|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/18/2008 2:58:56 PM
|
|
|
p31woman
Posts: 651
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas, and now South Dakota
Status: offline
|
More:
The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims. In 1999, the physicians -- who, like the movement at large, define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization-- released an open letter to community stating:
"Recently, some special interest groups have claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods of contraception may have an abortifacient effect...The 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error...if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."
_____________________________
So don't let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat. These are a shadow of things that are coming, but the body is of the Messiah. Colossians 2:16-17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/18/2008 3:10:21 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6983
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
Maybe it isn't 'scientific rationale' but since the inserts in the packages claim that effect, can't we assume it's true? And doesn't the FDA have to approve those claims? If that is true, then the government has already agreed that chemical methods of birth control have an intended effect to kill an already live embryo...which is abortion.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/18/2008 3:11:37 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2367
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
There are many sources that say that hormonal bc is not an abortifacient... and usually the same sources tell you that sources will state this as fact, when it is in reality a hypthesis (if that's the right word). I remember some while back in morality/ethics there was a dispute about whether it was true or not, and I know I put several sources there that will say that bcp has not been proven to be an abortifacient. There are other women floating around (here) who know about how it's not been proven better than I. It's rough when you have literature that puts it opposing ways. But it's within everyone's right to believe it causes abortions, whether it's been scientifically proven (not said to have been proven, but actually been proven). It irks me when people state something is fact when it's opinion or the incorrect idea being spread, either way it goes, even if it's going against my own opinion. If it's fact, it's fact. Otherwise just tell it like it really is.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 12:30:28 PM
|
|
|
PrincessDonna
Posts: 10244
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Cow country, Upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception.
Does this mean they will no longer pay for women on welfare to have birth control? It'll never pass anyway...it's so opposite to what goes on now. Maybe I'm confused as to what it means though...
_____________________________
I will praise you, O Lord, among the nations;
I will sing of you among the peoples.
For great is your love, reaching to the heavens;
your faithfulness reaches to the skies.
~Psalm 57:9-10~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 2:59:43 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6983
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
That would certainly be better than attempting to force birth control on welfare recipients. And why just the women, anyway? Sigh. All I know is I had to be extremely forceful to get out of the appointment at Planned Parenthood that the welfare office made for me without asking, and then notified me of, and said it was mandatory!
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 3:24:15 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3212
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
If I understand rightly, the bill is to allow individual companies to not include hormonal contraception and IUD's and "emergency contraception" in their coverage by redefining it as abortifacient?
How how lovely, that these companies will not cover birth control but will cover viagra. I don't approve of pushing BC on women, but I don't approve of denying it them.
Don't for one second believe that some company would deny women BC pills out of morality, they just want to save money by not including in their health coverage. Many women don't have a lot of choices of which medical insursance to have, so they may wish to have BC pills but the men in suits decide to save money by claiming "moral objections".
Individual doctors and pharmasists may believe that BC is abortion (I don't), but a whole compnay? No, that's economics, pure and simple.
_____________________________
Don't ascribe to malice what could simply be incompetence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 3:30:31 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6983
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
There are health insurance providors that are part of religious organizations, and they do need the leeway to refuse to cover things that they believe are immoral.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 3:42:22 PM
|
|
|
PrincessDonna
Posts: 10244
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Cow country, Upstate NY
Status: offline
|
Well then...that's a whole different issue. Thanks, Maggie!
On that issue, as long as those hospitals/doctors who won't prescribe basic standard contraceptives will refer to someone who will if the patient wants, I don't see an issue.
There are things that I personally do not agree with that I do not think the government SHOULD disallow for all. It's not the government's place and you cannot push Christian morality on those who are not Christians, IMO, especially on issues like this where even Christians can't agree!
_____________________________
I will praise you, O Lord, among the nations;
I will sing of you among the peoples.
For great is your love, reaching to the heavens;
your faithfulness reaches to the skies.
~Psalm 57:9-10~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 3:43:57 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3212
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jenny-Fair
There are health insurance providors that are part of religious organizations, and they do need the leeway to refuse to cover things that they believe are immoral.
And what about the ones that just want to save money because BC pills aren't that profitable? What about the women who are stuck with one provider and they need BC for other legitimate reasons?
As far as not descrimating against anti-BC workers? I only approve of that if there is another worker there who will distribute. A woman who lives in a small town should not have to drive the next town over because the one pharmacist will not give her the pills her doctor perscribed.
_____________________________
Don't ascribe to malice what could simply be incompetence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 5:35:55 PM
|
|
|
Jenny-Fair
Posts: 6983
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: WA
Status: offline
|
One would think pills would be cheaper than maternity care, if cost is the issue.
I don't think anyone should be forced to help someone do something they feel is immoral. And that includes a person who happens to live in a small town. Why should my geography preclude my morals? That is neither sensible nor right.
_____________________________
Tony: Ziva, did you kill Houdini?
Ziva: It is possible. I do not remember all their names.
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 6:39:11 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3212
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jenny-Fair
One would think pills would be cheaper than maternity care, if cost is the issue.
You would think wouldn't you? Of course a lot of health care companies don't cover maternity either.
As for so-called, misguided professionals denying a woman the health care she needs in the form of BC pills, we're not going to agree on that, and it's not the topic of this thread.
_____________________________
Don't ascribe to malice what could simply be incompetence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/19/2008 11:28:29 PM
|
|
|
Mrs.Wifey
Posts: 5051
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Gorgeous plains of Colorado
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrincessDonna
quote:
How how lovely, that these companies will not cover birth control but will cover viagra. I don't approve of pushing BC on women, but I don't approve of denying it them.
I agree.
I also believe that BC pills can be used in a way so that they are NOT abortifacient (there is a poster here who has explained how she does this), not to mention they are not only prescribed for birth control reasons. 
Yup, I am one of those people who uses them to prevent cysts, we also use a barrier method to avoid any abortifacient properties that the pills may have.
I do not support birth control being forced on people, but I would not, at all, support a bill that said they don't have to be covered by insurance. Likewise, and pharmacist, as is the nature of their job should not be allowed to deny a person their medication because of their "morals". That's a load of baloney.
_____________________________
Ryanne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion - 7/21/2008 11:40:38 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2367
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jenny-Fair
One would think pills would be cheaper than maternity care, if cost is the issue.
You would think wouldn't you? Of course a lot of health care companies don't cover maternity either.
As for so-called, misguided professionals denying a woman the health care she needs in the form of BC pills, we're not going to agree on that, and it's not the topic of this thread.
I thought about putting a thread in morality/ethics about this. It's one of those medical ethics problems that always comes but never is agreed upon (esp. with ethical decisions with doctors, nurses and pharmacists). (Of course, I always have a different opinion than most anyway  .)
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
There are already insurance companies that don't pay for contraception, but do pay for Viagra and Cialis. I once had such a prescription "benefit" plan. Yep, I was paying $52 a month for a pill to control symptoms of endometriosis, while any man at our company could get a month's worth of Viagra for just $7.
I agree with Sideways:
quote:
As far as not descrimating against anti-BC workers? I only approve of that if there is another worker there who will distribute. A woman who lives in a small town should not have to drive the next town over because the one pharmacist will not give her the pills her doctor perscribed.
And it has nothing to do with small town morals. It has to do with the fact that there might only be one pharmacy in a small town v. a dozen or so in a larger one. There are pharmacists in my city that won't fill prescriptions for morning-after pills, but they are far outnumbered by those who will.
I agree as well; I remember once walking into bioethics (at my private but diverse Southern Baptist university) to hear half the class talking about viagra and the other half talking about bcp. Nice mix. :) (We did end up talking about the insurance aspect though-- how some companies pay for viagra but not bc; I don't even know what to say to that, other than IMO it's twisted.)
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
