In the span of a just one generation, one has to take pause and marvel at just how far we've come. The civil rights movement, the evolution of technology and information, watching my own child grow up in a world that is so much more than I could have ever imagined, they all leave me swelling with pride to live in the time and place that I do.

But there are some things, things which cannot be ignored, that leave me stunned, wondering just how they came to be. My past and upbringing taught me so many valuable lessons. At my mother's and grandmother's knees, I learned that my place in the world as a woman was to be valued and respected and that I should accept and expect nothing less. Yet, the lessons these amazing women instilled in me somehow seem to be absent in the very places they should be revered. I'm speaking of our local government and judicial system and what seems to be a rabid and overwhelming obsession with reproductive rights.

At the whim of a few radical organizations, the lives and choices of women are not just being questioned, but impugned. I've watched as legislatures and the courts continually bend to the will of these organizations with hearings, bills and grand juries, continually indulging their insatiable appetite for records and "proof." Meanwhile, the pain and suffering of the women at the center of this controversy seems to be of little consequence to any of the players involved.

I wish I could say that every pregnancy has a happy ending, that every family welcomes a much wanted and prayed for baby. But reality has a way of reminding us that it does not always happen this way. Late termination is not about a woman changing her mind; it isn't about a moment of selfishness. Late termination is the result of tragedy.

Most of us have been blessed to carry normal pregnancies and at the end, bring home happy, healthy babies. But some families find themselves in an unimaginable situation, that at the end of their pregnancy, all they will be bringing home is crushed hopes, dashed dreams and overwhelming grief because their child is suffering from a non-survivable defect. The decision to terminate such a pregnancy is not the one that everyone would make, but some do. Some feel that continuing such a pregnancy will only prolong the suffering of the child they love. This personal and very critical decision is one that belongs to families, to mothers and fathers, not to those who wish to scrutinize and trivialize their pain.

In all the sound and fury surrounding this issue, it has been easy to forget that there are real women and families suffering through a very real tragedy.

Moreover, we seem to have forgotten that everyone has the right to make choices for his or her own life and family. It comes down to a simple question: Can women be trusted, the same women who are our mothers, sisters and daughters, the very women who give life?

It's saddened me to see that we've come to the point of questioning a woman's authority and ultimate knowledge that she has about her body, her life and her family. This brings us back to personal responsibility and the innate knowledge that women, or anyone for that matter, have regarding their lives.

Julie Burkhart

CEO, ProKanDo

In light of many studies and a recent AP article, if people were truly interested in significantly reducing the number of abortions being performed, they would first look at the demographics of those receiving abortion services and specifically, the conditions in which unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions are more likely to occur.

A common misconception is that most abortions are had by unwed teens or 'loose' women, and it's usually due to the 'immorality' of these women. Mass media plays a major role in forming this image, with stories and movies that portray unintended, teen pregnancy in such light terms.

However, the facts show this just isn't true. Of women who terminate their pregnancies, only about 17% are teens, half are 25 or older with even more than that having already had at least one child. In spite of these readily available statistics, much legislative energy is still being spent trying to enact parental notification laws across the United States. New Hampshire is an example of a state, looking to pass bills related to these laws.

An unintended pregnancy can create quite an economic strain, and all too often, women who are getting abortions are acting in the interests of the children they already have. Looking around, we can see that ignorance and misperceptions are all too common regarding who has abortions and why.

Of course, most people don't trouble themselves with the use of demographic analyses of various social phenomena, especially abortions. Most see or imagine one specific situation, and can't seem to imagine the many other factors that may affect a woman's situation.

While this doesn't preclude opinions on the subject, it definitely reduces the number of those that can be considered valid. Like many other social issues, abortion has many factors, many elements that rule out any single 'solution', for it has too many complexities to be pushed into the realm of either/or, or all right or all wrong.

Julie Burkhart

Currently in Kansas, a grand jury is investigating Dr. George Tiller, one of only a handful of late-term abortion providers in the U.S. The petitioners are convinced that the Dr. has violated state regulations pertaining to late termination of pregnancy. This is the second time in as many years the doctor has been thusly investigated as he is a top target of such anti-choice organizations like Kansans for Life (like the rest of Kansans are for death?), and Operation Rescue (they aren't interested in rescuing 'born' children from anything).

The citizen petition, which was the impetus for the grand jury, was organized by Operation Rescue & Kansans for Life, and only required about 4,100 signatures. As advocacy groups go, these two are about as biased as they come, with long-standing goals of not only shutting down Tiller's clinic, which serves several thousand patients per year, (only a small percentage of these are late-term); but to make all abortion illegal in Kansas, as well as across the nation.

The citizen-petitioned grand jury dates back to the late 1800's when it was enacted to help fight political corruption during the railroad boom. Historically, this citizen's grand jury has rarely been invoked and never, until recently, to advance a social or moral agenda. This old law, had its use in fighting political corruption to be sure; but in this case it is a tool in active vigilantism. A small minority of people with an agenda, forcing a criminal investigation, definitely usurps the executive power of government. A government populated with persons elected by the majority of voters by the way. But Operation Rescue & Kansans for Life (KFL) have long claimed that prosecutors are too soft on abortion; thus, the witch hunt they've orchestrated.

Last Friday, jurors heard testimony from KFL director David Gittrich ("inspired by God to use the grand jury"), and Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, (why are these organizations always headed up by men?). While the testimony is secret in these proceedings, the jurors did receive binders from Operation Rescue that included the citizen petition, a failed criminal complaint from 2006, and photos of several pregnant women entering the clinic during this last fall. These busybodies regularly take pictures of those entering and exiting the clinic, from their protest "camps" just outside the gates and over the fence of the clinic. Of course these photos prove nothing, they are being used in the group's building of circumstantial "evidence" and of course, to intimidate and shame the women who are often in the midst difficult circumstances.

Additionally, Operation Rescue has indicated that they cannot have prosecution of late-term abortion without subpoenaing private medical records – Doctor/patient privacy and HIPPA be damned, they're at it again! This taxpayer-funded investigation amounts to little more than religious and moral zealots preaching against women's right to reproductive freedom.

"Liberal Hollywood" is a phony phrase when it comes to young girls and pregnancy. 

I just returned from the seeing the movie Juno (as in the Roman Goddess and wife of Zeus, associated with bringing forth life) and the adorable name of the sixteen year old who discovers what we have known since the dawn of time:  lying down or sitting in a chair while engaging in sex can lead to pregnancy.  That was the most important and accurate message of the entire movie.

Unfortunately, the movie quickly turns into the old theme of grownups yearning for their youth and kids showing grownups a thing or two about life-especially Juno.

I was impressed with the young actress who plays Juno but I found the subject of an unplanned pregnancy treated a bit too flippant.  Teen pregnancy is no laughing matter and Juno for the most part is a very funny movie.  Granted this is fiction and it is far more entertaining to watch a precocious actress be funny and quirky as she reveals her confusion and regret for her sexual tryst BUT, and this is a big BUT, it is disappointing how the subject of an unplanned pregnancy is always a comedy or some warm, feel good, movie about a girl who of course, elects to have her baby.

Whether the movie is "Knocked Up", "Home Fries" or "Waitress", Hollywood doesn't want to address teen pregnancy or any unwanted pregnancy in a different storyline other than humor and a happy, happy ending which means of course, the woman has her baby and life is going to work out just dandy.

How about a real movie where the young woman decides she can't handle a baby, does not believe she can give a baby up for adoption, or just does not want to take the risk on her health and opts for an abortion?  I'm sure it could be done in a respectful and honest manner to illustrate that when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, women should be respected no matter what choice they make.  I'm dreaming I know, so bear with me as we enter the world of writer Diablo Cody.

The scene where Juno goes into a women's clinic to have an abortion is just bogus if not pretentious.  I challenge anyone to find a woman's clinic where the receptionist is a seventeen-year-old "Goth" girl with piercings in her lip, and nose and acts as if she is bored to tears handing out forms for Juno's scheduled abortion procedure.   The appointment becomes even weirder when the same receptionist offers Juno a flavored condom. Honest. Juno quips that it is a little late now for this helpful gift. It's not only a little too late, it is the screenwriter trying to be cute but it just comes off as silly.

