Contraception Is the New Abortion
The Latest Right Wing Trend? Attack Birth Control
SOURCE: iStockphoto
A proposed HHS rule would alter the meaning of the word “abortion.” If implemented, our best tools for preventing the need for abortion would suddenly be redefined as abortion.
Print
The Bush administration has taken its latest swipe at contraception, but again under the pretense of opposing abortion. By manipulating scientific facts, the Department of Health and Human Services hopes to enshrine in federal law a conservative, ideological interpretation of pregnancy that has the potential to significantly limit women’s access to contraception.
In 2004, Congress passed a budget rider commonly known as the “Weldon Amendment,” named after its sponsor, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL). This provision prohibits recipients of federal funds from “discriminating” against individuals or institutions who, due to reasons of conscience, refuse to provide abortion services, coverage, counseling, or referrals, even in an emergency.
Although the Weldon Amendment already places substantial obstacles in the way of women seeking reproductive health services, the Bush administration did not want to stop with abortion. In an eleventh-hour gift to radical right organizations, who have been pressuring the administration to cut family planning funding, HHS has proposed a regulation implementing the Weldon Amendment that would vastly expand its scope.
This is just the most recent attempt in a longstanding campaign by social conservatives to turn discomfort with abortion into opposition to contraception.
The proposed rule defines abortion as the termination of pregnancy from the point of conception: “the Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.’”
This marks the first time the federal government has proposed a departure from the well-established medical definition of pregnancy. The mainstream medical community, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, defines pregnancy as beginning with the implantation, not creation, of a fertilized egg.
The upshot of this revised definition is that any form of contraception that may interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg could be categorized as a form of abortion. This means that any health care entity or provider, on the grounds of their opposition to abortion, could refuse to provide women with access to 40 percent of the most commonly used methods of birth control in the United States—the pill, the IUD, emergency contraception, the patch, the shot, and the ring. In other words, our best tools for preventing the need for abortion would suddenly be redefined as abortion.
This is just the most recent attempt in a longstanding campaign by social conservatives to turn discomfort with abortion into opposition to contraception. Instead of being upfront about their genuine, but unpopular, position that contraception is morally wrong, right wing groups have tried to confuse people into thinking that the most common forms of birth control used by women actually cause abortion.
Virtually all women of reproductive age who have had sexual intercourse—98 percent—have used at least one method of contraception. Almost 15 million women in the United States use hormonal contraception or an IUD. Are we really prepared to let health insurance companies, hospitals, health clinics, and health care providers of all stripes tell these women that they are potentially having an abortion every month and deny them access to routine medical care?
There are good scientific reasons why medical professionals define pregnancy as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization. For one thing, there is no way to know if a woman is pregnant prior to implantation. The body simply does not give off any signals of pregnancy (e.g., increased hormone levels or an expanded uterus) until then.
In addition, nature has made it clear that not every embryo is meant to develop into a fetus and eventually be born. It is estimated that 31 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. And anywhere from one-third to one-half of all fertilized eggs never begin or complete implantation.
Anyone familiar with fertility treatments understands this basic principle. Most people would recognize that an embryo in a Petri dish does not constitute a pregnancy. And placing an embryo in a woman’s uterus does not automatically make her pregnant. There are plenty of women who have tried several rounds of in vitro fertilization but, sadly, are unable to get pregnant.
Even if we were somehow able to detect the presence of an embryo before implantation, when exactly would “conception” occur? The process of fertilization itself can take up to 24 hours. The zygote then begins to divide and differentiate into the preembryo and travels down the fallopian tubes toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo into the uterine lining typically begins about 5 days after fertilization and will be completed between 8 and 18 days after fertilization. Thus, despite the assertions of social conservatives, there is no one “moment” of conception.
Notwithstanding all these scientifically inconvenient facts pointing to the need to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, the HHS regulation would allow individuals or institutions claiming its protection to provide their own definition of pregnancy and abortion. The proposal states, “[T]he conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion….”
That means that within each hospital, health clinic, or health insurance program that receives federal money, each employee would be entitled to decide when he or she thinks pregnancy begins and refuse services based on that definition. Women would have no guarantee of receiving consistent medical care based upon their personal needs and circumstances. Rather, the treatment they receive could vary from one hospital, health insurance program, and health care provider to the next.
