On the other hand I have heard from others that the revenue they make from abortion is an overwhelming percentage of their overall revenue, something upwards of 80%. I could be inaccurate but that is what I recall. And if that is the case I wonder how much they are interested in reducing the number of abortions. They also are contributors to pro-choice politicians.

I believe that life begins at conception which frames my policy wishes. And for certain forms of contraception whose goal is to prevent an embroyo from implanting into the uterus, I would categorize those as equivalent to abortion.

I admit that after I wrote my post I thought about my stance that abortion should be a states rights issue and realized I only wanted that so that some states could pass pro-life laws. In the end though I realized that from my perspective I consider abortion rights like civil rights so they should be mandated at the federal level.

I also believe, though, that organizations like Planned Parenthood, do more than just offer abortions. They do offer women–and increasingly, men–health care at a relatively affordable rate due to their sliding scale. I’ve considered going to them in the past when I was without health insurance. And they do present abstinence as a method of birth control for people.

and not having any understanding of SD’s law, if they’re banning all forms of abortion, when does “life” begin? at the very moment of conception? so preventing conception with the pill or other birth control methods–would it be so far-fetched for the state to pass a law limiting the kind of birth control available to its citizens?

As for whether or not abortion should be a states rights issue or not–well, remember, slavery was once left up to the states. Civil rights were once left up to states. Gun control is still pretty much a states rights issue. There’s a lot to be said about the division of legislation that goes on in such a large, diverse country such as ours.

Ok, I’ll stop rambling.