Obviously the screenwriter is making a statement that abortion is not only a mistake but these clinics are abortion mills staffed by uncaring, goofy, irresponsible people so run as fast as you can for the exist and save your baby! 

There is one teenage protester outside the clinic who softly and gently urges Juno to save her baby. This alone is pure fiction since protesters are rarely meek but are extremely angry and pushy as young girls try to get passed their obnoxious screaming but we don't want to have the audience angry with the heroic protester. 

Juno is determined to go in and proceed but the protester makes a remark that Juno cannot stop thinking about: "Did she know that her baby had fingernails already?"   This shocking revelation causes Juno to sit in the office obsessing on the fact to the point that she leaves and decides an abortion is not right for her.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this and in fact it is good that Juno has decided to do what she believes is best for her in this situation. She realizes she has to be comfortable with her choice and decides that fingernails represent a future she believes should have a chance regardless of her lapse in judgment. In the end, a baby finds a happy home, Juno and her boyfriend pick up where they left off, her parents still adore her and the track team keeps working out with the change of the seasons.

Now, the important lesson here is choice. No one forced Juno to get an abortion. She makes her own choice to have the baby and give it up for adoption.  It is as if Juno wants to do something good for others out of her mistake. Maybe it makes her feel better too, and who can blame any woman for wanting to have absolution in a world that makes an unplanned pregnancy a crime? Again the writer ignores some important realities facing most girls in the same situation:  not every teenage girl has supportive parents like Juno, not every teenager has the mental and physical well being to carry a baby to term, and not every teenager has sophisticated intellect of Juno to cope with motherhood.  These are important variables that make choice absolutely essential for every young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy.

Juno bravely gives up her baby to the point that you wonder if she really knows what she has given up which of course, is another theme skipped over; babies having babies is never a good idea. Bottom line, all women deserve to make their own reproductive decisions. Unfortunately the writer chose to make it appear that the choice Juno made was "right" and therefore right for all girls in the same situation.

That's called a political statement hidden in a charming comedy. Just once I'd like to see a sweet, funny film explore a teenager who chooses an abortion and she lives happily ever after because it happens and it's not some fictional story like Juno.

Colorado Initiative 36. Remember that number. Remember that number as a catalyst for not only trying to take away women's rights, but for restrictions on birth control, and the can of worms it will open in 2008. The initiative calls for changing the definition of 'person' in the Colorado Constitution to include any human being from the moment of fertilization; giving fertilized eggs specific rights. There are certainly a number of problems with the initiative itself, including its wording, intentions and repercussions.  For the Colorado Supreme Court to allow this initiative to continue is a disaster waiting to happen.

The initiative states, "Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term 'person' to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as 'person' is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?" It is a sad day when the Colorado Court cannot decipher that the initiative clearly has three separate subjects and that Colorado for Equal Rights co-founders Kristine Burton and Mark Meuser, who proposed the initiative, have violated the single subject requirement of the Colorado Constitution.

One certainly would not categorize inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law under the same Constitutional section; they are clearly very different rights. Burton and Meuser argue that because all three of these rights deal with "persons" the initiative does not violate the single subject requirement; ergo there should be one bill as opposed to three separate bills. If Burton and Meuser were so passionate about this cause of fertilized egg rights, they should take the time to defend the three rights separately. Rather, they choose to argue the rights as a whole because all three work together nicely in claiming abortion is illegal. Which they will undoubtly use later to further chip away at women's rights.

Burton and Meuser have stated that their intent is to just establish a constitutional principle, and that any laws or legislation that come from it are hypothetical. Yet, Burton has made it clear that her mission in life is to make abortion illegal, specifically in the state of Colorado. Doesn't anyone else think it's a coincidence that she would be proposing a bill to give fertilized eggs rights? Claiming that this bill would have no effect on abortion rights is ridiculous. In fact, this initiative would have a direct correlation to many reproductive rights.

