Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion
beachdweller
Posts: 1,532
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/nationworld/91560.php
Published: 07.22.2008
Parting gift for religious right?
Denogean: Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion
Fertilization vs. implantation
ANNE T. DENOGEAN
Tucson Citizen
In its final months, the Bush administration is wrapping up a parting gift for the religious right: an official definition of abortion so sweeping it would include the use of birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraceptives, as well as intrauterine devices.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services quietly drafted a rule that would put into federal code this radical definition of abortion.
"The basis is ideology," said Rachel Chánes, the Tucson-based vice president of community services for Planned Parenthood Arizona. "We think this is coming from the Bush-appointed ideologues that are in there who are not apologetic about (the department's) stance on being anti-woman, anti-birth control and anti-abortion."
The proposal came to light because somebody leaked it to the public. It expands upon federal law that prohibits entities that receive federal dollars from discriminating against health care providers - institutions and individuals - who refuse to perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions based on moral objections.
The problem is the rule allows the individual or the institution to decide when a pregnancy begins and what constitutes an abortion, rather than relying on the widely accepted scientific definitions of both.
The American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that a pregnancy is established only after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Up to one-half of fertilized eggs never implant.
The draft rule defines abortion as any procedure or drug that results in the termination of a fertilized egg, even prior to implantation.
Hormonal forms of birth control, including the pill, the patch, the ring and shots, work primarily by preventing ovulation and fertilization. But some people believe hormonal contraceptives also work to a lesser degree - though this hasn't been scientifically demonstrated - by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
The IUD had a reputation for preventing pregnancy by preventing implantation, but recent evidence on IUDs suggests it works primarily by preventing fertilization.
Scientific evidence be damned in Bush World. If this rule was put into place, it would conflate contraception with abortion.
Once officially in the federal code, the new definition of contraception as abortion inevitably would be used in ways that would limit the access of women to nearly every form of birth control, save for condoms, diaphragms, spermicides cold showers and chastity belts.
The rule would take precedence over state laws around the country, including in Arizona, that require hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. It would undermine laws requiring insurers, including those that routinely cover Viagra, to also cover contraceptives.
The U.S. agency isn't talking about the draft rule. But Chánes said the word from Planned Parenthood sources in Washington, D.C., is that the proposal is moving through the system and an official announcement is expected from the Bush administration within the next few weeks.
"It's an impending threat but it hasn't been realized yet," she said.
Chánes said there are rumors that the Bush administration also is considering a rule against providing abortion counseling, a gag rule, for any health care provider that receives federal family planning funding. That would include Planned Parenthood.
The agency's rules aren't subject to a vote by Congress, but concerned citizens should contact their senators and representatives immediately to put pressure on the administration.
Of course, this slick attempt to create new abortion policy by bypassing Congress, the people and the courts underscores the importance of the upcoming presidential election to the preservation of women's reproductive rights.
If Barack Obama is elected, the extremist definition of abortion probably would be overturned.
If anti-abortion stalwart John McCain is elected, all I can say, ladies, is keep your legs crossed and locked at the knees because the assault on women's reproductive rights will be relentless for the next four years.
Published: 07.22.2008
Parting gift for religious right?
Denogean: Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion
Fertilization vs. implantation
ANNE T. DENOGEAN
Tucson Citizen
In its final months, the Bush administration is wrapping up a parting gift for the religious right: an official definition of abortion so sweeping it would include the use of birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraceptives, as well as intrauterine devices.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services quietly drafted a rule that would put into federal code this radical definition of abortion.
"The basis is ideology," said Rachel Chánes, the Tucson-based vice president of community services for Planned Parenthood Arizona. "We think this is coming from the Bush-appointed ideologues that are in there who are not apologetic about (the department's) stance on being anti-woman, anti-birth control and anti-abortion."
The proposal came to light because somebody leaked it to the public. It expands upon federal law that prohibits entities that receive federal dollars from discriminating against health care providers - institutions and individuals - who refuse to perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions based on moral objections.
The problem is the rule allows the individual or the institution to decide when a pregnancy begins and what constitutes an abortion, rather than relying on the widely accepted scientific definitions of both.
The American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that a pregnancy is established only after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Up to one-half of fertilized eggs never implant.
The draft rule defines abortion as any procedure or drug that results in the termination of a fertilized egg, even prior to implantation.
Hormonal forms of birth control, including the pill, the patch, the ring and shots, work primarily by preventing ovulation and fertilization. But some people believe hormonal contraceptives also work to a lesser degree - though this hasn't been scientifically demonstrated - by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
The IUD had a reputation for preventing pregnancy by preventing implantation, but recent evidence on IUDs suggests it works primarily by preventing fertilization.
Scientific evidence be damned in Bush World. If this rule was put into place, it would conflate contraception with abortion.
Once officially in the federal code, the new definition of contraception as abortion inevitably would be used in ways that would limit the access of women to nearly every form of birth control, save for condoms, diaphragms, spermicides cold showers and chastity belts.
The rule would take precedence over state laws around the country, including in Arizona, that require hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. It would undermine laws requiring insurers, including those that routinely cover Viagra, to also cover contraceptives.
The U.S. agency isn't talking about the draft rule. But Chánes said the word from Planned Parenthood sources in Washington, D.C., is that the proposal is moving through the system and an official announcement is expected from the Bush administration within the next few weeks.
"It's an impending threat but it hasn't been realized yet," she said.
Chánes said there are rumors that the Bush administration also is considering a rule against providing abortion counseling, a gag rule, for any health care provider that receives federal family planning funding. That would include Planned Parenthood.
The agency's rules aren't subject to a vote by Congress, but concerned citizens should contact their senators and representatives immediately to put pressure on the administration.
Of course, this slick attempt to create new abortion policy by bypassing Congress, the people and the courts underscores the importance of the upcoming presidential election to the preservation of women's reproductive rights.
If Barack Obama is elected, the extremist definition of abortion probably would be overturned.
If anti-abortion stalwart John McCain is elected, all I can say, ladies, is keep your legs crossed and locked at the knees because the assault on women's reproductive rights will be relentless for the next four years.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The abortion pill is abortion? Riiiight.
If this is true, this is absolutely ridiculous.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Family/wireStory?id=5382156
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25940818/
Yeah.
Talk about crooked, manipulative legislation which is the equivelent of extortion. Did you read how this will strongarm/bully health care professionals and the whole medical/health profession, in general?
Fuckin' Bush and his lunatic religious extremists!!!!
Regardless of one's position on abortion, when the government is willing to define the use of a contraception as a form of abortion, then the ruling should include men, because the government, in essence, is making a ruling that determines when life starts.
Sadly, the underlying purpose of this ruling is not about abortion, it's about defining and controlling teenage sex. Its basic interpretation is that the government will only recognize sex as a means of reproduction. By passing a federal rule under DHHS that any form of contraception is abortion, the States can not override the ruling, therefore, the only choice a female has is a) have sex and take the change of getting pregnant or b) abstinence. This is the message Bush and his religious base want to put into the schools, regardless of the consequences to the overall female population.
How ironic that the federal courts ruled that the rape of a child does not warrant the death penalty but it's ok if it results in fatherhood because its the law. More importantly, under this proposed ruling a female using birth control could face the possibly of being charged with wanton abortion/murder which could carry the death penalty.
these are the same folks blocking stem cell research... i am surprised you're shocked
how's the natty flowing these days?
Male masturbation which results in ejaculation ( and when does it not? ) will soon be considered ......an abortion, by these fuckin' lunatics.
Pretty soon, they'll require every male to have a Penis Activity Chip embedded in the shaft of our penises, to monitor all erections, activities and to detect any unauthorized ejaculations.
And females will require a digital electronic apparatus which creates an invisable force shield, to prevent unauthorized penetrations.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My understanding (granted I did not spend a lot of time researching the issue) is that they were not "blocking" stem cell research (as in banning the research), but only cutting of federal funding of an industry already awash in cash and did not need government subsidizing.
The natty is flowing rarely lately. When I've had some beer, I've had heavier beer or Miller Light (the wife's favorite). I felt dirty from drinking snobby beers that I couldn't pronounce, so two weeks ago I bought a sixer of The Glorious Natty to cleanse my soul. Waking up Monday anew, I faced the week with a good, clear conscious.
Bingo. Except I'd expand that to include males as well. And I'd expand that beyond reproductive rights.
It is time we stop electing people and parties who continue to erode our liberties as Bush has been doing, and Obama and McCain plan to continue doing.
Hopefully the chip will automatically dispatch the Federal Ejaculate Collection Agency to swoop in and secure the load. Every sperm is sacred.
exactly.
this is disgusting:
"The problem is the rule allows the individual or the institution to decide when a pregnancy begins and what constitutes an abortion, rather than relying on the widely accepted scientific definitions of both.
The American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that a pregnancy is established only after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Up to one-half of fertilized eggs never implant.
The draft rule defines abortion as any procedure or drug that results in the termination of a fertilized egg, even prior to implantation.
Hormonal forms of birth control, including the pill, the patch, the ring and shots, work primarily by preventing ovulation and fertilization. But some people believe hormonal contraceptives also work to a lesser degree - though this hasn't been scientifically demonstrated - by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
The IUD had a reputation for preventing pregnancy by preventing implantation, but recent evidence on IUDs suggests it works primarily by preventing fertilization.
Scientific evidence be damned in Bush World. If this rule was put into place, it would conflate contraception with abortion.
Once officially in the federal code, the new definition of contraception as abortion inevitably would be used in ways that would limit the access of women to nearly every form of birth control, save for condoms, diaphragms, spermicides cold showers and chastity belts.
