I’ll insert my disclaimer here: I am pro-life. I would like to see abortion become as rare as possible. As a consequence, I am a strong supporter of Plan B and have been for some time. I think every woman/girl who is physically able to get pregnant, whether she’s my age or the age of my 12-year-old niece, should have Plan B in her dresser drawer for emergencies. (A contraceptive emergency is everything from rape and incest to consensual sex without contraception.)

Plan B is not an abortifacient, nor is it dangerous. The FDA has established that. Plan B is, however, a simple, painless way to prevent an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy from happening and at about $40 per pill, affordable. It can also be purchased at any pharmacy or chain drugstore. Plan B is also about as private a means of preventing a pregnancy (other than regular, consistent use of contraception) as possible. It is ideal for women and girls who feel too shamed, embarrassed or frightened by an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy to deal with decision-making until it is too late for an abortion.

Abortion is complicated, harder and harder to get, especially for poor women, teenagers and women living in rural areas, as well as painful and expensive. Plus, abortion does kill the fetus. With Plan B there never is a fetus because fertilization never takes place.

Every woman in America should be disturbed by these political actions last week. As a woman who has yet to go into menopause but who definitely has no interest in having a child in middle age, I know I would not want to be faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Nine years ago, before Plan B was available, I was raped. Fortunately, I was not among the percentage of rape victims who is impregnated by her rapist. But had I been, I would have had to make the awful choice between carrying the child of my rapist or having an abortion. Many women face these choices every day. The option of Plan B is a tremendous relief.

Pennsylvania bill SB732 was ostensibly in response to the horrific scene uncovered earlier this year at the West Philadelphia Women’s Clinic run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his wife. Gosnell was operating outside pretty much every law in place for free-standing ) abortion clinics (that is, a clinic not associated with a hospital, Planned Parenthood or other oversight agency). He was allegedly dispensing drugs illegally and he was allegedly performing third-trimester abortions, which are not legal outside a surgical center or hospital setting because they require that a woman go into actual labor and the complications are manifold and the woman’s health is at tremendous risk.

He was also committing murder. Gosnell is charged with killing seven live infants by snipping their spinal cords and brain stems with scissors. Bodies of infants and fetuses were found in storage at the clinic, which was also filthy. Conditions at the clinic came to light when a woman died from complications of a third-trimester abortion. Gosnell is also charged with her murder. No one can argue that the Gosnell clinic was serving women. Gosnell made money off desperate women, like the one he is accused of killing, who was an immigrant who had tried to get a late-stage abortion in Maryland before coming to Philadelphia.

SB 732 places new licensing and other restrictions on independent clinics that are supposed to protect women from predatory health care providers like Gosnell. But if the Department of Health had been performing regular inspections as required by already existing laws, the Gosnell clinic would likely have been closed down before any of the eight murders attributed to Gosnell were perpetrated.

SB 732 is unnecessary. What is necessary is having health inspectors do the required checks on all health clinics, including those that primarily perform abortions, to make sure that patients are getting the appropriate standard of care in a safe, clean, antiseptic environment with trained personnel. (The Grand Jury found that among other illegalities, the Gosnells’ clinic was staffed predominately with high-school students who often administered anesthesia.)

Pennsylvania already has the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation. In addition, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, only ten counties (out of 67) have abortion providers and there are only 20 independent clinics in the state. Which means poor women–and Pennsylvania is largely rural and has a significant poverty demographic–are the least likely to be able to access abortions.

Which brings me back to President Obama’s anti-science/election year decision last week to over-rule the FDA on making Plan B available to girls under 18. In supporting HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s decision to go against the FDA’s ruling, Obama noted that he didn’t want his daughters finding Plan B “next to the bubble gum and band aids.” This is the kind of rabid, anti-science statement one would expect from someone on the extremist right, not a Democratic president who campaigned on standing for science.

First, Plan B won’t be anywhere near “bubble gum and band aids” in any pharmacy. And the Malia and Sasha Obama are not likely to be the girls who would need it. But if the president ever left his insular meet and greets to actually come to the inner city like my neighborhood, or the poverty-stricken rural areas of America, like Mississippi where teen pregnancy is pandemic, he would know why Plan B is so important and why its availability to girls between 12 and 17 is essential.

Fifteen years ago I taught in a program at Lutheran Settlement for pregnant teenagers. The girls took GED and other high school equivalency courses in the morning and in the afternoons they were taught life skills. My students ranged in age from 12 to 17. The 17-year-old was on her third baby. The 12-year-old implied in several talks with me that the father of her baby was her own father. Statistics show that the women most likely to seek out a late-stage abortion for reasons that are non-medical are teenagers. Plan B might not be a panacea that will stop all teen pregnancies, but it is one more stop-gap and also one more safe way to prevent abortions.

In the debate over who controls women’s bodies, women lose. President Obama’s daughters may be in the age range covered by the FDA’s ruling, but they are not the demographic that needs access to Plan B. When Sebelius and Obama both say that parents need to be involved in the decisions regarding their child’s health, they ignore the realities: there are many drugs available over the counter to kids that actually are dangerous, including Tylenol, aspirin and cough medicines. Yet Sebelius and Obama are not suggesting restricting those to people over 18. What’s more, when these two upper-middle-class parents talk about parental involvement, they pre-suppose two things: first, that a teenage girl’s parents care enough to be involved and second, that a teenage girl’s parents aren’t part of the reason she’s had unprotected sex.

 One in four girls is a victim of sexual abuse before she turns 18. Many of the perpetrators are family members. Shouldn’t she be allowed access to Plan B rather than being forced to bear the child of one of her male relatives? The Plan B decision was 100 percent political, as was the 155-44 vote passing SB 732. These were not decisions based on science or protecting women, but politically motivated dictates meant to interfere in women’s personal lives and make a statement to voters in an election year.

Here’s what politicians on both sides of the aisle should be considering rather than votes: No woman wants to have an abortion. Women who choose abortion do so because they feel it is their only option, and so it should be accessible and safe. But Plan B also gives many women a safe, inexpensive, reliable and accessible alternative that is also guilt-free.

Every pro-life advocate should be a huge supporter of Plan B. I’d be handing Plan B (and condoms) out in the schools, if I could. But if Plan B is not an option because too much time has passed, then abortion–which has been legal for nearly 40 years–should be made as accessible as possible. Women don’t make the abortion decision lightly. Making abortion difficult for them only adds an unnecessary burden of shame and guilt. Meanwhile, making first trimester abortions–which are reasonably safe and in which the fetus is not viable–accessible, women are less likely to be forced to have second or even third-trimester abortions where there is a viable fetus and there is also great risk to the health of the woman. Making early abortions more difficult to obtain only means there will be more late-term abortions. If a woman wants an abortion, she will find one–if not at a real clinic, then at the kind of over-priced butcher shop Gosnell was running.

As for Plan B, Obama implies that kids under 18 are not having sex. He seems to forget his own mother was a pregnant teenager before she married his father–and that was 50 years ago when teen pregnancy was considered shameful, rather than the commonplace it has become in 2011.

Yet common as it now is, what we know about teen pregnancy is all bad. Girls who have babies before they are 20 are the least likely to finish school, get a secondary education or be able to find a good job. One baby before a girl is 20 is almost always followed by a second. Children of teenage mothers are at risk physically from health issues, but are also then twice as likely to drop out of school and/or become teen parents themselves.

Teen pregnancy benefits no one. And as so-called abstinence programs have proven, teens will have sex, regardless of what parents or peers say. While the President believes his daughters will never be those girls, he really can’t know for sure. Over 70 percent of girls have had sex by the time they turn 17.

Last week was a bad week for women with these two decisions. And neither will lead where the politicians involved want. Obama’s anti-science rhetoric won’t stop teenagers from having sex, but it may mean that some will be forced to have abortions and others babies, rather than have access to a simple pill. The Pennsylvania legislature can sit back smugly, noting that they are saving women’s lives, but the artificial restrictions it has placed on abortion clinics is likely to create more Gosnells, not punish them. Extremist, anti-science politics–whether purveyed by a Republicans or Democrats–benefit no one. But they have the potential to hurt millions of women. Turning back the reproductive clock is impossible but the results of these continued efforts will be nothing less than catastrophic.

 follow me on Twitter @VABVOX

In the Republican race there are two candidates: State Attorney General Tom Corbett, who is polling at 58 percent and State Rep. Sam Rohrer, polling at 7 percent.

In the Democratic race there are four candidates: Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, Montgomery County Commissioner and former U.S. Representative Joe Hoeffel, Auditor General Jack Wagner and State Rep. Anthony Williams. 

 The most recent polls put Onorato in the lead with 20 percent, Hoeffel with 15 percent, Wagner with 13 percent and Williams with five percent.

