<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The latest abortion funding myth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/the_latest_abortion_funding_my/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/the_latest_abortion_funding_my/</link>
	<description>Advancing faith as a powerful force for justice, compassion and the common good.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:20:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: James Morgan</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/the_latest_abortion_funding_my/#comment-991</link>
		<dc:creator>James Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/mywordpress/?p=1325#comment-991</guid>
		<description>Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: &quot;No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.&quot;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: &#8220;No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/the_latest_abortion_funding_my/#comment-990</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/mywordpress/?p=1325#comment-990</guid>
		<description>Just discovering this blog via today&#039;s NPR story on this issue. I am a committed pro-choicer but believe, like you, that there are some areas of common ground to be explored. The one I favor most is increasing access to family planning services and information. Half of all abortions in the U.S. are among the 11% of women who don&#039;t use contraception despite wanting to avoid/delay pregnancy (another way of saying that contraception is highly effective at doing what it&#039;s supposed to do). That, and loads of other evidence, suggests that expanding access to family planning - especially for low-income women, who are over-represented in terms of both unwanted pregnancy and abortion - is a no-brainer if we want to reduce the level of abortion. One need look no further than countries like the Netherlands for evidence. Despite having one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, the Dutch have one of the lowest rates of abortion. And that&#039;s due largely to near universal use of contraception (and to frank and honest sex education). Unfortunately, many who oppose abortion also staunchly oppose contraception. Do you see any reason for optimism that &quot;common ground&quot; voices can help overcome this opposition? I&#039;m referring specifically to those who are opposed to abortion but support contraception (among other common ground strategies).

Thanks for treating this subject with honesty, seriousness and a spirit of conciliation. Far too uncommon these days, especially in the blogosphere (on both sides!). I commend you.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just discovering this blog via today&#8217;s NPR story on this issue. I am a committed pro-choicer but believe, like you, that there are some areas of common ground to be explored. The one I favor most is increasing access to family planning services and information. Half of all abortions in the U.S. are among the 11% of women who don&#8217;t use contraception despite wanting to avoid/delay pregnancy (another way of saying that contraception is highly effective at doing what it&#8217;s supposed to do). That, and loads of other evidence, suggests that expanding access to family planning &#8211; especially for low-income women, who are over-represented in terms of both unwanted pregnancy and abortion &#8211; is a no-brainer if we want to reduce the level of abortion. One need look no further than countries like the Netherlands for evidence. Despite having one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, the Dutch have one of the lowest rates of abortion. And that&#8217;s due largely to near universal use of contraception (and to frank and honest sex education). Unfortunately, many who oppose abortion also staunchly oppose contraception. Do you see any reason for optimism that &#8220;common ground&#8221; voices can help overcome this opposition? I&#8217;m referring specifically to those who are opposed to abortion but support contraception (among other common ground strategies).</p>
<p>Thanks for treating this subject with honesty, seriousness and a spirit of conciliation. Far too uncommon these days, especially in the blogosphere (on both sides!). I commend you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dis</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/the_latest_abortion_funding_my/#comment-989</link>
		<dc:creator>dis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/mywordpress/?p=1325#comment-989</guid>
		<description>page 14 says elective abortions wont be covered buts says other abortions will be funded so there

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>page 14 says elective abortions wont be covered buts says other abortions will be funded so there</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
