Draft regulation would classify contraception as abortion
The Bush administration is attempting to re-define “pregnancy.” From the Wall Street Journal:
The Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.
A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying “the life of a human being.”
Many medical groups disagree. They hold that pregnancy isn’t established until several days after conception, when the fertilized egg has grown to a cluster of several dozen cells and burrowed into the uterine wall. Anything that disrupts that process, in their view, is contraception.
The draft regulation, circulating within the Department of Health and Human Services, would have no immediate effect on the legality of the pill or the IUD if implemented because abortion is legal. But opponents fear it would undercut dozens of state laws designed to promote easy access to these methods of birth control, used by more than 12 million women a year.
This, to me, seems ridiculous. I’m certainly no medical expert, but even basic dictionary definitions seem to confirm the distinction between contraception and abortion: “deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation” versus “various…methods for terminating a pregnancy.” I’m fairly certain, then, that most contraceptives are designed to prevent pregnancies, not end them.
There is, admittedly, still an ongoing debate in the medical community about whether standard combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) can have the effect of preventing the implantation of an already-fertilized egg in the uterus, which some pro-life advocates argue constitutes an “abortifacient” effect. (Read scientific arguments for and against.)
However, this article, authored by four Christian, pro-life gynecologists for the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), comes down on the “against” side, attempting to dispel the belief that combined oral contraceptives have “an abortifacient mechanism”:
In order to classify COCs as an abortifacient, several things must exist:
1) Conceptions must occur.
2) The abortive effect must be present with proper use as prescribed.
3) Loss of these conceptions must exceed the base-line loss for populations not using this substance, or be shown to occur due solely to the medication itself, and not other known factors.
4) The abortive effect should be consistent and reproducible by multiple independent observers.There are no studies that we are aware of regarding combined oral contraceptives[...]that demonstrate numbers 2, 3, or 4.
I would think that even a majority of pro-life Americans would consider the proposed classification extreme (and perhaps even counter-productive, considering a decrease in the availability of oral contraceptives could lead to an increase in the number of actual abortions).
Still, from the WSJ:
Still, some on the religious right are hoping the regulation would create some obstacles [for women attempting to obtain birth control].
If the draft regulation were to prompt some insurance companies to drop coverage for prescription birth control, “that would be fantastic,” said Tom McClusky, a strategist with the conservative Family Research Council.
The regulation could still be revised, rejected or enacted at any time (it does not need Congressional approval), but it could always be reversed by the next administration.
As for the prospective presidential candidates, Senator Obama has joined Congressional Democrats in signing letters of protest criticizing the proposal. John McCain is, perhaps not surprisingly, steering clear of the whole issue (he no doubt wants to avoid a repeat of the extremely awkward episode the last time he was asked by a reporter about birth control).
I realize in Genesis 38:9-10 that we learn that the Lord killed Onan for letting his semen spill on the ground rather than give his dead brother a child through and by his widow which, was God’s law at that time when the Hebrews lived under the law. (Spilling was considered an attempt of birth control).
I am not Catholic, nor do I feel that one’s salvation is in treat if a married woman practices birth control. It is ridiculous for the government to get this involved into the bedrooms of married couples and one who are not dependent upon the government for their support and survival.
People have better open up their eyes up to what is happening and the spirit that is truly operating through this breed of Republicans and, it certainly is not the Holy Spirit.
Christians and non-Christians alike should be very concerned about this element of people because nothing about them line up in any area of their own personal walk and examples with God’s word.
will someone please make them all go away! they are aliens…don’t we have rules?
I don’t see how any sane person or faith can equate Birth control with abortion.
Prevention is ok and should be. Once it has “taken”. (confirmed preganancy) then it should not end. Then it is abortion and taking a human life.
Pro Choice should mean the choice whether or not to use birth control and become pregnant. Not whether or not to have an abortion.
No, ju wrong! The regs are not ridiculous and illogical: you are!
This is another attempt by the Bush administration to impose their ideology on the country in an under-the-radar way. They know that most people have used, and support the use of, contraception and would overwhelmingly disapprove of this proposed rule. Birth control prevents pregnancy! Let’s focus on scientific and medical definitions, not politically motivated definitions. If we want to reduce the abortion rate, people must have access to reliable contraception. Those at the Family Research Council and others with religious objections don’t have to use it, but they have no right to make that decision for the rest of us.
Years ago while I still was in college (circa 1965), I had a cqnbdidate for the priesthood explain to me that masturbation was the same as abortion (and presumably condom usage was included) because each sperm was a potential baby. So from this ignorant of human biology perspective, anything that prevented pregnancy was the equivalent of abortion.
Of course my good Italian-Roman Catholic female cousins and aunts had the perspective, that when the Pope could get pregnant, then he could advise them on birth control — they all went on the pill as soon as it became available. And, no they did not tell the priest, even in confession (see above reason).
This may not seem to make sense, but it makes perfect sense to me. The anti-abortion is not exactly just about preventing abortions. The bigger agenda is to populate the earth to its maximum and promote economic growth to its maximum. It has worked for centuries, if keeping women somewhat as womb slaves.
Thus, birth control, stem cell research, homosexuality, and even sex education are taboo because they subvert this goal. They want more and more people to act as cogs in this giant economy. A pity that so much sufferring has to take place in order to propagate the species. Parents should WANT to be parents, not forced into it….
I find it totally rediculuous that a President that calls himself “pro life” can cause the needless death of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies [born and unborn] based on lies to promote a needless war for profit for his wealthy friends in the military industrial complex and the oil companies.
this is wrong in so many ways i can’t articulate anything by my fury. i guess children born unwanted can stand as his legacy as well (he will never do anything to take care of them).
“This may not seem to make sense, but it makes perfect sense to me. The anti-abortion is not exactly just about preventing abortions. The bigger agenda is to populate the earth to its maximum and promote economic growth to its maximum.”
The planet cannot sustain “maximum population”. One could even argue we’ve exceeded what it can sustain. Any claim that states, it is the goal of this administration to encourage population of the earth is made out of whole cloth. This is no different than hardline christians and the Bush administration trying to re-define marriage. This is yet another Orwellian attempt by certain people in our government to push their peronal ideology on the rest of the country, if not the world. Typical of these latter day conservatives. We don’t like the way that word is being universally applied so lets change the definition. See also “pro-choice”, since republican’s don’t like the positive ring that has they feel the need to call it pro-abortion. The hardliners can’t even fathom the possibility that someone might actually be pro-choice, AND anti-abortion. In otherwords, keep the governemnt out of it, but still encourage and educate women on the price they are paying physically, and emotionally. Heck even through in whichever religious code you subscribe to, to disuade it, but the decision is still hers.