[browardchad]

It's a good article, but I have to disagree with the author's emphasis on the pill as the major agent of change. It wasn't that widely used in the '60's. It wasn't all that reliable, and there were widely publicized, sometimes fatal, side affects. And it wasn't something that a single woman felt comfortable asking about -- there were still societal mores to overcome.

Then along came Roe v Wade in the early '70's -- and suddenly Sanger's Planned Parenthood became a symbol of sexual liberation, accepted by society, heralding a new day. For Sanger (in accordance with an underlying belief in eugenics) that's what abortion was about -- freeing women to be promiscuous under the guise of taking control of the uterus. Choice, after the fact. Freedom to murder, sanctioned by society's laws, in the pursuit of what would come to be known as feminism, but was actually aimed at destruction of traditional family values.

[Tennessean4Bush]

I agree that the pill by itself was not the liberator once it was introduced. It merely signalled the coming liberation. Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood combined to create the solution for sexual promiscuity with “seemingly” no lasting consequences.