HHS Sec. Leavitt Replies; Discusses Contraception, Refusal Clause


Last week I asked HHS Secretary Micahel Leavitt a question about proposed regulations that redefined contraception as abortion and since he was unwilling to reply in person, suggested he use his blog. Yesterday Planned Parenthood encouraged people to comment on his blog. Today the Secretary replied.

Sec. Leavitt writes:

Several
months ago, I became aware that certain medical specialty certification
groups were adopting requirements which potentially violate a
physician’s right to choose whether he or she performs abortion. I wrote
to the organizations in question, protesting their actions.

Frankly, I
found their response to be dodgy and unsatisfying. I sent another
letter, more of the same. Not only are there clear provisions in three separate laws
protecting federally-funded health care providers’ right of conscience,
but doing otherwise undermines the most fundamental moral underpinning
of freedom of expression and action. I asked that regulations be
drafted which would enforce these long-standing laws protecting a
medical practitioner’s conscience rights.

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public
circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that
lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of
contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn.
However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not
abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners
have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be
able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation
or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of
practitioner conscience. Many have provided comments on this subject and they will all be included under this posting.

 

Sec. Leavitt’s intention may not have been to redefine contraception as abortion, but the early draft of the proposed regulations did exactly that. It is good to know that was not his intent, and hopefully the drafters at HHS considering this proposal are now clear as well.

But Sec. Leavitt raises another issue, refusal clauses, suggesting that his intent is to make sure that medical professionals have a right to refuse to help patients who are requesting services the medical practitioner finds morally objectionable.

In medical ethics and even in religion, where the root of the refusal clause rests, there is an important point of view that Sec. Leavitt does not acknowledge. Jon O’Brien, President of Catholics for Choice articulates it this way;

"While some have pointed to Catholic teaching to
support the imposition of ever-more restrictive refusal clauses, they
do not reflect the Catholic position. Catholic teaching requires due
deference to the conscience of others in making decisions–meaning that
health-care providers must not dismiss the conscience of the person
seeking care. If conscience truly is one’s "most secret core and his
sanctuary [where] he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his
depths," as the Catechism states, how can anyone, or any institution
for that matter, justify coercing someone into acting contrary to her
or his conscience?

"The
goal of any reasonable conscience clause must be to strike the right
balance between the right of health-care professionals to provide care
that is in line with their moral and religious beliefs and the right of
patients to have access to the medical care they need. Within the field
of medical ethics, the accepted resolution to a conflict of values is
to allow the individual to act on their own conscience and for the
institution (the hospital, clinic or pharmacy) to serve as the
facilitator of all consciences.

 

Sec. Leavitt’s original question had to do with compelling someone to perform an abortion, and as is often the case by using that issue, as the Bush Administration is wont to do, most people would agree that no doctor should be forced to act counter to their beliefs. But the slippery slope quickly extends to, in this case, providing contraception because of mistaken notions promoted by anti-choice groups that contraception terminates, rather than prevents, a pregnancy. Contraceptives are not abortifacients.

Suddenly a rape victim is refused emergency contraception at hospitals, or a woman could be refused birth control at her local pharmacy. Then we see other people refusing to even assist someone getting to medical care that is her legal right, as in Arizona, and now the personal moral beliefs of one person trump those of another.

Very quickly, the original intent of Sec. Leavitt becomes everyone’s right to withhold services because the person seeking it doesn’t believe exactly the same things as the person providing it.

In rural parts of the country this gets even more challenging, where hospitals and pharmacies are few and far between. Even in urban centers many neighborhoods are under-served by medical facilities, thus creating hardships on people seeking contraception to prevent an unintended pregnancy, potentially having to travel great distances only to be refused. Like many things in our culture, those with means may be able to drive around seeking another pharmacy, while lower-income people may not have that ability.

Where health care is concerned, we should hope that when conflicts arise, the "accepted resolution to a conflict of values is
to allow the individual to act on their own conscience and for the
institution (the hospital, clinic or pharmacy) to serve as the
facilitator of all consciences."

May our government also see its role as being a "facilitator of all consciences" and not seek to set one citizen in judgment of another, especially when it comes to the very private and personal decisions involved in sexual and reproductive health.

 

See RH Reality Check’s coverage of the proposed HHS regulations.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • nfprha

    This does little to quell the fears of millions of Americans who are concerned that their providers will be able to say they don’t have to provide contraception if they don’t want to. 

     

    Who’s going to provide the vital services offered at family planning health centers, many of which are the only health centers around for hundreds of miles, if these doctors can pick and choose what they do? 

     

    David Castillo

    Manager of Communications

    National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association

    Visit Family PlanIt for more insight on family planning in America.

  • invalid-0

    “Contraceptives are not abortifacients.”

    A couple of errors here. . .

    1) It is a mistake to lump all contraceptives together.

    2) The fact that certain “scientists” have chosen to define pregnancy to occur at implantation (since we can’t “measure” anything to the contrary!!?) is quite convenient, yet unfounded.

    Hey! Why don’t you proclaim that pregnancy does not occur until birth, and then you can say that surgical abortion is a contraceptive!!!!! People will really go for that!!

    I wonder what women could accomplish if they could just shake free from this obsession with protecting their right to kill their own children?

  • http://www.nevadaadvocates.org invalid-0

    As I was considering the proposed HHS regulation to redefine birth control, my mail carrier arrived with an action alert from Planned Parenthood. It got me wondering who’s next?

    Can my mail carrier stop delivering letters from groups he (or she) finds objectionable? Can the police ignore a 911 call if they object to my beliefs? Can realtors refuse to show me houses in certain areas if the neighbors might object? Can the fire department let my house burn so they don’t have to help someone they disagree with?

    Over the years, I’ve come to understand that some of my doctors held much different views, yet they still treated me and prescribed the medications I needed. That’s their job. Any protections of conscience they need already exist.

  • invalid-0

    American Academy of Family
    Physicians


    American Academy of Pediatrics


    American College of Nurse Midwives


    American College of Obstetricians
    & Gynecologists


    American Medical Women’s
    Association


    American Nurses Association


    Association of Women’s Health,
    Obstetric & Neonatal Nurses


    Physicians for Reproductive
    Choice and Health


    Society for Adolescent Medicine

    If you wouldn’t mind letting us know which mainstream, medical organizations, using science, have shown contraception to be abortifacients, please list them.

    All of these organizations signed onto a letter directed to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt urging him to toss these proposed regulations away. 

    Your personal or religious belief system should not be codified as public policy. You have a right to your belief system, you have a right to behave in accord with your own morals, values, religious tenets. But you do not have a right to compel the 98% of women in this country who do/will use birth control (and who clearly hold different personal beliefs, morals, and religious tenets) to think the way you do.

    You do not have a right to push personal beliefs into public policy thereby threatening public health.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the fact that "certain scientists" have "chosen" prgnancy to begin at implantation? If pregnancy began the moment an egg is fertilized then millions of women have had untold number of abortions. If that’s true, and extremists like yourself would like abortion outlawed, I presume most every woman in this country would wind up in jail? 

    And then how exactly do women prevent pregnancy from happening? If birth control is abortion then technically preventing a pregnancy is actually ending a pregnancy. If ending a pregnancy knowingly is killing a baby, which equals murder, you’ve created a scenario that you’re trying to sell to the American public that is so extremist that even most people who call themselve pro-life would undoubtedly reject. 

    Your personal belief system is so far out of the mainstream for most Americans who believe that access to contraception is positive, that publicly funded contraceptive services and family planning is beneficial for public and personal health, that young people should be taught comprehensive, age appropriate sexual health including information and abstinence and how contraception works, that access to quality health care for all is what we all desperately need to be working together on. But, by all means, continue advocating that a fertilized egg constitutes pregnancy, that contraception is abortion – it illustrates just how extremist anti-choice leading organizations and their handful of extremist followers really are with the American public. 

     

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • http://www.cpcwatch.org invalid-0

    Elisa makes a good point. It’s a federal offense for carriers to withhold mail from a recipient. But if the federal government is going to make exceptions for people to not have to do their jobs on “moral grounds,” anyone and everyone can be above the law by simply claiming moral objection, even if their job technically requires them to deliver mail from folks they might disagree with.

    I worked in a retail environment for a while. I saw people buy junk, and I mean JUNK, that no one really needs and that was manufactured in sweatshops that pollute and exploit workers. I hated seeing people over-consume this crap. However, had I said, “I am morally opposed to you purchasing all this stuff so I will not sell it to you,” you’d better believe I would have been fired by the end of my shift. It was my JOB to be a cashier at a store that sold junk, so that was what I had to do.

    And yet “moral objection” doesn’t apply to issues of pollution, worker exploitation, child labor, not to mention consumer exploitation, etc. Really this is all just repackaging discrimination as moral objection.

  • invalid-0

    So, we’re equating non-delivery of junk mail to terminating a human life!? Got to get a little better analogy to make me rethink my position. No, most contraceptive medications are not abortifacients. BUT, those which prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus wall are if you believe life begins at conception. As a pharmacist, I have made my decision that I will not aid the taking of a human life. Therefore my career choices have been academia and to practice in institutions where abortions are not done.

    Junk mail? Personally I would welcome a mailman who deleted that stuff from my mailbox. But to equate it with human life? No way, no how.

    mcv

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,

    Your analogy could be right. However, I lot of things will neccessarily close down if it is, i.e., adoption services.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    Is there any chance your trusted organizations are relying on scientists like this one?

    Jessica Arons takes a close look why medical consensus has determined that pregnancy begins at implantation — unsurprisingly, for good scientific reasons. Firstly, there is no way to tell that a woman is pregnant prior to implantation; her body does not offer any measurable signals. If the existence of pregnancy can’t be determined, well, then, “we can treat all women as potentially pregnant — and refuse them access to drugs and devices that would help them prevent pregnancy.”

    Second, Arons points out, from one-third to one-half of all fertilized eggs never manage to implant. And even if you could detect an embryo prior to implantation, when would this storied moment of conception take place?

    Very dubious scientific method. If we can’t see it or measure it, it must not be there!!

    If I am SO far out of the mainstream, why are you screaming like a desperate little mimi? I really don’t base my conclusions on what I can “sell” to the public. But I can see that the scientists you rely on are involved in amazing contortions to help you sell your frantic agenda. I mean, what on earth WOULD women do if they didn’t have the legal right to kill their own children?

    I suspect that quite a number of women would feel very differently about a particular form of birth control if they realized that it prevented a fertilized egg from implanting. I see that’s why you now have the full-court press to re-define when a pregnancy begins; hence the pseudoscience referenced above.

    I feel sorry for you guys. You are spending your entire lives on a quest that is breathtakingly ill-considered. What will history say about an era of women whose fervent contribution to society was to protect their right to kill their own children? I can assure you that I know plenty of women who have never had abortions, never used abortifacient birth control, and are living happy, fulfilling lives with their husbands and children. To them, your shrill cries of dire public health threats might as well come from a Martian.

    To me, it is even more ridiculous when you consider that all of your little potions, surgeries and practices have side effects. As a woman, I say, you can have your “health care”–if you really want it.

  • invalid-0

    Think really hard here. If the firefighter let your house burn, he would lose his job.

    If enough women found their pharmacist’s conscience too burdensome, he would go out of business. (Do you realize some women would very much value a pharmacist that understood their concerns with protecting unborn life?)

    Do you remember that Hitler’s regime found it very important to “manage” the Jewish problem. Do you think his flunkies should have been able to have a conscience opt-out?

    Even though YOU don’t think the issues are parallel, plenty of people do. Why do YOU get to decide who may follow their conscience? No one is forced to shop at a particular place. Dr. Dredd thinks that if I don’t like a certain doctor, I should just go somewhere else. He apparently thinks that works well enough for SOME women, and I AGREE!

  • invalid-0

    For well-insured women in major metropolitain areas, shopping around for health care providers is a real possibility. For the uninsured or those in underserved areas, it simply is not. In those cases a refusal of service is a denial of the woman’s right.

    Would you be comfortable with a Jehovah’s Witness trauma surgeon refusing to transfuse blood in an ER? What if a Christian Scientist pediatrician refused to treat your child’s ear infection? Can a muslim pharmacist refuse to dispense any medication containing alcohol? You see, through the miracle of religion, “morals” can be completely arbitrary. Medical need, however, is not.

    Whether you value that your pharmacist agrees with your politics is irrelevant. You would not be denied access to your health care choices because your pharmacist believed in a woman’s right to choose. For now, that is. Perhaps pharmacists, Obstetricians, Gynecologists, etc. should start using this “conscience clause” to refuse service to those seeking to deny other women their right to reproductive choice.

  • scott-swenson

    Lucille,
    Wow, it is hard to know where to begin.

    1. The "blue words" are links. If you click on them and read you might learn something. For example, when I said "Contraception is not an abortifacient" the link takes you to many respected medical organizations that explain why, despite your efforts to loudly proclaim otherwise, medical science just doesn’t support your position. Now, we could substitute "Lucille’s Beliefs" for all of humanity’s collected scientific and medical study if you’d like, or, as a democracy we could celebrate the fact that Lucille gets to believe what she wants to and act in her life accordingly, and others — amazingly — are afforded that same respect. All those in favor of living only by Lucille’s rule raise your hands. Now, those who want some measure of free will in your own life, raise your hands. Luckily Lucille, you still get to believe what you want to even though everyone else wants the same right.

     

    2. Are you saying that Jessica Arons is a scientist that you have a quibble with? Jessica, one of our favorite contributors to RH Reality Check has a very accomplished biography which you can see here, but she’s not a scientist. Are your beliefs supported by the same level of research Jessica has done on these issues? You will also note in her biography she is a person of faith, as many of us supporting the rights of women and improved sexual and reproductive health are. As to the substance of the quote and what Jessica was referring to, you have twisted yourself into amazing knots of illogic. The fact that science cannot determine exactly when one of the millions sperm meets one of many eggs, has penetrated, and then the egg actually implants, is based on extensive research and underscores why pregnancy cannot possibly begin before implantation — there are many variables, including nature itself that could prevent pregnancy.

     

    3. You can continue repeating the phrase, "women who want to kill …" as many times as you like, it really demonstrates the fact that your opposition is not to abortion. You use language like that to stir people’s emotions, because when people are emotional they lose site of facts. If you truly wanted to prevent abortion, you would be supporting contraception, not arguing against it, because by helping people to plan families, we make certain that the timing and spacing of births happens when the family is ready, emotionally, economically, and in all ways ready to support a child. By arguing against contraception, you demonstrate you are not interested in preventing abortions — because prohibition will not stop abortion, it will only make the unsafe and illegal. It will mean mothers who decide they cannot have another child, will become criminals, or worse, injure themselves or die, leaving their other children behind because of an unsafe abortion. Just look at what happens in countries that prevent abortion.

     

    4. You said, "I see that’s why you now have the full-court press to re-define when a
    pregnancy begins; hence the pseudoscience referenced above." All we’re doing is relying on the medical professionals who study these things. It is the Bush Administration (to get back to the original article) that launched a "full-court" press to redefine contraception based on "Lucille’s beliefs" rather than on medical science. If you are calling the collected medical facts of all the major professional groups dealing with these issues "pseudoscience" — exactly what do you call people who have absolutely no science to support what they believe? Again, in America we respect "Lucille’s beliefs" and her right to live that way, what many of us don’t understand is why Lucille can’t respect the fact that someone else might believe differently, and actually want to rely on the considerable weight of overwhelming amounts of scientific and medical facts.

     

    4. Please don’t feel sorry for us. Pity isn’t necessary, and like shame, stigma, pejorative language and ad hominem attacks that "pro-lifers" are known for, it is all geared to distract people from rational discussion. Rational discussion like this — progressives believe in comprehensive sexuality education that promotes respect and responsibility, encourages the prevention of unintended pregnancies and transmission of sexually transmitted infections, so that if abortions are needed, they are rare, safe, and that all of this is considered as medicine and health care, not politics. Engage me in that debate rationally, if you can, tell me why we shouldn’t educate, prevent and allow individuals to make the best medical decisions for themselves, privately and with respect?

     


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    Dear Anonymous Pharmacist,

    Thanks for your comment and may I just say I have enormous respect for your beliefs and the choices you’ve made in your life to live those beliefs consistently. I also agree with you on junk mail. As a man of faith and science, you can understand that some people, and medical organizations, do not define life as starting at conception, because of the many variables involved between conception and implantation. Shouldn’t those people be able to access medical services in accord with their beliefs? Is it really the place of the government to define when life begins, based on belief not science, as they want to do in Colorado in this election, and as these HHS regulations take one more step toward?


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Luckily Lucille, you still get to believe what you want to even though everyone else wants the same right.

    Yes, everyone wants the same right, including doctors and pharmacists who have a shred of critical thinking skills, unlike you and your “respected scientists” who make ridiculous conclusions like, “if we can’t see it or measure it, it must not exist.”

    More on this illogic (yours)–Even “extensive” research has not yet been able to make a determination regarding these things. . ., therefore, we MUST CONCLUDE that pregnancy does not occur before implantation. When the Mars scientists did not find water ice, rather than hastily concluding there must not be any, they continued their research which now shows there is, indeed, water ice on Mars. YOUR “scientists”, in their zeal to support a certain bias, have jumped to a conclusion that they have not proven.

    Please clarify how you know my opposition is NOT to abortion? Bizarre conclusion. I am sorry the emotions I’ve stirred up in you do not allow you to think clearly. You clearly believe that women and families are very fragile and the only way to empower them is to help them rid themselves of the offspring they have produced. How insulting for women to be viewed by their society as dumb and helpless brute bitches–off to the vet with YOU!

    Ha! ha! No, I don’t rely on major medical professional groups for unbiased scientific information and neither should you if you are concerned about politics influencing science.

    Please give my regards to Amie.

