Jul. 17th, 2008

greenman: (Default)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs-moves-to-define-contr_b_112887.html

I don't normally really rant in my LJ, but I think that this warrants it.

Apparently, the federal Department of Health and Human Services is trying to define ANY form of birth control that directly affects a fertilized egg as abortion. That includes not only the various day after pills solutions, but also the various forms of birth control pills themselves, which act on a woman's body to keep the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. Essentially, it would include any type of chemical birth control solution currently on the market.

Which is the vast majority of birth control solutions available to women. This would also include contraceptive foams, the implanted or patch forms of birth control, or IUD's... Basically, it would include anything but condoms. Which would essentially set the available forms of birth control controllable by women to... None.

Up until now, pregnancy has been defined by the HHS as beginning at the time a fertilized egg implants itself successfully on the uterine wall. This definition is the one used by the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who really should have a pretty good idea about the mechanics of fertilization, conception, pregnancy, and birth.

The HHS is trying to change that definition to be defined as beginning at the time of fertilization of the egg, apparently

However, by this very definition, the HHS will be defining any woman who EVER has a miscarriage as having had an abortion. In fact, it will be defining the vast majority of women who have ever had unprotected sex as having had an abortion, as in many cases, an egg can be fertilized, but doesn't ever attach to the uterine wall successfully, and is flushed out of the woman's body naturally. It happens, all the time. But the HHS, in an attempt "to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience", is proposing that "the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion".

Not the conscience of the woman involved. Not the recommendations of the medical community. "theconscience of the individual or institution". In other words, anti-choicers who are trying to make the decision for OTHER PEOPLE. This is (if nothing else) a situation not unlike Pilate washing his hands and saying "You deal with it" over the abortion issue, and if nothing else, the anti-choice movement trying to gain ever more control over a woman's right to decide what is best for her body and her life.

I'm a man. My decisions on whether or not to father a child are limited to abstinence, a condom, or as a more permanent solution, surgery. A woman's choice is abstinence, insuring that her partner uses a condom, one of the chemical methods of contraception that are currently being threatened, or much more invasive surgery than I would have to go through. Taking away the chemical (and at least one mechanical form, that of the IUD) leaves women with abstinence, condoms, or invasive surgery. And none of those will protect a woman from pregnancy if she is, for instance, raped. Not many rapists are likely to stop and put on a condom in the process of violently attacking and raping a woman, to insure she doesn't get pregnant as a result. And of course, by the time a survivor of rape would have any possibility of medical help, there wouldn't be any option but "abortion", if this change to the definition of pregnancy and conception is made.

GRAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA!!!! Mother(*&(*^%&^$%&**^%(&^!!!!!!!!

Why do .. why does... Who would... GRAAAA!!!!

Profile

greenman: (Default)
greenman

May 2009

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 01:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios