Author: has written 9 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

17 Responses

  1. Rebecca
    Rebecca July 19, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    Ugh. Given that 5/6 of fertilized eggs don’t implant at all, it’s ridiculous that they should be using this unscientific definition of pregnancy as beginning at conception.

    (I wonder if this reasoning could be applied to doctors and abortion proviers who find it morally abhorrent to read off the administrated-mandated false information to their patients? Thou shalt not bear false witness, after all.)

  2. Rebecca
    Rebecca July 19, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    Ugh. Given that 5/6 of fertilized eggs don’t implant at all, it’s ridiculous that they should be using this unscientific definition of pregnancy as beginning at conception.

    (I wonder if this reasoning could be applied to doctors and abortion proviers who find it morally abhorrent to read off the administration-mandated false information to their patients? Thou shalt not bear false witness, after all.)

  3. Head exploding quietly… « Mom’s Tinfoil Hat

    [...] I subscribe to have been addressing it: feministing (they get the best photo accompaniment award), feministe, women’s health news, and RH reality check. Many of these sites have more than one post on [...]

  4. amandaw
    amandaw July 19, 2008 at 6:48 pm |

    It’s not just contraception. Nearly every prescription drug I can think of would at least skirt the line of this definition, and most of those have *nothing to do* with family planning, at all. If this became the bright line, life would be very much changed for a vast group of people in this country. All women, of course.

  5. ThickRedGlasses
    ThickRedGlasses July 20, 2008 at 10:12 pm |

    Because anti-choicers hate birth control, they don’t use it. And because they don’t use it, it only makes sense that they’ve fertilized more eggs/had more of their eggs fertilized than those who use birth control. And because most fertilized eggs never become pregnancies for whatever reason (sometimes unintentionally through the woman’s actions), most of those fertilized eggs were flushed away with the woman’s period. So doesn’t that mean that, under this definition of abortion, anti-choicers have already had abortions — and more of them — than pro-choicers?

  6. Rebecca
    Rebecca July 21, 2008 at 12:07 am |

    “..explicitly allow medical providers to morally coerce patients and to discriminate against girls and women who want or need a service or a prescription which they are allowed to have by law…” I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THOSE IN THE HEALTH CARE FIELD FROM BEING FORCED TO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT THEY ARE AGAINST FOR MORAL AND/OR RELIGIOUS REASONS. JUST AS WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE, PEOPLE WORKING IN THIS PROFESSION SHOULD ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER THEY WILL PROVIDE OR NOT PROVIDE CONTRACEPTION AND/OR ABORTION. Think about it. A patient can always find another doctor who is pro-choice. If they don’t want morality shoved down their throat, then, they should just go somewhere else for care like Planned Parenthood. However, the physician who does not agree with prescribing contraception or doing abortions may have their job in jeopardy if these safeguards are not in place. Plus, I don’t think they would morally coerce any patient to do anything they don’t want to do, although, in my experience, doctors have tried to STRONGLY persuade me to get on the Pill. I hear the rhetoric on a woman’s right to choose….so it’s my right to choose what I want to do to my body and I don’t want to use birth control so don’t shove contraception down my throat please.) I’ve done my research on contraception and abortion, and I’ve found it to have mostly negative consequences for women, physically and psychologically. Not only that, it’s a grave insult to me as a woman. Please go out there and research both sides of the issue!!

  7. Planned Parenthood Summit, Day One : The Curvature

    [...] and sunshine. As you may remember, on Tuesday the 15, while we were all in transit to the summit, the Bush administration apparently began work on a new DHHS rule that would set back reproductive health big time. A quick summary: the rule would force any health [...]

  8. Charity
    Charity July 21, 2008 at 6:05 pm |

    By the way, there is now a link to sign a petition to Sec. Leavitt supporting Clinton / Murray…it would be awesome if you could add it to the post as an update, or something else to call attention to it!

    The petition: http://www.hillpac.com/action/hhspetition/

    I found it at Shakesville via this post:

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-is-what-leadership-looks-like.html

  9. Feministe » Clinton Fights On
    Feministe » Clinton Fights On July 21, 2008 at 8:38 pm |

    [...] in related reading, Marcella wrote about another offense by the Bush administration earlier this week in which they want special protection for anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive medical providers [...]

