Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

White House Tries to Define Contraception As Abortion

By Cristina Page, RH Reality Check. Posted July 16, 2008.


The Department of Health and Human Services is dismissing medical experts and instead using a definition of pregnancy based on polling data.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
78 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Cristina Page

RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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 percent of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. The "Definitions" section of the HHS proposal states,

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49 percent of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

The proposal continues,

Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science.

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 percent 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."

As the HHS proposal proves, the absence of fact or evidence does not slow anti-abortion movement attempts to classify hormonal contraception as abortion. With HHS' proposal they have struck gold. Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding -- even in the form of Medicaid -- and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so. As the HHS proposal details,
Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. As discussed above, both definitions of pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical community. The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion. (emphasis mine)

So HHS proposes that anyone can enforce his or her own definition of abortion "within the bounds of reason." And, it would seem the bounds are pretty far flung. Most dangerously, perhaps, this new rule establishes a legal precedent that may eventually be used as a basis for banning the most popular forms of birth control along with what is, in fact, abortion.
  • 1
View as a single page

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, pregnancy, contraception

Cristina Page is the author of 'How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America' (Perseus Books, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


AlterNet Home » Story Tools: email EMAILprint PRINT 78 COMMENTS
Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
I hate these people.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 16, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to talk about scientific proof - there's no scientific proof that an institution has a conscience. HUMANS have consciences, not organizations.

These smug bastards want to outlaw BOTH contraception and abortion. Gee, if they made contraception readily available there would be fewer abortions, but they're incapable of thinking that one through.

Of course, if they stick with what they actually wrote - we can leave it up to the individual's conscience. Okay, my conscience says that human life begins sometime after an individual's 43rd birthday; and I've got a score to settle with my 42-year-old neighbor...

... I might need something bigger than a coat hanger, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I hate these people. Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: I hate these people. Posted by: mnstra
Peripherial Victories...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: CatDad on Jul 16, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roe v. Wade will NEVER be overturned by the Right's cronies on the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade is simply too invaluable to them....It's been providing millions of votes for the GOP for at least 25 years now.

Rather, the Right has learned that they can keep the conned "Culture of Life" people at bay by giving them peripheral victories, such as this conception at life tactic....Another such tactic is being used in North Dakota, where doctors may soon be forced to read some statement to women having abortions that it may cause harm to them....Again, a peripheral victory while at the same time, legal access to abortion remains the law of the land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peripherial Victories... Posted by: Crazy H
I'd like to see what EncinoM, gellero1, Libertarian Paternalist, etc ... have to say on this one.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 16, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's bad enough that America is dragging itself into wars for oil killing millions of innocent civilians and going out of its way to let the NRA turn this country into a shoot-out nation as if America's love for guns and death weren't enough. And what about improving the quality of lives in this country? Healthcare is damaged thanks to Big Insurance, Big Food, Big Media, corporate polluters, etc ... The market is RIGGED to keep electric cars more expensive than the internal combustion engines which emit all those toxic chemicals responsible for the deaths and defects of millions of fetuses. A country that's run by motherfuckers the likes of Peter Griffin and Johnny Bravo is indeed so dysfunctional like Thomas Frank pointed out.

P.S.: Don't worry. "Abortions" will still go on. The more the Religious Rightwing Motherfuckers keep this going, the more GOD WILL CONTINUE TO SEVERELY PUNISH AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION as if it's not bad enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Catholic Right is the next wave
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 16, 2008 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Evangelical Right is going down in flames - they don't even the credibility or the clout left to stop their own publishers (Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, etc.) from publishing books that question the doctrine of Hell and call on evangelicals to put aside abortion and care a lot more about poverty and global warming. But the Catholic Right, I suspect, will be with us for a long time, backed up by an international organization capable of multi-generational planning and hierarchical leadership.

One of the under-reported stories of the whole Bush administration is, in my view, the extent to which Bush has sallied up to uniquely Catholic right-wing causes, such as restricting birth control and forcing the terminally ill to remain alive. Most evangelical Christians were repulsed by the Schiavo theatrics, which ran counter to the resolutions passed by most of their own denominations, but Bush did it to get Benedict's backing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keeping them barefoot, pregnant, and uneducated...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mercury613 on Jul 16, 2008 1:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is the Bush agenda for women. What easier way to control them?

