Bush Gang: Contraception is Abortion

[andrewlittle]

While realizing it's not exactly a major topic for the GL part of TGLB community, it has potentially widespread ramifications.

From ABC News:
"Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Bush administration for a draft proposal they say would change the definition of abortion and limit women's access to contraception. "

"One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of 'abortion,'" write Clinton and Murray. "This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception — including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs — 'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

"As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms," they write.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5397146&page=1

Also, at Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/bush-administration-tryin_n_113199.html

[J.D.]

"Current federal law prohibits health-care providers and organizations from discriminating against people who won't provide abortions or birth control.

The Bush administration's new draft proposal would require these agencies to certify in writing their compliance with the law before getting funding from HHS."

ABC NEWS (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5397146&page=2)

As I had somewhat expected, this doesn't seem to be anything all that new or outrageous. Bush simply seems to want a little more verification to a pre-existing law.

Many of the comments in this article were semi-outrageous. The politician's anxious statements would lead one to assume that Bush was somehow attempting to outlaw birth control, or at least many of the common types, when that is hardly the case.

[nmwolfboy]

Considering how the cliché, "Give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile," seems to be a basic operating principle for the Bush crime syndicate administration, i think concern over their draft proposal is both well-placed and wise.

i am still appalled that pharmacists, who are required to maintain a public licensing, are in some states given the legal right to refuse to fill prescriptions for levonorgestrel or mifepristone (Emergency contraception pills, aka 'ECPs', 'Plan B', "morning-after pills', etc.) Sometimes it is due to the policy of their employer which requires pharmacists to refuse to fill these prescriptions (Target pharmacies, for instance).

Given the effectiveness of anti-choice rhetoric in equating ECPs with abortifacients, thus gaining support to legally limit women's access to these contraceptive pills, i don't think it's far-fetched that at least in some locales, basic contraceptive options for women face potential further restriction.

-scott

[J.D.]

Also...

I found this article (http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/rnstext/forty_years_later_birth_control_decree_remains_con troversial/) on RNS today as well. Not quite the same, but similar enough.

It's fascinating to see the dynamic between pope and member so vividly illustrated in a controversial issue such as this, particularly over such a long period of time.

[Emproph]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k81/jrockbridge/soupnazi.jpg

No contraception for you!

[andrewlittle]

As I had somewhat expected, this doesn't seem to be anything all that new or outrageous. Bush simply seems to want a little more verification to a pre-existing law.

Many of the comments in this article were semi-outrageous. The politician's anxious statements would lead one to assume that Bush was somehow attempting to outlaw birth control, or at least many of the common types, when that is hardly the case.

Verification of existing law? Bush wants to redefine contraception as abortion. Even many of the more conservative medical people don't agree with this - it has been battled out before. Why then would redefining contraception be simply verification of a pre-existing law?

Since there has been, and continues to be, a strong push to overturn abortion law, and if contraception was redefined as abortive, would it not follow that there is an attempt to join them together into the same lump so they can either be
a. overturned together, or
b. a deal struck in which Bush won't oppose contraception IF you back off on your stand on abortion.

Becuase there is existing law, there is no need to change the definition. So why the interest in doing so?

[J.D.]

Verification of existing law? Bush wants to redefine contraception as abortion.

My point is that simply is not the case. That is the front-foot forward approach of our resident Democrat politicians opposing the bill...and we'd all be ignorant to assume they will display this bill in moderate fashion.

The law itself simply designs the guranteed right of an individual to refuse the disposition of contraceptives if the individual feels it is morally inethical. There is no federal force behind the banning of any forms of borth control; only, instead, behind the right of an individual in the workplace, along with the freedom of speech.

[wmanion]

My point is that simply is not the case. That is the front-foot forward approach of our resident Democrat politicians opposing the bill...and we'd all be ignorant to assume they will display this bill in moderate fashion.

