations from individuals or groups and frankly, if Pro-choice individuals really care about a woman's right to choose, then they should step up and donate to Planned Parenthood (and make sure to specify that their donation goes to the "medical", not "political" side of PP) and PP is just going to have to work harder at hitting up all those rich, celebrity feminists to pay up for what they believe in. I apologize if my comment comes across as bitchy, but I just get SO frustrated with uninformed, indignant people and uninformed, emotional people fighting without knowing the facts...it does not HELP either side and in fact HURTS the Pro-Choice side (and the facts actually piss off the pro-life side because it makes them realize that even IF the govt stops funding PP, private donations will still make sure abortions are available, just like they always have been).

So if I need to show facts that prior to RvW women were having abortions and dying from them? That was the entire argument behind RvW. As for eliminating any government funding that still won't eliminate abortions. Women who don't want to have babies won't have them. As for emotions I have yet to use the picture of an aborted fetus as an argument against abortions. Talk to us about being emotional when the right stops using emotion as a principle argument. A woman having the right to do with her body as she chooses isn't an emotional argument but as about as factual and straight forward as you can get. Granting rights to a fetus that isn't even viable though and shedding tears because SCOUTS won't grant them the rights, is more then a bit emotional--you guys come close to hysteria. SCOTUS says the right to life doesn't exist for a fetus until it becomes viable--and even then is it doesn't pose a health risk for the mother. That's the Rule of Law and I see no reason to get emotional about it. Do you?

It doesn't matter whether women will or will not have abortions. What does matter is forcing me to pay for their intemperate lifestyles and follies. They can espouse any legal vice they desire as long as they fund it themselves and do not require me to discard my morals by supporting what is patently evil. They may have a right to dominion over their bodies but they have no such right with regards to my soul.

It is amazing that their "rights" always entail the destruction of others rights starting with the right to exist of the children they murder.

So if I need to show facts that prior to RvW women were having abortions and dying from them? That was the entire argument behind RvW. As for eliminating any government funding that still won't eliminate abortions. Women who don't want to have babies won't have them. As for emotions I have yet to use the picture of an aborted fetus as an argument against abortions. Talk to us about being emotional when the right stops using emotion as a principle argument. A woman having the right to do with her body as she chooses isn't an emotional argument but as about as factual and straight forward as you can get. Granting rights to a fetus that isn't even viable though and shedding tears because SCOUTS won't grant them the rights, is more then a bit emotional--you guys come close to hysteria. SCOTUS says the right to life doesn't exist for a fetus until it becomes viable--and even then is it doesn't pose a health risk for the mother. That's the Rule of Law and I see no reason to get emotional about it. Do you?

The Mexico City policy has gone back and forth after every election since the policy was made; Democrat presidents recind it and Republicans reinstate it - why should Trump do any different (although I wish he would). This is a subject I'd like to debate more because on the one hand it's "our money, our rules" and on the other it's coercing other countries to accept only one side our country's opinion, and only women suffer (not by having abortions denied to them but women in other countries need education about birth control and family options as much, if not more, than the women and youth in our country did and do). Tough call and is probably why it's still around and bounces back and forth.

So if I need to show facts that prior to RvW women were having abortions and dying from them? That was the entire argument behind RvW. As for eliminating any government funding that still won't eliminate abortions. Women who don't want to have babies won't have them. As for emotions I have yet to use the picture of an aborted fetus as an argument against abortions. Talk to us about being emotional when the right stops using emotion as a principle argument. A woman having the right to do with her body as she chooses isn't an emotional argument but as about as factual and straight forward as you can get. Granting rights to a fetus that isn't even viable though and shedding tears because SCOUTS won't grant them the rights, is more then a bit emotional--you guys come close to hysteria. SCOTUS says the right to life doesn't exist for a fetus until it becomes viable--and even then is it doesn't pose a health risk for the mother. That's the Rule of Law and I see no reason to get emotional about it. Do you?

First off, I deleted this original comment because I realized it didn't have anything to do with the article. Secondly, I am pro-choice 100% and always have been, so you don't have to lecture me on all the far-right tactics...I get it. I'm not talking about facts vs emotion on the ISSUE of abortion or a woman's right to control her body, I'm talking about taxpayer money paying for abortions. That's all. Because the right knows we legally have the right to choose, so they get all worked up over having to pay for them...which they never have had to and never will have to. Nip it in the bud is all I'm saying.
The biggest problem with Liberals is that they just can't take constructive criticism, even if it would help their cause. The FACT is taxpayer money doesn't pay for abortions in the US. That's a FACT and give them PROOF (the Bill Obama signed). However, taxpayer money might in foreign countries if the Mexico City policy isn't in effect.