I hope every woman who is outraged by this story travels to the White House to personally bitch slap our idiot leader's smug face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And don't forget underpaid. Posted by: Blondinista
Mike Leavitt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Dboy on Jul 16, 2008 1:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dept of Health and Human Services is run by Mike Leavitt. You'd think that "Health and Human Services" would be run by maybe a:

1) doctor (nope)

2) healthcare professional (nope)

3) someone experienced in social services (nope)

4) a health nut, marathon runner maybe? (heck no)

5) at the very LEAST, some Ph.D in dire need of a "real job" (nope)


Mr. Leavitt holds an undergrad degree in Econ/Business from Southern Utah State. Waiting for more resume? There isn't one. And yes, he's a mormon. What any of his background has to do with running anything important, I have no idea.

I recommend a radical change in which people who actually know things get to run the thing having to do with the thing they know, and if they don't know anything related to anything that needs running, then they don't get to run anything.


dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mike Leavitt Posted by: mercury613
We all knew this was coming
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blondinista on Jul 16, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It goes hand-in-hand with the dumb-assed abstinence-only sex education programs in schools. Keeping girls and women living in fear and ignorance is a form of control.

But since we've had our freedom to choose for so long, it'll be difficult for them to take it away. I hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chatty Jane
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Chattyjane on Jul 16, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what BIG Pharma has to say about this. Contraception is a huge revenue for them. Where are the damn lobbyists when we need them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chatty Jane Posted by: Blondinista
What are they thinking, anyway?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blondinista on Jul 16, 2008 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does the religious right want us all to be like those Quiverfull crazies, shooting babies out of our wombs like kernels from a hot air corn popper? That wacky group's aim is to raise an army for Jesus. They'd be sorely disappointed with MY tribe of godless heathens!

Nope - gotta only be about controlling women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So if 49%
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jackyD on Jul 16, 2008 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of those polled by Zogby feel that life begins at conception, that leaves 51% of polled participants who believe otherwise. Two questions for HHS: Shouldn't you be paying attention to the majority opinion? But more importantly, why in hell are you basing law on a Zogby poll? Oh that's right, you're all a bunch of self-loathing pricks who will use any excuse to dismantle the hard-won rights and protections of others as long as it doesn't affect you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WTF???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wirewitch on Jul 16, 2008 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me, but am I the only one who caught that scary choice of words in this proposal: Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.
Hello?
The "destruction of a human being"?
That inflammatory language is not the definition of the termination of a pregnancy that you will find in a medical textbook.
It is, however, the "frame" used by the Right (who are so often wrong, when it comes to science...: Global warming and Intelligent Design, anyone?)

And another thought this truly disturbing trend gives rise to:
Now that these pinheads would like to start basing gov't policy on poll results, will we be seeing a new flag with 49 stars, because so many ignorant fools out there believe that New Mexico is not part of the United States???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WTF??? Posted by: rickiey
» RE: WTF??? Posted by: wirewitch
insurance premiums will soar!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fomented on Jul 16, 2008 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is ridiculous. Only the richest 1% will be able to afford insurance, run out of one office in Poughkeepsie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I support abortion and contraception because I am conservative.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: European American on Jul 16, 2008 8:35 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd prefer poor and low income women never conceive or birth children that they can not afford. I do not want to see any more of my hard earned money confiscated to support these parasites. Because Republicans seem to share my loathing for welfare programs, it makes no sense that they would want an increase in the population that exploits them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Satire! Posted by: tulugaq
Intellectual Vandals
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jul 17, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the expression that best describes Mike Leavitt, everyone who supports his position, and those HE supports.

The fact that a totally unqualified man can have this much power proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is unqualified to even have a family.

Yes, he is unqualified to have a family. He is UNQUALIFIED.

Here is another fact, Mike, since you are totally unclear about the simplest concepts. The end of life is indicated when there is brain death. When there are no brain waves a person is medically, clinically, and legally dead.

A mass or lump of tissue - a collection of cells - that may or may not be spontaneously aborted by 'god' at some point in a woman's pregnancy, has no brain waves until WELL INTO THE FIRST TRIMESTER. Thus, that collection of cells is not a person or a human or a child. It is merely a POTENTIAL person. If there are no brain waves, there is nothing except a collection of cells.

The very definition of human life must include brain wave activity. Do you hear me, Mike? I'm talking to YOU, you moron.

Thus, legally, medically, clinically, and even 'morally' there is no human present until a medical doctor can detect brain wave activity in a fetus.

There's your definition of whether you can abort or not. If you have brain waves your 'personhood' is started. If there are no brain waves you are NOT PRESENT.

Get it? It's pretty simple. There's your dividing line. It's medically accurate and it's a good place to determine whether an abortion has taken place or whether a murder has possibly taken place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

takes 2 to tango...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ellie on Jul 17, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if contraception is banned then the only option a woman has is celibacy... how many guys are going to become celibate??? bring on the chastity belt industry again, but this time, women get to keep the key...

you going to trust Levitt, the guy who almost burned the utah governor's mansion to the ground in the early '90's because of bad christmas tree lights???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was told that if I voted for JFK
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bitsfick on Jul 17, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the pope would rule america, I voted for JFK, and guess what the pope is ruling america.

Too many Christians, not enough lions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

making sex-discrimination legal
[Report this comment]
Posted by: luzmejor on Jul 17, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, this hatred against women who use contraceptives is an attempt to criminalize women just because they are female.

Let's not forget that the right wing's genuine worry about the status of marriage is actually male anxiety that their legal domestic slaves will somehow get out of their marriage-related servitude contracts.

Anyone voting for this bill can fairly be accused of intending to make prejudice legal again.

Since prejudice always gets more demanding and suspicious, passing legislation like this would inexorably lead to regular bodily inspections of any female over the age of 10.

It would happen quickly here in the USA because our population does love to "pile on" in schoolyard fights.

I recall when abortion and contraceptives were illegal that women (and little girls too) were denied reasonable care by doctors becase they might incriminate themselves and so ruin their reputations and livelihoods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Correction Posted by: tulugaq
wow.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dannrusso on Jul 17, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm horrified to be of the same species as this guy AND the guy who hired him to run what is arguably the most contentious organization (although at this point they all might be) in the US.

Where are those Irish Citizenship papers again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leavitt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: luzmejor on Jul 17, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't bother talking to morons. The only thing they can hear is coming from their biological clocks.

Tap into the brain waves of any fetus worshipper and you will find a frightened man. They are as afraid of the possibility of not being born as they are of the possibility of dying after being born.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

omg ignorant lawyers are NOT doctors!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cyr3n on Jul 17, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these ignorant policyholders fail to realize that birthcontrol pills are also used as a non-surgical treatment for ovarian cysts. wtf are they doing defining medical terms anyway? They cant even wrap their heads around how stem-cell research doesnt involve aborted fetuses. They probably still think cortizone is made from cat testicles. These asshats have no business mucking around in bioethics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

women have 1 in 4 chance of being murderers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cyr3n on Jul 17, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ha~ by definition every time a woman miscarries she's a heathen murderer!! That woman getting IVF is a serial murderer. quick! lock her up! the streets will be safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The soul
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cybershaman on Jul 17, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice how these people, who make a show of their religious sensibilities, never mention the soul in all of their arguments. It is because, at the heart of their thinking, they are a body worshipper. The arguments used to manipulate them are all based on a fear of death and the exaltation of the ego (personality).
The idea that the body is only a temporary repository for the soul is never considered. In their worldview the soul is created at conception, and if the body dies the soul is destroyed with it. It is the height of narcissism and ignores the immortality and immutablitity of the soul.
Think about this, if a blastocyst can be defined as a 'human being' then anything that happens to that clump of cells has to be investigated by our justice system. If a woman has a miscarriage she will have to be fully investigated to determine if there was any neglect or abuse of the fetus. Didn't eat a good enough diet while pregnant? Smoke? YOU HAD A GLASS OF WINE? Cuff her Dano!
And, considering the high perscentage of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in the uterine wall, we better have urine filters installed on our toilets that will collect that blastocyst for proper burial...
There's a lot of future insanity to be harvested from these seeds of wiz dumb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take Action
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chi86 on Jul 17, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Glad I'm not the only one horrified by this.
and Leavitt's phone number: 202-690-7000,
courtesy of Bitch:
http://www.bitchmagazine.org/blogs
There is also a link to NARL to let congress know how you feel

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do women vote for conservatives?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jul 17, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Easy Answer... Posted by: LeaderofMen
Special homes paid for by the religious right needed.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jul 17, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, so now we need these religious hacks to stand up, open their wallets and pay to construct and maintain children's homes around the nation.

