Bangkoktraveler Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 ABC News July 17, 2008 Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Bush administration for a draft proposal they say would change the definition of abortion and limit women's access to contraception. The draft proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which began circulating around Capitol Hill earlier this week, would withhold government funds from health-care providers and organizations that don't hire people who refuse to perform abortions or provide certain types of birth control. It immediately incited an uproar from leading Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash., warned in a letter to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt that the proposal has the "potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health." "One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of 'abortion,'" write Clinton and Murray. "This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception â?? including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs â?? 'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. "As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms," they write. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 Back in my chatroom days I used to talk to a Christian woman who informed that the "pill" was a form of abortion. She was looking for a husband and already had a couple of kids so it would be condoms all the way. I'll bet she's still looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 17, 2008 Report Share Posted July 17, 2008 You should ALWAYS use a condom! If for no other reason, and maybe the only reason, so you don't get trapped by some woman looking to get in your pocket. I fear pregnancy more than I fear an std. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 No, OH... you misunderstand me. It was condoms after the marriage. And certainly no sex before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 Right, I forget how Pat Robertson explained why his son was born less than 9 months after he married. Something along the lines of "...well he was conceived in the confines of a proper Christian relationship, so no problem..." or some bullshit. But really, ANY birth control is evil and wrong, as it promotes an unhealthy interest in sex. Take away the contraception, and people lose interest in sex...unless they are married (in a Christian heterosexual ceremony, all others are blasphemous and heathen like) and the couple is trying to conceive a child. Than all is o.k. It is in the scripture, look it up, I think it was Mo's letter to Curly...not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 This proposed legislation is further evidence of how incredibly stupid and dishonest the American right is. Restricting a women's right to birth control...who the fuck are these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 18, 2008 Report Share Posted July 18, 2008 We should be giving them birth control, and encouraging them to fuck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 This proposed legislation is further evidence of how incredibly stupid and dishonest the American right is. Restricting a women's right to birth control...who the fuck are these people? Well, speaking as an "incredibly stupid and dishonest American" on the right I would say... First off, your typical "pill" is NOT abortive. No conception takes place. However, IUDs and RU-486 pills (so-called "emergency contraception") work AFTER CONCEPTION, and therefore ABORT development of the fetus. "Restricting a woman's right"??? Well, this "fucking" person is one who believes that humans have a soul, and are NOT soulless talking monkeys. And since I see no evidence that the "soul" enters when the umbilical cord is cut, and the DNA matching is complete at conception (just add nourishment), I think the burden of proof is on those who would argue to the contrary. As far as controlling a woman's body, I couldn't care less what they do with their uteruses. I'm more concerned with teenagers who get tattoos on their faces or extend their ear lobes, body modification, etc... I entered middle school shortly after the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, so the biology books hadn't yet been rewritten by the revisionists. We were taught that, biologically (hence scientifically) speaking, life began at conception, not at birth. There are contrary teachings. There are certain "spiritual" teachings regarding the "breath of life", usually associated with death (he breathed his last). There is another reference I'm aware of in religious writings that say if a man strikes / hurts a woman so that her gestating baby dies, the man has to pay a not-too-large sum of money. Of course, those are religious arguments, not scientific ones. IMFRWO (in my far right-wing opinion) Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 ABC News "One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of 'abortion,'" write Clinton and Murray. "This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception â?? including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs â?? 'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. Not an overly broad definition of abortion, at all. "contra" ception refers to "preventing conception". RU-486 and IUDs do NOT prevent contraception, they stop the development of the fetus. Hence, BY DEFINITION they ARE abortive devices, NOT contraception. This has nothing to do with opinions or values, these are the scientific facts according to the universally accepted definitions. The argument Clinton and others are making is simply insincere and intellectually dishonest. It's an outright lie. The only religious group I know of who opposes real birth control are the Catholics, since it impedes the "natural order of things". I guess they want as many little Catholics as possible running around. The most conservative Baptist, snake-handling Pentecostal, or whatever almost certainly would NOT be opposed to using true contraception "the pill". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I look at this issue as a State issue as oppose to being a Federal issue. The Federal government should be getting smaller but instead, it has been cutting into all the various State issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.