  • invalid-0

    So you are saying that a person’s difficulty in shopping around supersedes a person’s right to act according to his/her own conscience?

    Medical “need” is AT LEAST as arbitrary as moral values. Some medical “needs” are really lifestyle choices. If you are a farmer, live in the country where there is some land. If you participate in activities that are likely to result in pregnancy, and you have no intention of staying pregnant, then by all means, live in a place that supports your lifestyle.

    Don’t be so helpless and drag everyone else into your crisis-filled lifestyle.

  • scott-swenson

    Laws that provide people with the rights to choose are not forcing you to choose anything, simply allowing those who would choose, to be able to do so within their own individual beliefs. A person who doesn’t believe in dispensing contraception should choose not to be in a place where someone who believes in contraception is going to come ask them for it. Everybody has a choice and should be able to live according to their choices, but if I don’t believe in something, and don’t want to be any part of it, then I’m going to choose not to be in a position where I have to deal with it – I’m not going to take a job and then tell someone my beliefs are more important than theirs.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    I’ll let the readers determine who is being more emotional in their responses here. The evidence suggested there was water on Mars, so they kept looking. The evidence suggests that there are so many variables between sperm maybe reaching egg, maybe fertilizing, then the egg maybe implanting, and pregnancy then maybe making it through gestation that the variables make it difficult to determine. It’s not that we DON’T know what happens in pregnancy, as we didn’t on Mars until recently, it’s that we DO know and can rely on one fact — every pregnancy is different, every person is different, and therefore these private medical decisions are best left to the people intimately involved.

    What is also possible to determine is that until implantation, nothing has a chance to be born — only with successful implantation, and then only with a healthy pregnancy, is birth possible. My sperm may have DNA and be prodigious swimmers, but they can’t be humans without an egg, and all the other variables falling into place. We know that takes days if it happens at all, between a conception we cannot know about precisely, and the implantation which can be measured.

    One other thing the evidence suggests, Americans like contraception and family planning. Ninety-eight percent of the country will us some form of contraception at some point in their lives. I don’t think its because they don’t understand what contraception does, as you suggest. It’s because they do.

    You say conception, I say implantation — and the marvel of America is that we can both live our lives each acting in accord with our beliefs. My belief does not stop you from living how you choose, but when you tell me that your beliefs are more important, more sacred, more valued than mine, that’s no longer America. That Lucille, is what happened in Germany (you mentioned Hitler in another comment, not that I think you said it to shed light on the discussion mind you). Some Germans thought they knew better and guided by nothing more than their beliefs and intimidation, they tried to rid their country of those who believed differently.

    That’s why I’m so patriotic and get just a little ticked off when people deride America. For all our faults, when a small group of people try to tell the rest of the nation how to behave, what to think, and how to pray, eventually people wake up and remember that’s not what our Constitution says.

    I believe in an America that lets you believe life begins at conception, but that does not give you the right to re-write science and medical history and impose that belief on anyone else. Just ask the Pope, he can’t even impose that belief on a majority of Catholics.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    So you are saying that a person’s difficulty in shopping around supersedes a person’s right to act according to his/her own conscience?

    Yes. Absolutely. Without reservation. Si. Oui. Ja.

    What you call “difficulty in shopping around” is actually called “denial of health care.”

    Medical “need” is AT LEAST as arbitrary as moral values.

    No, medical need is based on empirical facts. That’s why we do not have one “denomination” of doctors that prescribes amputation for sore throat and another that prescribes antidepressants.

    Sadly, it’s generally those who seek to impose their lifestyle on others that end up in crisis more often than the general population. Look at where teen pregnancy rates are highest- I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t the Blue States and it rhymes with “Title Felt”. Preaching and prohibition do not work. Don’t worry about my fiancée and I; we believe in birth control. Worry about the young people who’ve been poisoned with the same dogma that you have.

    Further, requiring someone to move to avoid violations of their basic rights is a denial of those rights. Should we have told black people in the American South “just move up north?” Sufficient oppression can force just such migrations, but that’s what it is: oppression, not a free and healthy society.

    So you never answered my question? What about the Jehovah’s Witness trauma surgeon? What about the Christian Scientist pediatrician? What about the Muslim pharmacist? Isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

    Clearly any thinking person can see that some lines of work may involve situations where you must place the fundamental rights of the public before your own beliefs.

  • invalid-0

    Scott says:

    Engage me in that debate rationally, if you can, tell me why we shouldn’t educate, prevent and allow individuals to make the best medical decisions for themselves, privately and with respect?

    You never did answer his question. Why shouldn’t we?

    Then, you say:

    Ha! ha! No, I don’t rely on major medical professional groups for unbiased scientific information and neither should you if you are concerned about politics influencing science.

    Who do you rely on, then? I suspect they also have their own agendas…

  • invalid-0

    Yes. Absolutely. Without reservation. Si. Oui. Ja.

    What you call “difficulty in shopping around” is actually called “denial of health care.”

    I’d go one step further and call it “malpractice.”

    Further, requiring someone to move to avoid violations of their basic rights is a denial of those rights. Should we have told black people in the American South “just move up north?” Sufficient oppression can force just such migrations, but that’s what it is: oppression, not a free and healthy society.

    Exactly. And what do you do if someone can’t afford to “move up north”, or can’t find a place to live once they get there? One’s ability to take advantage of his/her rights should not be dependent on the arbitrary fact of where he or she lives.

  • invalid-0

    Dr. Dredd thinks that if I don’t like a certain doctor, I should just go somewhere else. He apparently thinks that works well enough for SOME women, and I AGREE!

    Why are you assuming that I’m a man?

  • invalid-0

    When the egg is fertilized, a new life exists. It doesn’t matter if you want to “define” it differently. That’s not science, it’s politics. It’s a fact that it’s an organism, that it’s alive, that it is human, and that it is not part of the mother. You can’t make up new definitions to suit your political goals, and hope to be taken seriously by anyone with integrity.

    If you click on the link that you yourselves provided, you will see that these medical associations you cite merely claim that pregnancy doesn’t exist until implant-ation. They don’t say that a human life hasn’t begun. What medical association has said that there isn’t life before implant-ation? And even if one did, which would be utterly absurd and unscientific, it wouldn’t represent a majority of doctors. Most doctors don’t even belong to the AMA, for example, and the AMA’s statements only represent what its leadership says, not all of its members. I notice that even the AMA didn’t sign the petition you cite.

    Check it for yourselves: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/04/physicians-nurses-oppose-hhs-draft-regulations-contraception

    Now if we define an abortion as merely the termination of a “pregnancy” according to this definition, rather than the termination of a life (something that pro-aborts would love to do to confuse the issue), then in that case you could trick people into thinking that no life has been taken, by claiming the drug on this basis is not “abort-ifacient”.

    The fact is that it kills a unique human life…why avoid the issue with such contortions?

    I think it’s also interesting that you refuse to grant the status of a living thing to this new organism unless it is attached to another organism, that is, the mother. However, once it is attached, you claim that this attachment deprives it of its right to life, because it is “dependent”!

    The absurdities just never end in the la-la land of the pro-abortion movement.

    By the way, I hyphenated my text to avoid linking to your upcoming “glossary”, which I’m sure will be full of the same distortions. You claim you want free discussion but then try to force references to your own works. Are you afraid to let us cite our sources?

  • scott-swenson

    Matt: We just prefer reputable sources like the American Medical Association, American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, and the rest of the medical and scientific field that researches all these issues carefully. It has been accepted practice that the government follow the same scientific sources, until the Bush Administration tried to assert ideology over fact.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Dr. Dredd,
    Don’t you remember a couple of days ago you told me that if I didn’t like my doctor that I should just find another one? It wouldn’t bother you if I would have to "move up north" to find a doctor to suit my health needs.
    I see you really want a monopoly for doctors like you, whose brand of health care entrenches women as a class of citizens useful for their compliant sexual subjugation. They (because of your monopoly) apparently aren’t aware of an alternative, so have docilely fallen into line and can be counted on to not complain as long as they are not saddled with a child (which they view as an impossible burden, due to the quality of male with whom they are intimate), and the side effects (that they have been made aware of) are not too burdensome (at least while they are alive).

    • invalid-0

      I see you really want a monopoly for doctors like you, whose brand of health care entrenches women as a class of citizens useful for their compliant sexual subjugation. They (because of your monopoly) apparently aren’t aware of an alternative, so have docilely fallen into line and can be counted on to not complain as long as they are not saddled with a child (which they view as an impossible burden, due to the quality of male with whom they are intimate), and the side effects (that they have been made aware of) are not too burdensome (at least while they are alive).

      Ohh, ha ha ha ha ha….*breathe*….ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….*breathe*….ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….

      Ohh, I’m such a compliant, sexually exploited woman! I actually really hate sex and shall never jump my DH’s bones again! I’ve obviously misjudged my ability to pay for and care for a child, because it’s not like it’s my life or anything. Oh, thanks, almighty Lucille, for showing me my evil, slutty, baby-killing ways! I shall immediately run forth and find a pro-life doctor, throw out my birth control, and pop out as many kids as my body can bear! Never mind that we can’t pay for them! Never mind that I don’t want or like kids! I have seeeeeeen the light!