When someone has an unwanted child, all they need to do is place him/her into a basket and deliver them to these homes to be raised by nut-cases who think they know more than anyone else just because "they say so"

Imagine trying to feed people in India and China if these same nut cases had their say about procreation there. Soon they would not need to worry about abortion because starvation would control the population.

Or everyone could revive the Shaker religion and let humanity die out perhaps?

Only the goof-ball in the white house now would listen to this crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proof that an abortion is a living, breathing thing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Jul 17, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bush
cheney
rice
perino
leavitt

et al

et al

et al

These are all walking around breathing(probably through their mouths).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

could they succeed?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jul 17, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given the climate over on last weeks boards regarding Feminism and how Feminists of Color do not have the same agenda as the Movement as a whole, I am seriously wondering if this piece of Hate-Legislation will actually pass if not enough feminists come together to fight it. I guess the Right-WingNuts decide which issue Feminists focus on, not feminists.

This issue, the right of ALL women to access birth control, is the Fight At Hand that all women need to unite behind so that this right is not taken away from us.

Personally I am really tired of fighting misogyny. Its about damn-freakin' time that attacks on women stop. Soon, christianity will be exposed for the lie that it is and hopefully people will see that the dogma is dangerous. It makes people think they are better than others or have more... eh hem... moral authority. A moral authority that they think they can legislate. I would think that their god would be seriously angry for taking such a pretentious attitude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: could they succeed? Posted by: mizani
» RE: could they succeed? Posted by: WyrdSister
...and Now?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Jul 17, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for an illuminating (and distressing) article.

My question is: Now What?

I am unfamiliar with the rule-making process applicable to DHS. Now that the proposed changes have been published what is the likelihood they'll be translated into law or an operational rule?

Is it a done deal?

Do they have to be vetted through a Congressional Committee & voted into law?

Is the threat these changes will be implemented imminent or only potential and dependent on a long process?

The article would have been that much better had it answered these questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ...and Now? Posted by: greatina
Life began millions of years ago.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lywog on Jul 17, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life doesn't begin at conception or birth. It is passed on from living people through the reproductive process. A fertilized egg is not new life any more than every sperm or egg is a new life. Or should we try to save every sperm cell, since it is obviously alive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contraception
[Report this comment]
Posted by: modeler on Jul 17, 2008 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would have been a blessing for the United States if a certain Barbara had used it about 61 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bureaucrats Gone Wild
[Report this comment]
Posted by: westomoon on Jul 17, 2008 12:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's three months before the Presidential election, six months before a new President takes office, and Mr. Bush's appointees are trying to put through a new regulation to gratify the lunatic fringe of the extreme right? This is clearly not meant to affect national policy -- ya hafta wonder if it's some kind of move in a Mormon power game. Maybe Mr. Secretary is amassing points toward becoming Grand High Poobah of the LDS?

This just strengthens my belief that Obama's first act upon taking office should be to sign an Executive Order rescinding every formal executive decision since December 2000. At this point, the bureaucracy is riddled with crazy little toxic neocon treasures like this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let MEN carry the children
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lovercat2942 on Jul 17, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may be a bit off point, but I bet that if men, especially some of these hard-right senators and Congressmen, had to go through pregnancy and give birth to children, their attitude would change pretty damn quickly. We'd be hearing very little, if anything, about curtailing abortion rights, that's for damn sure.

Seriously, this issue just reeks of sexism. Let the men have their Viagra and not allow the women contraception. Now THAT makes sense....NOT!!!

And lest there be any misunderstanding, I am a man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let MEN carry the children Posted by: ranchero42
'How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America'
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Starfall Deception on Jul 17, 2008 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cristina Page's book is really good. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to Take Action
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greatina on Jul 17, 2008 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I wrote this post the HHS proposal had not been formally released, it was leaked, and so there was no information about it or vehicle for public comment available on HHS' website or any other. My understanding of how the process will unfold is that once HHS does release the proposal it will allow a 30 day public comment period and there should be a way to register your views about the proposal directly on HHS' site. For the time being, I would check in with the groups monitoring the progress of the proposal. They will be the first to have information on when and how best to respond. Here are the groups' websites to check for updates:

Birth Control Watch
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

Sorry not to have included this information in the original post. Cristina Page

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The favorite tactic of the Right
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Jul 18, 2008 2:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Right likes to torture, abuse, discipline and otherwise beat those unwilling to submit to The Word as interpreted by differing HUMAN beings; eg Dogmas. Their favorite contemporary practice has been (given the reluctance to exercise this too much in the physical realms) is to torture and abuse the language until it 'gives'. The trick always is to put words on The Rack and other Instruments (hermeneutical and exegetical exercises) and stretch them so far out they 'spill over' into the In-human and non-human realms -- that realm of Biblical Literalness. And that is the Book and the Dictionary and the Encyclopedia that Rules.

It will always reduce to The Word; and this word will be subjected to such inordinate and continuous torture and repetition until it 'gives up the ghost' and does exactly and precisely what they want. And what they want is the Bible, the Whole Bible and Nothing but the Bible. Any other source of authority is not only illegitimate, it is Sinful and it is therefore taboo and prohibited.

These people like to suffer and to make suffer. It's the tactic of choice for them. Dismal news is that they're making inroads everywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Payback
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bobtr900 on Jul 18, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is payback to the Pope for him transfering the Catholic vote to the Repub party, thus keeping the Repub's in power and giving the Pope power he sholud not have and should not even want, but does.

Now that power has corrupted both of them. Both are now part of the same cabal of torture, death and destruction. Both have become part of the same 'Culture of Death' for profits and ever more political power.

These powers are addictive and corrupting.

And neither of them are done with us yet. Us being America first and then someday the entire world. That is hwy we are likely to have WWIII()the ME), WWIV(Russia and China) and possibly even WWV(Europe). And all taking place before this century is over.

Just look at what St. Reagan started and George W has now pushed into full bloom. Just look at what Jeb Bush is doing in Florida to theocratize the entire state.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And now they have that power. And just look at what they have done with it. Both the RR's and the Rethug party have done contemptible and corrupt acts. Torture, death and destruction are almost the penultimate of such acts but there have been many more that are below the radar and so far above the radar that they are almost no longer visible.

The penultimate act must be the taking or the misleading of souls that belong only to the human being as given by the Creator.

Their total inability to reconcile women as being human beings that are not to be exploited for religious reasons is one that is so far above the radar that it is overlooked. As they disrespect women so to do they disrespect God and by equal measures.

The Catholic Church, my religion, is and has been at the very core of this disrespect for women, and for almost 2000yrs(2008-33-100). That then begs the question is anyone capable of stopping the Church or it's handmaiden the Repub party.

No one has been able to stop it for 2000yrs. And now that it has hooked up with the Repub party and the Bush family it has formed a Faustian pact. Mayhap their pact will change or destroy them both as their agenda of torture, death and destruction for religio-political reasons betrays them and their agenda and possibly will condemn them both.

I joined Rev. Barry Lynn, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Jesus said it must be that way and that is good enough for me.

When a religion enters politcs it ceases to be a religion. Quite possibly Satan has tempted both, and they have succumbed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "Holy" Roman Empire Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: The "Holy" Roman Empire Posted by: Ocean tides
The Truth Is Not What You Claim
[Report this comment]
Posted by: al007italia on Jul 18, 2008 10:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article claims that the HHS definition of Conception is the new one. That IS A BLATENT LIE. Up to the 60s everyone including the AMA defines pregnancy as beginning at conception, NOT implantattion. The change was made because even back then it was proven that the pill did cause an abortion by preventing the embryo from being implanted.

I also find the comment policy hypocracy, plain & simple. No personal attacks huh? Most of the comments are personal attacks on the pro-life people. Nothing with hateful language huh? 1 comment is titled "I Hate These People".

For a group that is supposed to be so tolerant you have proven yourselves the most intollerent people I have ever met.

May God have mercy on you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Defining an unfertilized eggas life?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rodfarrell on Jul 19, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about contraception like Mirena? It prohibits eggs from entering the uterine canal at all. How does that fit into their world view? Would they go so far as defining an unfertilized egg, not yet within the uterine canal as “life”?

Wouldn’t, logically, then they have to consider a woman who has a period without getting pregnant a murderer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newsletter

AlterNet Headlines

 
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement