HHS moves to define contraceptives as abortion

[Dionysos]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristi..._b_112887.html

HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted July 15, 2008 | 02:24 PM



In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. In the "Definitions" section of the HHS proposal it states,

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

The proposal continues,

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

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science.
The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims. In 1999, the physicians -- who, like the movement at large, define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization-- released an open letter to community stating:

"Recently, some special interest groups have claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods of contraception may have an abortifacient effect...The 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error...if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

As the HHS proposal proves, the absence of fact or evidence does not slow anti-abortion movement attempts to classify hormonal contraception as abortion. With HHS' proposal they have struck gold. Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding -- even in the form of Medicaid -- and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so. As the HHS proposal details,

"Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. As discussed above, both definitions of pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical community. The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion.

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

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, .

Just curious, are the only people who oppose abortion members of the religious right or was the author just making a sweeping generalization?

And, just to prevent unnecessary debate... I believe that life begins at conception. I believe abortion should be legal under the Roe framework. I believe Griswald prevents banning contraception. My only beef is the suggestion that only the "religious right" whatever the hell that is could believe abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception. The onset of life is a purely scientific question.... not a religious one. Though one the "religious right" seem to understand a bit better than the non "religious right."

The worry is a tempest in a teapot that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

Just curious, are the only people who oppose abortion members of the religious right or was the author just making a sweeping generalization?

And, just to prevent unnecessary debate... I believe that life begins at conception. I believe abortion should be legal under the Roe framework. I believe Griswald prevents banning contraception. My only beef is the suggestion that only the "religious right" whatever the hell that is could believe abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception. The onset of life is a purely scientific question.... not a religious one. Though one the "religious right" seem to understand a bit better than the non "religious right."

The worry is a tempest in a teapot that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

Although you can find non religious people on the right who aren't against abortion, you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the religious right not opposed.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

Although you can find non religious people on the right who aren't against abortion, you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the religious right not opposed.

which doesn't really address the problem... life, when does it begin?

It is a scientific question - not a religious one. The author above would seem to suggest that the question is purely religious. Notice how they even avoid asking the question? They ask "when does a pregnancy begin?" Not quite as loaded is it?

Oh, and you can find people who are pro-life amongst the left too... even Christians on the left... atheists too.


Anyway, I just wanted to bitch about the author's manner. The general notion the author complains about is fair to complain about but the likelihood of such a program seeing the light of day is dismal to the point of meaninglessness.

[tricky]

I hate children, and believe our growth rate is too high anyways. so.....and FTR, i couldn't care less what you do with your body until about 7months, when the baby is viable.

anyways? Did ya catch bush telling us ""They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done," Bush said at a news conference in the White House press room, "is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars: They want to conserve. But the consumer's plenty bright. The marketplace works."

Yes, by ignoring the problem and then having oil skyrocket in a very short time, we've changed our habits. Planning for this with maybe higher fuel standards or alt energy would of been ridiculous.

fucking clueless

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

I hate children, and believe our growth rate is too high anyways. so.....

Right. But that's because you really don't know what you're talking about. The only part of the planet with substatial birth rates are places with lots of brown people you racist eugenecist.

Originally Posted by tricky

anyways? Did ya catch bush telling us ""They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done," Bush said at a news conference in the White House press room, "is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars: They want to conserve. But the consumer's plenty bright. The marketplace works."

Yes, by ignoring the problem and then having oil skyrocket in a very short time, we've changed our habits. Planning for this with maybe higher fuel standards or alt energy would of been ridiculous.

fucking clueless

you can't make up your mind if you want expensive gas and more zealous research on alternative fuels or if you want cheaper gas. What you want is the opposite of what GW just advocated so you can complain.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

Right. But that's because you really don't know what you're talking about. The only part of the planet with substatial birth rates are places with lots of brown people you racist eugenecist.


you can't make up your mind if you want expensive gas and more zealous research on alternative fuels or if you want cheaper gas. What you want is the opposite of what GW just advocated so you can complain.

He's defending his nonaction and the crippling pain people are feeling as the market sorting itself out.

and wow wow wow

you pull that out of your ass? where the FUCK did i say anything about one race being better than another. You should know better to make such a loaded comment as that without any fucking proof. It was based on my observations on our raping of the planet. All races should have less kids.

also, i referred to "our birth rate" i didn't say "the brown people's birth rate."

fucking a

blah

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

He's defending his nonaction and the crippling pain people are feeling as the market sorting itself out.

and wow wow wow

you pull that out of your ass? where the FUCK did i say anything about one race being better than another. You should know better to make such a loaded comment as that without any fucking proof. It was based on my observations on our raping of the planet. All races should have less kids.

fucking a

You said there's too much population growth. The only populations that are growing with any significance globally are brown people. So you must have meant we have too many brown people. Or, was this a case of you spouting off without really know wth you were talking about

As for Bush, it seemed he made the remarkable observation that high gas prices resulted in less driving. No more no less. Oh, and buying more fuel efficient cars too.

[tricky]

Quit being racist and saying that brown people fuck alot

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

Quit being racist and saying that brown people fuck alot

its not just that.... they get pregnant and have lots of babies too


seriously Aaron - you should check some world demographics... lots of places in europe are seeing population declines and are paying citizens to have babies

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by tricky

I hate children, and believe our growth rate is too high anyways.

