The pro-life militia has outdone themselves:
Pill propelled into abortion debate
By Jill McGivering
BBC correspondent in Washington
The birth control pill revolutionised women's health - and grew to become one of the most popular forms of family planning. But it is now under attack from pro-life groups in the US.A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now refusing to dispense it, on the grounds that it is actually a form of abortion.
Pro-choice groups fear this new moral objection to the Pill could lead to more unplanned pregnancies, even more abortions. A woman taking the Pill does not usually release eggs. But occasionally she might - and it is possible that egg could be fertilised.
The hormonal conditions created by the Pill mean, if that happened, the fertilised egg would not be implanted or survive. Mainstream medicine does not define that as a pregnancy. But some of those strictly against abortion do.
Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek - a family doctor in Milwaukee - now refuses to prescribe the Pill. She opposes it on moral grounds, arguing it is a form of abortion."The contraceptive pill doesn't always prevent ovulation. As often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that happens, fertilisation may occur," Dr Jones-Nosacek says. "Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that being from surviving. It's called a chemical abortion."
'Caught off-guard'
That definition is suddenly gaining support and some pharmacists now refuse to dispense the Pill.
Julee Lacey, a mother of two, had used the Pill for nine years when a pharmacist at her local chemist in Texas refused her prescription.
"She [the pharmacist] began to tell me she personally does not believe in birth control," says Ms Lacey. "I was a little caught off-guard and shocked... I asked her again. She said: 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'...
"I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me," she adds.
At first these were just isolated cases, mostly in the Midwest. But recently they have increased dramatically.
Pro-choice groups now call it a significant and growing trend. Lisa Boyce of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin says it is a conscious extension of the abortion debate. "They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion here in Wisconsin," Ms Boyce says.
"Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."
Conscience clauses
And in the run-up to the election, it is a hot political topic too.
This year 12 states took steps to try to introduce so-called conscience clauses. They allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs, including the Pill, on moral grounds, without losing their jobs.
In Wisconsin, the mostly-Republican assembly passed the bill, only to have it vetoed by the Democratic governor.
Representative Curt Gielow says pharmacists should be protected.
"There was an incident where a pharmacist who worked in a retail drug store refused on conscience to fill a prescription and that individual was terminated from employment," Mr Gielow says.
"That, I believe, set the stage for concern there might be employment discrimination opportunity here if in fact you listened to your conscience instead of doing what the boss told you to do."
At the moment, the Pill is hugely popular in the US. But calling it a type of abortion opens up a whole new front in the pro-life, pro-choice debate.
This moral condemnation is a fresh challenge to one of the most used, most reliable methods of family planning.
Story from BBC NEWS
Published: 2004/09/13 16:28:25 GMT
Are these people fucking nuts??? There are people who would like to take us back to the dark ages if they had the chance. This is just one more step in that direction. The thing that really amazes me about pro-lifers is that these are the same people who support war and capitol punishment!!!
I can't think of a single other group in America that gets under my skin like hardcore anti-abortion activists. They really need to find a better hobby. Something that doesn't involve spewing hatred, meddling and interfering with the personal lives and bodies of other individuals.
What gets me, is the Repubs in Wis. Ya know, the repubs have some nerve talking about "slick willy" like he was some kind of a worm. This is the exact reason why repubs HATED Clinton so much - because he played their game better than they did and people LOVED him. The repubs know how to press the issues that people care about. They talk from the heart and make promises on very distinct issues and make it seem like they really care about you. Once in office though, their promises have "conditions" and the agenda they didn't reveal while campiagning comes out. You see, if these fuck nuts in Wis. were to campaign honestly saying "We will try to push a bill to outlaw the Pill" do you really think they would get many votes?
It is the same thing with Bush. He made promises, hid his underlying agenda, and talked a bunch of "compassionate moderate conservatism" than got into office, and turned into super neo-con. And what is even better, is he all of a sudden has stepped back to the "center" and people are buying into it yet again!
As far as this issue that the Pill is a form of abortion - then the same can be said for a woman's natural process is a form of abortion. I guess whenever a woman ovulates, than the egg is expelled and she has her period, than she can be considered an abortionist herself. Is our wonderful right going to outlaw that too?
Come on GOP supporters, I know not all of you are religious zealots - so stand up and say something about your extreme right, it is OK to not agree with everything your party does. If you do not, than you are as guilty of your extremists are.
Better yet! New law! All men have to ejaculate into a cup and have their sperm frozen to save the lives of the unborn. I haven't figured out yet what to do with all the sperm that die in the process of natural fertilization, but I think we should definitely find a way to keep that from happening too. Because those are living beings damnit!!! Or they COULD BE!!!
