First things first: Joe Lieberman is an unusual guy...very few people have a butt on top of their neck:
Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said. Principled reasons? I think I've said that I struggle with understanding the conditions under which abortion is ethically ok with me. (There, I just lost much of my family....)

But I do know this...rape is way the f--- on the side of ok. Especially when the "abortion" you're talking about isn't the destruction of a fetus, but is the prevention of fertilized egg attachment to the uterine wall.

What I don't get is how much the "pro-birth" movement seems internally inconsistent or irrational. (I refuse to refer to it as "pro-life", when the majority of them seem to cease giving a sh-- after birth.)

• Why are the bulk of the people who say they're "pro-life" so overwhelmingly in favor of capital punishment?
• If the contention is that sex is only for procreation, then "pro-lifers" are incredibly non-hormonal...that is, I refuse to believe that these rabid pro-lifers are sexual creatures, yet never masturbated in their life.
• There's undoubtedly a joke about the sinfulness of "pulling out", but I'm too tired to make it.
• If it's "principled" to deny a rape victim contraception, it must likewise be "principled" to deliver babies to unwed mothers, or even to parents who admit that the conception was an accident.

Here's my thing...it's cool if you want to pretend your interpretation of religion is the right way to run your life. But let's stop pretending that medicine is anything other than a SCIENCE. As a result, decisions of ethics in medicine (e.g., contraception, birthing, etc.) shoud be made scientifically.