      *resumes laughing*

  • invalid-0

    1) Need is subjective. For example, one person might say “I need a health care professional who does not sully his hands with the blood of the innocent.” (You might be tempted to insert the words “feel” between “I” and “need”.) You may (feel that you) need a health care professional who is willing to prescribe emergency contraception. I, Lucille, feel I don’t have that medical “need”. “I need acupuncture.” or “I need a dietician.” “I need chemical birth control.” “I need non-chemical birth control.” So you have the subjective need of the patient, and then you have the subjective assessment of the doctor. That’s why it is always wise to get a second opinion. —Medical NEED is not always based on empirical facts.

    2)The poison of the Title Felters– I know people who have lived by “Title Felt” ideals. Whatever their human path, their life is not defined by their efforts to protect the legal right to kill one’s own child. There really is so much more to life. Some of the “Title Felt” people could probably give you and your fiance a little perspective. For example, there are worse things that could happen to you than having an unplanned child. For example, you could allow your sexual intimacy to be reduced to something as meaningless as what occurs between two dogs in heat (in between feverishly ensuring that your fiance can easily dispose of any inconvenience that may crop up; I mean, what would she possibly want with THAT?! She’s just sitting around waiting for you to come panting up behind her).

    3) A free society does not force people to offer services that violate their beliefs. A free society may legitimately require businesses to make certain disclosures even though such disclosures may turn away business. This adequately protects the fundamental rights of the public, including the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and Christian Scientists, who also would rather not migrate. (Hopefully that answers your Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim and Christian Scientist question.)

    4) Title Felters should have the right to trained doctors and pharmacists who “do no harm”, even if you personally are not opposed to harm.

  • invalid-0

    that would explain a few things.

    (If you hadn’t listed off all of those pharmaceuticals in a previous post, I wouldn’t have believed you are actually a doctor.)

  • invalid-0

    Some of us would like to obtain care at a place where we can expect that contraception is NOT dispensed AND from doctors who are morally opposed to abortion.

    Trust me, providers like that are hard to find, and are perfectly aware that many women aren’t looking for their kind of help.

    The answer to this conundrum is DISCLOSURE!!

  • invalid-0

    Scott,

    I have to say you are a very poor listener.

    Here you are, blathering on again about your “reputable sources” when the poster you are responding to has quoted one of your own links.

    If you click on the link that you yourselves provided, you will see that these medical associations you cite merely claim that pregnancy doesn’t exist until implant-ation. They don’t say that a human life hasn’t begun.

    Do us all a favor and check your own link to save us the trouble of saying stuff over and over again.

  • invalid-0

    If the number of variables are so overwhelming, wouldn’t it be more scientific to explore all of them before proceeding on non-information?

    You very clearly aren’t patriotic enough to believe that some doctors and pharmacists should be allowed to live as they believe, and to serve people who want to be served by them.

  • invalid-0

    I notice, Scott, that you didn’t answer my point, which is that the organizations you cited (and the AMA wasn’t even one of them) don’t say that life doesn’t begin at fertil-ization (hyphenated to avoid bogus glossary link). They seem to be saying that pregnancy doesn’t, which is not the fundamental issue. Please respond to that.

  • invalid-0

    OK, now I’m confused. What does my being a woman explain, and how is that relevant to my listing pharmaceuticals?

    Not following your logic, here.

  • invalid-0

    Obviously it doesn’t bother you if I have to “move north”, either. You complain about being inconvenienced by having to go somewhere else. If it’s a problem for you, you shouldn’t scoff when someone on the pro-choice side finds it a problem, too.

    Let me ask you something. What kind of doctor would suit your health care needs? In another post, you state:

    Some of us would like to obtain care at a place where we can expect that contraception is NOT dispensed AND from doctors who are morally opposed to abortion.

    Why? Why does it matter to you how a physician treats someone else? It has nothing to do with you. According to your own statements, you believe that medical personnel should be able to follow their consciences. What would it matter to you if a physician followed his or her conscience to dispense contraception to someone else?

    The only reason I can see for you to care is that you want to impose your beliefs on others and therefore want a doctor who does the same. So, in other words, it’s okay for medical professionals to follow their consciences only if they agree with what your conscience says.

  • invalid-0

    I see you really want a monopoly for doctors like you, whose brand of health care entrenches women as a class of citizens useful for their compliant sexual subjugation. They (because of your monopoly) apparently aren’t aware of an alternative, so have docilely fallen into line and can be counted on to not complain as long as they are not saddled with a child (which they view as an impossible burden, due to the quality of male with whom they are intimate), and the side effects (that they have been made aware of) are not too burdensome (at least while they are alive).

    All I can say is… wow.

    That’s quite a conspiracy theory you’ve got going there. Somehow, by wanting women to have access to medical personnel who present all available options, I’ve created a subjugated class of women a la “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Do you mind telling me how you came to that conclusion?

    Oh, and as for your “hole in the head” comment, that’s cute. We’ve all got holes in the head. They’re called mouths, and fortunately most people don’t run off at theirs.

  • invalid-0

    a real life anti-contraception pharmacist. What makes your “conscience” magically superior to that of the woman who has scrip for BC you find objectionable? Even if the women says the BC is for a non BC use, such as controlling endometriosis, would you still refuse to dispense it for her?

  • invalid-0

    I’ve been trying to get her and Cranky Catholic to answer the same question…

  • invalid-0

    When the egg is fertilized, a new life exists. It doesn’t matter if you want to “define” it differently. That’s not science, it’s politics. It’s a fact that it’s an organism, that it’s alive, that it is human, and that it is not part of the mother. You can’t make up new definitions to suit your political goals, and hope to be taken seriously by anyone with integrity.

    Yes,a new life exists. BUT, the union of sperm and egg doesn’t guarantee pregnancy. The latest and best scientific evidence says half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. So it looks like Nature herself is the biggest aborter, aina hey? As I recall, only the Bush Regime is attempting to redefine something here.

    If you click on the link that you yourselves provided, you will see that these medical associations you cite merely claim that pregnancy doesn’t exist until implant-ation. They don’t say that a human life hasn’t begun. What medical association has said that there isn’t life before implant-ation? And even if one did, which would be utterly absurd and unscientific, it wouldn’t represent a majority of doctors. Most doctors don’t even belong to the AMA, for example, and the AMA’s statements only represent what its leadership says, not all of its members. I notice that even the AMA didn’t sign the petition you cite.

    Did we say they denied the existence of life before implantation? You are trying to claim victory where none exists.

    Now if we define an abortion as merely the termination of a “pregnancy” according to this definition, rather than the termination of a life (something that pro-aborts would love to do to confuse the issue), then in that case you could trick people into thinking that no life has been taken, by claiming the drug on this basis is not “abort-ifacient”.

    Let’s review:
    1) The latest and best evidence says pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation
    2) Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, not a newly begun human life.
    3) Birth control pills work by preventing implantation, and therein, pregnancy.
    What are we missing here?

    The fact is that it kills a unique human life…why avoid the issue with such contortions?

    “Unique human life”, is that some new right wing politically correct buzzword? It is irrelevent.

    I think it’s also interesting that you refuse to grant the status of a living thing to this new organism unless it is attached to another organism, that is, the mother. However, once it is attached, you claim that this attachment deprives it of its right to life, because it is “dependent”!

    Who said that? I know it is alive, but it (oocyte, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, what have you) does not have the right to gestate and be born.

    The absurdities just never end in the la-la land of the pro-abortion movement.

    I’ll treat this as the inflammatory piece of nonsense it is.

    By the way, I hyphenated my text to avoid linking to your upcoming “glossary”, which I’m sure will be full of the same distortions. You claim you want free discussion but then try to force references to your own works. Are you afraid to let us cite our sources?

    Where did you get the idea we are afraid? Bring on your sources – if they are credible, that is.

    • invalid-0

      This may be the first at least semi-honest response I’ve seen on the site. It actually addressed the points I made.

      Yes,a new life exists. BUT, the union of sperm and egg doesn’t guarantee pregnancy. The latest and best scientific evidence says half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. So it looks like Nature herself is the biggest aborter, aina hey? As I recall, only the Bush Regime is attempting to redefine something here.

      You are correct that a certain percentage of new human beings die as a result of failing to implant. So now I ask you this question: plenty of people die of various diseases, accidents, and other mishaps that occur during the course of life. Does that justify murdering people? Would you say “nature already kills people anyway, so why can’t I”? If not, are you willing to retract that point?

      Did we say they denied the existence of life before implantation? You are trying to claim victory where none exists.

      They didn’t say it, but they know that people think that if a drug isn’t “aborti-facient” (hyphenated to avoid linking to bogus “glossary”) it doesn’t end a life, which is the fundamental issue at stake. So then they talk about it ending a “pregnancy” which they define as beginning with implant-ation. It’s not the definition accepted by all doctors, but even if it were, so what? The point is that a baby dies as a direct result. It’s called murder.

      “Unique human life”, is that some new right wing politically correct buzzword? It is irrelevent.

      Thanks for being honest enough to say what the pro-abortion movement really thinks. We know you think that the existence of a unique human life is irrelevant, but usually you are all too coy to say so. It is very well appreciated when you just tell us the truth.

  • invalid-0

    Yes,a new life exists. BUT, the union of sperm and egg doesn’t guarantee pregnancy. The latest and best scientific evidence says half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant. So it looks like Nature herself is the biggest aborter, aina hey? As I recall, only the Bush Regime is attempting to redefine something here.

    Once again, no one is attempting to subdue a volcano (in other words, nature happens). We are objecting to intentional assaults on, or reckless disregard for human life. You are saying, “Why can’t we just kill what is not guaranteed anyway?” Keep in mind your current stage of life is not guaranteed by nature; why, then, should you be protected?

    Your attempt to define words to suit your agenda and to usurp the scientific method used for centuries has already been addressed in this thread, so there is no need to go around the circle again.

  • invalid-0

    This is the gist of it.

    If I believe that the fertilized egg inside my body is a precious human life, deserving of care and protection, I do not want medical care and advice from someone who sees my child as worthless blob of tissue. I would be concerned that such a person would not exercise the care that I want for my precious baby.

    I have an example. . .I have a friend whose unborn baby was diagnosed with a physical defect in the midst of a very high-risk pregnancy. During this very stressful time, several doctors criticized her for “not taking care of this earlier”, an idea completely abhorrent to her. Why would she have any confidence that those caring for her and her baby would do their best for her baby?

    You would like, in effect, to make it impossible for a “pro-life” person to become a doctor or pharmacist, even though there is a patient population that does not want care from a doctor that does not value embryonic life.

    When you say that I complain, you are just twisting what I said to explain that there is already a monopoly, that which YOU SAY should not exist, but now you admit you don’t mind that it exists to inconvenience me. DO YOU SEE?? YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT MEDICAL MONOPOLY, AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T OFFEND YOUR OWN PRIORITIES. DO YOU SEE THAT?

    This is why I mentioned that you don’t seem like an actual doctor, because I thought they take only top-of-the-class type people, and you don’t seem to have the best critical thinking skills. OR you don’t seem to really want to understand, just to say over and over that I want to impose my beliefs on others, when it’s EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. . .you want to impose your beliefs on the entire medical system, and by extension, to all patients.

    • invalid-0

      Better late than never, here…

      When you say that I complain, you are just twisting what I said to explain that there is already a monopoly, that which YOU SAY should not exist, but now you admit you don’t mind that it exists to inconvenience me. DO YOU SEE?? YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT MEDICAL MONOPOLY, AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T OFFEND YOUR OWN PRIORITIES. DO YOU SEE THAT?

      Monopoly (n): exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market

      When I brought up the term many posts ago, my point was that contraception isn’t available without prescription. Therefore, if someone wants birth control pills, he or she must go to a medical professional. You’d agree that this means that the medical professionals have exclusive control, correct? I then went on to say that, if I lived in a part of the country that was: 1) rural or 2) staffed mainly by pro-life medical professionals, this monopoly would prevent my access to the contraception I’m trying to get.

      Frankly, seems to me that you’d love this situation.

      This is why I mentioned that you don’t seem like an actual doctor, because I thought they take only top-of-the-class type people, and you don’t seem to have the best critical thinking skills. OR you don’t seem to really want to understand, just to say over and over that I want to impose my beliefs on others.

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • scott-swenson

    Matt: Margaret’s responses on the fertilization issue should suffice, and by the way, many people also acknowledge that sperm by itself and eggs by themselves contain life (24 strands of DNA each if memory serves), so perhaps you need to start considering laws to protect sperm and eggs pre-conception. Then the very natural nocturnal emissions of teenage boys will become abortions too, and you can start a campaign to outlaw masturbation when they start taking matters into their own hands. The fundamental issue is that you are trying to suggest that the overwhelming amount of medical science from a wide number of respected, non-partisan, scientific, peer-reviewed, evidence-based organizations, should not matter. The fundamental issue is that the anti-choice movement believes that all that matters is ideology and politics. I don’t see anti-choice doctors promoting peer-reviewed studies to change the medical definitions, rather they are using politics and courts to tell medicine what to believe, to ignore the data. That is why the Bush Administration has waged a war on science, and how you and others intend to undermine medical facts by substituting your judgment for appropriate health care, determined by the individuals involved based on empirical data. We are all entitled to our beliefs and opinions, but when it comes to health care, the vast majority of Americans want the latest scientific understanding free from political manipulation. They also want to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. And I repeat — no one is forcing an anti-choice medical professional to work in a setting where they will have to dispense contraception, any more than allowing the option of abortion for those who seek one legally and safely, forces anyone to choose that option. The freedom we celebrate in America is about being able to make our own decisions so why don’t these anti-choice medical professionals live their faith and choose careers that will not put them in contact with people they clearly look down upon?


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    Lucille: Since you brought up volcanoes, how do you feel about dams, strip mining, off-shore drilling (or drilling of any sort), artificial life supports, medicine that comes from other than natural sources, or any of the many other ways in which man manipulates nature based on choices we make. Increasingly the evidence suggests people are born gay — “nature happens” — so in that case would you support genetic engineering to wash away the gay, abort the gay, or just take the new born away at birth to start “shock treatment?”


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    You claim that “you are trying to suggest that the overwhelming amount of medical science from a wide number of respected, non-partisan, scientific, peer-reviewed, evidence-based organizations, should not matter” but I just did the opposite. I pointed out that all of medical science points to the fact that a unique, individual human life is created at the moment of fertil-ization (hyphenated to avoid linking to your inaccurate website). There is no debate about that, Scott, unless you want to claim that the zygote is not really an organism, or that it’s the same organism as the mother or father. Can you name a scientific organization that denies either of these claims?

    You are the one trying to attack medical science, Scott. There is no issue about the beginning of a new human life. It begins when the ovum is fertilized, and becomes a zygote. Why not check out a high school biology text, in case you’re still confused?

    You and I both know that that is the concern in people’s minds. The question is: when does a human life begin? Not when we define the beginning of pregnancy. Abortion doesn’t just end a pregnancy, it ends a LIFE, Scott…remember life? The thing you claim to value, while battling to devalue it completely.

    As for your crack about the egg and sperm being alive: of course they are living cells of another human being, as we all know. They are mere parts or products of that organism, and if they die the human being does not die. On the other hand, the zygote is not merely a part of a human being, it is a human being at the earliest stage of its growth. There is no debate about that.

    It amazes me that you can simultaneously attack medical science, and claim you are defending it. But that’s the kind of confusion that can engulf one’s mind when one defends the practice of abortion, in which a doctor uses a vacuum hose to tear a human being’s limbs out of its sockets, and its head off of its torso, and then scrapes out the remains and reassembles them on an operating table to verify that he hasn’t left any of the corpse inside of her mother.

    Or will you deny that that is how abortions are done? How far does the denial go here?

  • invalid-0

    please do not fall back on name-calling to make your argument. As I said in my comment, you have every right to your belief system. It’s just that you don’t have a right to compel others, by law, to behave in accord with your own belief system. 

    You believe that the science employed by the long list of organizations I provided in my comment above is just wrong. You believe the conclusions that all of those medical and health care group members have based their livelihoods on is simply wrong. There is no way I can tell you that you must believe they are right. What I can say is that you don’t therefore have a right to force all Americans to adopt your own belief system. I’m not asking you to adopt mine – (or the science used by all of the mainstream medical associations whose ranks include the most well respected, experienced medical professionals our country has to offer). If you believe contraception is abortion, then don’t use it. But if I don’t believe that, why must I follow your own personal mores?

    Lucille, you can scream that these are "my shrill cries of dire public health threats" but, honestly, you’re picking and choosing what you want to hear. These are not my "personal shrill cries" but citations of evidence, fact and statistical recording by all of the major public health and medical organizations. If you clicked on the links, you’d uncover the information. You may not like what it says about the necessity of publicly funded contraception, about making sure that our society has access to family planning services and health care so that we give all members of society an opportunity to care for themselves and their family. But it is not personal belief system – it’s evidence and statistics that support the idea that these are public health as well as personal health issues.

    I, too, know women have never had an abortion or used birth control but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. They are not necessarily happier or healthier than others because of those facts though of course they can be! But I wonder if you are talking about women in developing nations? Are you talking about women who suffer horribly because they have no access to contraception to control how many children they do or don’t have because they don’t control when or how often they have sexual intercourse with their husbands? Again, what about the women in other nations who suffer from obstetric fistula or simply die because they have no access to prenatal or childbirth care? What about women who cannot care for or feed the children they have, are exhausted,  have 17,18, 19 children but who need their husband’s permission for a tubal ligation and their husband will not consent? These are not stories but the lives of women around the world who do not live in the world you live in. But you want to tell these women that they should just be happy without contraception? The point is ensuring availability, ensuring that people get to make up their own minds in consultation with a healthcare provider and their families if they’d like. The issue is women’s health. It may not be your reality – it may not be the life you live or the scenarios you imagine when you take the stance you have but it is very much the reality of women around the world.

