Jeannie Babb Taylor: Memo to Bush administration: only pregnant women have abortions
Wednesday August 27, 2008 11:59:25am
An old pro-life slogan says, “If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant.” One could add, “If you’re not pregnant, it can’t be an abortion.” Medical and surgical abortions can only be performed on pregnant women.
Apparently that’s not so obvious to President Bush and his minions. The Bushies have cooked up a diabolical new plan to rob women of safe and convenient birth control methods. Legislation would encounter too much resistance. Instead, the Bushies are acting through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, a Bush appointee, simply changed the official definition of the word “abortion.”
Abortion is normally defined as the ending of a pregnancy with no surviving fetus. The term includes spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion. The term applies even if the fetus dies weeks before the abortion, or if no embryo ever formed in the first place.
Here’s the new Bush abortion definition, according to the draft HHS provided to Reuters: “The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures — including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
The last phrase in the above quote is particularly problematic. For those who missed out on sex education, a woman is not pregnant until implantation. Conception usually occurs in the fallopian tube, and it takes several days for the fertilized ovum to travel down the tube and implant in the uterus. Before implantation, her body receives no signals that conception has taken place. A pregnancy test will give a negative result. In fact, the only conceptions we know about prior to implantation are those that happen in a petri dish.
Notice that the word “pregnancy” appears nowhere in the above definition. If a woman is not pregnant, how can she have an abortion? In redefining abortion, the government redefines pregnancy itself. Pregnancy becomes the default condition for any woman who cannot prove she isn’t. The new definition does fit the CDC’s April 2006 proclamation that all women between menarche and menopause should be treated as “pre-pregnant,” just in case.
Worst of all, Michael Leavitt’s rule change requires no Congressional approval. Like most Bush decisions, it is simply dumped on the American people with no due process and no recourse.
As Hillary Clinton explained in her typically understated manner, “This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception — including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs — ‘abortions’ and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.”
The birth control pill and its cousins (Depo-Prevara shot, patch, etc.) prevent ovulation. The IUD prevents ovulation and also kills or immobilizes sperm. Here’s where the Leavitt argument comes into play: theoretically, these methods have the potential to stop the implantation of a fertilized ovum. Of course, there is no evidence that this actually happens. Gathering such evidence would be virtually impossible.
No evidence? No problem. The Bush administration has never let reality get in the way before. You remember those “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. They must be around here somewhere . . . along with all the potential children who were never ovulated, never conceived, never implanted and never part of any woman’s pregnancy.
Broadening the definition of abortion has potentially devastating effects when combined with any future legislation limiting abortion. Many Americans are against abortion, but how many of us really want to see birth control pills banned?
And when birth control pills become taboo, what about breastfeeding? Breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and could theoretically suppress implantation in the same way birth control pills might (or might not).
As Leavitt pointed out when the memo leaked, he is not banning birth control pills. However, he is placing that power in the hands of pharmacists, health care workers and insurance companies. They get to decide what is moral and right for us women.
Clearly the GOP has more concern for some fundamentalist pharmacist’s conscience than for millions of women who depend on reliable contraception. Never mind that birth control pills also treat various menstrual conditions, making life more bearable for so many. Never mind that the pills prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies. Never mind that they prevent true abortions on women who are, you know, actually pregnant.
The important thing is to help the poor, innocent, un-implanted children! Help them do what? Well, get implanted, of course.
Do not construe this goal to include helping the children experience healthy births, access to quality child care, adequate education, or some kind of medical care. In the GOP way of thinking, those problems are best solved by individuals. Somehow they believe that females are not intelligent enough to determine when to have children, yet are resourceful enough to raise dozens on our own.
Guess how Leavitt justifies classifying birth control as abortion? It is directed at rape victims. Several states have recently enacted laws stating that rape victims should be offered emergency contraception so they do not become pregnant. Leavitt claims that is just not fair to health care workers, because they may have political objections to filling those prescriptions. The new definition tramples dozens of state laws. According to Leavitt, health care companies should continue to receive federal funds even if they force rape victims to get pregnant.
Who is this Michael Leavitt anyway? He has achieved such an important health position in the President’s cabinet that he now holds power over every womb in the nation. He must be a renowned physician.
Well, no. Before Leavitt went into politics, he ran one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the U.S. Now he is using his position to redefine abortion in a way that benefits insurance companies.
Surprise, surprise. As with everything in the Bush administration, this rule change is not about principles. It’s just about money.
Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.
Apparently that’s not so obvious to President Bush and his minions. The Bushies have cooked up a diabolical new plan to rob women of safe and convenient birth control methods. Legislation would encounter too much resistance. Instead, the Bushies are acting through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, a Bush appointee, simply changed the official definition of the word “abortion.”
Abortion is normally defined as the ending of a pregnancy with no surviving fetus. The term includes spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion. The term applies even if the fetus dies weeks before the abortion, or if no embryo ever formed in the first place.
Here’s the new Bush abortion definition, according to the draft HHS provided to Reuters: “The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures — including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
The last phrase in the above quote is particularly problematic. For those who missed out on sex education, a woman is not pregnant until implantation. Conception usually occurs in the fallopian tube, and it takes several days for the fertilized ovum to travel down the tube and implant in the uterus. Before implantation, her body receives no signals that conception has taken place. A pregnancy test will give a negative result. In fact, the only conceptions we know about prior to implantation are those that happen in a petri dish.
Notice that the word “pregnancy” appears nowhere in the above definition. If a woman is not pregnant, how can she have an abortion? In redefining abortion, the government redefines pregnancy itself. Pregnancy becomes the default condition for any woman who cannot prove she isn’t. The new definition does fit the CDC’s April 2006 proclamation that all women between menarche and menopause should be treated as “pre-pregnant,” just in case.
Worst of all, Michael Leavitt’s rule change requires no Congressional approval. Like most Bush decisions, it is simply dumped on the American people with no due process and no recourse.
As Hillary Clinton explained in her typically understated manner, “This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception — including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs — ‘abortions’ and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.”
The birth control pill and its cousins (Depo-Prevara shot, patch, etc.) prevent ovulation. The IUD prevents ovulation and also kills or immobilizes sperm. Here’s where the Leavitt argument comes into play: theoretically, these methods have the potential to stop the implantation of a fertilized ovum. Of course, there is no evidence that this actually happens. Gathering such evidence would be virtually impossible.
No evidence? No problem. The Bush administration has never let reality get in the way before. You remember those “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. They must be around here somewhere . . . along with all the potential children who were never ovulated, never conceived, never implanted and never part of any woman’s pregnancy.
Broadening the definition of abortion has potentially devastating effects when combined with any future legislation limiting abortion. Many Americans are against abortion, but how many of us really want to see birth control pills banned?
And when birth control pills become taboo, what about breastfeeding? Breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and could theoretically suppress implantation in the same way birth control pills might (or might not).
As Leavitt pointed out when the memo leaked, he is not banning birth control pills. However, he is placing that power in the hands of pharmacists, health care workers and insurance companies. They get to decide what is moral and right for us women.
Clearly the GOP has more concern for some fundamentalist pharmacist’s conscience than for millions of women who depend on reliable contraception. Never mind that birth control pills also treat various menstrual conditions, making life more bearable for so many. Never mind that the pills prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies. Never mind that they prevent true abortions on women who are, you know, actually pregnant.
The important thing is to help the poor, innocent, un-implanted children! Help them do what? Well, get implanted, of course.
Do not construe this goal to include helping the children experience healthy births, access to quality child care, adequate education, or some kind of medical care. In the GOP way of thinking, those problems are best solved by individuals. Somehow they believe that females are not intelligent enough to determine when to have children, yet are resourceful enough to raise dozens on our own.
Guess how Leavitt justifies classifying birth control as abortion? It is directed at rape victims. Several states have recently enacted laws stating that rape victims should be offered emergency contraception so they do not become pregnant. Leavitt claims that is just not fair to health care workers, because they may have political objections to filling those prescriptions. The new definition tramples dozens of state laws. According to Leavitt, health care companies should continue to receive federal funds even if they force rape victims to get pregnant.
Who is this Michael Leavitt anyway? He has achieved such an important health position in the President’s cabinet that he now holds power over every womb in the nation. He must be a renowned physician.
Well, no. Before Leavitt went into politics, he ran one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the U.S. Now he is using his position to redefine abortion in a way that benefits insurance companies.
Surprise, surprise. As with everything in the Bush administration, this rule change is not about principles. It’s just about money.
Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.
Post a comment: You must be logged in order to comment.
Comments: 345 Joined: 06/26/2008 |
09/11/2008 11:40:56 PM
JW-Thanks for the information. I was not saying that doctors should promote abortion. The doctor should put the patient first, and offer ALL cancer treatment options and tell her what the side effects would be, both to her and to her unborn child. The doctor should also explain how the developing fetus and the hormones produced during pregnancy will affect her response to various treatment. The doctor should do all this without bias and without throwing in his/her own beliefs for or against abortion. It is up to the woman to decide if she wants to risk carrying to full term while going through treatment, after weighing all options with her doctor, family, and minister (and ultimately, her own conscience). I personally believe that the choice should be available to all women, but should only be exercised as a last resort. This does not mean that I am pro-abortion. |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/11/2008 02:23:24 PM
