Friday, July 18, 2008

Contraception = Abortion?

The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

While current law allows health care providers and professionals to refuse to provide abortions based on their religious beliefs, this provision would threaten the funding of organizations and health facilities if they do not hire people who would refuse to provide birth control and defines abortion so broadly that it would include many types of birth control, including oral contraception.

This is so fucking ridiculous - - it is the type of shit that religion creates. If you don't want to provide legal medical assistance to people who require it, well, then here's an idea, don't become a nurse or a doctor, you stupid shithead! Maybe I'll become a construction worker and then tell the boss that my religion forbids me to use tools. Or I'll get a job as a chef and then tell the boss I cannot cook with any seasoning because my religion forbids it... better yet, I'll go to work at a pizza place but then refuse to put pepperoni on the cheese because I'm Jewish!

And what's with making contraception the equivalent of abortion? Hey, let's go all in, and make it illegal not to fuck every woman you come in contact with... because, well, if you don't fuck her then she can't get pregnant and that is the same as aborting your hypothetical child...

These Bushies are some sick mother fuckers.



Beeeecccccaaaaauuuuuuuussssseeeeee, csm, fucking is for creating new life only. Nevermind those concentrated nerve ending in and around your procreative organs, they are just for temptation. Your not supposed to enjoy or have happiness when screwing ;it is just for producing little bundles of joy! Get it!

G said...

Please read it again, csm. "Between conception and natural birth" pretty much eliminates every form of birth control I know of, other than abortion (whether it be by medical procedure, medication, etc.).

csm said...

I read it, G. My outrage stands.

csm said...

Two examples:

1) IUDs are not abortion.

2) The morning after pill is not abortion.

coreydbarbarian said...

what confuses me here is i always thought it was only the catholics that despised birth control. now bush and co? i've never heard of a fundamentalist protestant who opposed it. hmmm.. then again, susan orr is kinda whacko.

i think this article might clear up some of the confusion. sorry about it being from a left-leaning site. ;)

G said...


Thanks for that link. Within her article, she's reinforcing my point:

"There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb."

Therefore, this proposal would only extend the current law to include Mifepristone (RU-486), which is specifically intended to induce abortion.

And you are correct (as far as I know). It is only Catholics who are opposed to contraception in general. Most of us who are opposed to abortion make a distinction between birth control methods that prevent conception and those that destroy an already fertilized egg.

coreydbarbarian said...

your definition would essentially outlaw ru-486, right? otherwise known as emergency contraception, aka the drug they give to rape victims in the emergency room. you (seem to be) defending the possible withholding of ru-486 from rape victims in their hour of greatest need. i cannot in good conscience force a woman to carry a rapists child for 9.5 months and then suffer through childbirth.

but more to the point, this proposed rule is not bound by any science at all. to quote: "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."

i believe the quote you referenced was from a rebuttal letter from an association of physicians, and not the proposal itself. i admit it was hard to differentiate.

G said...

Well, since abortion is not illegal, then no, RU-486 would not be illegal. And I can't speak specifically for every ER in the country. But my understanding is that the more common method is to administer what is commonly called "Plan B." Plan B acts to prevent fertilization, and is safer than RU-486.

In any case, this proposal has nothing to do with what procedures and medicines would be legal or illegal. Again, I haven't read the actual proposal. But from what I've read, it is simply saying that medical facilities that receive federal funding can't refuse to hire someone because of their personal beliefs on this issue.

I know that new laws often lead to unintended consequences, but this seems pretty innocuous to me. My view could certainly change, depending on what the entire proposal says.