Contraception =/= Abortion!

[mandysee_mandydo]

he Bush Administration is at it again. This story is actually a month old, but somehow I missed it until now. The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a rule that would define contraceptives as abortion and allow medical providers to refuse to provide them. This is unacceptable.

HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion
Family Planning Groups Object to Abortion Plan
Millions Who Had Abortions Don't Know It

If you disagree with this proposed rule, please sign the petition at MoveOn.org.

Comments

[fossilapostle.livejournal.com]

(Yeah, you ARE pretty late to this one...)

So, by this definition every time the amazon and I get busy* (she has had a tubal), we are performing an abortion.

Every time a non-sterile male DOESN'T have standard, procreative sex with a fertile female, he AND she are performing abortions BY THE MINUTE.

BILLIONS OF POSSIBLE CHILDREN ABORTED, EVERY SECOND OF EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POTENTIAL FETUSES?!?


* So sorry for THAT mental picture...

[srturtle.livejournal.com]

If this were about abortion I could understand where you are coming from, but this is about contraception. This is about a woman's right to make her own health decisions with her medical practitioner without interference from the government. It's about a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to get pregnant. It's about being able to provide emergency contraception to a woman who has been raped. It's about not creating hardships for poor women who may not have access to contraception through anything other than federal-funded family planning programs. It's about so much more. Contraception is not at all about "terminating a living, developing individual," but rather preventing pregnancy in the first place.

This rule isn't just some harmless piece of paper that says "hey we don't like contraception and we think it's like abortion." It's a rule that says the federal government can cut funding to medical providers and family planning programs who provide contraception, not abortion. This rule applies to things like birth control pills (which have other women's health uses beyond just preventing pregnancy) and many other widely used forms of contraception (not abortion).

[srturtle.livejournal.com]

Thank you for clarifying. At least your reply makes a little more sense. The rule as proposed in the leaked document would affect not just Plan B but also birth control pills, so it would affect contraceptives. Every article I have read (not just the one with the pro-choice slant you pointed out) indicates this inclusion of birth control pills. The draft regulation itself, under a section titled "The Problem," points out contraceptives in general and does not specify which in particular are the problem. Interestingly though, it seems to imply that contraceptives are only a problem if prescribed to a minor without parental consent.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf

I can understand your objections to Plan B, but I feel personally that this is a necessary emergency contraceptive. Such emergency contraceptives are important to emergency care for rape victims. Regardless of any convictions to keep every life sacred and define a life starting at conception, I personally can't justify removing a woman's right over her own health and decision to carry a child and handing that decision to a rapist, a doctor and the government.

Whether or not we agree with abortion or contraception, there are moments when such actions become necessary. Choices aren't often starkly binary. We can't say all abortion or contraception is bad and should not be permitted. There are instances when I believe they are necessary. To have laws, rules or regulations that default to a restrictive state with exceptions enacts a legal barrier that makes it effectively improbable for a woman to get the necessary treatments that fall under the exception. Having laws, rules and regulations that default to a permissive state leave the decision where it belongs: with the woman who has to live with that decision.

What makes this proposed rule even more disturbing is that it isn't written to just target contraceptives or abortion. This proposed rule would allow any medical practitioner to refuse to provide any care or treatment which contradicts their personal morals or convictions.

When I go see a doctor, I expect to be given all of my options and make the decision for myself which action I would like to take. It's not a doctor's place to decide for us what we will and won't do. It's not the government's place, either. It most certainly isn't a rapist's place to decide if a woman will have a child or not.

As a related note, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has since come out in response to the opposition and stated this draft proposal was leaked before it got to his desk for review, and that the rule (if it goes forward at all) will likely not include this language that aims to restrict access to contraceptives. Of course, all of that remains to be seen...

[jamaesi.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty happy my medical provider gave me BC and my pharmacy gives it to me. I'd have a royal fit if they could just deny me whatever because they mistakenly think that BC causes abortions or think they have a right to cause me to become sick.

I'm actually not sexually active right now so there's no chance of pregnancy and if I wasn't on BC what has built up in my uterus would just stay there and cause blood poisoning or cancer or many other fun things- I just don't menstruate. My hormones are shot, they aren't normal and do not trigger a normal cycle or a menstrual period at all. After not menstruating for almost a year and having the contents of my uterus expelled by using hormones was not a pretty sight, I bled for over a week. I've had blood poisoning before and I'd really rather never have it again. I also don't really want to have cancer.


Being on BC is not a real cycle- it is menstrual suppression. The "period" you get on the withdrawal week is not a period, it's just the shedding of the light lining the BC allows to build up- a withdrawal week is not even necessary with BC, the very light lining does not need to be shed. The reason BC has a withdrawal week is because it well, it was pretty revolutionary at the time and some groups didn't really want women to have that much control over their bodies. BC keeps your hormones low so that properly used, the lining never builds up, an egg is never stimulated to be released, there is not a cozy place for a fertilized egg, there is no pregnancy, there is no menstrual cycle. If you properly took BC every day for 10 years with no withdrawal period it will still be the same thing.


Things like this hurt women. It's not acceptable.


I'm not exactly pro-abortion though I am pro-choice, and I tend to side with how my religion views abortion- I'm Muslim. Abortion is allowed for some reasons (a reason you aren't allowed to abort is if you fear you cannot provide for the child because you are to trust G-d to provide and Islam is very big on charity) and abortion is permitted during the first trimester, but if in a later trimester there is a complication and it's needed to save the mother's life it is allowed. Contraceptives are also allowed in Islam.

I also believe that the best way to stop abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy- less abortions is what everyone wants, not many sane people want abortions to happen. To provide men and women with the things they need to prevent a pregnancy to begin with is a good way of preventing an unwanted pregnancy. To choke off access to contraceptives by making a ruling like this will only cause more women to be unable to prevent a pregnancy in the first place.


It's just a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it.