Putting it in perspective

This essay in today's New York Times should be required reading, whether you're pro-choice, anti-choice or just indifferent. It's written by former gynecologist Waldo L. Fielding, now in his 80s, about what abortion was like in the bad old days before the Roe v. Wade decision. You know, when as many abortions were performed in the U.S. each year as there were, well, last year. Or, as Fielding puts it:

"It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such."

In related news, Dana Stone, MD writes on Feministing.com about the right-wing movement to ban birth control pills. By the way, I don't know a single woman who takes "birth control pills" to actually control birth - meaning that they're either not sexually active, not in heterosexual relationships where sperm is an issue or just rely on more effective forms of birth/disease prevention, such as condoms. But I guess it's more fun to depict women (and their partners) who have the temerity to want to control the timing of their pregnancies as wanton ho-bags who want to have sex without any consequences. (Not like men...)

Even the ads for BC [sic] focus more on the lifestyle benefits of "the pill," such as the elimination of psychotic mood swings and the "how the F*CK did I gain six pounds overnight???" effect. (Could it be that the latter has some impact on the former? Hmmm...) Can we officially start referring to "birth control pills" as something more reflective of their actual use - hormone regulation pills? Skinny jeans pills? "But I've waited a year for this vacation!" pills? I'm open to suggestions...