Kathryn Wittneben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said, "The impact of this initiative will extend far beyond the legality of abortion. If fertilized eggs have the legal right to access Colorado's courts – which is one of the rights that would be granted by this initiative – what does this really mean for Coloradans?" She mentions that if this initiative moves forward, fertilized eggs can petition courts to make it illegal to use effective forms of birth control, and sue pregnant women if they miscarry.

Just imagine the circus of lawsuits waiting to happen in 2008! And who will be the defender of these eggs? Our guess is a right-wing fanatic who is committed to taking away women's rights, one fertilized egg at a time.

Julie Burkhart

CEO, ProKanDo

Andrew Sullivan, the conservative blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, and author of the book "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It and How To Get It Back" apparently pondered an interesting question for the GOP presidential candidates that was mentioned by Bill Maher on his show, "Reel Time". The question is worth repeating and thinking about.

The question Sullivan wanted to pose went something like this: "If you could go back in time and abort Osama bin Laden, would you do it?  What if the candidates answer, "no" all fetuses have the right to be born, even those who kill thousands and disrupt our world, as we know it; it's still life and it is precious? 

Would you the voter agree that there could never be exceptions to complicated issues about life in general and pregnancies in particular?

Is it not reasonable or even logical to postulate further that perhaps it is erroneous to assume every pregnancy will in turn result in a wonderful gift to the world and enrich all our lives and the planet?  Of course this is exactly the reality that Operation Knuckleheads ignore just as they ignore all the valid and important reasons why women should control their own reproductive decisions.

Perhaps some people's God might teach the fetus of Osama Bin Laden is just as worthy as any other fetus, but others could logically argue that it is impossible to determine what a new life will bring to the world. It might be a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer like BTK. No one can knows for sure and it is dishonest to act as if all pregnancies are created equal and wonderful.

When Operation Knuckleheads use their propaganda to state that " all life is precious" they are ignoring the reality that not every child born into this world is mentally whole or grows up to be productive, loved, and well schooled to be a good citizen of the world. If all life were precious, there would be no war and there would certainly be no toleration for abused and neglected children in society. Children would all have healthcare and wonderful schools without whining from the taxpayer about paying for public schools. We know in reality, only "some lives are precious."

I'm not advocating that women abort their fetus because they might be growing something like Rosemary's Baby inside their womb, but merely to explain Sullivan's question.  He raises the dilemma that if we assume every abortion is killing the next Einstein we must also consider its opposite: abortion might be killing the next Frankenstein.  When the anti-abortion crew stands on their soapbox about the sanctity of life, Sullivan's question should haunt their certainty.

It is pompous and arrogant to assume that all pregnancies are a joyful gift from heaven when you consider such circumstances as rape or incest. There is little joy carrying a fetus to term with severe abnormalities causing permanent health issues for either mother or child.  Joy is not a word to describe what most girls and women feel in these cases.  Operation Knuckleheads do not care about these realities but continue the mantra "all life is precious".

As a society we have to ask ourselves what do we value more?  The rationale decision to control our destiny's as much as possible, or to hope lady luck is on our side as we give parenthood a whirl on the Wheel of Fortune?   

Being pro-choice means you support women in all their choices; including the decision to carry a baby to term under all the circumstances listed above or the decision not to do so.

In a perfect world we would like all babies to be born brilliant and pregnant women to be capable and healthy for motherhood, but conditions are not always in the cards to produce such outcomes.

Whose to say that the woman who has made the choice to end her pregnancy has just saved the world from a monster?  If that sounds ridiculous, it is just as ridiculous to assume the pregnancy ended was the end of a potential Saint.

Vickie Sandell Stangl

What's the saying, "Old habits die hard?" Well that's exactly what Phill Kline's motto should be as District Attorney of Johnson County, Kansas. He can't seem to stop harassing women and doctors, and snooping around for information regarding women's medical records. He is clearly and unequivocally sticking his nose in a place where it does not belong. Some people across the state even question his authority as DA to file such a complaint in his home county.

Phill Kline's charges against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in Overland Park, Kansas are part of another attack on women's rights. On Wednesday, October 17, Kline filed 23 felony and 84 misdemeanor counts. They range anywhere from accusations of providing false information to failure to maintain medical records to providing unlawful late-termination of pregnancy. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows about Kline's previous track record as an anti-choice zealot.

Kline's crusade to shut down abortion providers and harass women began back in October of 2003, when sealed subpoenas showed up at Women's Health Care Services and at Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood. That was four long years ago. Due to the gag order on the subpoenas, the general public and the press did not learn about his fishing expedition until early winter of 2004. In those subpoenas, Kline asserted that the clinics were guilty of wrong doing, which lead to numerous years of litigation. Unfortunately, this is an extension of that case, only with Kline now as the District Attorney of Johnson County instead of as the Attorney General of the State of Kansas.

Initially, Kline spun his zealotry as protection of children from child rapists, even though the vast majority of the records that he sought were for adult women who had had abortion procedures. It did not take long for the media to see through this politically motivated ploy. However, the case raged on, with the real threat of women's privacy being violated.

It became clear that the only way Kline was ever going to stop his trolling for women's medical records was for him to lose his AG seat. Due to his blatant misuse of his governmental office and extravagant expenditures, he lost his position to Paul Morrison by a 16 point margin, which was remarkable given the Republican vs. Democratic registration in this state, and given early polling numbers in the race. These numbers showed just how fed up and tired Kansans are with his one-issue-ax-to-grind-agenda.

And now, less than a year later, Kline is at it again, prosecuting as Johnson County DA. Taxpayers should wonder if Kline's charges hold any value, or if the attack is purely for political purposes. When in reality, most of Kline's time is spent on his battle to shut down abortion clinics, and to take away your right to choose.

Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri told the Associated Press that the clinic did not perform any abortions past the 22^nd week of pregnancy and that they always provide high-quality care for their patients. Clinics, including Dr. Tiller's clinic in Wichita, have been under attack since 2002 when Kline was elected attorney general. Since Kline opposes abortion, he is abusing his position to keep women from having access to it. With these charges, Kline is attempting to shut down these clinics and limit women's right to choose. He is further pushing women into becoming second-class citizens.

The first hearing is scheduled for November 16, but one has to wonder if Kline's charges will even hold up in court. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Morrison said he had reviewed the current accusations, and found no crimes or misconducts, and questioned Kline's political influence behind the charges.

With anti-choice zealots like Kline in office, we cannot let our focus or our efforts wane. We must be diligent when protecting women's rights, as women are not truly free and equal in our society until we have the autonomous decision-making power regarding our reproductive lives. If there is no equity when it comes to reproduction, there is no equity in education, jobs or relationships.

As a state and as a country, politicians have undervalued women's rights, especially reproductive rights, for too long. We cannot stand by and allow our elected officials to decide what is right and moral for the women of this nation.

Nicaragua's abortion ban, implemented a year ago, is hurting women a lot more than it is doing anything else. The ban calls for imprisonment of women, and the people who help them (including doctors) when they have an abortion, even in the case of saving the woman's life. It is among Central America's most restrictive abortion laws that limits women, and puts their lives in danger.

The ban, which has resulted around 80 deaths so far (according to the International Herald Tribune) has put women at a standstill. The law says that the country will prosecute anybody who has an abortion, but what about the women who are facing pregnancy complications that could lead to death? Are they supposed to pick between going to jail or dying?  The high rate of deaths because of illegal abortions in that country is astonishing as well.

The recent release of the Human Rights Watch report on the blanket ban has shed some light into how it has evolved. Women do not want to go get public medical help during their pregnancies in case they have a miscarriage, and are sent to jail. Doctors are also worried about "assisting" in these miscarriages and some are even denying women of medical help.

The fact that the government refuses rights to these women is appalling, and are in affect sentencing these women to die, whether from pregnancy complications or botched abortions. How does the Nicaraguan government ignore these facts? Do they stick to their beliefs that they are only trying to save the fetuses lives when in fact, they are sentencing these women to death? How much longer will this law be butchering women?

 The fight to get rid of the ban though, mainly because of the strong, religious background of the people, but the Nicaraguan Feminist Movement and several other groups have already filed petitions to declare the ban unconstitutional. Since the courts have yet to rule, the battle wages on as many human rights groups and activists continue to show the fallout of this horrible ban, especially in the U.S.

Nicaragua's blanket ban on abortion, and its consequences, should be a reminder to all how imperative women's reproductive rights are, especially when right-wing legislators are working to chip away these rights everyday. According to a recent New York Times article, a global study has shown that outlawing abortions still does not reduce the number of them happening. If anything, it increases the number of deaths among women who do choose to have an abortion.

Who is Paul McHugh and why would the anti-abortion camp invite him to give his "expert" opinion regarding late term abortions before Kansas Legislators?

First, he is not an expert in the study of late term abortions, but is the Chair of the Psychiatry Department at Johns Hopkins University. His bio is impressive and it is clear that he is highly regard by his former students. He is also admired by others for challenging established ideas or accepted practices in his field. 

Among his peers he has raised a bit of a dust up over his scorn for doctors who perform sex-change surgeries on patients who feel trapped in a bodies that belie their real sexual identify. McHugh has called sex-change operations a form of a "frontal lobotomy."  It is clear that this is a man who thinks God does not make mistakes. Any deviance can be cured with religion and right morals.  Therefore, stem-cell is evil, sex change operations mess with God's handiwork, and abortions are of course, taking the lives God has created. 

McHugh is entitled to his religious beliefs, but not to use his religious beliefs to bear false witness against women or Dr. Tiller.   His credentials as an academician are solid, but it cannot hide the fact that he has an agenda, an ideology, a dogma called Catholicism that warps his testimony and yet it is exactly why he was called as a witness.

The professor has a history of coming to the witness table as a biased expert quite unencumbered by his personal feelings or beliefs.   As Erica Goode explained in a New York Times article, McHugh served as a lay member on a panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church investigating accusations of sexual abuse by priests against young boys. Victims protested McHugh's appointment due to the simple fact that he had frequently testified in court on behalf of molesters or accused molesters; McHugh disputed the repressed memories of those molested.

McHugh was also appointed to President Bush's Council on Bioethics, an 18 member group annoited to study such medical advancements as embryonic stem cell research and "assisted reproduction."  Many of the appointees are directly tied to the religious magazine, "First Things" with the purpose of incorporating the teachings and dogma of religion into public policy decisions, especially issues regarding women's health and welfare. Thus, McHugh was naturally a perfect candidate to serve as a witness to defame and belittle women who seek late term abortions in Kansas.

As a  practicing Catholic McHugh has the right to oppose abortions of course, but it is self-serving and a sham for the professor to bear witness and leave out these rather important elements to his  impressive resume.  Therefore, it was hardly surprising or a stretch for McHugh to testify that "there is no psychological condition for which abortion is the cure,"  when discussing late term abortions for women.    

Such arrogance should not shock any of us today, but it is shocking to reread these lines and not be struck by the fact that this man might as well be on Mars when it comes to understanding the conditions that make late term abortions necessary. One can hear in this remark the belief that women are having late term abortions because they are having a bad day and believe aborting their fetus will make the world all perfect again. 

If McHugh could suddenly become pregnant with a child that is terribly deformed or draining his life away, he might see late term abortions as a gift from God. That's right, a gift from God where men and women with compassion have harnessed their intellect and free will to save women and spare more suffering of the fetus. 

Late term abortions are no small matter entered into lightly. Most Kansans and most Americans, understand this fact.  Women who make this difficult choice do so for real medical problems that cannot be ignored or wished away. Women are forced for their own good health to make tough decisions the anti-abortion camp willy/nilly condemns as "murder" or "selfishness." 

These slings and arrows surely do not help the mental health of women. McHugh does not appear too concerned by this obvious fact since he no doubt believes in his own religious righteousness.  

In the eyes of the anti-abortion camp and their expert witness Paul McHugh, once a pregnant woman, always a pregnant woman, even if the cure is death for the woman. 

Oh, well..................la,la,la,la,la ,la,la,