The pill is abortion

[sfc 1]

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave.

Bush is such a prick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?ref=us

[kbordson 8]

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave.

Bush is such a prick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?ref=us

That article is more about protection of employee rights.

Quote

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Quote

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, theadministration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

If they are getting Federal money, then they can't discriminate and not hire/fire someone based on his/her religious belief. Now... if that person fails to give appropriate care to a rape victim with appropriate non biases by religious belief counselling.... that you can fire them on.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave.

Nothing to worry about.
The shame will eventually be upon any woman who has an abortion without serious reason.
And not by man.

[n23x 0]

care to elaborate?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave.

Bush is such a prick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?ref=us

That article is more about protection of employee rights.

Quote

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Quote

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, theadministration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

If they are getting Federal money, then they can't discriminate and not hire/fire someone based on his/her religious belief. Now... if that person fails to give appropriate care to a rape victim with appropriate non biases by religious belief counselling.... that you can fire them on.

Just another way for the religious right to impose their views on other folks. If you are not prepared to give out drugs for personal reasons get a different job, people have the right to have a prescription filled. The feds have no business getting involved in this stuff.

This is just another example of religious extremism from bush camp, just the Terri Schiavo fiasco when Bush went out of his way to sign unconstitutional legislation.

Can't wait for him to be gone, I just wonder how much more of this we will have to deal with in the next few months.

[feuergnom 29]

WTF?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Just another way for the religious right to impose their views on other folks. If you are not prepared to give out drugs for personal reasons get a different job, people have the right to have a prescription filled. The feds have no business getting involved in this stuff.

This is just another example of religious extremism from bush camp, just the Terri Schiavo fiasco when Bush went out of his way to sign unconstitutional legislation.

Can't wait for him to be gone, I just wonder how much more of this we will have to deal with in the next few months.

I choose to disagree.
And I will even use me as an example. I am an OB/Gyn. But I disagree with "abortions" on a personal level. I would never have one, nor do ever want to take part of one done as a choice not a medical indication.

I will counsel the woman on all of her choices and I will tell her where the nearest planned parenthood is or refer her to someone that can help her. I do not preach my thoughts or beliefs to her... as a doctor, that is NOT my responsibility. But neither should her beliefs be imposed on me. Especially since there are MANY out there that will do this. What is wrong is NOT properly counseling and sending her to someone that can help her.
Pharmacy debate The pharmacy that refuses to prescribe birth control is wrong, but each specific pharmacist should have the right to not dispense it... but if that one doesn't, then there has to be someone available that will or they have to transfer that script to a pharmacy in that patients health plan in a reasonable area (not 20+ miles away). But, as a right of religious freedom, that pharmacist has shouldn't be fired.... that would be discrimination.

Another point is that most pharmacies are privately owned and managed. NOT government run. Although they do have to follow certain government regulations, they are personal establishments. They can refuse to provide service to anyone (but then they could also find themselves in a court house for discrimation themselves)

And do you even know what the means of terminating a potential pregnancy are? Or are you just thinking that an "abortion" is the surgery that the woman goes to that place for? Medically speaking - an "abortion" is any disruption of a pregnancy, whether a miscarraige (spontaneous abortion) or an "abortion" (elective termination / therapeutic abortion) If it's early enough, you prevent implantation with the day after pill (which I would write for) or even by dosing the birth control pill differently. If it's later and implantation has occured, there are prescription medicines to terminate a pregnancy (not just the surgery)

Additionally on a similar but side note, when I counsel women on intrauterine devices for contraception - specifically the Paragard - I mention that one of the mechanisms of actions is that it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting (which some people do consider an abortion action). But I let them make that decision as an informed adult (and I have placed Paragards, but I prefer the Mirena for several reasons other than that)

I think you are just using this as an excuse to hate someone that you already hate. Logic and rationality has little to do with your anger.

[sfc 1]

Quote

I think you are just using this as an excuse to hate someone that you already hate. Logic and rationality has little to do with your anger.

No, what has happened is that bush has said using the pill is having an abortion. he is setting back womens health rights by years.
He has been chipping at the womens right to choose ever since he has got into office, this is just another example.
He would like to see a federal ban on abortion and with this redefinition that would include a ban on the pill. This is the thin end of the wedge, thank god he is going to be out of office before he has time to get that far.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

bush has said using the pill is having an abortion

Not to bust up your rant, but I missed that quote-could you highlighted it for me?

It still seems like the article is on employee rights and not being able to hire only people that present certain views. If it were were stated that you couldn't discrimate against abortion supporters, then your reaction would be 180 degrees different and that is what the law will actually do-remove that criteria no matter what side of the fence the applicant is on.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

I think you are just using this as an excuse to hate someone that you already hate. Logic and rationality has little to do with your anger.

No, what has happened is that bush has said using the pill is having an abortion. he is setting back womens health rights by years.
He has been chipping at the womens right to choose ever since he has got into office, this is just another example.
He would like to see a federal ban on abortion and with this redefinition that would include a ban on the pill. This is the thin end of the wedge, thank god he is going to be out of office before he has time to get that far.

So when the law says its' OK to have an abortion you're good with that, but when it says you can't discriminate against those with a different view that's a problem.

Just wanted to make sure I had your priorities straight.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kbordson 8]

I don't think this is a womens right issue.

Trust me... I'm a woman. I believe in a woman right to choose, in equal opportunity if equally matched.

But I don't want discrimination. Whether due to gender, religious beliefs, race or anything. I don't want those nurses to be fired for refusing to help with something they are morally opposed to. I don't want to be forced (as a doctor) to partake in elective terminations. I don't want others to impose their beliefs on me and I won't impose mine on them.

That article (as I read it) was just protecting the rights of the employees.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

bush has said using the pill is having an abortion

Not to bust up your rant, but I missed that quote-could you highlighted it for me?

It still seems like the article is on employee rights and not being able to hire only people that present certain views. If it were were stated that you couldn't discrimate against abortion supporters, then your reaction would be 180 degrees different and that is what the law will actually do-remove that criteria no matter what side of the fence the applicant is on.

This is what you missed "The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the 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.”

This includes the pill.

I did misrepresent Bush, it was the bush administration not bush personally that stated this

[sfc 1]

Quote

I don't think this is a womens right issue.

Trust me... I'm a woman. I believe in a woman right to choose, in equal opportunity if equally matched.

But I don't want discrimination. Whether due to gender, religious beliefs, race or anything. I don't want those nurses to be fired for refusing to help with something they are morally opposed to. I don't want to be forced (as a doctor) to partake in elective terminations. I don't want others to impose their beliefs on me and I won't impose mine on them.

That article (as I read it) was just protecting the rights of the employees.

It would allow a ER doctor to not mention and refuse to supply emergency contraception to a rape victim, do you think a doctor should be allow to have a say over the victims care based on his religious/personal belief and not hers.
It would also prevent the hospital/state to set up standards of care that require a doctor in this situation from providing an informed choice to the victim.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

This is what you missed

Nope, I got that

Quote

I did misrepresent Bush,

That's the answer.
While W and I are't going to swap Christmas cards, you weaken your point with such broad strokes. Any attmept to paint GWB as the great satan is bound to fail.

Satan would have to be a smart guy.

However, despite that definition-it sounds like the proposal eliminates discrimination--I forget, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

do you think a doctor should be allow to have a say over the victims care based on his religious/personal belief and not hers

Do you think that a doctor or psychologist should be forced to use shock treatments to "cure" a homosexual if it is against their beliefs to do so?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

do you think a doctor should be allow to have a say over the victims care based on his religious/personal belief and not hers

Do you think that a doctor or psychologist should be forced to use shock treatments to "cure" a homosexual if it is against their beliefs to do so?

wtf has that got to got to do with abortion? i can't even begin to draw a parallel? Unless you are a gay and a freedom of choice hater.

[futuredivot 0]

The point is that when you limit a doctor's ability to excersise their moral ground, you open up the system to be manipulated by any nutcase that makes it in to a policy level position. And I'm never surprized any more about how silly/scary some policies are.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[livendive 8]

Quote

This is what you missed "The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the 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.”

This includes the pill.

Either you or I misunderstand the basic function of birth control pills. My understanding is that, except when used in high doses subsequent to unprotected sex, they work by preventing conception, i.e. an egg is not shipped to the uterus, therefore conception cannot occur. Such a mechanism would place birth control pills outside the timeline I bolded in your quote.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

do you think a doctor should be allow to have a say over the victims care based on his religious/personal belief and not hers

Do you think that a doctor or psychologist should be forced to use shock treatments to "cure" a homosexual if it is against their beliefs to do so?

your forgetting a key thing called "standard of care". proper counselling and availability of options concerning birth control falls withing standard of care, while shocking homosexuals does not.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

This is what you missed "The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the 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.”

This includes the pill.

Either you or I misunderstand the basic function of birth control pills. My understanding is that, except when used in high doses subsequent to unprotected sex, they work by preventing conception, i.e. an egg is not shipped to the uterus, therefore conception cannot occur. Such a mechanism would place birth control pills outside the timeline I bolded in your quote.

Blues,
Dave

Neither of us misunderstand the function of birth control, That is the point here. The bush admin is redefining what you and I think of abortion, they are saying that preventing a fertilized egg from getting to the uterus is abortion, that is what I am pissed about. The keys words are "between conception and natural birth" & "whether before or after implantation"

My understanding is that conception is the process of a sperm fusing with an ovum, not when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

[Royd 0]

Quote

care to elaborate?

If I have to explain it to you, you won't understand.

[billvon 3,111]

>No, what has happened is that bush has said using the pill is having
>an abortion. he is setting back womens health rights by years.

I think such a conflation does the opposite, actually.

Take the most recent Gallup poll on the issue. "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" 28% legal always, 54% legal sometimes, 17% never legal.

Now change that to reflect a conflation of birth control and abortion. "Do you think abortions and birth control should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" I'd be willing to bet you'd see numbers like 50% always legal, 40% sometimes legal, 10% never.

[sfc 1]

Quote

>No, what has happened is that bush has said using the pill is having
>an abortion. he is setting back womens health rights by years.

I think such a conflation does the opposite, actually.

Take the most recent Gallup poll on the issue. "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" 28% legal always, 54% legal sometimes, 17% never legal.

Now change that to reflect a conflation of birth control and abortion. "Do you think abortions and birth control should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" I'd be willing to bet you'd see numbers like 50% always legal, 40% sometimes legal, 10% never.

No, what will happen is that the poll will return the same result as always as people won know or buy into the pill as abortion, the neo-cons will then use this "data" in pushing for the ban of the pill.
This stuff gets spun continuously by the neo-cons, look at how long RU-486 took to get approved and look at the abstinence programs, they are trying to push their view on us and any muddying of the water, like this, will aid their cause.

[billvon 3,111]

> the poll will return the same result as always as people won know or
>buy into the pill as abortion . . .

Not in my experience. I know a lot of people who are against legal abortion but support the use of birth control.

>the neo-cons will then use this "data" in pushing for the ban of the pill.

They will do that no matter what the data.

[sfc 1]

Quote

> the poll will return the same result as always as people won know or
>buy into the pill as abortion . . .

Not in my experience. I know a lot of people who are against legal abortion but support the use of birth control.

I agree, but don't think that the redefinition could lead to an opportunity to create a poll with misleading questions?