Sarah,This looks like it could be what your friend had with the shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion All this talk about "abortion pill" vs. "plan B" or "emergency contraceptive" was a bit confusing so I looked up a little on them. From what I can tell, all contain the same drug. It is, just as with BC Pills, the amount that is taken, and WHEN they are taken that determines birth control or abortion. When taken as "emergency" or "plan B" (which would be within a couple of days after the "act") NO implantation occurs. This event already happens to many people, and they don't even know it. The egg is fertilized, but may never "attach" to the uterine wall, without the "assistance" of any medication. Now, the question as to whether or not the emergency contraceptive is also abortion would be determined ONLY by how one would define "conception." Some define it as fertilization, others define it as implantation. From what I can tell, one reason why there is so much controversy around this is not because life begins at conception, but it is because we can't seem to be able to medically or technically agree on WHEN conception begins. If it begins at fertilization, then the emergency pill, plan B, and even doubling up on that birth control pill that you may have forgotten the day before, if done at the "right" time, could also be considered "abortion." I think that is the issue. Redefining words (such as "abortion") can cause further confusion because we can't even figure out and agree on what point life begins, and that's even leaving out those select few who only believe that life begins at birth. BTW, VoterWB, the abortion pill (RU-486), in any form DOES contain an element for labor induction, causing uterine contractions. And when given within the 1 or 2 month of pregnancy, is usually accompanied by a few other drugs, one being considered a "Pregnancy X" (a drug that is proven to cause severe birth defects), a drug that will thin the lining of the uterine wall, and a drug soley for labor induction....with a drug given for the issue of bleeding that all of the other drugs will cause. Just wanted to let you know that, I just found this out today. This isn't just a "pill popping" experience. I have just learned that it is quite a long process (several days) with about 4 followup visits, bedrest, etc. It's still abortion, but I think we've been duped into thinking it's a "convenient method" of abortion, when in reality, there is nothing "convenient" about it. It's a pretty intense process that requires much care. There should honestly never be any "worry" that this would become a thing that you just get a prescription and go to the pharmacy and pick up. It all must be administered by a doctor, and there is quite a long observation period that goes along with it. Not promoting it, just putting out some information that I didn't have before today. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/11/2008 09:30:17 AM
voterwithOUTbrain... i know enough about my body thank you. my question was about the pill and and how it works and the shot method that a friend of mine got. if you would just learn enough about reading a question right.... :] |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
09/11/2008 03:37:11 AM
toosavoter, with regards to radiation therapy, it depends on trimester of the fetus. Yes, radiation is dangerous in the first trimester due to stages of fetal development. Not as much in the second and third trimesters. But still not advisable if not needed. Must weigh the outcomes of treating and not treating. And I can't imagine any doctor telling a lady, pregnant and with cancer, that she must abort her baby first to be provided treatment. That would not be the first option of treatment offered. As far as chemo, there are many different chemo drugs. Some don't cross the placental membrane and thus expose the fetus. But as Sarah pointed out, much depends on the disease process and options of therapy. Also the site of CA is considered. Not all women have breast, cervical or uterine CA. And you are correct, there are always more than two sides to every issue. Not everything is either/or. |
Comments: 80 Joined: 07/11/2008 |
09/10/2008 11:20:39 PM
The morning after pill (RU-486) does not "induce labor" if used properly. If you ladies learn enough about your own bodies, you will find that if an egg is fertilized tonight, it does not implant in the lining of the uterus for a few days. It continues to make its way down the falopian tubes toward the uterus. RU-486 actually reacts with the endometrium (inner lining of the uterus) to keep it from allowing the egg to attach. If the egg does not attach to the endometrium, it does not begin feeding off the nutrients from the body nor divide and grow into an embryo. It either dissolves and passes on out of the body during the next period. |
Comments: 345 Joined: 06/26/2008 |
09/10/2008 09:13:34 PM
maggie-For pregnant cancer patients, do you think chemo and radiation are healthy for a developing fetus? If the treatment is killing cancer cells, what do you think it is doing to the unborn baby. JBT, you are absolutely correct. Sometimes, there are more than 2 sides to an issue. |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/10/2008 04:45:52 PM
sarah,I hadn't heard of the "shot" before you mentioned it, and haven't really done any research on the abortion pill. I would think that either form would just be mainly some sort of drug that would induce labor....but that's just a guess. Maybe someone may come on here with that answer. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/10/2008 03:54:19 PM
is the abortion pill the same thing as say the shot would b?does it work the same? |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/10/2008 03:44:05 PM
JBT,Thanks for coming on here and clarifying your position. Also, what you just posted makes sense as to why I remember seeing "precautionary instructions" included in the packaging of BC pills years ago. |
Comments: 123 Joined: 10/03/2006 |
09/10/2008 02:47:51 PM
A technical note: It's easy to confuse the morning after pill (Plan B, or emergency contraceptive) with the abortion pill (RU-486).The morning after pill does not cause abortion. It works only for women who are NOT pregnant. In fact, it's just a very strong birth control pill. Since women normally do not get pregnant during the act of sex, it is possible to take birth control "the morning after" and still avoid pregnancy. THAT is what is being offered to rape victims, as a precautionary measure. |
Comments: 123 Joined: 10/03/2006 |
09/10/2008 02:43:02 PM