The law itself simply designs the guranteed right of an individual to refuse the disposition of contraceptives if the individual feels it is morally inethical. There is no federal force behind the banning of any forms of borth control; only, instead, behind the right of an individual in the workplace, along with the freedom of speech.


I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who stated that he believes that every man is entitled to freedom as long as it does not impose a threat to another man's freedom. Just because an individual thinks something is unethical or morally wrong does not give them the right to impose that belief on someone else. By allowing organizations to refuse to hand out contraceptives or birth control because they personally believe it is wrong is doing this very thing. How is being able to refuse any form of contraception not infringing on those who want the contraceptions, freedom? The whole point is that one group of people want to control what another group does in the privacy of their own lives. Contraceptions promote the general welfare of the nation by preventing unwanted births, teenage pregnancy, and social diseases. thus reducing welfare programs and health costs that many times are passed on to the taxpayer. Although abstinence may be the ideal among many beliefs, unfortunately, it is not the reality. Giving people access to birth control is not the same as abortion, just like giving people access to guns do not make an individual commit a crime. And just because it is allowable does not mean you have to change your personal ethics or morals...it just means you can't impose those by judging others.

Bill

[Nyshana]

Bill, you've misinterpreted on one point. An organisation cannot personally believe anything.
What this bill appears to introduce is the right of an individual employee to refuse to dispense contraception on moral grounds - and although I've not read the actual bill, the reports suggest that the vital part is that the company must allow the employee to make this refusal.
If it is the company's policy to dispense contraceptives, then I'd imagine an employee who is unwilling to do so would have to get a coworker who will to see to the customer instead.

I don't know what the US laws are regarding companies as a whole refusing dispense of contraceptives, but looks like this bill won't be affecting those laws - just the laws regarding individual employees.

Emma

[scott snedeker]

My point is that simply is not the case. That is the front-foot forward approach of our resident Democrat politicians opposing the bill...and we'd all be ignorant to assume they will display this bill in moderate fashion.

The law itself simply designs the guranteed right of an individual to refuse the disposition of contraceptives if the individual feels it is morally inethical. There is no federal force behind the banning of any forms of borth control; only, instead, behind the right of an individual in the workplace, along with the freedom of speech.

That's plain Bullshit!!!!!!

My mother in 1971 had an awful dilemna. She is Rh- And form antibodies to my blood and my brother who was born three years later. We were both jaundice at birth and my brother had to be induced six weeks early to save him. She was told by her physician that if she were to conceive again that she and the fetus would die.

She lived in Connecticut where Contraception was illegal. Moved to New York Where Tubal ligation was Illegal. Then moved to Virginia Where tubal ligation was legal but only with her husband's written permission



So a Pharmacist with some cracked Fundi bullshit morality, who thinks she is silly little amoral woman needing the Son of Adam to think for her, is entitled to the sacrifice of her health.......... AGAIN!!!!

Freedom of speech specifically does not mean that Fundamentalists or the majority are entitled to the sacrifice of minorities for the comfort of their morality!!!!

That is Sanctimonious Predation! not a guaranteed entitlement of those "privileged to decide for others supported by holy scripture"

I for one would never defend such predators in our society who believe vulnerablity entitles them to trespass on others' rights.

Agree with limiting contraception based on morality and you are threatening my mother and many other women.

Do I take this personally as threatening and hostile ?

You bet your ass I do!

[nmwolfboy]

Ash, God(dess) bless your anger! :headbang: i share it, though given our differing histories i suspect yours has much more personal depth, and you're certainly more medically informed than i.

i take great umbrage at laws and policies that place a company's or a pharmacist's personal choices above the health and welfare of the people they are there to serve. And to pretend that this latest attempt by the Bush Administration isn't pandering to their anti-choice base and attempting to further restrict reproductive rights is foolish.

