To answer the rhetorical question posed by the noxious ad I see on the main page, YES.
I offer this image in response.
Either I support a woman's right to choose, or I don't. I do. Next step. If I support a woman's right to choose, that support is only meaningful if I also support the means to make that choice.
"Safe, Legal, and Rare" is a good idea that I stand behind. From the stories I've heard, there's no way to gauge in advance the psychological impact of an abortion. There's no problem, in theory, with the goal of reducing abortions.
The problem is that "rare" is already a rhetorical concession to those forces that demand "never." I can help "rare" happen more effectively by promoting birth control and sex education than I can by ceding moral ground to advocates of forced birth.
Because the Right has moved the frame to the point that gains are already being rolled back, I will reiterate, without apology, FREE ABORTION ON DEMAND.
None of what I'm saying is really new, but it needs to be said repeatedly to stave off the the continual erosion of women's reproductive rights.
In the meantime, while the Right is whittling away at a woman's right to have a say in her own destiny, you can help poor women in need by donating to the National Network of Abortion Funds or the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.