I don't care what any of those links say. There will never be a time in this country -- never, ever, ever -- when a simple birth control pill is outlawed.
This the liberal, fear-mongering equivalent of the a right-winger saying the Democrats want to kill babies. It's absurd.
I don't think it will happen either. But it isn't "liberal fear mongering" . Your heroes are drafting it up...
You gotta hand it to Bush. He's going out in style. The man who hates abortion is going to try to guarantee that a lot more of it goes on. Well, a village is still missing its idiot, but I guarantee it won't be the global village. What a relief to the world when this guy goes back to checking out interesting bugs on the ranch.
You gotta hand it to Bush. He's going out in style. The man who hates abortion is going to try to guarantee that a lot more of it goes on. Well, a village is still missing its idiot, but I guarantee it won't be the global village. What a relief to the world when this guy goes back to checking out interesting bugs on the ranch.
Haha. for some reason I had to watch this after reading that.
Here's what the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) has to say about conscientious refusals:
"Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients, negatively affect a patient's health, are based on scientific misinformation, or create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities."
I haven't finished reading the whole committee opinion but, if you'd like to, here's the link:
so I'm looking for follow up articles about this possible situation, and this thread came up on google as the #2 search result, break out your primetime keyboards people, we're on.
mostly other blogs but here is an abc news report about the plan from July 15th.
Family Planning Groups Object to Abortion Plan
Administration Memo Would Allow Doctors to Deny Patients Some Contraceptives, Critics Say
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
July 15, 2008
if this happens, McCain will be pummeled severly in Nov. More than he is already going to be that is.
Hey everyone, if you don't have sex, that's considered abortion, so start f#cking, reproducing, and abandoning the children you can afford.
cause our only purpose is to reproduce, live by gods words, not just his rules, and wait for the 2nd coming...oh wait, no we don't, cause no one is actually living by god's words and rules, they only hold others to those standards, not themselves...I forgot, silly me....nevermind.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Congress had no say in this. Isn't it more of a rule or re-definition, rather than a bill that must be voted into law?
July 30, 2008
WITH JUST a few months left in office, President Bush is still doing the bidding of social conservatives who oppose women's reproductive freedoms. Under the guise of rules to protect antiabortion nurses and doctors from discrimination in hiring, a proposed new regulation would expand the definition of abortion to include any form of contraception that can work by stopping implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. This can include common birth-control pills, emergency contraception, and the intra-uterine device, or IUD. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions for reasons of personal conscience already are protected by law.
The potential impact of this new rule on the more than 500,000 hospitals, family planning clinics, and medical offices that receive any form of federal funding could be dramatic. The rule could also undercut many state laws - including one in Massachusetts requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception for rape victims - and laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to include contraceptives. Massachusetts passed such a law in 2002.
The draft proposed rule highlights the fact that many antiabortion groups also oppose one good method of preventing the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions - birth control. At some point in their lives, 98 percent of US women use birth control.
The proposed rule, while claiming to protect the rights of nurses and doctors, would interfere with patients' rights. A woman seeking treatment could be denied birth control and not even be aware that the service was available - only denied to her because of the unexpressed personal beliefs of the practitioner.
Last November, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said gynecologists must provide "accurate and unbiased information" to patients and "have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers" if the doctors do not want to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control. The US secretary of health and human services, Michael Leavitt, said he thought this statement went too far in forcing doctors to choose between their beliefs and the prospect of professional sanctions.
The administration does not need approval of Congress to put this rule into effect. But about 100 members of the House, including all representatives from this state except Stephen Lynch of South Boston, have signed a letter protesting it. In the Senate, Patty Murray of Washington and Hillary Clinton of New York are leading the opposition. The administration should take heed and drop its ideological attack on contraception.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
how you figure? you have no idea if this will or will not happen. Bush can wait until after the election. Bush doesn't need congressional approval to do this. Women can start having abortion written into their historical medical records for being on the pill. That's absurd...on the other hand, I think it will ensure that abortion stays legal. With so many abortions going on, it'll just decensitize in the public forum more.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
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."....
so theyre unaware that the pill actually retards the release of an unfertilised egg, not actually kills a fertilised one nor stops it from becoming implanted?
sorry america but youre country is fucked and doomed if jokers like this are running the joint.
remember that 2nd amendment... all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC
have a nice day y'all.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
July 30, 2008
WITH JUST a few months left in office, President Bush is still doing the bidding of social conservatives who oppose women's reproductive freedoms. Under the guise of rules to protect antiabortion nurses and doctors from discrimination in hiring, a proposed new regulation would expand the definition of abortion to include any form of contraception that can work by stopping implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. This can include common birth-control pills, emergency contraception, and the intra-uterine device, or IUD. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions for reasons of personal conscience already are protected by law.
The potential impact of this new rule on the more than 500,000 hospitals, family planning clinics, and medical offices that receive any form of federal funding could be dramatic. The rule could also undercut many state laws - including one in Massachusetts requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception for rape victims - and laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to include contraceptives. Massachusetts passed such a law in 2002.
The draft proposed rule highlights the fact that many antiabortion groups also oppose one good method of preventing the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions - birth control. At some point in their lives, 98 percent of US women use birth control.
The proposed rule, while claiming to protect the rights of nurses and doctors, would interfere with patients' rights. A woman seeking treatment could be denied birth control and not even be aware that the service was available - only denied to her because of the unexpressed personal beliefs of the practitioner.
Last November, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said gynecologists must provide "accurate and unbiased information" to patients and "have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers" if the doctors do not want to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control. The US secretary of health and human services, Michael Leavitt, said he thought this statement went too far in forcing doctors to choose between their beliefs and the prospect of professional sanctions.
The administration does not need approval of Congress to put this rule into effect. But about 100 members of the House, including all representatives from this state except Stephen Lynch of South Boston, have signed a letter protesting it. In the Senate, Patty Murray of Washington and Hillary Clinton of New York are leading the opposition. The administration should take heed and drop its ideological attack on contraception.
seriously...and many say we have 'nothing to worry about'...it's all a non-issue, etc. wtf?! this is serious stuff, and all should fear for right of choice and access if mccain/palin get in office! it truly amazes me that we as a country can be so ass-backwards and sooo tied down by relgiion....for a country formed on freedom of religion and personal choice. ack.
so theyre unaware that the pill actually retards the release of an unfertilised egg, not actually kills a fertilised one nor stops it from becoming implanted?
Well, technically it's possible for the pill (or Paraguard IUD) to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (as happens ALL THE TIME without the pill). But that shouldn't matter since, medically speaking, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. The problem is, politically/religiously (what's the difference?) speaking, pregnancy begins at the first naughty glance.
Comments
I don't think it will happen either. But it isn't "liberal fear mongering" . Your heroes are drafting it up...
Haha. for some reason I had to watch this after reading that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqrI3IibYI
"Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients, negatively affect a patient's health, are based on scientific misinformation, or create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities."
I haven't finished reading the whole committee opinion but, if you'd like to, here's the link:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/ethics/co385.pdf
mostly other blogs but here is an abc news report about the plan from July 15th.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Family/wireStory?id=5382156
Family Planning Groups Object to Abortion Plan
Administration Memo Would Allow Doctors to Deny Patients Some Contraceptives, Critics Say
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
July 15, 2008
and the Wall Street Journal from July 31st
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121745387879898315.html?mod=blog
Treating the Pill as Abortion,
Draft Regulation Stirs Debate
By STEPHANIE SIMON
July 31, 2008; Page A11
why is this so quiet in the video media?
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
heroes?
for the least they could possibly do
Hey everyone, if you don't have sex, that's considered abortion, so start f#cking, reproducing, and abandoning the children you can afford.
cause our only purpose is to reproduce, live by gods words, not just his rules, and wait for the 2nd coming...oh wait, no we don't, cause no one is actually living by god's words and rules, they only hold others to those standards, not themselves...I forgot, silly me....nevermind.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
"If men could get pregnant - abortion would be a sacrament!"
This isn't going to happen. So it's a moot point.
for the least they could possibly do
What makes you think that? Who's going to stop it?
Um, Congress?
That's what checks and balances are for.
for the least they could possibly do
for the least they could possibly do
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Congress had no say in this. Isn't it more of a rule or re-definition, rather than a bill that must be voted into law?
A new attack on birth control
July 30, 2008
WITH JUST a few months left in office, President Bush is still doing the bidding of social conservatives who oppose women's reproductive freedoms. Under the guise of rules to protect antiabortion nurses and doctors from discrimination in hiring, a proposed new regulation would expand the definition of abortion to include any form of contraception that can work by stopping implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. This can include common birth-control pills, emergency contraception, and the intra-uterine device, or IUD. Doctors who refuse to perform abortions for reasons of personal conscience already are protected by law.
The potential impact of this new rule on the more than 500,000 hospitals, family planning clinics, and medical offices that receive any form of federal funding could be dramatic. The rule could also undercut many state laws - including one in Massachusetts requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception for rape victims - and laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to include contraceptives. Massachusetts passed such a law in 2002.
The draft proposed rule highlights the fact that many antiabortion groups also oppose one good method of preventing the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions - birth control. At some point in their lives, 98 percent of US women use birth control.
The proposed rule, while claiming to protect the rights of nurses and doctors, would interfere with patients' rights. A woman seeking treatment could be denied birth control and not even be aware that the service was available - only denied to her because of the unexpressed personal beliefs of the practitioner.
Last November, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said gynecologists must provide "accurate and unbiased information" to patients and "have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers" if the doctors do not want to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control. The US secretary of health and human services, Michael Leavitt, said he thought this statement went too far in forcing doctors to choose between their beliefs and the prospect of professional sanctions.
The administration does not need approval of Congress to put this rule into effect. But about 100 members of the House, including all representatives from this state except Stephen Lynch of South Boston, have signed a letter protesting it. In the Senate, Patty Murray of Washington and Hillary Clinton of New York are leading the opposition. The administration should take heed and drop its ideological attack on contraception.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
how you figure? you have no idea if this will or will not happen. Bush can wait until after the election. Bush doesn't need congressional approval to do this. Women can start having abortion written into their historical medical records for being on the pill. That's absurd...on the other hand, I think it will ensure that abortion stays legal. With so many abortions going on, it'll just decensitize in the public forum more.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
try thinking gay then.
no... i dont know what that means either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ah cate...a lovely play on words....:D
so theyre unaware that the pill actually retards the release of an unfertilised egg, not actually kills a fertilised one nor stops it from becoming implanted?
sorry america but youre country is fucked and doomed if jokers like this are running the joint.
remember that 2nd amendment... all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC
have a nice day y'all.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=11874676#action
We need to make our voices heard before this spins further out of control than we could even imagine.
seriously...and many say we have 'nothing to worry about'...it's all a non-issue, etc. wtf?! this is serious stuff, and all should fear for right of choice and access if mccain/palin get in office! it truly amazes me that we as a country can be so ass-backwards and sooo tied down by relgiion....for a country formed on freedom of religion and personal choice. ack.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Politicians may be dumb-asses, but I don't think there's any doctor that would actually do this - thankfully.
Well, technically it's possible for the pill (or Paraguard IUD) to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (as happens ALL THE TIME without the pill). But that shouldn't matter since, medically speaking, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. The problem is, politically/religiously (what's the difference?) speaking, pregnancy begins at the first naughty glance.