A short Google search turns up many news articles of US Pharmacists who not only believe it's their right to ignore the opinions of medical doctors and deny women access to legally prescribed Emergency Contraception, but also believe that ALL contraception is the same as abortion. They won't sell condoms, contraceptive foams, etc. One story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/23/eveningnews/main657435.shtml) i easily found told the tale of a pharmacist who proudly states:
I don’t sell condoms. I don't sell foams. I don't sell creams. I don't sell anything to do with contraception.

He said, even if a woman who was the victim of incestuous rape walked in his door after having been prescribed the pill, he wouldn't change his policy.


Admittedly, only a minority of Americans agree that pharmacists should have the right to refuse filling legally prescribed medications based upon religious convictions. But only a minority of states have laws on the books that specifically allow pharmacists refuse to countermand a physician's order by not filling a legally prescribed medication. Even fewer states have laws on the books that expressly require a pharmacist to fill prescriptions regardless of personal objections. Here's a map (http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyRefusalPoliciesJanuary2008.pdf) that gives you an idea of the way the land currently lays. Some of the states that do grant pharmacists a right to refuse also require that they refer the customer to a nearby pharmacy that will fill the script.

That last one sounds somewhat reasonable, right? Well, let's suppose you're suffering from the recent trauma of rape. You've managed to access some post-trauma medical care and have been given a prescription for an emergency contraceptive. You go to your local pharmacy only to be told that the pharmacist's personal beliefs trump your trauma and your doctor's judgment. You're referred to the 'nearest' pharmacy that will respect your wishes and the legally issues prescription from your doctor. It's 35 miles away and you have less than a quarter tank of gas and only enough money for the prescription, but not for gas. Presto - your right to some basic healthcare has been effectively restricted because the professed belief of a pharmacist is more important than you or your doctor. Still sound reasonable?

A couple of years ago, when i discovered that my nearest pharmacy was among those with a company policy that prohibits filling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, i looked into how that would affect me were i female and in immediate need of them. My pharmacy is not required to refer to another pharmacy, but they are required to give out a phone number that can be called to locate a pharmacy that would fill the script. The handout also lists a website that can provide the same info.

i looked up the nearest pharmacy and it was nearly 20 miles crosstown from my home (Albuquerque's pretty spread out geographically.) i live on the outskirts of a Metro Area with a population of nearly a million people, but i would have to drive (or find a way there if i didn't have a car, and our public transportation system here isn't the most rider-friendly) twenty miles to get a prescription for an emergency contraceptive filled. Here's the kicker - New Mexico is not a state that even has a law granting pharmacists the right to refuse to fill these prescriptions. Yet that's still the reality in the largest city in the state.

So, the Bush Admin wants to lay groundwork to enable the reclassification of contraception as abortion? Hell, yes, this is a serious issue!

Spinning it otherwise is either a case of having your head in the sand (or somewhere else a bit more personal) or of wanting to further restrict the rights of women when it comes to their own healthcare decisions. It's replacing the professional judgment of licensed physicians with the prejudices of licensed pharmacists and values the interference of the federal government with healthcare decisions over the rights of patients. Insofar as the anti-choice crowd claims contraception violates their spiritual beliefs, they're clearly guilty of spiritual violence against women. But that's just my opinion. :mad:

-scott

[BruceChris]

Hey, we all knew that the Bush administration was well over the edge before they ever took office. It just takes something like this, now and then, to remind us just how far over the edge that they really are. The religious right wants to control everyone's sex life, not just those GLBT.

Organizations like National N.O.W., Pro-Choice Resources and NARAL have been fighting this sort of thing for years, with fair success. Of course it would be nice to get these protections codified into law. It would be nice to suggest to any pharmacist wannabe that if they were not willing swear to dispense any legally prescribed pharmaceutical, that they should focus a lot harder on their day job. And if they admit that they really believe that contraception is abortion, they should be arrested on the spot, and charged with practicing medicine without a license.

