HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> Women Only



Message

p31woman -> HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/18/2008 1:28:56 PM)

An excerpt from the article:

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion.

ETA: I wouldn't normally link to a HuffPo article [8|], but a friend emailed this to me. What are your thoughts?



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/18/2008 2:23:34 PM)

I don't think they're being very clear. "Contraception" includes everything from NFP to IUD's to the Pill. Surely HHS isn't redefining condom use as abortion?

If they are categorizing certain hormonal contraception and IUD's as potentially abortifacient, there's science to back it up, and obviously I wouldn't have problem with it.



p31woman -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/18/2008 2:58:56 PM)

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."



Jenny-Fair -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/18/2008 3:10:21 PM)

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.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/18/2008 3:11:37 PM)

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.



Jenny-Fair -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/18/2008 3:19:43 PM)

THIS ARTICLE covers the issue nicely, and even states that the Physician's Desk Reference agrees. I would check my copy, but it's still packed.

Of course, some people re-define 'abortion' so that it doesn't count.[8|]



PrincessDonna -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 12:30:28 PM)

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...



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 2:58:10 PM)

I've been thinking about this.

To hear some talk (I've seen this story discussed on a secular site), this is the government banning contraception. "It's the Handmaid's Tale! Run for the hills!" [8|]

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?



Jenny-Fair -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 2:59:43 PM)

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!



Sideways -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 3:24:15 PM)

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.



Jenny-Fair -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 3:30:31 PM)

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.



PrincessDonna -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 3:31:08 PM)

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.[8|]



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 3:38:24 PM)

So, I finally read a full article.

The one I read was in the NY Times.

It's not at all what I was thinking.[&:]

The redefinition is part of an antidiscrimination proposal--so that any organizations recieving federal aid can't discriminate against pro-life healthcare workers or pro-life organizatiosn (like hospitals) who do not want to participate in abortion or the distribution of potentially abortifacient birth control.

It has nothing to do with coverage or distribution of birth control but with the hiring/firing of individuals with moral qualms about certain forms of bc.



PrincessDonna -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 3:42:22 PM)

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!



Sideways -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 3:43:57 PM)

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.



Jenny-Fair -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 5:35:55 PM)

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.



Sideways -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 6:39:11 PM)

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.



Mrs.Wifey -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/19/2008 11:28:29 PM)

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.[8|]


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.



stellaluna -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/20/2008 10:16:16 AM)

Sounds to me like an effort to move women toward actual abortion instead of trying to prevent pregnancy in the first place. [8|]

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.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion (7/21/2008 11:40:38 AM)

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 [8D].)

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.)



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI