In response to the “Bill has pros and cons” column, I would like to voice my opposition to the rationale of eliminating taxpayer funding for abortions in order to restrain unprotected sex. I can certainly understand an argument to stop this funding for fiscal reasons but to believe that safe sex would be practiced more frequently because of higher abortion costs is highly speculative and quite ridiculous.

 I suggest that you move your focus more towards how we can better educate teenagers and young people about the various contraceptive methods available to them. Abortion is just an end result of unprotected sex; therefore, passing legislation to make them less accessible does not address the root cause of a much larger issue. Why are so many young people choosing to have unprotected sex when there are condoms, birth control pills, contraceptive patches, and IUDs readily available in the market? Are the sex education programs at our local middle and high schools comprehensive or only based around abstinence?

 As a society, if we are going to address the rate of unwanted pregnancies, then we should focus on all the factors instead of concentrating on abortion. The moral arguments against abortion always seem to drown out common sense solutions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and tend to hinder, instead of helping, the process.