Maggie, you say I talk pro-choice but act pro-life. Has it occured to you there could be more than just 2 positions on this issue? Part of being "pro-life" is ensuring that women who want to keep their babies actually have the means to do so. Or put another way.... part of being "pro-choice" is ensuring that women actually have a choice, not just to abort but to decide against abortion.Bush and McCain both talk about promoting "a culture of life." By this they generally mean demonizing women who want abortions. To me, promoting a culture of life means making it possible for more women to carry their pregnancies to term. I've counseled probably a thousand women before and after abortions, and what you hear most often is "I don't have a choice." What they mean is that abortion is the only choice that looks reasonable to them. They don't see any other way, no other alternative that is within reach. To me, that highlights the failure of our society to provide a safety net for the smallest and weakest. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/09/2008 03:13:00 PM
i didnt even think about cancer patients.i suppose it would depend on how advanced the cancer is and their treatment options. i agree.. very tough choice there. |
Comments: 1538 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
09/09/2008 02:32:36 PM
Sarah, you are too funny and I understand what you are saying. I strongly feel that if a woman's life is in danger, she should have the choice. However, I have read stories of women who, for instance, found out they had cancer after they were pregnant and were advised to terminate the pregnany, in every instance that I have read, they chose to continue the pregnancy. I am sure there are those who when faced with such a decision have chosen to terminate the pregnancy, but that is a tough one. I also feel that if a woman is raped, as a matter of protocol, should be offered the morning after pill, but only in those cases. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/09/2008 02:22:08 PM
i meant *agree on AGAINto maggie.. they gotta make it easier to edit stuff on here... geez. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/09/2008 02:21:29 PM
finaly something else we can agree on maggie :]but here i go again: i am pro choice too, but i hate women who use abortions as birth control. i hate women who use them at all unless it's their life at hand really. but i just havnt totally come right out and said 'all abortions are wrong'.. but i dont feel like i'm FOR abortions. maybe i'm going about this wrong.. maybe i should just say i'm anti abortion? afterall, by saying pro CHOICE i'm sayin that i feel a woman can just make up her own mind about everything. i dont believe that. i believe in life and death circumstances only. i dont believe in 'her body, let her do whatever she wants'. i always said 'pro choice- anti abortion' but that wouldnt agree with me either i dont think. |
Comments: 1538 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
09/09/2008 02:13:45 PM
JBT, how about sharing with us where we can read a copy of this rule change for ourselves. |
Comments: 1538 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
09/09/2008 02:09:22 PM
JBT, by your words you claim to be pro-life, but your articles don't come across that way, they come across as pro-choice and if you are pro-choice, then you are for abortions. Also, I don't think the person you were responding to needs little words. He after all works in the medical field and I would imagine knows a lot more than you do about medical terminology. |
Comments: 1538 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
09/09/2008 01:57:07 PM
Sarah, we agree on this point. The morning after pill should be administered by a doctor, not a pharmacist. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/09/2008 01:52:58 PM
the morning after pill should not be made available to any girl off the street. if you want to claim 'rape' to abort your baby, you should have to do the whole rape kit-n-caboodle. file a charge and whatnot. i just feel like it's wrong for any old girl to just walk up and say 'excuse me, i was raped last night.. can i have that morning after pill?'.. |
Comments: 123 Joined: 10/03/2006 |
09/09/2008 01:18:17 PM
By the way, emergency contraception or "the morning after pill" does not cause abortions. It's just a strong dose of progestine (same thing found in most birth control pills) and it works the same way. So when a woman has unplanned sex or is raped, she can still use emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy, even a day or two after the fact. This works because pregnancy is not instamatic like we imagine. It's pretty unusual for anyone to get pregnant DURING sex. I know we think of it that way. We don't imagine that babies are conceived while we're just driving down the road, or sleeping, or sitting at our desk at work. But they are. It is not the job of pharmacists to be responsible for the moral decisions of their customers. If a man buys condoms, do you think the pharmacist is going to say, "Now wait a minute, sir. I happen to know that you're not married, so I cannot in good conscience sell you these condoms." ?? Of course not. Morality is the realm of preachers, not pharmacists. Likewise, a pharmacist has no business telling a woman, "Well, in MY opinion, it's MURDER for you not to let those little critters swim right up and fertilize that egg like they want to. If you wanted to use birth control, you should have thought of that BEFORE you were raped." Abortion is a different topic. The Bush administration is trying to use abortion (which is, after all, a very emotional topic for nearly everyone) to cloud the issue of birth control access. Doctors are not required to perform abortions. No one is trying to make them do so. This isn't about whether doctors can refuse to perform an abortion. It is about whether pharmacists and insurance companies and such can refuse to give women birth control. |
Comments: 123 Joined: 10/03/2006 |
09/09/2008 12:15:17 PM
Hi, all. I'm pressed for time (need to be walking out the door RIGHT NOW) but wanted to say this:bygrace understood the article. Some of the rest of you clearly didn't. Try again! And I'll make a note to myself to use smaller words next time. (Sorry -- that bit of meanness is directly only to the poster who feels sorry for my husband!) Just FYI, I have 6 children, one of whom I adopted. I also spent over 5 years of my life, full time and then some, providing help, housing (yeah, with me in my home) and everything else to numerous teenagers who were being pressured to abort but wanted to carry their babies to term. I've stood outside abortion clinics offering help. In fact when I was a teenager myself, I followed another high schooler (who I barely knew) into an abortion clinic just to let her know that she didn't have to go through with it, and that if necessary I would forget college, get a fulltime job and help her raise that baby. Are those actions pro-choice or pro-life? You can mull that one over. Jeannie Babb Taylor |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/05/2008 05:27:55 PM
jay,from my understanding...it is set to include the "before implantation" part....and yes, that could interfere with emergency contraceptives. Whether called the "morning after pill" or whatever. The concern is that it is a problem for those who may need this procedure, for a woman who was raped and is taken to the hospital immediately afterward. I very rarely ever agree with everything JBT says in an entire article, and I don't agree with EVERYTHING in this one... But I just got a different point this time than you. And to be honest, I'm quite irritated at our current presidential administration, so I don't really care what she calls them. They're not quite making me want to stand up and defend them. I honestly don't agree with the morning after pill being available to people on demand. I think it should be an emergency option at hospitals in certain situations. The pill, itself has already caused a couple of deaths. Maybe she will come on here and clarify her position on this. One thing that some not know...some birth control pills have (or used to) have packaging info that will tell you how many and when to take them in the event of an "emergency"/missed dosage, in order to prevent pregnancy (which would be implantation). This was years before the morning after pill came into existance. So, the question is, if the word is redefined, then where does it stop? Ringgoldone is already talking about "stopping the result God intended" ....there are a few religions who think that Birth Control in any form does just that. So, where does it stop? Why do we need to blur the lines so that something crazy like that could sneak in? If we are redifing words, and rewriting laws, don't you think we need to be precise about it? Then JBT would have nothing to write about...unless she were to just come right out and PROMOTE abortion. Then it would be CRYSTAL CLEAR what she would be trying to say. and ringgoldone, First off, for someone who is SO opposed to abortion...I would think that you'd be well aware that a baby is MUCH more than just a "consequence." Are you also against emergency contraceptives and birth control? If so, I honestly think it would do you well to step into reality. We, as a nation, as inhabitants of this world NEED to do alot of things. Problem is, it doesn't work that way. As long as people have free will, there will be unappealing things for us to endure. That is life. The country isn't "changing" over to your way of thinking. Honestly, I don't think that it has EVER been how you think. "Think before you act" worked well before Roe v Wade? Really? That's why so many women were dying from botched illegal abortions? They were most likely not thinking very much before they acted "all the way around." So you may want to rethink that statement. You seem to NOT understand at all that YOUR interpretation of what YOU think GOD wants this nation to be like or do would have dire consequences for many. Alot of what you say is just flat out unreasonable...and though you act as though you have it, there isn't much bible to back up your views...not when it is actually kept in context. It's one thing to run your mouth and sound all high and mighty about this, but you NEED to just stop and THINK about it, and perhaps understand that the attitude that you carry is the same one that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for having. I honestly don't think that God needs you as his mouthpiece. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
09/05/2008 05:00:31 PM
No, ringgoldone.......... you do something that displeases God, you WON'T be eliminating any consequences. You will answer for that later. But I can't make that decision (to abort or not to abort) for someone else. They have to make that decision and then take responsibility for it. |
Comments: 606 Joined: 07/24/2006 |
09/05/2008 04:37:07 PM
To provide the abortion option (regardless of the method used) is to stop the result God intended.The message we are spreading is that you can do whatever you wish and eliminate the consequences. We need to go back to the message that worked quite well before Roe v Wade: think before you act. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/05/2008 04:05:53 PM
thank you very much, grace! i really appreciate that. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
09/05/2008 04:01:39 PM
Well Grace, and Sarah by default, I have read the article. The first time I read her article I had to re-read to make sure I was understanding what I was reading. And since that first time I have re-read the article. And now I have re-read it a fourth time, at your prompting Grace, and I still get the same message. Now I know that it has been several years since I was in school but unless the two of you read something between the lines I can't read, then I am getting the same message. I will try say this once more. I believe what the new definition is saying concerns the "morning after pill" or something like it and the procedure of medically/surgically aborting the fetus. Here’s the new Bush abortion definition, according to the draft HHS provided to Reuters: “The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures — including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” I'm not sure how something can be ended that never began. It clearly says "termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation". Now if birth control pills stop you from gettting pregnant then the above has nothing to do with the re-defining of abortion. Again, it says termination of life. If there is no life to begin with, then you can't terminate a life. Please show me where you are reading between the lines that this means birth control pills or some of the other various methods of contraception. Now I know it has been awhile since I had a science class or an English class but I just don't read into this article what you are reading. And the tone of JBT's article is set in the second paragraph when she calls President Bush and his administration "Bushies" and gives it a devilish twist by calling it "diabolical". But JBT carries one step further by saying "plan to rob women of safe and convenient birth control methods". I don't consider abortion (medically/surgically) birth control. And Grace, I think preserving the right to an abortion as a form of birth control is exactly what JBT is saying. |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/05/2008 01:33:42 PM
"yeah.. i have good and bad points to just about everything. :/"Sarah, That's the only way to weigh things out properly....to be able to look at both sides of the coin. We should all remember that there are few things in life that are absolutes 100% of the time, regardless of what we percieve, judge, or experience. Truth is the only thing that is absolute. Our interpretation of that truth is what causes variences in it. The truth doesn't change, regardless of our perception or interpretation of it. I hope that you are able to maintain that thought process throughout your life. Be open to learning, and hearing the perspective of others, while also maintaining your own convictions and what you know to be true. There are ways to make a difference in the lives of others without being forceful. And as bad as we hate to hear them sometimes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. lol. I do enjoy reading your posts. You make alot of sense. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/05/2008 01:11:57 PM
oh i have no doubt it was an abortion. plain and simple there. was wondering if that procedure had a name? [surely] b/c it wasnt any pill and there was nothing much there for him to remove b/c it[sorry] was just 'passed'.hate to say it.. but i also think if there wasnt a place for these girls to go and have this done, [clinics..physicians] it would result in a lot of back alley procedures and 'at home' remedies to their 'problems'. resulting in death or inability to have children ever. i just dont understand it though. with as many forms of birth control out there.. to get pregnant nowdays.. you almost HAVE to WANT to. and to think there are girls out there that jsut do not care at all.. knowing that there are places to help them 'get rid of' their 'problems'. thats one of my biggest problems WITH them. yeah.. i have good and bad points to just about everything. :/ |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/05/2008 12:19:01 PM
"what is THAT called??"Sarah, I think that is called abortion with or without the definition change. If a pregnancy test can come back positive, then it is abortion. From my understanding, emergency contraceptives are to be used immediately (hence the term emergency) which would prevent the fertilized egg from ever attaching itself to the uterine wall....which is what "pregnancy" is. Before implantation, it is contraception (preventative) After implantation, it is abortion. The definition in question would blur the lines beteen those two explanations, making them one and the same. I think we'd all be having a COW on here if the definition of contraception would be changed to include both induced and spontanious abortion. They are different things. And just as so many have done with so many other words...it seems that our government wishes to make them one in the same....is the word "contraception" now going to disappear from our thinking...and we can just call it ALL abortion? Is the woman who is on "the pill" now performing abortions on herself each month? This is just crazy. I do agree, and believe that it was another point of the article....that denying birth control most definately will cause more unwanted pregnancies, resulting in more abortions. But there are those who also believe that the answer to that is to make abortion illegal...which would only create an even more vicious cycle than we already have in place. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/05/2008 11:30:35 AM
this girl i know discovered she was pregnant [ about 2 weeks along] and the doctor gave her a shot in the rear that allowed her to just 'pass' the would-be life out of her.. [very sorry to be crude.. i dont know how else to write it].. what is THAT called??~~ i thnk to deny women their birth control would only cause more abortions. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/05/2008 11:11:51 AM
I wanted something that shows my age a little better.. :] |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/05/2008 11:07:05 AM
Sarah...ahhh!I like the clown better! lol. That looks too painful! |
Comments: 1219 Joined: 07/13/2007 |
09/05/2008 11:05:54 AM
Thanks for a little perspective, toosa... I had not read this article until this morning, and had only seen the posts...I was somewhat surprised to find that much of what is being posted does not seem to really line up with the actual context of the article.That being said, I must ask this....to some of you opposing this article....you all know that I'm ready to jump right in there and disagree with JBT when she says something nutty and overly biased toward men, democrats, etc.....but I was wondering....and please don't take this as insult....but were you guys reading the article, or just commenting on your opinion of JBT, herself? Honestly, and some of you should remember this, she has said ALOT that I disagree with. But I do also try to give credit where credit is due and when she write something that I feel is pretty good, I do try to let her know, especially since I've been pretty hard on her at times in the past....but I'm not too certain this article gives the message that you all believe that it does. I'm not getting the same thing out of it at all. From what I can tell, the message of the article is this: To redefine the word "abortion" to mean BEFORE implantation would also technically include ANY form of birth control....Including, but not limited to, ANY emergency contraceptive procedures/medications. (IE...if your 13 yr. old daughter is raped ....redefining abortion would cause areas that do not perform abortions, such as ours, to refuse emergency contraception for the victim.) Also, if the definition of "abortion" is left in the vague state that it has been put in, then the rights to obtain any form of preventative measures for pregnancy BEFORE conception, could be tampered with. That is a problem, any way you look at it...and ringgoldone, you mention abstinance as the best "protection." And of course, you are correct on that....however, the problem with that is that it rarely gets used. And we cannot control other people's actions.....So, abstinance works....but ONLY when it is practiced. And Jay, with your post about your decision with the d&c, you should be well aware that if definitions of words are changed, such as this, then it could become a problem when a woman goes to the pharmacy to pick up her b/c pills, and is refused because contraception could legally end up being termed as an abortion, and the pharmacist behind the counter is against it because of what it is termed. But the people who don't pay attention to that are most likely the same ones who march and yell outside of women's clinics, not caring if the woman they are harrassing outside is actually going inside for an abortion, or to just get checked out and put on birth control. Now, don't read this and put me in a pro-abortion category. I despise abortion...that is, the abortion that we speak of as removing the baby from the womb and taking it's life. But if the word "abortion" is redefined, we need to be aware that exactly WHAT we are against when we say we hate it, actually CHANGES. By allowing the government to redefine such words, what we are fighting for or against changes, and WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. That upsets me, as I believe that it is a very devious thing to do. From what I've seen in this article, THAT is the whole point. I'm just saying that I don't understand how one could read this article and think that it is pushing abortion....not unless you are inserting your personal opinion of the writer, and not the actual words written. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/05/2008 09:50:22 AM
is the morning after pill offered to any old gal who walks into a drugstore and claims she was raped the night before. or do they give it out at hospitals when rape victims come in for rape kits?is the pill at all available to women for just no reason at all? |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/05/2008 09:46:12 AM
Oh i apoligize, I wasn't aware that i was getting graded here!I'm actually quite slow w/ the texting. but if i'd like to get my point across quickly and i'm in a hurry.. i'm going to shorten the words if i like. It gets the point across. and saves me time. you understood it didnt you? i COULD sit here and make everything perfect for you, but i just dont care that much. it's just a message board. wow.. 19 lines to the little girl whose 'opinion doesn't even register'.. ??? anyways.. Just want to make it clear that i'm IN NO WAY supportive of Abortions as a form of birth control. Just because I'm Pro-Choice does NOT mean i want every little baby in the womb to be aborted. I do, however, think that in certain circumstances; it should be available to the mother. [ie: pregnancy that would most likely result in her death...SOME rapes..] sorry maggie for being rude if i came across that way. i felt that you were going at me only b/c i wasnt 100% pro Life. and i felt that you took my posts as a complete disagreement with what Jay said and rolled with it. the only thing i commented on was the personal attack (which it was) and never ever disagreed that it was a good thing he/she/it whatever... didnt go along w/ the procedure. i wouldnt have either. |
Comments: 606 Joined: 07/24/2006 |
09/05/2008 06:51:59 AM
Neither the man nor the woman have the right to end a pregnancy at any point. Both the egg and sperm came from God. Creating life is His process and all the rights that come with that are His alone.If they don't want to raise the child, give it up for adoption. There are thousands of childless couples who would love to give a child a good home. To avoid the problem, I put the responsibility on the man. We are humans. We are not animals nor did we descend or evolve from animals (despite the lies taught in our public schools). Men may have urges, but they also have a will with which they can resist the urges and a mind with which they can consider the consequences. Men also have a guaranteed protection against unwanted pregnancy. It is called a zipper. As long as it is engaged to do its job, there will be no problem. In the event that the man will not use his protection, the woman has the next best thing. It is called a knee, and appropriately placed is a guaranteed showstopper. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
09/05/2008 05:58:08 AM
AmericanCitizen, it is not just a woman's decision to end that life. She wasn't the only person there when it was made. Woman just happens to be the vessel for carrying the fetus. If a woman could fertilize herself then you might have a point. But when it takes two people to make a baby then it should take to people to end the baby. Maybe that is why God made man and woman. If Adam could have spontaneously generated a baby then he wouldn't have needed Eve. And vice versa. But God did make Man first. And Woman next to complete him. The old saying "it takes two to tango" is true. Unless of course we are talking about a bank kind of thing or a glass dish. |
Comments: 345 Joined: 06/26/2008 |
09/04/2008 10:50:26 PM
I think the controversial birth control method in question is the "morning after" pill. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
09/04/2008 08:43:38 PM
Sarah27728, I really don't care whether you think I was rude or not. I don't even know you, so your opinion doesn't even register in my world. And you don't even know me. But if you want to call someone out by name then be prepared to get as well as you give. I didn't consider what I posted as rude. Rude to me would have been to say her husband must be an idiot. Now that, to me, is rude. I don't like name-calling and don't resort to that type of rhetoric. You on the other hand have been very rude. Not only to me but to Maggie. You must be a younger person than myself. I can pick that up by the wording and misspelled words of your posts as well as your use of letters to represent words. You must be great at texting. I never stated I was a person of high morals. I do try to do what is right for me and my family. I believe in my savior Jesus Christ. I believe what my Bible says. And if God told Jeremiah that He "knew him before He formed him in the womb" then I feel that there must be some importance to that statement. The womb is mentioned many times in both the Old and New Testaments. Maybe that is because God felt that the womb and what was produced from the womb was and is important. And I have a great respect for life or I wouldn't be in the medical field. But for JBT to say President Bush plans to cook "up a diabolical new plan to rob women of safe and convenient birth control methods" is just absurd. It is not talking about prevention of pregnancy but the termination of a pregnancy. Two really different subjects. Someone who supports abortion as a form of birth control is someone I don't care to know. I am all for preventing. I am all against ending. So Sarah27728, take some of your own medicine and sleep well tonight. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
09/04/2008 07:18:56 PM