The ultimate catch-22 of course is that if we cannot determine if a woman is pregnant, then we can treat all women as potentially pregnant—and refuse them access to drugs and devices that would help them prevent pregnancy. Does your brain hurt yet?
This is hardly the first time the Bush Administration has shown its disdain for science and medicine (see climate change, abstinence only programs, and Vioxx) or for contraception (see Susan Orr, Plan B, and UNFPA funding), but let’s hope it’s the last. We must work to ensure this latest trend doesn’t become our reality.
Jessica Arons is the Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.
Comments on this article
We were all embryos at one time, and I am not better than any other. All lives should be respected. Our entire human heritage is determined at fertilization, not implantation. If a contraceptive prevents a human being from implanting in the uterus, then that birth control method has, in fact, caused an abortion. Saying that it sometimes happens naturally doesn’t change the fact that you have done it on purpose. Natural Family Planning avoids this problem, and offers a meaningful alternative. This is not the Rhythm Method. It is based on a deeper understanding of human biology, and can be quite effective. Please consider methods which do not cause human lives to be taken.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:06 pmTHANKS
Don’t blame the preachers, they’re kind, and willing to accept any credit card you have.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:34 pmOf course all the nay sayers on this blog are men, you practice the Natural Family Planning method, does your hormones wait for the right time? Give me a break, every body wants to rule some one else’s mind and body. Grow up.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:50 pmLumping all conservatives into a group of people who don’t believe in contraception is ridiculous. Whether it is before or after implantation isn’t the issue. Abortion is legal. Millions of innocent unborn are destroyed as contraception daily. Don’t go there with the sexual abuse, rape, life of the mother exception. It is just plain irresponsibility and selfish fulfillment of personal desires, from the sex to having the “procedure”. A paradigm shift is needed.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pmSo basically the overnment complains about to many women getting pregnant and killing it with an abortion. This pill or shot or ring is suppose to prevent all this from happening. Its like women can never win. You complain about something, we find another option and then you complain about it again. Women dont just use contraceptive pills just to prevent babies but they also use it to regulate menstral periods and pains. Whats going to happen to those people how are they suppose to manage menstration then.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:52 pmAs a father of three, let me tell you… the natural family planning method DOES NOT WORK.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pmWhat about all those sperm and eggs that don’t get used up to conceive life? Just think how many lives you’ve destroyed by not choosing to impregnate a different woman on a daily basis!!! Get out there and procreate! Remember the famous Catholic poem-
July 28th, 2008 at 11:16 pmEvery sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is Great,
With every sperm that’s wasted,
God Becomes Quite Irate!
Well, I just have to say one thing: KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pmI’m a bible thumping, god-fearing, born and raised, dyed in the wool Christian. I believe that Christ is who he said he is and that he came and died for my sins and for my salvation. I believe in Grace and love and all that it truly means….and I have used the pill, the patch and the ring and will continue to do so as long as they are available to me. I am college educated, own my own business and provide jobs for people in my community. …and as a responsible parent of multiple children, I intend to control how many more children that I and my husband, bring into this world. …and I’m not killing anyone, I’m stopping a process from beginning a new life. Two different things. I am intelligent and saved…the two do not cancel each other out. I am embarrassed by the “Christians” who are such extremists that they can’t imagine any other opinion but their own. I see all extremists pretty much the same, whether they be christians with a megaphone, or worse, a gun, at a planned parenthood or a muslim with a bomb strapped to them in a public place. The point of being a christian is to find the love and same-ness that is in all of us. Christ died for ALL OF US. Whatever your politics. Please do not categorize all of us who claim the name of christ as sheep or narrow …and certainly not as one who believes that my way is the only way. ….not on this topic…or any other.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pmI can’t believe what I just read in this article. I will always feel that a woman should have the right to choose. Its a matter of choice. Who am I to judge what her reasons are? I can’t say that I personally would have an abortion, but I dont know what the future holds.
Now back to this crazy idea. So now its a form of abortion to take the pill ? Seriously, what are these people thinking? You are always hearing things about preventing unwanted pregnancies, correct? Now, you want to limit the use of a means to preventing this? Get real…
July 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pmIf our country can’t afford to give every citizen health care or housing, who is going to foot the bill for all of these children that will result from lack of contraception? If you want to make the pill illegal, you better be prepared to stand up and take care of this new population- and I don’t mean a few handouts during the holidays- I mean constant care, housing, college, etc. What’s your alternative? Forced sterilization and birth bans? Now THAT’S the Christian thing to do!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pmAs a very BLESSED single mother of two BEAUTIFUL and expensive little girls… I have enjoyed all your comments. With that said…. I LOVE MY IUD and my right to have it!!!!!
July 28th, 2008 at 11:38 pmAnyone who wants to MAKE WOMEN HAVE CHILDREN, should adopt all the unwanted babies. Pretty simple…huh? Not so easy when you’re saddled with the responsibility of a selfish, never-ending slobbering, mouthly kid. SEND ALL THE BABIES TO THE WHITEHOUSE.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:48 pmSo if a man wears a condom, is that also causing a woman to have an abortion? Afterall the condom is preventing fertilization. Better yet, since a man’s body never shows any outward changes to his appearance that he has impregnated a woman, how about men having to take birth control? The patch would work just fine. Would that be considered an abortion too just like the condoms? It is disgusting how women are always the target if they elect to
July 28th, 2008 at 11:56 pmnot become pregnant or have an abortion. Maybe if the man wears a condom or some form of birth control, there would be no need for a woman to have an abortion. Time to start putting some pressure on the men to be more responsible!!!!! We all know a woman does not get pregnant by herself.
If they don’t want any children then women need to keep their legs closed and men need to keep their pants zipped.
Married couples can practice abstinence to avoid conception on fertile days.
What are we all a bunch of animals who can’t control ourselves?
Let us pray
www.miraculousbeads.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:58 pmWhy should a woman have a right to choose to end her child’s life? Should I have a right to choose to end my child’s life too? Can I then choose to end my wife’s life? Nobody, male or female or otherwise, has a right to choose to end anyone else’s life. PERIOD. Love is the answer. Not selfihness or convenience. Love is not easy.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:03 amWhat utter nonsence. If you really wanted to prevent abortions, you would encourage contraception. The Bush administration, and religious groups need to stay out of reproductive lives. This is an absolute infringment upon right to privacy. READ THE CONSTITUTION.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:25 amRead the Constitution? You mean the one that says we all the right to LIFE, liberty, and the purtsuit of happiness? The president has the responsibility as leader of the executive branch to protect our lives. The most vulnerable part of our lives now by far is when we’re in our mothers’ wombs. Check the stats.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:34 amBirth control as abortion. Whatever. I am currently on birth control to shrink cysts on my ovaries so I can get pregnant. Am I really commiting abortion?
July 29th, 2008 at 12:49 amAs a nursing student, Christian, and patient who is currently taking birth control pills to avoid increasing the risk of uterine cancer because my ovaries are not working right and the lining is building up - I am shocked at this story. IF this is really true, we are in for big problems. I mean, if they were so concerned about birth control and abortion, the only one they would need to get rid of is the IUD (and sorry for those of you currently on it). You can still have an egg fertilized, but it just can’t implant itself. People out there really need a lot more education on the whole reproductive process. Not all women have functioning ovaries. If they don’t function well, it can wreak havoc on the body. Birth control pills can really help those patients. To deny access to birth control pills and other forms of birth control is just ridiculous.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:07 amTo Joe Storto - Obviously if the woman you impregnated decides to have an abortion, there could not have been much love in that relationship as a discussion should have been held ahead of time on what method of protection was going to be used so that pregnancy did not occur. Before any sexual experience both parties should always consider the consequences. The man is equally responsible. Like I stated before, men walk around with no visible signs of being a “daddy.” It is amazing how Viagra and the like are touted to help a man have an erection so that he could possibly impregnate a woman. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrits in Washington. Yup, lets just keep procreating and push out millions more babies a year. I agree with the earlier statement - preventing life. With the overpopulation of the world, what is America’s stance going to be if mandatory sterlization was enacted such as in China? I’d take preventing life anyday. What right does the government have to tell me when I decide to have a child? The government can’t even provide health insurance for all these future unborn babies!!!! Hypocrits.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:13 amThis article looks like a news story but it isn’t. It is based on one big lie. The lie is that science says that pregnancy begins with implantation. Pregnancy has ALWAYS been understood to begin with conception, when sperm fuses with egg. In recent decades, political influence has resulted in some doctors publicly calling for a redefinition of pregnancy as beginning with implantation, but this is a legal not a scientific redefinition.
What I just said has NOTHING to do with whether abortion or contraception should be legal, just like the article’s “argument” that you can’t tell when a woman is pregnant until implantation has occurred, or its “argument” that many miscarriages occur before implantation, has nothing to do with the SCIENTIFIC fact that pregnancy begins with conception. Those two “arguments” might be legally relevant if early abortions were somehow outlawed, but they don’t change the fact that the process of pregnancy starts as soon as the egg is fertilized (and changes in the woman’s body start right away, long before implantation, triggered by chemicals emitted by the embryo).
For legal and social reasons, you may perfectly well wamt to ensure access to both contraception and abortion, but you should do so by arguing directly for them, rather than by twisting science in order to mislead people to believe that very early abortions are actually contraceptions. (The very word “contra-ception” means “preventing conception”, yet the article wants the reader to believe that destroying the embryo after conception but before implantation is still “preventing conception” because of the large number of people who consider contraception to be OK but abortion to be wrong.)
July 29th, 2008 at 1:15 amI am single and do not have any sexual encounters whatsoever. My IUD is saving my life. I am not using it for birth control. It’s for medication only. The gynocologist always explains what the medicine does and how it works. One way which an IUD works is that it releases progestin which makes the body think it’s already pregnant. So you can’t get pregnant if you’re already pregnant. Also, the pill prevents ovulation. That means no egg can come out of any ovary with the potential to get fertilized. Whoever wants to say that the pill is an abortion doesn’t even know how contraception medications work. They need an education.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:20 amWhat’s the worry? All the unborn will go straight to heaven without all the pain and suffering of being here on earth.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:20 amPonder this - What if the pharmaceutical companies came up with a shot/patch for men that temporarily reduces the sperm count to a very low point thus unable to fertilize an egg? No abortion would be required or contraception. I wonder how many men would stand in line for this. Again for a man would this form of “contraception” be considered an abortion because it prevented an egg from being fertilized? Of course, the rampant diseases that will follow from all this unprotected sex (i.e. condoms) is another story.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:31 amSo, since I have this condition which causes me to nearly bleed to death for weeks or months at a time, I will be the first woman fighting in the picket line for the birth control which also medically saves women from the torture I’ve been through. My IUD is really saving me from another trip to the ER. It takes some getting used too, but I’m alive.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:32 amA hysterectomy is not an option. I’m young, never had sex, never married and never had children. I might like to try all of those someday and the IUD can be removed so I can give myself a chance at marriage and motherhood. When I’m ready for it.
I agree with Sara and the one who said for the government to keep their hands out of our uteruses. Sara reminds us that women have the right to choose. I agree because although I am not sexually active, I have the right to choose my medical treatment. I’m a Catholic young woman, so I make my choices accordingly. Like I said, “when I am ready.” I don’t believe God will punish me because I use an IUD so I won’t suffer so much.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:45 amAnother “twist” in this story is the Bush administration is NOT trying to prevent birth control from being accessed rather it is making sure that people whose conscience or religious beliefs prohibit them from participating in the business of abortion are allowed to follow their conscience and still remain in business, namely pharmacists and private hospitals who don’t want to be forced to provide these kinds of services. Anyone who wants to provide abortion and contraceptive services do so. That is their right. A woman has the right to go whereever she feels she will receive the best service and care. If the facility or pharmacy does not provide the service she is in need of she only needs to pick an establishment that does.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:03 amThank you, Marujo! The FACT is that the pill prevents ovulation - maybe Laura Bush will impart that information to her husband and congressional cronies - SHE is intelligent, although there is no accounting for taste. The reason that the medical definition includes implantation is b/c there are untold months wherein a woman’s fertilized egg is not viable, and nature deals with it that way - the female never knows she might have been pregnant - no matter what the eminent Mr. Shipman may say - I had three pregnancies which resulted in healthy children, and there were NO recognizable symptoms until I had tested for pregnancy after missing a period. How does he think so many pregnancies proceed for months before the woman discovers her “condition”? There are often cases where a woman continues to have her regular menstrual period even though pregnant.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:36 amTo those who say, “practice abstinence” - you’re saying this to MARRIED couples as well as to unmarrieds?
To the man who talks about natural family planning and the woman who talks about avoiding sex during “fertile” times, chew on this: when I became pregnant with my first child, my cycle the previous month had been 53 days! Other months prior to her conception were similarly all over the place, so you or some doctor tell me: just how was I to know when I was fertile???? We were trying to get pregnant, but if we had not been, I certainly would not have known when to avoid sex.
Speaking of the above - it sounds to me as if the guys have a hidden agenda - they never want to practice abstinence, so I guess it’s up to their partner to provide the release for them without having the personal gratification that sexual relations can provide…..
God did not create sex just for procreation - read your Bible!!! This is one of the gifts married couples were given to bond them more closely to each other - having multiple babies usually ends up causing more work (for life!) for the woman than for the man.
Sorry, MariJo, I thought I could preview this for typos - you can with most blogs!
July 29th, 2008 at 5:39 amSooooooooooo…what I am to understand is that our “government” is financially equipped to deal with all of these unplanned pregnancies, when we can’t even provide health care for the viably living people we have already, within our population?
July 29th, 2008 at 7:22 amAll this discussion is moot….if you’d just take my
July 29th, 2008 at 7:46 amdaddy’s advice. “No baby was ever born out the back door.”
As a healthcare professional, this is really frightening. Does this remind anyone besides me of “1984″ and doublespeak?
July 29th, 2008 at 8:35 amI really can’t believe how misinformed so many people are, especially those claiming to have a medical background or physiologic understanding of reproduction. I suffered from miscarriages and underwent numerous tests to determine whether or not I was pregnant before missing a period so that I could begin hormone therapy immediately in an attempt keep the pregnancy viable. This required blood testing to determine ovulation,and then testing again to confirm fertilization. Please note that this is BEFORE implantation, which is the part that my body was having difficulty with! Only a handful of posters have gotten it right…..and yes, the pharmaceutical companies would love for you to believe that their products do not cause abortions, but they do. Specifically the pill does NOT stop ovulation; it did at one time and alot of women died because of the high doses of hormones in earlier pills. But with the advent of the “mini” pill (the mini part being the lower levels of hormones), what we now have is a pill that does two things. First, ovulation is suppressed, not stopped. Now ladies,we all know that there is no point comparing your cycle to anyone else’s that you will ever know, because we women are oh so very complicated in this area, so while “suppression” may work for you this month, it may not work next month, and it may not ever work for your friend Suzie! There’s simply no way to tell (aside from the course of labwork that I underwent). So, here’s the second thing that the pill does. It creates a hostile chemical environment inside your uterus that will prevent any fertilized egg from implanting. This second thing anyone with just a basic understanding of chemistry can realize is a lot easier to accomplish than actually preventing a woman from ovulating, and this second thing folks, the pill does without fail! So, if you’re sexually active and have what the industry terms a “breakthrough” ovulation, you could be aborting any number or otherwise viable pregnancies–completely without your knowledge………except that now you do have knowledge and need to choose what to do with it. I have deliberately excluded any hint of politics or religion in this post. I really just want people to be able to understand the science without all the other mess. If you are truly seeking, you can check out the website onemoresoul. Thanks for reading :)
July 29th, 2008 at 8:49 amI believe me Shipman has the word fertilization confused with the word pregnancy.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:52 amFunny thing about the issue of contraception and abortion — everyone has a rock-solid opinion until they are forced into a decision on a personal basis. Then the rules seem to bend to accommodate their particular situation.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:37 amBottom line - My body, my morals, my values, my choice. Not the &%$#%& government’s. Another funny thing - how come the majority of the people behind this ludicrous intrusion and forced adaptation of their beliefs, their morals, their values are mostly old, rich, white Republican men on Capitol Hill? Many of whom probably paid for an abortion for their mistress in their younger, coke-hazed days.
Ahhh, the joys of hypocrisy. Our government thrives on it.
What it boils down to is this — if a woman has enough money and power - or access to it through another person — that woman will always have access to safe contraception and abortion. The middle-class and poverty-stricken women will not.