    Your all or nothing mentality around sexual and reproductive health likely works well for you and your life. But why would you ever presume to know what works best for other women, other families? Unless of course you believe that you know best for all of humanity? Which then begs the question of why would you know best for everyone and not someone who holds a different perspective? 

    You can fall back on your belief that abortion is murder – which then of course begs the question: why should we not put all women in jail who have had abortions in this country (61% of whom are mothers already)? Women are not dumb. We are not sheep. The vast majority of women who have abortions in this country are not forced in any way though some certainly are. Adult women who have had abortions should be jailed for murder, no? I just think you do have a hard sell here – you may not care about "selling" it to the American public but if you want anything to change, you’ll need to figure out where the disconnect is between you and most Americans. Telling 98% of women  in this country that we’re killing children because we use birth control (even if we’ve got children, are loving, hard-working mothers, a community, family – likely very similar to you and your friends, actually), telling the 30% of American women who have had or will have abortions that they are murderers, telling the 90% of parents who believe that comprehensive information about both contraception and abstinence should be taught in public schools that they are conspirators to killing and harming their children’s bodies by allowing them to be taught about contraception: these are all ideas that most do not concur with you on. 

    Women are burdened with the joy, sacredness and sadness of creating life, bringing life into this world and being able to end a growing life to be. Women do know that sometimes the best decision is also the most difficult. Some women feel they are ending a life and treat their abortion as such with a memorial and a tribute to the baby that would have grown. Some women feel only relief and gratitude after their abortion. Some women do not believe that the embryo growing inside of them is a life and are not emotional about it at all. If you believe abortion is wrong then with facts and proper information, tell women why and honestly do what you want to, to help women in other ways. But calling mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers and sisters who share different perspectives than you, essentially, murderers isn’t going to help you or your cause. 

    So, to wrap it up, please refrain from name-calling. If you’d like to continue a dialogue, do so with information that you can cite, facts, statistics and evidence that what you propose has some proven benefit for individual women and public health.

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

    • invalid-0

      Are you really interested in health information on this site, or just selected facts that advance your agenda?

      Shall we talk about the health of the close to 50 million unborn children who have perished by surgical abortion since 1973? I don’t think they’re too healthy.

      Shall we talk about risks of sterility, complications in future pregnancies, etc, that increase after a woman has an abortion?

      How about the breast cancer link, which shows up in many studies as well, and for which there is a sound theoretical mechanism?

      Do you really want women to have all of the health facts? Is that why you’re working on this site? If, so, why not offer a truly holistic discussion?

      Also, you claim that you represent the mainstream of the US. If you did, that wouldn’t make you right, but in fact, you’re not right. Neither your abortion-on-demand position, nor my 100% pro-life position, is in the majority. However, if you add up those who are 100% pro-life and those who also want to prohibit all but rape and incest cases, you get a majority, in poll after poll. Only a small minority of Americans believe what you do, which is 100% abortion on demand. Far fewer embrace that than the 100% pro-life position.

      In other words, about 98-99% of abortions would be made ILLEGAL if a majority of Americans had their way. Which position is closer to the US majority, pro-life or pro-abortion? Why do you think Obama and the Democrats are trying to “moderate” the view of their radical pro-abortion position?

      And what about other countries? Almost the whole of Latin America rejects your culture of death, as hard as you work to impose it on the population.

  • scott-swenson

    Matt: Contraception prevents pregnancy, which begins at implantation. To redefine that is to attack science and that is what HHS proposes to do by redefining contraception as abortion. I wasn’t making a “crack” about sperms and eggs, cells are life you said; and what about the “human beings that will die” from bothched abortions — as women do in every country that outlaws abortion. Your side does NOTHING to answer that, you ignore women and their lives and health. With proper education and use of contraception there will be fewer abortions, but that fact gets in the way of your ideology, and demonstrates that you really don’t care about preventing abortions, just controlling women. The vast majority of Americans understand this which is why they are tuning out the extreme rhetoric you keep repeating here.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    the AMA (American Medical Association) did weigh in on the HHS proposed regulations:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5935532.html

    And I don’t know where your evidence is for the fact that a majority of doctors don’t belong to the AMA but, again, I’m happy to read, hear about, see, be informed in any way about the medical organizations and physicians that support these draft proposals. And I don’t mean citing anti-choice organizations or the association of pro-life doctors and whatever other organizations that exist exclusively to promote an anti-choice agenda. I mean unbiased, discrete medical associations.

    …you will see that these medical associations you cite merely claim that
    pregnancy doesn’t exist until implant-ation. They don’t say that a
    human life hasn’t begun. What medical association has said that there
    isn’t life before implant-ation? And even if one did, which would be
    utterly absurd and unscientific, it wouldn’t represent a majority of
    doctors. 

    The issue is that none of us and all of us can define when life begins in toto  – but there are differences between a blastocyst and my six year old daughter – if someone were attacking my daughter and I was two weeks pregnant, I wouldn’t say – yes, please, go ahead and attack my daughter over me because my two-week embryo has more life to live and deserves to be saved. Maybe someone else would. If I were six months pregnant and my six year old daughter was being attacked,I would do everything in my power to save her without a split second to think about it because I believe that her life takes precedence in that scenario. I know many anti-choice people don’t like to think in nuance and wish only to make blanket, sweeping statements like "life begins NOW" without following up on what the consequences of that kind of sweeping decision is.

    So you chose to say, "life begins when an egg is fertilized." Okay, well you have that right. I chose to say that anti-choicers love to argue about this because it’s a ridiculous argument. What is life? What does it mean to be a human being? Is there a difference between me and a fertilized egg? Do you, as a man, know what it’s like to be pregnant? Do you have a right to tell women what we can and can’t do with our bodies? Can I force you, as a man, to get a vasectomy so you don’t impregnant women any longer if that’s something you enjoy doing? Why not? If you are causing life to be created without regard to with whom or how often and you chose not to support children that come from those situations, why don’t I have a right to force you to get a vasectomy?

    Some women, who intend to get pregnant, feel that it’s a life the moment of conception. Some women don’t feel it’s a life at ten weeks after conception. There is no way, as a society, we are going to define how we all need to feel about "life" inside of a woman’s body in the same way. 

    I felt life growing inside of me the moment my son was conceived and the moment my daughter was but during another pregnancy, I didnt’ feel that at all. Honestly, you can argue about when life begins and when it doesn’t but your conclusions, taken to the level of public policy and law are just absurd. If a fertilized egg is a person, then what benefits, rights, and additional laws are afforded to women during pregnancy? What responsibilities do corporations and government have to ensure that our air is clean and our water is not polluted and that wome are fed propersly so that the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall? I mean, if not, it’s death, right? If a woman prevents implantation in any way, she’s helped to ensure the death of a person? If the egg does implant, and a woman eats the wrong food, gets in a car accident, if you smoke and live with her and one of these things leads to the "death" of the implanted egg, who is responsible?

    This obsession with fertility and eggs being fertilized and implanted in women’s bodies as life and therefore protected at all costs – even to the detriment of women’s lives, bodies and health, even to the detriment of society is so bizarre to me. I have no problem with you, personally, embarking on whatever mission you’d like to give women all of the information they need to make the best choices they can about their bodies and fertility. But anti-choicers don’t do that because they believe abortion is murder. But 30% of women in this country will chose abortion at some point in their lives. How do you explain this? All women are stupid? Ignorant? Given the wrong information? 

    You can continue to argue about when life begins but that isn’t the issue. I really do understand that for some, the thought of even a blastocyst’s "life" ending causes despair. And who am I to say to someone that they shouldn’t feel sad about that? But, again, you cannot say to the millions of women who chose abortion knowingly that we must be forced into carrying a pregnancy to term and either giving a baby up for adoption or becoming a parent. Whether you like it or not, pregnancy and life start inside of a woman’s body – and if it’s inside my body, I get the final say, until that life is viable without me.

    The government has provided for the interests of woman and child in Roe v. Wade in a way that ensures that both are protected. It’s 

     

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • invalid-0

    Firstly, in western society there is customarily a period of time that precedes a wedding known as an “engagement”, during which said wedding is planned. Besides, I could fit both an officiant and a ring in my pocket at the same time.

    I need a health care professional who does not sully his hands with the blood of the innocent.”

    This is nonsense because it does not impact the care that you would receive.

    You may (feel that you) need a health care professional who is willing to prescribe emergency contraception.

    The need is not for a physician willing to prescribe emergency contraception, but for emergency contraception itself. Try to get it through your head: doctors are not medical care. Medical care consists of things like drugs, procedures, therapies, tests and the like.

    I, Lucille, feel I don’t have that medical “need”

    Very fine. I don’t see why that should have any implications for those who do.

    The poison of the Title Felters– I know people who have lived by “Title Felt” ideals. Whatever their human path, their life is not defined by their efforts to protect the legal right to kill one’s own child.

