Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion

slightofjeff

scb wrote:

What makes you think that? Who's going to stop it?

Um, Congress?

That's what checks and balances are for.

slightofjeff

scb wrote:

What makes you think that? Who's going to stop it?

nm

_

slightofjeff wrote:

Um, Congress?

That's what checks and balances are for.

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?

beachdweller

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/07/30/a_new_attack_on_birth_control/

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.

beachdweller

slightofjeff wrote:

This isn't going to happen. So it's a moot point.

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.

catefrances

cutback wrote:

this makes me so angry i can't even think straight

try thinking gay then.







no... i dont know what that means either.

norm

catefrances wrote:

try thinking gay then.







no... i dont know what that means either.

ah cate...a lovely play on words....:D

catefrances

beachdweller wrote:

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."....

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.

iamica

NOW has a link where you can send a message to Secretary Leavitt and read more about the issue:

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.

decides2dream

beachdweller wrote:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/07/30/a_new_attack_on_birth_control/

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.

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.

_

beachdweller wrote:

Women can start having abortion written into their historical medical records for being on the pill.

Politicians may be dumb-asses, but I don't think there's any doctor that would actually do this - thankfully.

_

catefrances wrote:

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.

mammasan

This is just fucking insane. What the hell is happening to this country.