I have to say that with the pill it regulates a woman’s period but at the same time it helps a woman with minimizing the pain she goes thru every month. My question is what’s next are they going to say that we can tie our tubes or get the other procedures we need. I am a mother of 4 boys and that natural planning really don’t work. They really need to think about this before they do this. Of all the dumb things for them to try and do before he leaves the whitehouse.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:41 amHaving a child is a choice. If you decide to have it– fine. If you decide to not have it, make this decision as soon as possible. Keep the government out of our lives unless they want to raise and pay for our kids. Of course, if you live in poverty, that’s what they do now. Great system. Maybe it would be better that unwanted children be raised by abusive parents–that’s a worthwhile outcome isn’t it?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:53 amFirst of all, men should never decide what is right for a woman’s body when they will never understand what they go through. Second, there are many women who take the pill to help prevent medical problems as well as preventing pregnancy when it can be harmful to them. So no one has the right to judge anyone who takes the pill whether it is a choice or not.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:03 amBanning contraception is the dumbest thing I have ever heard to happen!!! I mean just think about what could and more than likely would happen as a result. People are not going to stop having sex (including young people) and threfore pregnancy will be on the rise cause they can’t prevent it! Then we will have more teen pregnancy and more unwanted pregnancies everywhere. And with abortion illegal….people will still find a way to have them…..but it will be unsafe and dangerous besides being illegal! The country is going to have a much bigger problem on their hands. Women will be getting injured and even killed having illegal abortions. Plus, the others will have their babies not being able to take proper care of them. I am pro-choice and you should not judge women for their decision until you have walked in their shoes! However, if you are going to make abortion illegal…don’t make contraception, the best way to prevent pregnancy therefore preventing abortions, illegal too!!! Idiots, I swear!
July 29th, 2008 at 11:07 amWORDS TO LIVE BY:
Every child a ‘wanted child’.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:44 amEvery mother a ‘willing mother’.
Every choice a ‘personal choice’.
Every medical issue a ‘medical issue’, only.
I cannot disagree with the Bush administration’s argument that , like all free people, a healthcare provider has the right to follow their own moral code and refuse to provide birth control. Just because I choose to work as a gynecological surgeon does not mean that I should be REQUIRED to perform an abortion if it is against my own set of morals. Providing birth control is not in the rulebook of those who would choose to become pharmacists. HOWEVER, here’s the bigger problem:
Walmart, a corporation that refuses to sell birth control in their pharmacies, sets up a new store in Small Town, America. This giant corporation very soon flushes out any other small pharmacy in the area, including those that would provide the town’s women with their contraceptives. With Walmart their only option to receive their medication, where do these women go? Not only the women who have a right to choose to use a contraceptive, but those who use birth control as a hormonal therapy for other life-threatening reasons?
It is in the interest of big business to make OUR choices for us. It’s how they make THEIR money. This “moral” argument over the provision of birth control is only a piece of a much more complicated puzzle.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pmIf men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pmval hites
July 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pmYou are one of the few people who actually read the article closely. The truth is Bush doesn’t care who takes the pill or whatever contraception you choose. He is trying to protect the rights of those who don’t want to prescribe them. The whole thing is twisted to make it seem as if he is trying to make contraception illegal and that is just not the case. Even the title is misleading.
So if a man wears a condom, is that also causing a woman to have an abortion? Afterall the condom is preventing fertilization.”-PatKho
The problem at hand is not that fertilization equals abortion, but fertilization followed by termination. If the prevention of fertilization was considered abortion, then wouldn’t abstaining from sex be frowned upon by the church and by this bill.
Aside from that, There are many good points being made here. As a devout Catholic, I see the reason to change the definition to include the prevention of a fertilized egg to ’stick’ if you will, as abortion. But as a reasonable man (and keep in mind that I’m not stating that Catholics are not reasonable), I can see how not allowing women to have the pill when it also aides in regulating the menstrual cycle will never work.
Also, making men out to be chauvinistic pigs is not any way to argue. If I, as a male, were to say that women are over-emotional or moody, it would be incorrect as well as rude. Sure, some women are emotional and some are moody. However, it would be considered pigeonholing. Just know that to say that every man is detached from any sense of responsibility and chivalry is also pigeonholing. To vilify men in this way negates any argument you may have.
Religion is said to have no place in government. But any religious individual will tell you that with faith, there is no separating morals and religion. They go hand in hand. Most laws (namely murder, theft, rape, etc.) coincide with adhering to a moral code.