    You think that my life is defined by 20 minutes or so a day spent correcting sloppy thinking on the internet? If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to stop spouting such obvious nonsense.

    There really is so much more to life. Some of the “Title Felt” people could probably give you and your fiance a little perspective.

    On what? Substance abuse? Divorce? Teen pregnancy? Criminal enterprise? In each of these things, areas dominated by religious conservativism lead the pack. This is the point I wanted you to understand: despite all the insistence by the Religious Right that people would live better lives if we emulated them, the empirical evidence shows otherwise.

    For example, you could allow your sexual intimacy to be reduced to something as meaningless as what occurs between two dogs in heat (in between feverishly ensuring that your fiance can easily dispose of any inconvenience that may crop up; I mean, what would she possibly want with THAT?! She’s just sitting around waiting for you to come panting up behind her).

    Why do you assume my sex life with my fiancée is meaningless? Why would you assume that we would abort a child? Both are completely false, and I’ll be the bigger person by not returning your crude remarks about the woman I love. You have never met this young woman, yet you tar her as shallow, unfeeling, little better than a dog. Yet you presume to lecture me about perspective and morality.

    Incidentally, we happen to own several dogs and I have never seen one make such a mean-spirited snap judgment about a person. Perspective indeed.

    A free society may legitimately require businesses to make certain disclosures even though such disclosures may turn away business. This adequately protects the fundamental rights of the public, including the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and Christian Scientists, who also would rather not migrate. (Hopefully that answers your Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim and Christian Scientist question.)

    No. First, it would only apply to such individuals in private practice. Unless you would similarly allow hospitals, pharmacies, etc. to refuse to hire any of the above or to terminate their employment upon discovering their beliefs, then how can there be such “disclosure”? Should hospitals take out television ads every day to advertise exactly what services are being allowed and denied by whoever is staffing each shift?

    Second, medicine is not just a job; it’s a profession. As such it has standards of practice, both those enforced internally by the profession itself and those created by the state via licensing provisions. A physician who doesn’t believe in medical treatment is in fact no physician at all, no matter his degrees.

    4) Title Felters should have the right to trained doctors and pharmacists who “do no harm”, even if you personally are not opposed to harm.

    They certainly have the right to find and frequent such practitioners if they so choose, but they do not have an unalienable right to be provided with one, since it is not actually relevant to medical care. Once again, this is a matter or your not understanding the difference between medical care and its provider.

  • invalid-0

    I ask because you seem to enjoy running in circles. Maybe it’s the endorphins from the excercise?

    We are objecting to intentional assaults on, or reckless disregard for human life. You are saying, “Why can’t we just kill what is not guaranteed anyway?” Keep in mind your current stage of life is not guaranteed by nature; why, then, should you be protected?

    Such sloppy thinking from you,tsk. It is only your opinion that the use of BC is somehow “reckless disregard”. I put it to you that an anti-contraception pharmacist putting his/her personal beliefs over the rights of a woman seeking BC is the true “reckless disregard”. My current life stage may not be guaranteed by nature, but my rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution which recognizes me as a person with certain inalienable rights. Rights your side wants to take away from me and other women.

    Your attempt to define words to suit your agenda and to usurp the scientific method used for centuries has already been addressed in this thread, so there is no need to go around the circle again.

    Hold on a minute here! This logical fallacy you are spouting (accusing the pro choice side of doing something the anti abortion side is doing) is quite enough. You are trying to claim your opinion is somehow a “scientific method”. Talk about re-defining words, that takes some chutzpah.

  • invalid-0

    1. The AMA represents about 19% of practicing physicians:

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PracticeManagement/tb/3516

    Even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t make them right. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But as it happens, they don’t represent anything even close to a majority.

    I doubt any other medical association has a majority of their particular field as members. You guys always play on that assumption, however, making them into the authority, when in fact they’re just well-organized groups with their own agendas, like all such professional groups.

    2 The AMA has no press release or any other statement on its site (that I can find) “weighing in” on the issue, as the Houston Chronicle claims. But even if an AMA spokesman made some statement, it doesn’t even necessarily represent the beliefs of the members. Where is your proof that it does? Was this voted on by the 19% of physicians who are members of the AMA?

    3. You write:

    The issue is that none of us and all of us can define when life begins in toto

    What do you mean by “in toto”? I’m not asking you about the Latin (but I congratulate you for using it, instead of “in total”), but rather about how you wish to apply it here. Are you saying that the zygote isn’t totally alive? Part of it is non-living? I don’t think anyone with scientific knowledge of the stages of development would claim that.

    You seem to mean that it hasn’t grown to its complete potential. That’s also true of a 10 year old — so does he cease to be a living human being? Perhaps he’s not totally alive, and can be killed according to your criteria?

    There’s no debate, Amie. A unique human life begins at fertiliz-ation (hyphenated to avoid your “glossary” section), and that’s the whole conscience issue that is being faced here. The whole reason people object to abortion is not that it merely ends implanta-tion but because it kills an innocent human life. So debating if it is “aborti-facient” according to some strict clinical definition is not the point.

    Since we all know that the zygote is alive, and since it is the whole issue in the first place, would it make you happy if we used a more literal and accurate term, like “killifacient”? Or how about just plain old “deadly”?

    4. You say that 30% of women have abortions, then accuse me of saying all women are stupid or uninformed. But Amie, 30% isn’t all. It’s 30%.

    Are you saying the other 70%, who decided not to pay a “physician” to tear their baby apart with a vacuum hose, are stupid?

    I don’t think the 30% who do so are stupid. They’re mostly ill-informed, which is why your movement fights to stop mandatory ultrasounds and other means that would show them what they’re doing. If pro-abortion groups like “Planned Parenthood” thought for one minute that women wouldn’t care, you wouldn’t expend the resources fighting it and other programs that require women to be informed about the stages of development in the womb, would they?

    5. You talk about an “egg” implanting in the uterine wall. Amie, eggs don’t implant there. Zygotes do. You’ve gotten so carried away with your “fertilized egg” nonsense (when fertiliz-ation is completed, there is no egg or sperm left, only a zygote, according to medical terminology and science) that you even talk about eggs implanting in uterine walls. You’re confused, Amie. “Fertilized egg” is an abortion activist’s term, not a medical one.

    6. I don’t feel “despair” over any life ending. Death is a sad aspect of our lives, but it is inevitable. As a theist and Catholic I have hope, not despair. But I certainly think that actions that deliberately cause the death of an innocent human being are wrong. It’s called murder. Will you justify that by saying “death naturally happens, so why worry about it”?

    In fact, that’s just what you are saying, Amie. Think about it.

  • invalid-0

    What on earth are you talking about?

    I think you are referring to where I said that there is a huge difference between a naturally-occurring abortion, and one that is induced.

    An induced abortion is a deliberate assault on human life by another human.

    There is no comparison between the two.

  • invalid-0

    The scientific method would test a hypothesis many times to confirm the expected outcome. The scientific method would NOT say, “Oh, there are so many variables; too many to test, so we will just pretend we have a conclusion and proceed based on that.”

    Yes, our opinions of what constitutes reckless disregard do differ.

  • invalid-0

    As you may or may not be aware, no abortion is required to arrest the forward progress of sperm in a nocturnal emission. It has made it as far as it will go.

    A fertilized egg, on the other hand, will naturally progress to birth and beyond, unless arrested by deliberate assault.

  • invalid-0

    1)A smart boy like you could probably figure out a way to plan a wedding a little faster, or trouble yourself to save marital expressions for marriage (since you apparently believe in the institution). I am glad to know you would not abort your child.

    2)My crude remarks were about you, not your fiance, and I stand by them. Further, my comments regarding you were based on things you said about yourself. You seem to be fine with lumping together large groups of people about whom you know nothing.

    3)Disclosure: hospitals and doctors offices are experts at it, if they really want it. They also seem quite deft at the referral process.

    4)Providers’ attitudes do, indeed, influence the care they receive. For example, in our state, there was a recent story about a transplant surgeon, whose attitude was that he REALLY wanted an organ, so despite a law to the contrary, he was present in a patient’s room, and gave an order to a nurse that would clearly hasten the death of the patient. Standards, shmandards.

    • invalid-0

      1)A smart boy like you could probably figure out a way to plan a wedding a little faster,

      Am I going too slow for you? This timeline suits my fiancée just fine.

      or trouble yourself to save marital expressions for marriage

      Actually, sex is an expression of our relationship, which exists right now and is strengthened and enriched by our intimacy.

      My crude remarks were about you, not your fiance, and I stand by them.

      Oh really? Perhaps we should recap:

      For example, you could allow your sexual intimacy to be reduced to something as meaningless as what occurs between two dogs in heat

      mean, what would she possibly want with THAT?!

      She’s just sitting around waiting for you to come panting up behind her)

      Shame on you.

      Further, my comments regarding you were based on things you said about yourself.

      Another lie, since I never said anything about my sex life with my fiancée being meaningless, or intending to abort any children we conceive.

      You seem to be fine with lumping together large groups of people about whom you know nothing.

      I didn’t lump them together; the scientists who conducted the study did. They’re what we call aggregate statistics. Aggregate statistics are meant to show the big picture. You may know several individuals who seem to contradict them, but overall the evidence is clear that those who reject religious conservative “values” suffer less social dysfunction than those who embrace them, in much the same way that smokers have shorter lives than non-smokers.

      3)Disclosure: hospitals and doctors offices are experts at it, if they really want it. They also seem quite deft at the referral process.

      You didn’t answer my question. Should hospitals be allowed to discriminate against doctors’ belief systems in hiring and firing, or do you really expect them to somehow broadcast their ever-changing range of services continously?

      I note that you offerred no defense to the fact that a professional must abide by standards and be mindful of his or her duty to the public.

      4)Providers’ attitudes do, indeed, influence the care they receive. For example, in our state, there was a recent story about a transplant surgeon, whose attitude was that he REALLY wanted an organ, so despite a law to the contrary, he was present in a patient’s room, and gave an order to a nurse that would clearly hasten the death of the patient. Standards, shmandards.

      …and was this doctor disciplined? Did they lose their job? Apparently there was a “story” about it, so obviously it wasn’t just taken in stride. This doctor’s beliefs led him to take steps against the interest of a patient. Do you believe he should be protected from the consequences of that, or does that only apply when you personally agree with those beliefs?

      I think you made my point nicely. Doctors who allow their personal beliefs to override their duty towards their patients should suffer consequences.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t think you’ve added anything new to the conversation. I will be happy to contribute to flushing out the issues as the dialogue continues.

    One suggestion towards your concern for the women around the world. . .I imagine they would really appreciate some treatment for obstetric fistula, and probably for malaria, quite possibly as even a higher priority than contraception and abortion. This even though they may not even realize how lucky they are to be free of the scourge of developed societies–breast cancer for 1 in every 8 women.

    Try Googling “breast cancer risk factors”, and be sure to click on reputable sources like Mayo Clinic. Then please add that to your comprehensive list of statistics.

  • invalid-0

    Hey, I thought you weren’t supposed to use the term “fertilized egg.” (Nonhyphenated because I don’t care about the glossary)
    Every doctor I know uses the term fertilized egg. Fertilized egg and zygote are synonyms, nothing more and nothing less.

  • invalid-0

    If the egg does implant, and a woman eats the wrong food, gets in a car accident, if you smoke and live with her and one of these things leads to the “death” of the implanted egg, who is responsible?

    Amie, your scenario posits the UNINTENTIONAL death of an unborn child. The discussion is about INTENTIONAL assaults on an unborn child.

  • invalid-0

    The point was that attitudes influence care.

    The rest just isn’t important to me.

  • invalid-0

    The point your story illustrates is that placing your own beliefs over your duty as a professional leads to malpractice.

    It fails to raise any plausible scenario in which you would be denied access to treatment merely because your doctor does not share your ideology.

  • invalid-0

    Dear Everyone,

    From what I understand In order for life to continue there must be procreation and from procreation comes life(granted it is not a every try thing) this bill is not at all about limiting womens accsess to contraceptives but taking away the constitutional right of chioce by removing a docters right to chose from his or her morals weather or not he or she should provide the service of abortion I believe all human life is saccred and a umbilical cord clamp caonnot decide weather you are human or not i also believe that a doctor should have the right to No to performing abortions A life is a life and murder is murder if a man were to break into your house and kill your wife who was with child he would be charged with two accounts of murder does this mean its only murder if someone at that moment wants the child well in that case we should kill all orphans that are underage it end alot of suffering the world would not have as many starving people and it would be the holocost all over again

  • mellankelly1

     How about the breast cancer link, which shows up in many studies as well, and for which there is a sound theoretical mechanism?

    Many studies?  Which studies?  Regarding the accuracy of breast cancer information on the Internet, did you know that a study released by the journal, Cancer (02/2008) examined websites with breast cancer information that turn up among the top results in various search engines and examined them according to a set of quality criteria.  Government (.gov) sites were the only sites which received a 100 percent accuracy rating.  Have you visited any .gov sites in order to obtain the most accurate information to support your claim?  http://www.cancer.gov is a good place to start:

    1. National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report. Accessed May 8, 2007.

    These are the Findings:  

    • In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:
    1. Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). 
    2. Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. 
    3. Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

    The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

    • The largest, and probably the most reliable, single study of this topic was conducted during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So all information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries, was very complete, and was not influenced by recall bias.

    After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

    • Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about their reproductive history at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.
    • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodological considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."
    • The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."
  • mellankelly1

    Shall we talk about risks of sterility, complications in future pregnancies, etc, that increase after a woman has an abortion?

    Please, lets… I’m having difficulty finding any credible, peer-reviewed studies linking a greater risk of sterility or pregnancy complications to abortion so you’ll have to enlighten me as to what those risks are exactly.

    If you did, that wouldn’t make you right, but in fact, you’re not right.

    Sorry, but that was just funny.

    Only a small minority of Americans believe what you do, which is 100% abortion on demand. Far fewer embrace that than the 100% pro-life position.

    I’ll bite… what is "the 100% pro-life position?"  Would that make you a bicycle riding pacifistic vegan card-carrying PETA member who stages anti-war protests?  Do you live in a tree-house?  What’s that like?

    In other words, about 98-99% of abortions would be made ILLEGAL if a majority of Americans had their way. Which position is closer to the US majority, pro-life or pro-abortion? Why do you think Obama and the Democrats are trying to "moderate" the view of their radical pro-abortion position?

    Most people (let’s clarify, most rational people) couldn’t get past the hypocrisy of criminalizing abortion to protect the embryo/fetus with exceptions which make it clear that there are circumstances where it is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy which have nothing at all to do with the moral status of the embryo or fetus and everything to do with the circumstances surrounding the sex.  I would think that a rational society which respects it’s citizens (including the pregnant ones) and it’s Constitution would agree that the person most qualified to make personal medical decisions regarding her pregnancy is the pregnant woman.  Call me crazy but I don’t think the general population would appreciate complete strangers (including legislatures) making their private medical decisions for them.  Perhaps the thought of strangers making potentially life-threatening decisions on your behalf doesn’t bother you… crazier things have been uttered.

  • mellankelly1

    Thanks for being honest enough to say what the pro-abortion movement really thinks. We know you think that the existence of a unique human life is irrelevant, but usually you are all too coy to say so. It is very well appreciated when you just tell us the truth.

    Those of us who believe that abortion should remain a safe and legal medical procedure have never had a problem with acknowledging unique human life – you know, the one surrounding the fertilized egg.  It must be so nice for you that you get to determine which unique human life is relevant to this discussion.  The pregnant woman/embryo*fetus relationship is unique, the pregnant woman alone should decide the course of her pregnancy – the opinions of some third party with no stake in the outcome is utterly irrelevant. 

    The point is that a baby dies as a direct result. It’s called murder.

    Your "point" was merely an emotive outburst… stomping ones feet while repeating innaccurate information doesn’t make a point if you’re a grown-up.

    You are correct that a certain percentage of new human beings die as a result of failing to implant.

    A certian percentage?  Do a little research… natural embryo loss is the Scrouge of humanity – it kills more unique human life per year than all other causes of death (including, but not limited to: old age, war, murder & disease).  And the fact that you can go from spontaneous abortion to murdering people who are ill is a bit concerning.

  • invalid-0

    Semi-honest? I’m always honest because I go to credible medical or scientific sources for information.

    Now to address your latest nonsense:

    You are correct that a certain percentage of new human beings die as a result of failing to implant. So now I ask you this question: plenty of people die of various diseases, accidents, and other mishaps that occur during the course of life. Does that justify murdering people? Would you say “nature already kills people anyway, so why can’t I”? If not, are you willing to retract that point?

    There is a big difference between the murder of a born person and the termination of a pregnancy. The only point of sameness is the fact both are human.

    fundamental issue at stake. So then they talk about it ending a “pregnancy” which they define as beginning with implant-ation. It’s not the definition accepted by all doctors, but even if it were, so what? The point is that a baby dies as a direct result. It’s called murder.

    Really? What doctor(s) don’t accept this definition? You can’t be serously comparing a newly fertilized ovum with a newborn baby. Oh, dear. I see you are. Again, the only point of sameness…(say it with me). Sorry, abortion is not murder.

    Thanks for being honest enough to say what the pro-abortion movement really thinks. We know you think that the existence of a unique human life is irrelevant, but usually you are all too coy to say so. It is very well appreciated when you just tell us the truth.

    I don’t appreciate you putting words into my mouth. I am suspecting this “unique human life” is just another form of anti-abortion emotobabble. Sounds good in quotes, but it’s kind of meaningless once examined closely.

  • invalid-0

    Life began millions of years ago and has been a continous cycle. Sperm and egg are alive before they join to form a zygote. Pregnancy begins at implantation. And murder is a specific legal term under which abortion does not fall under any circumstances.