  10. ThickRedGlasses
    ThickRedGlasses July 21, 2008 at 9:37 pm |

    Rebecca (6th post), “Go somewhere else” is not always an option for women, especially if they live in rural areas or have certain insurance plans that don’t cover contraception. As it is, many women travel 50-100 miles to get an abortion, because 80% of US counties have no abortion provider. Women should have plenty of doctors to choose from when getting such personal healthcare. We shouldn’t have to go from one doctor to another to another to another because they refuse to do part of the job that they were hired to do. If you don’t want to prescribe birth control or perform abortions, don’t become the kind of doctor that does that. It’s really very simple. Just like I don’t want to perform cosmetic surgery, I’m not going to become a cosmetic surgeon. According to the logic of this new rule, I should be able to become a cosmetic surgeon, not do the job based on my moral values, and still rake in the dough. That’s completely unfair.

    Also, you are making a sweeping generalization when you say that, because of your limited research, abortion and contraception are bad for women. There are women who are happy with their decision to have an abortion or contraceptives, and there are women who regret that decision. Everybody’s different. Pro-choicers don’t advocate for anything more than the right for women to make their own personal decisions about family planning. I would rather a woman regret having an abortion or using contraceptives than not having a say in the matter at all. Regret is a possible consequence of making a choice. If you don’t want to ever regret anything again, simply let someone else make your decisions for you. Is that what you want for women? That might save women from regretting anything, but it completely strips away their humanity.

  11. Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)
    Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca) July 21, 2008 at 11:22 pm |

    Whoa, dude, someone else with my name.

    One difference would be that pharmacists and women’s clinic workers enter that profession with the knowledge that they will be expected to, y’know, dispense medicines and provide women’s health services. If providing those services is against one’s religion, one should, obviously, not enter that profession. My usual example is that of an Orthodox Jew or Hindu expecting not to be fired for refusing to handle burgers at a McDonalds.

    I agree that your doctor shouldn’t try to “force” birth control on you, but the situation isn’t parallel: you are not obliged to take it, whereas in cases where pharmacists won’t provide birth control that has already been prescribed, the woman cannot just take it from behind the counter.

    Likewise, even if BC has harmful effects on some women, this is no reason to stop others who want it from getting it.

    It’s not about obliging everyone to take birth control and have abortions. It’s about the choice to begin, end, or carry to term a pregnancy.

    (Your other points have already been dealt with by other commenters, I believe.)

  12. News Round-Up | Dr. Johnson’s Cat
    News Round-Up | Dr. Johnson’s Cat July 23, 2008 at 12:37 am |

    [...] Bush Administration Promotes Discriminatory Practices Related To Birth Control. [...]

  13. Stop The Craziness
    Stop The Craziness July 26, 2008 at 3:35 pm |

    #6 Rebecca: It’s a grave insult to me that I must read crazy talk from the likes of you. Please respect my rights to a sane environment…go elsewhere to discuss your problem with doctors trying to “strongly persuade” you to take contraception pills. Hmmm, maybe there’s a good reason for that. One more thing…STOP SHOUTING VIA CAPS.

  14. Bush Officially Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS Rule : The Curvature

    [...] You know that potential DHHS rule that pro-choice organizations and feminists have been going on abo… The one that says organizations which receive government funding cannot discriminate against those who choose to exercise their “conscience” on matters of abortion — and redefines “abortion” to cover hormonal contraception? [...]

  15. Feministe » Bush Officially Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS Rule

    [...] Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS RuleBush Officially Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS Rule : The Curvature on Bush Administration Promotes Discriminatory Practices Related To Birth ControlFive Months Left, Time To Show The Women Who’s Boss | Andrew Daniller on Bush Officially [...]

  16. Obama wouldn’t care if they confiscated my uterus « XXBlaze

    [...] there is this nasty story about the federal government’s newest scheme to reassert dominance over the wayward uterus [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.