 There are 4.5 million registered Democrats in Pennsylvania (51.2 percent), 3.3 million registered Republicans (37 percent) and 1.1 million (11.8 percent) voters registered with other party affiliations, such as the Green, Libertarian and Socialist parties or simply as Independents. 
 

Philadelphia and Allegheny counties are both Democratic strongholds (Philadelphia: 75 percent Democrat, Allegheny: 60 percent Democrat), while the central and northern parts of the state, often referred to as the “Pennsyltucky” portion of the state, are very conservative and vote almost exclusively Republican.

 The highly concentrated and populous counties of the Philadelphia suburbs–Chester, Montgomery, Delaware and Bucks–have been traditional Republican strongholds. In the past several national elections, however, many of these suburban areas have been trending independent or Democrat.

 A key factor in the gubernatorial (and Senate) race, though, will be the usual wild card of Pennsylvania politics: The Pennsltuckians tend to vote more regularly than do Philadelphians. Which may be why in every poll taken, Tom Corbett beats any Democrat by a commanding 20 percent.

 One of the issues for Philadelphians with regard to gubernatorial races is the hate-hate relationship Harrisburg has with Philly. For generations the attitude of Harrisburg toward the state’s most populous urban center has been extremely negative. Therefore it is not a Philadelphian’s political paranoia to presume that after eight years with a Democratic governor from Philadelphia, the rest of the state might rebel and vote Republican just to take back the office.
 Rendell has spent much of his eight years in Harrisburg fighting with the Republican-led and utterly controlled State legislature–never more definingly than during last summer’s three-month budget impasse which devastated Philadelphia social service agencies.

 For Pennsylvania progressives, Hoeffel is the clear and really only choice, but with the top three Democrats so close in the polls, the vote will likely come down to region and ad money–Onorato has Allegheny county sewn up and he also has the most money in the election till. Williams has local support (and for all the wrong patronage implied reasons), but is the weakest of the four candidates. 
 

Without a solid Democratic contender, Tom Corbett will likely win come November. And Republican governors have not been good for Philadelphia. Thus how–and how many–Philadelphians vote May 18 is pivotal to the November election.
 

Until recently, Corbett seemed innocuous enough. Unlike fellow Republican candidate Sam Rohrer, who is running mostly on an anti-abortion, anti-gay platform, Corbett has projected a “moderate” Republican image. He supports the death penalty for capital cases. He’s been strong on statewide corruption and secured a personal victory at the end of March with the conviction of former Democratic House Leader Mike Veon.
 But then Corbett went Tea Party and signed onto lawsuits being filed by 21 other states calling the new national health care reform bill unconstitutional. With that move–in a state with the one of the top ten poorest big cities in the country and the second largest percentage of people over 60–Corbett took a giant step to the extreme right, which sets him as far off the political grid as Rohrer. 
 Among the Democrats, Joe Hoeffel is by far the most progressive–he is the only Democrat running who is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage. His platform is solid on jobs, health care, education, the environment (the Marcellus Shale drilling will be a pivotal environmental issue in PA in the next two years), affordable housing and the elderly. He is also the only Democratic candidate who understands Washington, which is essential for PA’s governor. Ed Rendell is a Washington insider and it has definitely helped Pennsylvania.

 Jack Wagner is the most conservative entrant, with a platform that looks a lot like Sam Rohrer’s, which for a Democrat is not good. Dan Onorato and Anthony Williams have conservative problems as well, and Williams has some seriously bewildering views on education that have made my hair stand on end. (Someone needs to educate gubernatorial candidates about education. School vouchers are an extremist Republican idea that have garnered traction among conservative Democrats for reasons that are pretty inexplicable.) School vouchers equal two things: segregation and bad education. Williams is focusing a lot of his attention on vouchers. Which tells me he knows nothing about the educational needs of either Philadelphia or the state.

 Dan Onorato is not the worst candidate we could end up with of the four contenders, but as an Allegheny county standard bearer, his concern for Philadelphia would be slim and none. He has a good record with regard to jobs, housing and education, but on social issues–and this would impact Philadelphia–he is highly conservative.
 Getting out the vote come May 18 is pivotal for all Pennsylvanians. Even though he’s from Montgomery county, of all the candidates in either party, Hoeffle has the most to offer Philadelphians. Each candidate has a website, however, so be sure to go to the polls informed about your candidate before you press those buttons.