Me, personally.........I am a Pro-Life Democrat. I am 100% for doing all we can to make all abortions unnecessary to begin with (which we are NOT doing now). However, whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or not, is up to her. She makes the choice. I still believe that it is only God that gives life and takes it away. But I can't make someone else believe like I do if they don't. They will have to answer for the things they have done at the appropriate time. |
Comments: 606 Joined: 07/24/2006 |
09/04/2008 06:42:45 PM
Then why did God instruct Israel to kill every man, woman, and child of pagan nations and destroy all their possessions? God used Israel to judge them for their rebellion. If they has obeyed fully, we wouldn't have the middle east conflict we now have."There are no exceptions. It is God's place to determine when you die. Not yourself or anyone else" So you think Roe v Wade should be reversed? |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
09/04/2008 04:39:46 PM
ringgoldone........so I guess you still sacrifice animals as a burnt offering. You still have not proven your ideas that God and God only determines life and death, EXCEPT for the exceptions you noted.There are no exceptions. It is God's place to determine when you die. Not yourself or anyone else. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/04/2008 03:31:08 PM
i guess i should have just elborated that the idea of not having any contrceptives was ridiculous to me. i was only agreeing with it. i dont actually think they would try to do that. too many women on it already and with IUDs that cant afford to have them taken out. all that good stuff. and honestly, it was the only part of the post i cared to comment on b/c if i had put anything about my beliefs and whatnot on anything else up there, it would have started world war 3 on here. people dont like to hear something that they dont agree with. not without name calling and rude comments. and what he said was completely rude. ""he must not have any say so in raising his kids.. b/c it's HER right' being sarcastic and such... obviously didnt mean anything nice by it. of COURSE he was trying to be insulting. fine by me.. i've had words for JBT myself. but i just thought it humorous that he said that and then went into his story about the D&C and ended with 'its my right to say abortion is wrong' well ...it's Her's to state otherwise, right? yeah.. i gave him a little of his own medicine. i can own up to that. dont dish it out if you cant take it. and he hasnt responded.. YET :] |
Comments: 96 Joined: 12/01/2007 |
09/04/2008 03:26:54 PM
Part of the issue is whether an individual can refuse to participate in an abortion. The action taken by our government was to help protect people from being put into a position where they are required by law to violate their moral beliefs - in this case being part of taking an innocent life.Pharmacists dispense drugs that are abortifacients every day. Christians pharmacists can do so without any problems because those drugs are being used for other purposes. Some of the readers of these forums may take some of these drugs. They may say on the label or in the instructions to not take if pregnant or may become pregnant. Some of these same drugs that are used to heal can be used to kill. No one should be forced to participate in the killing. |
Comments: 606 Joined: 07/24/2006 |
09/04/2008 03:20:02 PM
Jesus did not abolish the LawMatthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." |
Comments: 1538 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
09/04/2008 01:39:56 PM
That is Clintons take on it. I don't think anyone anywhere is going to deny women contraceptives. Those are to prevent pregnancy, not abort one.Yes, Sarah you are entitled to your opinion, but I didn't see it as an insult. You however were insulting Jaydubya in what you said to him about his morals. When he was saying her poor husband, I believe he meant he felt sorry for him, not insulting him. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
09/04/2008 01:39:07 PM
I do not disagree that the government has the right to punish evildoers. However, no where in Romans 13 does it say anything about death as punishment. This is obviously your own interpretation. As far as Old Testament references, I believe that when Jesus came he discontinued some of the Old Testament practices. Life is sacred and only God has the authority to give it and take it away. |
Comments: 606 Joined: 07/24/2006 |
09/04/2008 12:39:33 PM
Romans 13 - government to punish evildoers; see Genesis 9 and Deut 19 for punishment of murderers.God, by being Creator and Sovereign of His creation, has the right to place limits on our behavior. He can send a nation into battle and that is not murder. He can authorize the government to execute a murderer and that is not murder. But abortion or ending someone's life through premeditation is murder. And since we are not the Creator we do not have the right to make that choice. |
Comments: 126 Joined: 10/23/2007 |
09/04/2008 10:43:39 AM
reread clinton's quote.. thats all i was referring to about the contraceptives.i'm entitled to my opinion too.. and if someone said 'her poor husband' referring to ME.. i would take it personally. would u not? i dont think it's okay to bad mouth someone b/c they dont agree with you. it's not okay to be rude just because you're pro-life. |
<< < Prev - Next > >>
Login
| Password: |
Newest Users
Popular Blogs
What makes me mad in Catoosa County is...
The Watercooler
Matters of Faith
Disappearance of Theresa Parker, 911 dispatcher in Walker County
What makes me mad in Walker County is...
Most students promoted despite CRCT failure
Candidates for Walker County clerk of Superior Court
Larry Brooks: And then there was this -- the mind-numbingly stupid
Meet the candidates: Walker County sheriff
Jeff O’Bryant: Sarah Palin -- Tougher in Alaska
Recent Blogs
And the winner is; Lakeview Fort Oglethorpe High School, Governor’s Cup No. 2
Jeff O’Bryant: Bush bailed, people nailed
LaFayette Rotary holds mock election
Democrats charge Catoosa Chamber debate was partisan
Handgun found in restroom at Ridgeland High
Jeannie Babb Taylor: Got melamine? Formula-fed infants are at risk both at home and abroad
New policy requires Walker County students to make up time for bomb threats
Naman Crowe: The Russia/Georgia Conflict and America
Jeannie Babb Taylor: Palin pros and cons
Northwestern, Coosa Valley tech colleges will merge services
Comments: 159
Joined: 10/09/2006
I am not "pro-abortion" any more than an "anti-abortionist" is "pro-life," a label that is often misused by people who only defend that period between conception and birth.