Thank you for reading, and God Bless.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pmSomeone pro-life argued above (paraphrased): embryos are people, too. Should I have the right to kill my son? My wife? My neighbor? No… a person should never have the right to kill another person. Therefore, abortion should be banned.
I find this line of reasoning curious, given that we’re not just talking about going up to someone on the street and shooting them. This is a person living inside another person. How weird is that!?! So, if my son or wife or neighbor somehow manage to crawl into my body and take up residence in my stomach, we’ve got a bit of a situation on our hands.
Personally, I’m fine with anyone killing a person who’s taken up residence inside their stomach. Those stomach dwellers weird me out.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:04 pmI just want you to know that you’re very funny, OnTheFence. I don’t think that being ‘creepy’ or ‘yucky’ is means for termination.
If the person inside you had arrived in your uterus of their own will and began causing you serious harm, then I’d be more inclined to agree, but If this individual was put there by your choice (your RIGHT to choose) to engage in intercourse, and put you at very little risk of death, then I don’t see why you should have the right to kill them.
P.S. “Stomach Dwellers”? Read a book.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pmWhat a happy world, when EVERY child is wanted.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pmI LOVE PatKhos point- Aren’t men with condoms also preventing implantation or fertilization or whatever the heck the Bush administration has a problem with?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pmDear men who think this is a great idea. When you can carry a baby and puke for 9 months straight, you get a voice. Until then I suggest you look at other ways to prevent conception. Like maybe vasectomy. You can always get that reversed.
Fairly simple procedure and a few ice packs. There’s no problem.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:37 amI guess that I am not as knowledgeable as I thought. I always thought that contraceptives(pill, shot,patch,etc) prevented ovulation thereby preventing the egg from releasing and being fertilized and therefore no conception at all or implantation. Guess I need to brush up on my biology lessons.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:00 amso here’s my issue. if they can require places like planned parenthood to hire people who are against the birth control pill or iud’s or what-have-you, does this mean that catholic hospitals and places like BirthRight are required to hire people who want to provide those services. or does conscience apply only to those who want to limit people’s access to perfectly legal meds?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pmWhat is the status of this “proposed rule”? Has it actually been prepared for presentation to the house/senate? Where is it in the process of joining the CFR? Could the author of this article please share some more information about the actual status of this “proposed rule”? Thanks!
August 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pmWow, unbelievable…sounds like the Ruminations of some Mad, Crazed Woman hater…considering the fact the person who is suggesting this be made a law has a wife and two daughters! Did he convert to Catholicism and did not tell anyone???
It would appear the next thing, as women, as a female gendered person, we will be made into subservient slaves of the federal govt and at the very least, our so called “right to vote” will be next (as if that would matter in the 21st century anyway!)…”There is no end to the evil of men’s minds!” THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT WOULD CONTROL A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR HERSELF…IT IS BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND HER MEDICAL DOCTOR! When in my life time did the Powers that be, become so totally out of control and anti-female gender??? Again, an attack on Women’s Rights, and over the physical right to reproduce…I’d like to see some clear thinking on the subject. So far there seems to be an ABSENCE of COMMON SENSE!
August 14th, 2008 at 5:09 pmThis is the most outrageous thing ive ever heard. Ive been on birth control since I was 14 simply because I was so irregular and would bleed at least 4 times as much as the average woman every two weeks. Not because I wanted to purposely kill children. I am still young and I appreciate the right to have a child when I want to. I am also a rape victim as of three years ago and I took an emergency contraceptive to make sure that I didnt have to go through a pregnancy that I didnt want and have a child who would always remind me of what I went through. Some would argue that I could put my child up for adoption. I would never do that either because I don’t think I could have no part or even a very small part in my childs life. So if in fact I had been pregnant, am I a murderer? I think that if anyone working in a place where it might be necessary to give birth control doesnt think it’s right, I’m sorry but I feel that you’ve picked the wrong career.
And what about the women who’s pregnancies are killing them and without abortion would die and the baby could possibly die too, should they be forced to give up their lives?
So to Joe Sorto and those who agree with him, do you really think its fair to judge a woman based on problems and situations that you, as a man, just cannot understand? And why do you think its ok to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body? You should see this delicate issue from all sides.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:56 pm