e Roe decision, once an unborn child has an opportunity at life outside the womb, the calculation changes, and the state has a right, if not a duty, to take steps to protect that life.2
             Therefore, as the head of state, the administration has a right, and quite possibly a duty, to do what it can to protect the lives of unborn children. One of the first things that the administration should do is to work to remove the anti-female tarnish that fanatical people have helped paint upon the pro-life movement. To do this, the administration needs to emphasize that it is pro-choice, and that it feels that women have been sufficiently empowered to exercise their right to choose at crucial stages before the conception of a child. In fact, one of the most cogent arguments against the pro-life movement is that many pro-life advocates are against the use of any artificial means of birth control, a position that many pro-choice and middle-of-the-road people find offensive and untenable; an anti-abortion, anti-birth control position appears geared towards controlling female sexuality, not towards limiting the number of terminated pregnancies. The administration needs to separate itself from that part of the pro-life movement by sending a strong pro-choice message. It can do so by pointing out that, in the majority of cases, women have many choices to make before ever being placed in the position of choosing whether or not to have an abortion. The first choice a woman makes is whether or not to engage in sexual activity, and the administration should make sure that all women in the United States have access to accurate and informative information about the positives and negatives of
             ...