The time has come to discuss birth control and the clusterfuck surrounding it. Every Republican candidate opposes abortion and many types of birth control.

Ron Paul and Mitt Romney both oppose Roe v. Wade, and Romney even wants to overturn it, which he spoke about in the [2007 GOP debate](http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/mitt-romney/14/abortion-and-birth-control/16/) at the University of New Hampshire.

Romney strives for a world without an abortion, which is never going to happen. This is just one of those issues that society will never agree on, no matter how obvious the right answer seems. Romney wants Roe v. Wade overturned so states would have the right to pass anti-abortion legislation if they so desire. To me, this doesn’t seem too horrible, but I still think the choice should be left to the woman.

Romney also opposes emergency contraceptives but does support abortion in the case of rape or incest. So what really is the difference between these two? Does he really want the woman to wait a couple of weeks to make sure there’s a baby in there so she feels bad when she’s getting the abortion? That just seems backwards to me.

But Romney does also approve of abortion when the woman’s life is in danger and supports federal funding for birth control. Then again, he also supports abstinence-only sex education. And I’ve never understood how someone could think that’s the right decision. Kids know what sex is; this invention called the Internet teaches them all about it. Abstinence-only sex education is just ridiculous. When you’re in high school what do you love to do? Anything your parents tell you is wrong.

Now back to Ron Paul. Paul also supports abortion when the woman’s life is at risk but not in the case of rape or incest. Nor does he [support federal funding](http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/abortion-and-birth-control/16/) for birth control, according to a bill he previously introduced in the House. Paul has said he cannot “protect and fight for personal liberty if (he doesn’t) fight for the right to life.” Paul also supports sex education but, again, just abstinence-only education. I don’t need to reiterate how I feel about this one.

Newt Gingrich is a [strong anti-abortion-rights candidate](http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/newt-gingrich.html). He voted anti-abortion-rights 72 times in Congress and has voted for making abortion and many forms of birth control illegal. He even voted for the elimination of family-planning programs, according to National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice America’s website.

Santorum is also opposed to birth control, believing it is a danger to the country. He stated it would encourage kids to have sex rather than keep them safe, [according to an article](http://www.newser.com/story/139777/rick-santorum-birth-control-is-not-ok.html) in Newser.

Apparently pharmacists can deny emergency contraception to women, even if they were raped, if doing so violates their religious beliefs, according to [Secular Coalition for America](http://secular.org/issues/pharmacists). Seriously? Why be a pharmacist if you’re ever going to have such a huge conflict of interest as this? Providing emergency contraceptives does not affect the pharmacist in any way, so why should they have the right to deny the rape victim, the one whose life this pregnancy could potentially ruin?

I just don’t know why people believe birth control has to affect anyone other than the one woman taking said birth control. I really feel like this issue needs to be put to rest. I believe the choice should be in the woman’s hands, and only hers. There is no way in hell the government would be able to outlaw birth control or abortions without the country going into anarchy.