Did you hate yourself when you were a child?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

its not just that.... they get pregnant and have lots of babies too


seriously Aaron - you should check some world demographics... lots of places in europe are seeing population declines and are paying citizens to have babies

I'm well aware of Europe and Japan's negative birth rate. The overall world population is still increasing though.

Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. However, agricultural productivity has declined in many world regions in the past ten to 20 years due to overdrafting of groundwater (such as has occurred on the North Plain of China) , overgrazing, extensive slash-and-burn and resulting soil exhaustion and erosion. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.[18] David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in their study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says the study. The authors of this study believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050.[19]
David Pimentel claims that population outcomes for the 22nd century range from 2 billion people (characterised as thriving in harmony with the environment), to 12 billion people (characterised as miserable and suffering difficult lives with limited resources and widespread famine).[20]
The oncoming peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production may precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer claims that coming decades could see spiraling food prices without relief and massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before.[21][22][23]
The book The Little Green Handbook reasons that in 2050 about 7.7 billion people would be expected to suffer from illness, lack of adequate sanitation, hunger, and extreme poverty,[9] provided that the high population estimates of year 2050 are realised.
In his recent book Collapse (2005), Jared Diamond argues that many earlier civilizations have collapsed due to environmental problems, and warns of current environmental problems. For example, he argues that it was overpopulation that led the now recovering inhabitants of Easter Island (a.k.a. Rapa Nui) to destroy their once beautiful island paradise.
“ From circa AD 1000 to circa 1650/1700 AD, Rapa Nui's population increased significantly. Some estimate the population reached a high of 10,000 or even 15,000. Moai carving and transport were in full swing from 1400 to 1650, less than 100 years before the first recorded European visitors to the island. By the late nineteenth century the population had fallen to a low of 132. Deforestation, civil wars, European diseases and slave raiding all contributed to the population crash. Core sampling and archaeology from the island has revealed a slice of Rapa Nui history that speaks of deforestation, extinction of native bird populations, soil depletion, and erosion as well as loss of access to deep sea fish as wood became scarce. From this devastating ecological scenario it is not hard to imagine the resulting overpopulation, food shortages, and ultimate collapse of Rapa Nui society. Evidence of cannibalism at that time is present on the island, though very scant. Van Tilburg cautiously asserts, "The archaeological evidence for cannibalism is present on a few sites."[24] ” However, he also notes situations in which humans have managed their natural resources well.
For reasons that are still debated, the Maya centers of the southern lowlands went into decline during the 8th and 9th centuries and were abandoned shortly thereafter.[25] There is evidence that the Maya population exceeded carrying capacity of the environment including exhaustion of agricultural potential and overhunting of megafauna.[26]

just something to think about. But as a conservative, i know you don't give a shit about anything but the here and present. Long term planning....what's that? Global warming? lies!

(keep referring to me as a eugenicist and i'll keep being a dick)

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

which doesn't really address the problem... life, when does it begin?

It is a scientific question - not a religious one. The author above would seem to suggest that the question is purely religious. Notice how they even avoid asking the question? They ask "when does a pregnancy begin?" Not quite as loaded is it?

Oh, and you can find people who are pro-life amongst the left too... even Christians on the left... atheists too.


Anyway, I just wanted to bitch about the author's manner. The general notion the author complains about is fair to complain about but the likelihood of such a program seeing the light of day is dismal to the point of meaninglessness.

I think the larger point is that the HHS moved away from the scientific(and medically accepted) definition of pregnancy to one that is much less accepted within the scientific community, presumably so they could widen the definition of abortion.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

I'm well aware of Europe and Japan's negative birth rate. The overall world population is still increasing though.

Yes, in third world countries.... with lots of brown people. See the conundrum of arguing for controlling population growth.

Originally Posted by tricky

just something to think about. But as a conservative, i know you don't give a shit about anything but the here and present.

Another example of you being certain about something that is in fact not true.

Originally Posted by tricky

Long term planning....what's that? Global warming? lies!

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm agnostic - I am not denyng anything. I want more data. You on the otherhand have never read a report, theory or proposal from Global warming alarmists that you haven't imbedded into your DNA. Who's the objective one and who's the sheep here?

Originally Posted by tricky

(keep referring to me as a eugenicist and i'll keep being a dick)

good lord... like I need that reference, which was clearly a joke, for you to be a dickhead... its somethnig you take specific pride in Aaron.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

I'm well aware of Europe and Japan's negative birth rate. The overall world population is still increasing though.

Yes, in third world countries.... with lots of brown people. See the conundrum of arguing for controlling population growth.

Originally Posted by tricky

just something to think about. But as a conservative, i know you don't give a shit about anything but the here and present.

Another example of you being certain about something that is in fact not true.

Originally Posted by tricky

Long term planning....what's that? Global warming? lies!

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm agnostic - I am not denyng anything. I want more data. You on the otherhand have never read a report, theory or proposal from Global warming alarmists that you haven't imbedded into your DNA. Who's the objective one and who's the sheep here?

Originally Posted by tricky

(keep referring to me as a eugenicist and i'll keep being a dick)

good lord... like you need that, singular reference which was clearly a joke, for you to be a dickhead... its somethnig you take specific pride in Aaron.