A. Women are facing many barriers to access reproductive healthcare  Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000.  Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003 NAF 2006   The U.S.

 Supreme Court confirmed a woman's right to choose abortion in 1973, and the  courts have upheld the core of that finding in subsequent cases. In 1988, the Supreme  Court of Canada struck down laws prohibiting abortion. But access to abortion has been  severely eroded. The most recent survey found that 87% of all U.S. counties have no    identifiable abortion provider. In non­metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%.     1 As a    result, many women must travel long distances to reach the nearest abortion provider.  But distance is not the only barrier women face. In the U.S., many other factors have  contributed to the current state of abortion access, including a shortage of trained  abortion providers; state laws that make getting an abortion more complicated than is  medically necessary; state and federal Medicaid restrictions; and fewer hospitals  providing abortion services. 
In Canada, even though there is no law restricting abortion, access to abortion care remains a problem for many women. There is a shortage of  trained abortion providers; abortions are not fully funded in all provinces and territories; funded abortions are unavailable in some areas, there  is no inter­provincial billing for abortions; and in some provinces there are limits on the number of abortions allowed in facilities in a given year

In addition, women from diverse backgrounds face unique cultural and information  barriers to obtaining information about pregnancy options and safe, high quality abortion  care. Many also lack knowledge about navigating the health care system or are  unaccustomed to and anxious about interacting with health care professionals.  

A. Abortion is constantly condemned through rhetoric and language destroying feminism Trish Wilson of The womens network is the editor at large for feminista. Works for the Coalition for Parents and Families which is an organization which focused on pending welfare reform legislation. She is also part of the National Writer's Union "WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOLLOWING NOW v. SCHEIDLER" 2006 The use of language to condemn both feminism and abortion itself was employed and encouraged. Dawn Stover, an activist with Advocates for Life Ministries, while speaking at a group fund-raiser, had advised parents who had brought their children to the fundraiser to tell their children that abortion rights protesters were "sodomites" and the "mouths of Satan." In a means identical to what I described in my earlier piece about anti-feminist propaganda ["Not The 'F' Word," Feminista!, Feb. 8, 1998.], PLAN's Joseph Schiedler, who was called the "Green Beret of the pro-life movement" by Pat Buchanan, resorted to both name-calling and euphemism in his book "Closed: 99 Ways To Stop Abortion." He emphasized the use of specific language. As reported by Faludi, "... when speaking to the press, his manual instructed, Rarely use the word 'fetus.' Use 'baby' or 'unborn child.' ... You don't have to surrender to their vocabulary ... They will start using your terms if you use them. Schiedler also prefers the use of other "inflammatory rhetoric" that pro-lifers (a name that is a bit of propaganda itself, since anyone who disagrees with their stance is automatically rendered "pro-death.") must use "... at appropriate times to counter pro-abortion jargon are; 'holocaust,' for America's abortion culture, 'abortuary' or 'death camp,' to describe the abortion clinic, 'abortifacient,' for pills and IUDs, 'fornication,' for sex outside of marriage, 'adultery,' for 'having an affair.” How about "hypocrites" and "woman-haters" for the anti-abortionists? Oh, my mistake. The technique is supposed to mask the truth, not bring it out.

B. Being Pro-Life destroys the Feminist Movement
Kate Michelman, Former head of the NARAL Pro-choice of America, January 8, 2006; in an interview with Tim Russert, Meet the Press, NBC; page lexis. You can’t be a feminist and oppose the act of abortion on moral and ethical, religious and personal grounds on face value; absolutely cannot be. Many people who are prolife should respect the diversity of views on these issues related to pregnancy and childbearing, abortion, and reproductive matters, that there is a diversity of views and they are informed by one's values, as they are mine. My personal values informed my decision about abortion. But you can be absolutely anti-abortion, if you will, and pro-choice; believing that women ultimately, not the government, not Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, but women themselves must determine the course of their lives, and central to that determining the course of their lives is determining when and under what circumstances they will become mothers. Because

the thing that most women want is to be successful at mothering. And the first ingredient is being able to determine when that time is right and not being forced by the government and by politicians or by judges to bear a child under circumstances of one--not of one's choosing.

C. Upholding Roe v. Wade is the only way to access feminism
Rajesh Jain, Cavalier Daily; SOURCE: U. Virginia 2006 http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=f3461c93c417bcba9884b445f8534012&_docnum =18&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVA&_md5=eb477233f3c5d38bc458b25152b413fc Before Roe v. Wade, money was a woman's surest way to an abortion. Doctors who performed abortion illegally charged considerable amounts because of the risk the doctors were taking if caught. Others received an abortion through a loophole in many state laws. If it was deemed by a psychiatric evaluation that the woman in question was in danger of causing damage to herself, an abortion could be completed. Again, this loophole was only available to the wealthy who could afford psychiatric consultations. Those without this wealth were forced into finding other options. In addition, a study done by Mark Graber of Princeton University shows discrimination against minorities in Pre-Roe v. Wade times. For example in New York City, pregnant white women were five times more likely to have illegal hospital
abortions than black women and 26 times more likely to have illegal hospital abortions than pregnant Puerto Rican women. Granted,

both minorities have made significant strides since Roe v. Wade that would curb these disparities, but disparities in health care for minorities still exists. Likely, these disparities would increase if abortion is made illegal, but by how much is not clear. Overall, overturning Roe v. Wade would make illegal, sometimes dangerous abortions prevalent among American women. They would discriminate against lower economic classes and minorities who would not receive equal healthcare. Pro-life protesters would feel cheated by those seeking abortions in other states, pro-choice protesters would be outraged, and desperate, confused women would suffer with infection, sterility, and death. Nobody wins.

NAF provides availability to reproductive health care  Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000.  Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003 NAF 2006  Ensuring that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care  options, including abortion, is an integral part of NAF's work. Increasing access begins  with training more clinicians to provide abortion services and extends to fighting  restrictions in legislatures throughout the country.

The National Abortion Federation's Access Initiative Project was created specifically to  address the escalating problem of limited access to abortion in the U.S. The Access  Initiative Project works with medical residency programs, educational institutions, health  care professionals, legal experts, public policy organizations, and organizations for 

women of color to ensure that qualified clinicians are able to get the training they need,  including cultural and linguistic competency, to provide safe abortions.