However, this is a case where most women can very much take control their own lives. Any woman who is sexually active and who wishes to take serious responsibility for her own fertility (and I am not suggesting the men shouldn't ) can and should take matters into her own hands.

Get to know your doctor and pharmacist, and make sure that they are on your side. Or at least find out what options you have. Get at least one month ahead on your birth control. Get a supply of plan B, put it in a sealed container and put it in your freezer. It will still be effective long after your menopause.

Get together with other like-minded women to share information or medication, and work toward securing these rights in law.

On many campuses, I see many "Back up your birth control" posters just before spring break.

Scott and Scotty, I agree strongly with both of you. I have heard of many similar scenarios.
J.D., are you really that trusting of the Bush administration?

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

Well this has been insightful. Some really good points brought up here. And I see now why the anti-abortion crowd is also against contraception. From what I gather, even oral contraceptions (not just the morning after pill), or at least some of them, or some of them some of the time, don’t necessarily prevent contraception, but prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, thus flushing the “newly created human life” out of the system, ie; abortion -- or at least this is what they’re claiming.

From Huff Po (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs-moves-to-define-contr_b_112887.html):
The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims. In 1999, the physicians -- who, like the movement at large, define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization-- released an open letter (http://web.archive.org/web/20070814095925/http://www.epm.org/articles/doctors.html) to community stating:
"Recently, some special interest groups have claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods of contraception may have an abortifacient effect...The 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error...if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

Of course this brings to light, once again, just how often times shallow their “deeply held moral beliefs” are when it comes to “life begins at conception.”:
It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

One would think that they’d be pouring money into research to find ways of ensuring that ALL fertilized eggs attach to the uterine wall and stay attached - no matter what.

As Truth101.org points out (http://www.choice101.com/17-conception-magic.html):
Flushing Children Down the Toilet: What about the millions of new humans that get flushed down the world's toilets? Imagine for a moment what happens to them. That's a pretty gross thing for a loving God to do to millions of his own children. Remember now, these are eternal, everlasting human beings who are getting flushed down the world's toilets. It makes you kind of wonder -- Is god really that stupid or that cruel?

And where do you suppose all these billions of humans are today? Do you suppose that God has a cosmic trash bin hidden somewhere? Where ever they are, you almost certainly have relatives there. Don't you want to know where these lost family members are?

P.S. NARAL form letter (https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=3253&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr009=dvijvhdh21.app45b) you can send to your reps.

[tymejumper]

That's plain Bullshit!!!!!!



Freedom of speech specifically does not mean that Fundamentalists or the majority are entitled to the sacrifice of minorities for the comfort of their morality!!!!

That is Sanctimonious Predation! not a guaranteed entitlement of those "privileged to decide for others supported by holy scripture"

I for one would never defend such predators in our society who believe vulnerablity entitles them to trespass on others' rights.

Agree with limiting contraception based on morality and you are threatening my mother and many other women.

Do I take this personally as threatening and hostile ?

You bet your ass I do!




There is nothing like this particular thing that pisses me off! I am a health care provider, I treat all kinds of people. Am I then given the right, along with the knowledge I have, to judge who gets to benefit from it? Can I look at a person and say "hey, you molested your child 30 years ago and you have a stroke now, I won't treat you?" Do I have that right? No, I do not! Its not for me to judge, and its not for Pharmacist or Drs to judge. You have NO right to say "I won't treat you because" (insert reason here), and claim religion and morals. If you take up the career of medical ANYTHING you give up your rights to withold that treatment. If you can't hack it, be a factory worker. EWWWWWW, it makes me :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: its just a way for others to control women. Don't use your job to force your religious ideals on me


By the way, I had an IUD for 8 years when I was married to a man, and it is nt an abortion, it simply changes the eggs shell so sperm can't penetrate it and create a Zygote. OUR daughter will NEVER be in that position of not being able to get emergency contraception. Ellie and I keep a prescription in the house. Filled at Planned Parenthood.