Posted by: Maria at September 15, 2004 02:53 PMI just have one thing to say. Every Sperm Is Sacred
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at September 15, 2004 06:34 PMActually, I have more to say. I am pro-life. I wish abortion were unnecessary and could just go away. I find the practice abhorrent.
Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary but I dare to dream. Doing away with birth control is just madness. I understand that some pharmacists feel it is against their belief to dole them out but that shouldn't get in the way of people getting them. The pharmacist shouldn't be forced to go against his belief but then again what if it were against his belief to hand out pain killers... Perhaps, staunchly religious folks shouldn't be in the medicine business. Or maybe pharmacies could dole out birth control on set days and then not schedule the guy to work.
We accomodate religious and non-religious beliefs all the time at work, school or whatever. There has to be a middle ground. Religion shouldn't infringe on the rights of others and those with certain beliefs shouldn't be forced to do things that they are against.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at September 15, 2004 06:48 PMRespectfully saying Rose, you are missing the point. You almost touched upon the reasonable response, but you fluttered away from it.
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. are people that need to be objetive in their practice. If we as a society start letting our health care workers bring in too much personal belief into their practice, than we have a big problem on our hands. Regardless of whether they feel caring for their patient is "right" for their own moral sake, they are bound by an oath they took. Not only are the bound philosophically, but they are bound legally to the otah they took upon signing for their respective licenses. I am sure there are plenty of doctors and nurses that do not want to try the save the life of a murderer, but by law, they have to do it. They decide what is best for the patient based on the patients needs or wants. They base their decisions on purly objective knowledge.
When we start giving any of our health care workers the freedom to make their medical decisions based on their own religious convitcions, than those people need not practice and surrender their licenses.
I respect them greatly for their faith, and living in this country they are free to practice it whenever and however they want, AS LONG as it does not infringe upon me. And that means, if I want my persrciption filled, than my pharmacist has a legal obligation to fill it regardless of his religion.
I think people are getting too free with throwing around rleigion just because we have a nut case in office. Personally, I think Bush is a fraud when it comes to faith. It is just a show for him.
Posted by: nunya at September 15, 2004 11:05 PMWhat gets me is that this sort arrogant stupidity that you can bring your personal moral set to bear on your work performance in a public venue gets any purchase at all. This situation is precisely why the founders established the separation of church and state. I say any pharmacist who fails to fill a prescription from a physician is not doing their job and should be fired out of hand for it and possibly even have their licence revoked. Its simply not their call.
Posted by: cul at September 16, 2004 08:29 AMCul - exactly. I mean, yes, there are cases where using your own moral judgement to do or not do job may be called for, but in healthcare - no.
What I find funny is, for example, these folks not wanting to go to war because of their own religious convictions. Amazing how we don't allow that (which is a very reasonable thing) but we allow these people in health care that we should trust 100%, to decide what we can and cannot take because THEY don't beleive in it.
It is bullshit andyway you slice it, and anyone who agrees with it, I am sorry, is a moron until they can prove a valid reason why these people are correct in what they are doing.
I am sorry, these right wing christian religious nutballs in this country are getting out of hand. They have Bush in office so they think that gives them a blank check to push their holier-than-thou ways onto everyone else.
off topic:
so much for that "11 point jump" following the RNC
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=1&u=/afp/20040916/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll
Posted by: nunya at September 16, 2004 01:21 PManother off topic:
http://www.wral.com/news/3738885/detail.html
this security thing is getting out of hand
Posted by: nunya at September 17, 2004 10:38 AMyour skipping on some very important news maria
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_no_wmd
Posted by: nunya at September 18, 2004 03:54 PMhow do you like THIS shit:
September 16th, 2004 2:38 pm
GIs claim threat by Army; Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster / Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.
Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world.
A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't re-enlist with the brigade were threatened.
The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team.
"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.
The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view.
"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said.
The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the sergeant said.
"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.
A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.
"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.
Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said from the Pentagon Wednesday.
"We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's got to be a factor," he said.
"There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that might deploy," said Healy.
Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are "stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.
A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as long as they needed us."
Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty.
The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each.
The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think tank Global Security.
"They want these units to fight together and train together. They're basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout training and deployment, so I can understand why they would want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the whole cycle," Pike said.
But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last week believe they've already done their duty and should not be penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year with the 3rd Brigade last April.
"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.''
The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled, unable to sleep and "filled with dread."
"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.
Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson
WHAT THE FORM SAID
Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . . or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).''
WHAT IT MEANS
Soldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team until Dec. 31, 2007.
Soldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of the brigade and possibly to Iraq.