Contraception: Is It Sometimes Abortion?

In response to Lorraine of NY

<i>"Does anyone realize how many women suffer post abortion trauma and remain in therapy a good portion of their lives because they actually killed their own flesh and blood?"</i> Actually, according to the American Psychological Association, the vast majority of Women who have an abortion, over 86% each year, report positive feelings after the abortion, most commonly relief. Those who do not should receive compassionate counseling to deal with their emotions. But to claim that most Women are psychologically traumatized by abortion is simply not true.

<i>"It's not natural. Look at the animal world. Females kill FOR their flesh and blood; DIE for their flesh and blood. This is an UNnatural act. Unhealthy physically, emotionally, and mentally. We aren't even living up to animal standards."</i>

Again, you do not know of what you speak. Animals have several methods of ending a pregnancy whenever they feel sufficiently threatened or there are not enough resources to feed offspring. We are no different than any other animal in existence. ALL female animals have the ability to end pregnancies they cannot keep, including human Women. Do a little research. It's quite natural for a wild animal to eat specific herbs and plants to induce a miscarriage OR eat her own offspring if she is stressed or starving after the birth.

<i>"They do not know what they are doing...until it's too late."</i>

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the vast majority of Women who have an abortion every year <b>are already mothers</b>. Thanks for your false concern, but Women know exactly what they're doing when they choose an abortion.

Your entire ignorant and over-emotional diatribe against abortion actually has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is should contraceptives be considered abortifacient and should doctors/pharmacists/clerks/etc be able to refuse to do their job whenever a patient needs contraception. You might want to catch up.

women's health?

In comment #1 Marian of PA wrote : "I'm concerned that the language in this policy is a step towards legally establishing that "human life" begins at conception. Such a standard would be incredibly destructive to women's health,..."

...especially considering that half of the babies aborted would be FEMALES!!!!!....duh...VERY bad for the health of those females, for sure! ha!

You've got to be kidding!

Does anyone realize how many women suffer post abortion trauma and remain in therapy a good portion of their lives because they actually killed their own flesh and blood? It's not natural. Look at the animal world. Females kill FOR their flesh and blood; DIE for their flesh and blood. This is an UNnatural act. Unhealthy physically, emotionally, and mentally. We aren't even living up to animal standards. What are we? Have we lost our consciences? Are we that cold and heartless?

We can pretend it isn't wrong, but it is and a huge price will be paid by the women who have to live with themselves and look at newborn babies, mark "would-be" birthdays, hear lullabies being sung. My heart breaks for them. They do not know what they are doing...until it's too late. Then they suffer inexpicable sorrow. Then who will help them pick up the pieces of their life? Certainly not the abortion "counselor" bullies who pushed them into snuffing out the life of their own child. They will be unavailable. The woman will be so very deeply and utterly alone...how "healthy" is that?

Freedom of conscience

Funny you should mention that: in Viginia there is now a 100% pro-life pharmacy where abortifacients and contraceptives will never be prescribed. I now forsee a parallel health network forming, one where human life is sacred, and one where life is just another commodity at the dispoal of those who are more powerful. Unborn babies, frail elderly, the disabled need health care workers to protect their right to life, and those who are wise will choose the prolife facilities before they are the weaker one in the equation, and someone decides their life has no purpose,and ends it.

Aldous Huxley predicted the terrifying situation we're approaching when he wrote his novel, "Brave New World".

To J.G.L.

When pharmacists and doctors are essentially acting as agents of the government, then yes, they should be required to provide services without imposing their religious beliefs on the women who are seeking those services.

In a nutshell, BC pills are regulated such that you cannot get them without a prescription from a doctor with a state-issued medical license, and you must then purchase them through a federally regulated and licensed pharmacist. When the goverment sees fit to require that these steps are taken by women seeking BC pills, then the goverment should also require that doctors and pharmacists refrain from injecting their religious beliefs into the process, because those doctors and pharmacists are acting as agents of the government.

When women and girls are give autonomy, the world will be a more peaceful place.

Let women be in control of their bodies. Allow women the freedom of autonomy. The world would be so much better if women did not have to worry about their sexuality being dominated by controlling men and their stupid policies regarding birth control and abortion.

There is scientific evidence that the Pill causes cancer

THAT's a compelling reason not to handle it as casually as chewing gum!

Don't you have any concern for your own lives?!

Read this and be wary of those who push the pill when they don't know the facts. They do NOT have your best interest at heart.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52585

Re: the Pill and impantation: An estimated 75% of all fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus in the first place, spontaneously terminate or just fail to develop, way before a woman even suspects that she's pregnant. There are so many factors of what can go awry (hormone levels and irregulaities, genetic irregularities in the gametes, physical irregularities in the uterine lining, environmental factors) and most of them go undetected and do not affect future successful pregnancies. Is anyone really going to claim a species-wide miscarriage rate of 75%? I don't think so.

Re: ovulation and the Pill: yes,pharmeceutical contraception does not 100% prevent ovulation in all women, but it usually does. When it doesn't, the chances of that egg being fertilized are low to begin with, unless a woman is having unprotected intercourse with a man every single day of the month (and even then - lots of variables, depending on the sexual viability of the sperm, etc.).

Are we really going to start preventing the use of any medication based on the way it may function in a minority of people taking it? Especially when it's a medication with variable effects based on factors including behavior (i.e. if you skip doses at a certain time, you might ovulate, which may result in fertilization)?

One of the effects of the Pill is thinning the uterine lining, which can inhibit implantation - it does not actively attack a fertilized egg. From what I've been told, if a woman does become pregnant (i.e. the fertilized egg implants), the Pill would not END that pregnancy (it mgiht affect hormone levels long term if continued, but it wouldn't STOP the pregnancy). If it does not END a pregnancy, then it's not an abortifacient. To equate the two is not scientifically accurate.

There are just too many unpredictable variables to use blanket restrictions that would affect everyone taking an otherwise safe and effective medication.

Re: abortions and "convenience" - abortion is usually a difficult decision for the woman and anyone else she chooses to involve in the decision. It isn't something "convenient," it causes money, and time, and pain, and mental distress, and is something that often stays with women as a "what if," even when they are firmly OK with their ultimate decision. How is any of that convenient? They should be legal, safe, and rare, and I'll work to keep them that way. One way is to prevent them from being necessary in the first place, which is what the Pill does.

These laws are all coming from an assumption that a provider's or pharmacist's "morals" are more important than the patient's morals who is seeking care. I believe that many people have not stopped to think what a system where the doctor or other health care provider is always "right" even if it conflicts with the patient's morals and desires for their own health care would truly be like.

A doctor does not have the right to force you to undergo any medical condition or procedure. You must consent to anything that happens to you. And doctors further have the responsibility of referring you to the care that you need even if they, personally, do not believe in it. With this, that is all effectively changed and the power in the patient/health care provider relationship is taken from the patient and rests solely with the health care provider. Do we, as a society, want doctor's to be the agents responsible for our health care or do WE want to remain responsible for what happens to us?

Contraception only affects Women (and secondarily the men who care about Women) therefore it is an easy tool to manipulate support for a much more broad issue. The bigger picture, however, is one that would be far harder to swallow for most Americans.

I was once told during a civil rights course that the law exists to balance the interests of two parties in virtually every situation. In this situation, we are being asked to swallow that doctor's and other health care providers need protection from being fired for refusing to do even the most basic portions of their job (referring when they disagree). That they need this in order to be conscienable people. No one is really taking time to look at the other side of the equation, the conscience of the patient - which is the side that the vast majority of US will fall on during our lives.

What about MY morals? What about MY Health Care? I find it the height of lunacy to pander to people who refuse to do the jobs that they CHOSE (no one forced them to become involved in health care) especially when it has the propensity to negatively affect my health and life. You don't get to decide what is moral or not about another human being's HEALTH CARE decisions. That is THEIR HEALTH. You don't play politics with another person's HEALTH.

I know many Women - my mother, grandmother, myself, my sister, several cousins and many friends - who rely upon birth control for a HEALTHIER LIFE. My mother needed it to deal with cysts and uterine fibroids, my grandmother needed it when it first hit the market because she simply could not afford to go through another pregnancy and birth, I use it due to endometriosis, my sister used it in conjunction with some anti-depressants to stabilize her mood throughout the month, one cousin used it to clear up severe acne, another used it following a miscarriage so that she could become healthy for a future pregnancy, a good friend DEPENDS on it because she has an uncontrolled seizure disorder, and another friend needs it because her Cancer medications would create a deformed fetus.

If health care professionals are not required to do even the bare minimum of their jobs - refer us to someone who will fill our prescriptions and give us the care we need - then WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? Why is their morality more important than the PAIN and bleeding I have to deal with whenever I am not using birth control? Why is MY morality and my desire to live as painless an existence as possible NOT the most important issue in this?

Doctors and other health care workers have NEVER been FORCED to do anything they don't choose to do. They are simply required to refer patients whenever the job is something they disagree with. What is so hard about ensuring that an Actual Human Being gets the care they need to live a healthier life?

"Most abortions are matters of convenience, not a matter of life, death or health. The mother wants an abortion because the child's father wont divorce his wife, she or the father doesn't want to be responsible for another person, etc. etc."

This comment from up-thread reminded me of something: Back in the day, pre-Roe, many of us attended hearing at the state legislature on bills legalizing abortion. There were the usual complement of activists from all sides of the issue. And various state reps stopped by to testify or comment or show their support for one side or the other. During one particularly contentious hearing, a very prosperous-looking, crisp, tanned, self-satified gentleman stepped forward and said, "We all know the only women who need abortions are broads to get knocked up in hotel rooms."

Conscience in DC's words are a bit more polite, but basically, exactly the same: the only judgment that counts is my own; the only reason for a abortion is the one I can imagine; women deserve to be punished for sexuality; those who don't live as I do deserve no consideraton. Nice.

The Pill

It's simple: The Pill is legal for a host of reasons, not including birth control.

A doctor and a pharmacist are licensed by the state. If they have moral objections to dispensing medical care, it's easy.

QUIT! GIVE UP YOUR LICENSE. Stop practicing.

If you're not willing to follow the law, then you need to find another job.