The rule would take precedence over state laws around the country, including in Arizona, that require hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. It would undermine laws requiring insurers, including those that routinely cover Viagra, to also cover contraceptives."
seriously. i am pro-choice, but i can understand, even if i disagree, with pro-lifers. for something like THIS though....WTF?! if one truly wants to stop/reduce *real* abortions, WHY would one EVER want to limit contraception? i just....don't....get....it. this is a HUGE deal for ALL sexually active people, single or coupled. the repercussions of such will be mind-boggling. this in NO way will limit abortions, if anything it will INCREASE them if people have less access to BC. WTF. :mad:
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
as someone who is on the opposite side of the fence from you, i agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I can see not wanting to force doctors, nurses etc... to provide services they don't like on basis of moral grounds, as long as someone else WILL provide those services; but this kind of solution is NOT beneficial to anyone.
EXACTLY!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:
the more i think about it, the more i realized how utterly fucked it is, and the rippling repercussions of this maneuver.
DISGUSTING!
i don't understand how he/they can get away with this? WTF happened to the system of checks and balances, etc...or is that simply utter BS?
:mad:
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Of course it will. But in their religious extremist minds, they think this will stop people from being sexually active. Which is about as stupid as it gets.
These idiotic religious lunatics want to create laws that pander to their looney religious extremist delusions, rather than laws that take into account natural human behavior.
It's amazing how all these people are so concerned with abortions, but when the kids turn 18 they are more than willing to ship them off to a phoney war and have them get killed, there. Fuckin' unreal.
The government needs to get out of everyone's pants and panties and concern themselves with getting this country back where it should be.
or infertile (by choice), like me.
However,
this makes me furious! :mad::mad::mad::mad:
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
actually this stuff is coming from the people who wanted/instituted abstinence-only ed. and those programs not only teach misrepresentations and falsehoods about contraceptives, but teach gender stereotypes as fact. so it's more likely that male masturbation is fine as long as people don't publicly advocate it (ms. elders). see, men are supposed to be sexual, that's what they do. they're busy sowing their wild oats and all. so it's okay if men have erections, hell, they're covered by insurance companies!
women, on the other hand, are not allowed to be sexual unless they are creating babies, and they're blamed when they experience an unintended pregnancy. see, they should have kept their legs closed. the bush administration has been working for almost 8 years now to do whatever they could to erode reproductive health rights. this should come as no surprise.
cross the river to the eastside
i knew this thread would dredge you out of lurking.......
it IS disgusting that this can, and IS, being done!
urbanhiker, sad to say...i was thinking similarly, like thank bejeebus for vasectomy! but how utterly tragic for those who want to leave their reproduction options OPEN, and *gasp!* the nerve to want to be able to enjoy sex in the meantime. for some, this will leave little to no options if access to BS slowly gets shut down as a result. talk about ass-backwards. :mad:
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
you better be joking. there is no way in hell this shit would be happening under obama. he is a very strong supporter of women's health and reproductive rights. it is fucking ridiculous for you to say that. mccain on the other hand is quite dangerous in regards to women's health. and by spreading that fucking nonsense, you just might be able to see that for yourself. but what the fuck do you care? you're not a woman.
cross the river to the eastside
I'm concerned with all liberties and freedoms for all people. My concern includes your narrow concern for reproductive rights for women, as well as other issues. While Obama will certainly be better for your narrow issue than McCain, neither will be working for liberty in general. Both have plans for further government involvement in many aspects of our lives.
If you've paid attention, I am absolutely in favor of a woman owning her reproductive rights and choices. But apparently your undying love of Obama may have clouded your ability to respond rationally to anyone who doesn't express that same love.
cross the river to the eastside
yeah i'm "concerned" for everyone too. but i can't wave my magic wand and suddenly fix every issue. so i have a focus. i think that's pretty rational. you know why? because i'm actually working to realistically change things. so you can be concerned all you want until you put your money where your mouth is.
cross the river to the eastside
This the liberal, fear-mongering equivalent of the a right-winger saying the Democrats want to kill babies. It's absurd.
for the least they could possibly do
thank you for that, seriously...i needed a good laugh.
ha, you already have a superhero name, done! just don't argue with rhino about your superpowers.
does anyone honestly know HOW this can be done? anyone? i don't get it. :( makes no sense to me and it makes the whole 'system of checks and balances' seem like an utter joke, a true falsehood. altho i guess the whole war issue and others should've already made me realize that it's BS. :mad: he is trying to create as much utter destruction of this country before he leaves office as he can. shameful does not even begin to touch upon it.
btw - slight....it is not being outlawed, but reclassified...which will then cut off funding and acess to countless women. so no liberal fear-mongering.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I was thinking the same thing d2d. What sort of power or authority does an ‘administration memo’ have?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ha! i don't need to argue about my superpowers when i can just show them instead.
i think your answer can be found here:
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services quietly drafted a rule that would put into federal code this radical definition of abortion."
later it stated that these rules aren't subjected to a vote by Congress. so these rules can be drafted willy-nilly, yay. but if people do put pressure on their senators and representatives, then maybe they can put pressure on the agency and administration.
cross the river to the eastside
McCain's courting same looneys....
as to that answer, thank you, but :mad: damnnit, that's such BS! we have an idiot for a president, but he sure does make certain he's got people around who know how the fuck to get around things to get what they want. perhaps he's not such an idiot afterall...just pure evil. :mad:
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow