'The Pill' Poised to become abortion

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by sargon20, Jul 31, 2008.

  1. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    A very novel idea to outlaw abortion AND contraception simultaneously. Gotta give it to them. They're working long and hard to rid the world of 'free sex'.

    Treating the Pill as Abortion, Draft Regulation Stirs Debate
    By STEPHANIE SIMON
    July 31, 2008; Page A11

    Set aside the fraught question of when human life begins. The new debate: When does pregnancy begin?

    The Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.

    A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying "the life of a human being."

    Many medical groups disagree. They hold that pregnancy isn't established until several days after conception, when the fertilized egg has grown to a cluster of several dozen cells and burrowed into the uterine wall. Anything that disrupts that process, in their view, is contraception.

    The draft regulation, circulating within the Department of Health and Human Services, would have no immediate effect on the legality of the pill or the IUD if implemented because abortion is legal. But opponents fear it would undercut dozens of state laws designed to promote easy access to these methods of birth control, used by more than 12 million women a year.

    Dozens of Congressional Democrats -- including presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama -- have signed letters of protest blistering the proposal. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, declined to comment.

    A RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE


    Who should be allowed to exercise the right of conscience? Read opinions2 on both sides of the debate, on WSJ.com's Front Lines3.

    Administration supporters say the left's concerns are overblown and very few women would have real difficulty getting birth control. Still, some on the religious right are hoping the regulation would create some obstacles.

    If the draft regulation were to prompt some insurance companies to drop coverage for prescription birth control, "that would be fantastic," said Tom McClusky, a strategist with the conservative Family Research Council.

    The draft could still be revised or rejected. Or the administration could enact it at any point; no congressional approval is needed. (The next president could just as easily reverse it.)

    Legal challenges would likely hold up the regulation's enforcement, but even so, the religious right -- a key Republican constituency in this election season -- could claim an important victory as their views would be embedded in federal law.

    The regulation's stated purpose is to improve enforcement of existing federal laws that protect some medical professionals' right to refuse to participate or assist in abortion.

    In a lengthy preamble entitled "The Problem," the draft argues that state laws too often coerce health-care workers into providing services they find immoral.

    Among the laws considered coercive: Requirements that emergency rooms offer rape victims the morning-after pill, insurance plans cover contraception as part of prescription-drug benefits, and pharmacists fill prescriptions for birth control. The draft regulation would weaken these laws by expanding the right of conscientious objection.

    The White House said the administration "has an obligation to enforce" that right and is "exploring a number of options."

    If the regulation is enacted, insurers, hospitals, HMOs and other institutions could claim that a law requiring them to dispense contraception or subsidize an IUD discriminated against their religious convictions. State and local governments would have to certify in writing that they don't practice such discrimination. Those who didn't comply could lose federal funding or be sued for damages.

    The draft also extends the conscience objection to most staff members and volunteers working for health-care providers. So, for instance, an employer couldn't punish a clinic receptionist for refusing to make appointments for patients seeking birth-control pills.

    "It's pernicious," said Janet Crepps, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights. "A few individuals could mess up the whole system."

    Barr Pharmaceuticals, which makes oral contraceptives, took issue with the idea that its products cause abortions and added that "an individual's conscience should not prevent the timely dispensing of these products."

    With its expansive definitions, the draft bolsters a key goal of the religious right: to give single-cell fertilized eggs full rights by defining them as legal people -- or, as some activists put it, "the tiniest boys and girls."

    As long as Roe v. Wade remains in effect and abortion remains legal, that goal can't be fully realized. But in recent years, abortion opponents have scored notable successes. For instance: Several states now define a fertilized egg as a legal person -- an "unborn child" -- for purposes of fetal homicide laws, which allow criminal prosecution when a woman miscarries as a result of an assault.

    In South Dakota, abortion doctors must tell patients -- whatever their stage of pregnancy -- that they will be "terminating the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" with whom they have an "existing relationship." In Colorado, voters this fall will weigh a state constitutional amendment that would confer full personhood on fertilized eggs, as well as embryos and fetuses. And embryonic stem-cell research is restricted through a variety of state and federal policies.

    Even if the draft is never implemented, activists on both sides consider it a potential momentum shift.

    "You keep striking away and framing the issue the way you want to frame it," said David DeWolf, a law professor at Gonzaga University who has advised anti-abortion groups. "That's the political strategy."
     
  2. cockoloco

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,766
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I bet they didn't get laid even once while thinking all this .... live and let live!
     
  3. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Why is Bush attempting all this wingnut shit when he has absolutely no clout at all? He's as lame duck as lame duck gets. It can't be for any real purpose other than at attempt to boost his pathetic legacy.
     
  4. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    I don't care what the president thinks anyhow. I think this is fucking weird ass shit with the religious right trying to control everyones beliefs.
     
  5. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis

    He's doing what he's done since day 1. Rewarding those who voted for him and continue to support the party. To hell with everyone else.
     
  6. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    I think im gonna go to the shooting range now...u know, just to practice my shot...
     
  7. ManlyBanisters

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    12,807
    Likes Received:
    8
    WTF does that even mean, lucky - why even post that? Fuck's sake!
     
  8. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    Why would anybody believe such nonsense as this? There is no way the republicans and dems would outlaw birth control pills. The public wouldn't stand for it, and they'd all be getting baby mamas.

    The best advances in stem cell research have been made on adult tissue not fetuses. If fetal stem cell research were successful, the companies would be willing to fund research. It's not successful, and peeps keep being deceived. I don't want to pour money down another hole. We have enough holes getting rich off the public.
     
  9. D_one and done

    D_one and done New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    1
    its about damn time! what right do women have to choose when they want to get pregnant?!?

    :confused:


    *rolls eyes* as if overpopulation isnt problem enough in the world. maybe theyll send all our pills to africa to help fight the spread of aids from childbirth.

    i bet bush cant wait to get to heaven so he can be treated as a hero by all the fertilized eggs that are sure to be there.

    this is madness.
     
  10. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    When's the last time you smiled?
     
  11. ManlyBanisters

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    12,807
    Likes Received:
    8
    :smile:

    Happy now. (you're still an arsehole) :yup:
     
  12. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    Embryonic stem cell research has been successful. The untruth about it not working is deceptive propaganda spread by opponents of this research.:rolleyes:

    The Cloning Success in Korea - New York Times
     
  13. Calcium

    Calcium New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    191
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NOVA
    Rich White Males (TM) just want an excuse to firebomb poor people. Removing contraception from poor people will increase the babies being had (as is evidenced by low income communities always and forever) and, in 15 to 20 years, crime will shoot up. They'll say, "look at this! This crime! It is the fault of poor people!" And bam! Tenement buildings get knocked down and rich white people can move into their brand new yuppie condos and not have to deal with the riff-raff.
     
  14. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    The day G.W. Bush or any other man gets pregnant and delivers a child naturally is the day they get a say in which pregnancys can be terminated.

    njqt466 digs in her trunk of old worn out battle crys. Ahh there it is. :biggrin1:

    "Keep your rosarys off my ovaries!"
     
  15. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
  16. Gl3nn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in the universe
    It's ridiculous. I thought state and church had been split... this is a huge step back!
     
  17. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis

    Nope. The Bushies have worked for 8 long years to merge the two. And now with the clock ticking they are trying to cement all their hopes and dreams of creating a theocracy for the religious wackos and a plutocracy for the Wall Street tycoons.
     
  18. whatireallywant

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Female
    Not when federal and (some) state governments contain an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

    In the state I used to live, a new governor (Bush crony) got elected in 2004, and not long after, an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was created. :mad:

    Now I'm fine with people practicing their faiths - just not to have it as a government office!
     
  19. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female

    One of my more radical, left wing nutcase cousins has a theory on this which I poo-poo'd 10 years ago. However, now it's begining to make sense.

    She believes it's all about the votes. Historically more whites than blacks vote. Jim Crow Laws aside, this is largely because there have always been more white people in the USA than black people. This is quickly changing. In the next 50 years white people in America will become a minority. Since they can't sterilize all the black, brown, and yellow people the next best thing is to outlaw abortion. You don't get the connection? Since Roe v Wade was passed 30 years ago, more white women of all ages have had abortions than people of color. If you outlaw abortion you get more white people being born and consequently more voters for the Republican party.

    I know its sick, twisted, crazy even. Yet, it makes sense when you consider the source . . .the GOP.

    :unitedstates:
     
  20. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    This makes me sick. I just finished reading a few chapters on reproductive rights, and, lemme tell you, a politician really doesn't have any place pretending to be a scientist.

    Stem cells have been shown to be so flexible under the right environments that they can replace all sorts of lost materials, which holds a lot of promise when talking about Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, even the regeneration of T-cells lost in advancing HIV disease. Fundies say that these stem cells would sacrifice a life. The truth is, stem cell researchers only extract from inviable fertilization; that means that these embryoes would not have survived into gestation.

    I want to hear fundamentalists justify how the infringement of their beliefs is somehow compatible with the right to separating church and state. I also imagine that non-traditional religious sects, if they pressed as hard for representation, would get denied flatly. For example, atheists make a religious experience out of denying God (and maybe even worshipping Satan), but you don't see tax credits or exemptions or an Office of Sin-Based Initiatives set up, do you?

    Hell, I don't even tell fundamentalists to stop thinking how they do; it's their choice. But it's my choice to have my beliefs and to have a right to fair and accurate health information for my children in sex education. Furthermore, FUCK the medical people who think it's immoral to pass out contraceptives. You know what? You signed up for the job. Deal with it. I know there were plenty of bitches and bastards that I had to feed hash in and out for a number of years, and I couldn't say it's immoral to let some sow eat the original Chicken and Broccoli Pasta with it's easy 2,000 plus calories on the entree. :mad:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted