April Reign

Speak your mind even if your voice shakes

birth control

I don’t fill prescriptions at your church, don’t preach in my pharmacy!

by

Equivalent of abortion?
Equivalent of abortion?

The Bush administration in it’s continuing efforts to appease the crazies appeal to it’s base is drafting legislation which would

  • consider contraceptives abortifacts
  • require family planning clinics to hire staff opposed to family planning
  • allow any health care provider to refuse care based on their religious beliefs
  • consider fertilized eggs not implanted fetuses to be a pregnancy (even though there is no way to test for this )

Under the draft proposal, federally funded hospitals and clinics that provide family planning services would be required to promise in writing that they will turn a blind eye to health care providers’ views on abortion and certain kinds of birth control, such as emergency contraception.

The proposed rule defines abortion as “any of the various procedures–including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action–that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Organizations that do not comply would forfeit financial aid distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

SOURCE

While it goes without saying that women have the right to choose to reproduce or not.  I wonder if they have considered that many women are on the pill for reasons other than reproductive control. Other medically indicated reasons include;

  • acne control
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
  • irregular or absent menstrual periods
  • severe cramps
  • endometriosis
  • hormone replacement therapy
  • estrogen replacement due to such causes as anorexia nervosa, damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy
  • anemia from heavy periods

from the draft pdf available here

Ambulance Firm Faces Bias Suit; Worker Fired After Refusing to go to Abortion Clinic, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 9, 2004 at C3 (“An ambulance worker who was fired after she refused to transport a woman to an abortion clinic filed a religious-discrimination lawsuit against her employer Friday…‘I just felt really strongly it was something that I couldn’t do,’ said Adamson, a devout Christian who is adamantly anti-abortion. ‘It would be against everything that I believe in and everything that I support.’”);

This is used an example of bias against people’s religious values. Now what if a gay man requires transport to the hospital is it ok for him to have to wait until an ambulance with a human being non religious person arrives? What about a JW refusing to do a life saving blood transfusion? How about as an atheist or non christian your caregiver declines to contact your priest for last rites because it doesn’t jive with their beliefs? Yes this is a can of worms for choice but also for religious war. And if churches are deciding laws and politics is it not time that their tax exempt status was revoked?

An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. Whether an organization has attempted to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities is determined based upon all relevant facts and circumstances. However, most IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations may use Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, to make an election under IRC Section 501(h) to be subject to an objectively measured expenditure test with respect to lobbying activities rather than the less precise “substantial activity” test. Electing organizations are subject to tax on lobbying activities that exceed a specified percentage of their exempt function expenditures. For further information regarding lobbying activities by charities, download Lobbying Issues.

For purposes of IRC Section 501(c)(3), legislative activities and political activities are two different things, and are subject to two different sets of rules. The latter is an absolute bar. An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the forum or debate shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity. The motivation of an organization is not relevant in determining whether the political campaign prohibition has been violated. Activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria, violate the political campaign prohibition of IRC Section 501(c)(3).

SOURCE

It is said that there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, it is obvious that there can be no such thing as being a little bit pro-choice. American women need to come out in droves and support pro-choice candidates. Not just for themselves but for their daughters and granddaughters and sisters. There is a war on American soil. It is the war of religion against reason, lies against science, and a war for control of your body. Don’t let the Bush administration, as did the Nazi’s, as did the Ceausescu regime, make your body property of the state.

And to Canadian readers, this is why we cannot as Ms. May insists have ‘dialogue’ with the anti-choicers. It only emboldens them. Bills C-484, C-537 and Bill C-338 are all bills designed with the purpose of creating a climate where women’s choices are defined for them by others beliefs.

Related articles by Zemanta
  • Contraception = Abortion? Bush Plan Enrages

Celebrate Choice

by

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the right to reproductive liberty.

Abortion is not about a culture of death, it is not about hating children or being sinners. It is about controlling ones health, ones life, ones future.

There is a mistaken belief that if abortion were completely outlawed no more abortions would ever be preformed. This of course is ridiculous nonsense. Women have always practised birth control and abortion. And would continue to do so. [Read more…] about Celebrate Choice

Plows and other gyn procedures

by

Ah Pat…never one to engage brain before opening mouth. On the subject of the Women on the Waves ship Pat had this to say;

“Just think of having rocking waves while you’re getting your insides plowed into by some doctor. That doesn’t sound like fun to me…”

Now since they are handing out Mifepristone –a PILL– one wonders exactly how Pat ingests his multivitamin.

Also from the story is a must read link to an article about doctors reaction to the new abortion ban;

Dr. Christopher Estes shared a story with PRCH about a patient he treated last year. In an op-ed he wrote for The Daily News, Dr. Estes recalls treating a woman he calls Lisa. She was pregnant with her third child, and suffering from a heart condition that developed during her last delivery.

“Her condition had worsened substantially within the last week, and we were not sure how much longer her heart could withstand the strain of her pregnancy,” he says. Dr. Estes believed the safest treatment for Lisa was an abortion using the method Congress has banned. “I will have to think long and hard about what I will do the next time I take care of a patient like Lisa. What am I supposed to say to her? ‘I’m sorry, but you’re part of the small fraction of women our laws ignore?'”

further;

The Supreme Court’s decision asserts many things that are simply not true. For instance, the ruling contends that because some women might regret having an abortion if they knew what was involved, the state should anticipate that and protect them. Essentially, this ruling says that untrained politicians can make medical decisions for all of America—even when doctors vehemently disagree with Congress’ supposed findings.

Interestingly many women regret their pregnancies, I hope the Daddies on the Supreme Court are planning to ensure that pregnancy is therefore similarly regulated.

The Optics of abortion

by

In recent years, support for legal abortion has waned, which Lord attributes to the growing power of Christian fundamentalists: “We, like the good citizens of Iran, live in what amounts to a theocracy.”

A great article from Womens’ Enews showing how the media on abortion has been skewed to promote the anti choice agenda.

“Not one op-ed discussing abortion on the op-ed page of the most powerful liberal paper in the nation was written by a reproductive-rights advocate, a pro-choice service-provider or a representative of a women’s group,” reported the Prospect. “Instead, the officially pro-choice New York Times has hosted a conversation about abortion on its op-ed page that consisted almost entirely of the views of pro-life or abortion-ambivalent men, male scholars of the right and men with strong, usually Catholic, religious affiliations. In fact, a stunning 83 percent of the pieces appearing on the page that discussed abortion were written by men.”

Well isn’t that special! Nothing like equal time. [Read more…] about The Optics of abortion

Back Up Your Birth Control Day

by

Today is Back Up Your Birth Control Day in America. This action is to draw attention to these facts among others;

– Most teenagers in the U.S. don’t have access to EC over-the-counter (but they do in areas of Alaska, California, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington, Maine, New Hampshire and New Mexico)

– Despite the over-the-counter status, low-income and immigrant women still have issues of access to emergency contraception

– More than 60% of voters say they do not know about EC or any product that has been proven effective in preventing pregnancy when used within days after unprotected sex

You can read Biting Beavers’ story of trying to get EC here

or this story

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn’t want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we’re starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.

The next morning, after getting my kids off to school, I called my ob/gyn to get a prescription for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent a pregnancy — but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. As we’re both in our forties, my husband and I had considered our family complete, and we weren’t planning to have another child, which is why, as a rule, we use contraception. I wanted to make sure that our momentary lapse didn’t result in a pregnancy.

The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B. No reason given. Neither did my internist. The midwifery practice I had used could prescribe it, but not over the phone, and there were no more open appointments for the day. The weekend — and the end of the 72-hour window — was approaching.

Or read the empathy and understanding for a rape victim

To add insult to injury, here’s what Dr. Joe Kearns, former medical director of Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, had to say:

“People drive to Reading to buy jeans. Even if that were the case, that you had to drive to Reading to get this [prescription], to me that does not rise to a compulsion that you have to pass laws that [doctors] have to do something.”

I am struggling to understand how a woman–who has just been raped!–would find a trip to Reading to get a prescription for emergency contraception (EC) similar to a road trip she might take with her girlfriends to buy a new pair of jeans.

Although legally women in Canada are allowed to buy EC OTC there are many instances of pharmacies not carrying it or pharmacists exercising “freedom of conscience”.

And our current fundamentalist friendly government who have already shown themselves ready to turn back the clock with cuts to SWC and removal of equality from the mandate, would be only too happy to partner with these same groups to deny women reproductive choice.

8th Circuit US Court of Appeals uses Anatole France as precedent!

by

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France

The 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that Union Pacific Railroad’s exclusion of birth control from its health plan does not constitute discrimination against women under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a 2-1 ruling, the majority wrote that “Union Pacific’s health plans do not cover any contraception used by women such as birth control, sponges, diaphragms, intrauterine devices or tubal ligations or any contraception used by men such as condoms and vasectomies… Therefore, the coverage provided to women is not less favorable than that provided to men.”

The court obviously believes the exclusions to be far as it prevents both women and men equally from obtaining through their healthcare plan medications that would keep them from becoming pregnant.

Though just as the rich are unlikely to be found sleeping under bridges, men are unlikely to be found looking like this Male Pregnancy

There was at least one sensible judge who opined:

Because men cannot become pregnant, it makes sense that the health care plan does not cover pregnancy prevention for men. Therefore, Judge Bye found that while the policy might be “officially gender neutral,” it is still discriminatory

To further the discriminatory nature of this ruling medications such as Rogaine and Viagra are covered.

Of course we all know preventing baldness is far more important that preventing pregnancy.