Say What?!

Now, I don’t think that I have EVER blogged about politics on this site but this article in the NY Times made me feel differently.  Basically, the Bush administration has proposed a new regulation that relates to federal aid that defines what an abortifacent is so broadly, that it would include the birth control pills that women take every month, the shots that women get for birth control and Plan-B, the emergency contraception pill. 

WTF dude?  I have a huge problem with this on many levels, as both a woman and a mother and just a rational human being.

First of all, to be a good parent, I thought that you had to want and love a child.  It’s hard to love a child that someone that you hated impregnated you with by force and violence or by incest. Now don’t get me wrong, there are people that can do it and those people are AMAZING people.  But not everyone is like that.

Secondly, my understanding of this proposal is that it would allow for insurance companies and Medicaid/Medicare to deny coverage of birth control pills. You know, the ones that have been around since the 60’s that a ton of women are on.  Um, do I really need to lay out how wrong this is?!  You take away reproductive choice! Also, I know a lot of women that were on birth control pills for reasons aside from reproductive choice – they would get so physically debilitated during their periods that nothing else helped them. Would the regulation prevent that? Possibly – it’s unclear.

Also, the FDA says that a pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is implanted.  Preventing an egg from being released from the ovary prevents fertilization. Period. Even assuming that you think that life begins at fertilization (which I don’t agree that it does), life hasn’t even begun yet because nothing has been fertilized. Everyone’s happy. 

Like I said, WTF dude?


3 thoughts on “Say What?!

  1. The proposed regulation only says that organizations the receive federal HHS funding cannot force someone to perform procedures or administer medication that they find morally abhorrent or that violate their religious beliefs.

    The “meat” of the legislation is a very good thing. Like you though, I have strong concerns about the motivation, the evidence of threat cited, and the fact that the language extends the definition of abortion.

  2. I’m impressed that you could rationally respond like this. I still can’t articulate how disgusted I am or why…because the whole thing is SO WRONG on SO MANY LEVELS. Of course, this in the same week that John McCain seems surprised that women might be concerned about why Viagra is covered by health insurance, but not birth control pills (again, for pregnancy prevention or for their other uses). What century is this?

  3. In actual point of fact this draft of a proposal requests nothing more than that federal healthcare funds not be provided to organizations that are in violation of:

    A) Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 300a-7)

    B) Public Health Service (PHS) Act §245 (42 U.S.C. § 238n)

    C) The Weldon Amendment (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209)

    Full text (I’m assuming it’s accurate) of the document can be found here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s