Feds: Birth Control Equals Abortion

[NoCalMike 0]

I really wasn't sure where to put this.....

 

Feds: Birth control equals abortion

 

On Nov. 2, 2006, Kat Kerlin reported in the RN&R that “Some anti-abortion groups are taking a stand not only against abortion, but also against contraception. … [M]any of them are now moving from the fringes into high-ranking governmental positions, where they’re making key decisions about reproductive health.”

 

If anyone had any doubts about this seemingly extreme prediction, the Bush administation is providing plenty of evidence. A draft regulation being circulated at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would cut off federal funds to hospitals and states that try to compel medical providers to offer legal abortion services to women. But that’s not the key provision. The regulation then goes on to define abortion as “any of various procedures—including the prescription, dispensing 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.” Many commonly used birth control methods block implantation in addition to ovulation.

 

Alison Gaulden, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson in Reno, said in a prepared statement, “More and more families are uninsured and under economic assault and our healthcare system is in crisis yet our President is taking steps to deny access to basic care. This political rule (change) radically redefines the most common and effective methods of birth control as abortion. As a result, women’s ability to manage their own healthcare would be held hostage by politics and ideology. Women spend 30 years of their lives managing their fertility. Defining birth control as abortion, then trying to make it illegal and inaccessible, destroys women’s access to affordable healthcare options. Planned Parenthood, a leader in women’s healthcare and advocacy, won’t stand by while the Bush Administration continues to deny women access to quality care.”

 

The measure seeks to override laws in some states that guarantee unfettered access to contraception. Nevada has no such law, though Chapter 695c of Nevada Revised Statutes requires that health insurers and managed care providers cover the cost of contraception.

 

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

How about just starting a new topic? Not everything needs to be crammed into that monstrosity that is the Campaign 2008 thread, especially this which is way off-topic.

 

That shit is pretty awful, personally speaking. Though abortion isn't illegal here in Oregon, I was pretty happy getting free or discounted access to depo provera for my ex thanks to Planned Parenthood, so that seems like a redefinition of that would be pretty damaging to a lot of people. That sucks.

[CanadianChris 0]

Wow. Welcome back to the Dark Ages.

[dubq 0]

USA! USA! USA!

 

 

[Kinetic 0]

A couple of points you guys are missing:

 

1. A child is always a blessing.

 

2. Sex is a sin.

 

So what's the problem?

[SamoaRowe 0]

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

I don't know what you guys are complaining about.

 

More unwanted children = more teenage prostitutes.

[Kinetic 0]

I don't know what you guys are complaining about.

 

More unwanted children = more teenage prostitutes.

 

Right, and more doctors, lawyers, sanitation experts, maintenance engineers, etc. Did you know that China has as many professional basketball fans as America has Americans? And you want to tell me that we need contraception? If we're going to compete in this changing global economy, we need as many people as we can get. If they're unwanted and unloved, so much the better. They'll have a chip on their shoulder and something to prove.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

This is why pro lifers keep shooting themselves in the foot. If you want to argue against convenience abortions, and Euthanasia, I might not agree but I can sympathise. But once you start saying contraception is murder, abortion should always be banned (including for cases of rape) and Terri Schaivo was a perfectly healthy woman with everything to live for....well, that's when you lose me.

 

The fanaticism of many in the right to life cause will be its undoing.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm betting whoever drafted that regulation is Catholic. They've always taken the assault on reproductive freedom that far.

[snuffbox 0]

I believe John Cleese wrote the legislation.

[SamoaRowe 0]

I know quite a few people that are pro-life, but they use numerous forms of birth control to avoid being in that situation in the first place. This type of news is going to really turn them off.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I know quite a few people that are pro-life, but they use numerous forms of birth control to avoid being in that situation in the first place. This type of news is going to really turn them off.

 

That's what I think. You say abortion is wrong and maybe 50% of people will agree. You say contraception is wrong and about 5% of people will agree with that. This kind of talk is just alienating the average person and driving them away. Maybe you can get to a point where's there's no more abortion, but there will never be a time when most people are okay with contraception being banned. And anyone that expects that is being shockingly unrealistic.

[EricMM 0]

Edited August 13, 2008 by Cal Moriarty
Eric et al., to embed a video, use the [video][/video] tag like you would for boldfacing, italicizing, or posting an image. -Czech

[Turbo Lion 0]

I'm getting married in December. We're using NFP, which is a form of "birth control" that doesn't use contraceptives, but rather depends on mintoring the fertility cycle of the woman in the relationship.

 

Now... we're doing this not because we think contraceptives or birth control are bad. We're doing it because... well, because sex with a condom is like wrapping a plastic bag around your dick. I don't want to do that. And because we don't want to mess with her body artificially. The only pill we'd have any kind of issue with is the "morning after" pill.

 

This is dumb. Birth control is not the same as abortion (though the morning after pill does concern me a little).

[At Home 0]

Swift kicks to the stomach are always free.

[EricMM 0]

So, SpiderPoet, you wouldn't be down with the IUD because it interferes with the body's ability to absorb a fertilized egg?

 

I'm just saying, when using Natural Family Planning, you may want to have access to the dreaded Morning After Pill after all...

 

These things can go wrong.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

My old RE teacher was once warning the class about contraception and mentioned him and his wife used the natural family planning method. It sounds like it would be very easy to make a mistake and get mixed up with the dates.

[NoCalMike 0]

Isn't the morning after pill the one that is often confused with the actual "abortion pill" which I think might be "RU-486" or something?

 

The morning after pill prevents conception, it doesn't kill anything.

[MrRant 0]

I seem to see this damn post all the time.

[Turbo Lion 0]

So, SpiderPoet, you wouldn't be down with the IUD because it interferes with the body's ability to absorb a fertilized egg?

 

I'm just saying, when using Natural Family Planning, you may want to have access to the dreaded Morning After Pill after all...

 

These things can go wrong.

 

The form of NFP we're using has a 97-99% rate of success (IF you actually follow the rules). If it happens, it happens. It would be a blessing. It would just be less than ideal conditions, for us, for that blessing to take place.

 

My personal view is that once the egg becomes fertilized, it's an organism with complex potential. It's life. I can't back that particular view up with blatant scripture, though I tend to view Psalm 139:13-16 in that way, personally. So I wouldn't want to mess with that process once it's begun in any way.

[SuperJerk 0]

Potential life and sentient life aren't the same thing.

 

And the only thing those bible verses confirm is that our bodies are grown in our mother's womb, which no one is disputing.

 

[EricMM 0]

I'm just begging you to use more than Family Planning, even if that just means Spermacide or something. SOMETHING...

 

I'm a huge proponent of controlling when you have children. Are you really ready to have a kid in nine months? If you're not using protection, thats what you're saying.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm just begging you to use more than Family Planning, even if that just means Spermacide or something. SOMETHING...

It sounds like he doesn't care that much about the risk, probably is planning to raise a child at some point anyway. He's in a committed relationship, and provided he's financially and morally sound to raise children and he isn't opposed to it, what's the problem?

 

If he was more concerned about not having children, he probably would do more. If you're only sorta kinda interested in avoiding a pregnancy, then isn't sorta kinda birth control simply enough? Just back off a little bit.

[Twisted Intestine 0]

This makes no sense at all. What about when a man releases his sperm without sex (Wankin' it, dreamin the pud')? That's the same damn result as using protection.

[Jingus 0]

Let the heathen spill them

On the dusty ground;

God will make them pay

For each sperm that can't be found!

 

Is it time for our annual abortion argument which never solves anything already?

 

And aren't condoms' reliability rate about the same 97-99% as SSP is claiming for his method? Much better at preventing the spread of STDs of course, but if you're in a situation where you don't have to worry about that...