I thought we are now in a White House-imposed time period when no new rules or regulations are supposed to be proposed or adopted--within 6 months of the end of the administration. Is this another case of their trying to break their own rules?

Charles

For Bush and his right wing cronies, "rules' are for other people.

Rules?

There are rules?

Sheesh! Who knew?!?

Not just that, miscarriages could be classified as "abortion." Good luck explaining that, DHHS!

The claim that female hormonal contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized fetus is a pro-life myth aimed against the pill. It is a possible effect, but is estimated to occur at a miniscule rate.

It is very unfortunate that anyone with a pro-choice position would use accept this pro-life talking point in order to make the pro-choice claim that opposing pre-implantation contraception is equivalent to opposing the pill. Yes, the pro-lifers think this way, but that's because they've created a myth about the pill for the purpose of calling its acceptability into question.

the Global Gag Rule -- cutting off aid to developing world non-profits that offer contraception and abortion

Deos the Gag Rule actually say anyhting about contraception or just abortion?

Of course, this is a central tenet of religious right ideology; opposition to birth control proves that the real "problem" is women having sex without the intention to reproduce.

No, the real issue is whether you define conception as fertilization or implantation.

Keith Ellis -

The claim that female hormonal contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized fetus is a pro-life myth aimed against the pill. It is a possible effect, but is estimated to occur at a miniscule rate.

Being pro-life, but having no opposition to birth contorl per se, I am glad to hear this. Still, it's not entirely fair to blame the pro-lifers entirely for this misunderstanding. Most pro-choicers who argue about this issue simply do so by equating implantation (rather than fertilization) with conception and then accusing pro-lifers of hypocrisy for opposing "pre-conception" (pre-implantation) birth control.

I have only seen two people that I can think of actually argue that the Pill works exclusively, or nearly exclusively, prior to fertilization.

Perhaps this is because beating up the pro-lifers is easier than actually trying to bring the issue down to the fundamentals.

Yesterday The New York Times reported that the Bush administration is circulating regulatory changes within the Department of Health and Human Services that would prevent health care providers from choosing not to hire ideologues opposed to reproductive rights (including distributing contraception).

While i am opposed to the government forcing hospitals to provide contraception, I also think that a hospital that wishes to provide contraception should not be forced to hire someone whose beliefs prevent him from doing so. If a person does not like contraception, he should not apply for a job in a hospital that provides it.

Charles, actually we are not within six months of the end of this administration until July 21, 2008.

"before George W. Bush heads back to the ranch, tail between his legs"

I hear he bought a compound in Paraguay.

Anyway, for years on end the right blocked RU-486 for being an abortifacient drug, so there was never any question that there was going to be a battle over the now re-named version(s). (Like they don't know how to read).

Anyone who doubted for a second that they would use its approval to muddy the entire spectrum of hormonal birth control in order to push back against abortion and force pro-choice advocates to bargain from a weaker position is too stupid to work a computer.

Actually, I think I read an article in the NYTimes proposing that its legalization would render abortion more acceptable. LOL.

You kids need to leave the bongs in your parents' closets. Actually, you might want to unplug your computers and store them, too.

"Most pro-choicers who argue about this issue simply do so by equating implantation (rather than fertilization) with conception and then accusing pro-lifers of hypocrisy for opposing "pre-conception" (pre-implantation) birth control."

I'm not sure I've seen any pro-choicers do this, but I'll take your word for it that you have.

I'm pro-choice, but I think there's a lot of dishonesty on both sides of this argument. And bad faith and a lack of generosity. In my opinion, if one believes and a soul, and believes that ensoulment happens at fertilization—which I don't find to be an unreasonable assumption because there is an important qualitative change that happens then—then a pro-life belief is a reasonable consequence because abortion would seem to be equivalent to murder. I assume that pro-lifers are arguing in good faith and believe the argument I describe above, so I don't think they (you) are being unreasonable or acting in bad faith. I realize that many pro-lifers are actually just anti-choicers and sexists in disguise, but I don't think it's a good thing to just automatically assume the worst of people. It poisons the conversation.

I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe that fertilization, or implantation, are points where anything remotely like a human being is realized. On the other hand, I think it doesn't make much sense to claim it happens at birth, either, so I'm against very late term abortions. But a first term abortion is, in my opinion, the equivalent of contraception.

Anyway, I came across the implantation argument a couple of years ago and unfortunately took it at face value and believed it, as so many people seem to have done. I saw a refutation of it later, which prompted me to do some research on it. We know that pregnancy prevents ovulation and that hormonal birth control mimics that mechanism. We also know that hormonal birth control and pregnancy itself don't always prevent ovulation and thus there's a chance that a fertilization could occur. And then, because of the nature of the changes to the uteral lining, there's a theory that implantation might be prevented. Failure to prevent ovulation is extremely rare, the equivalent to the theoretical failure rate of the pill. Couple that extreme unlikelihood with the merely theoretical possibility of a failure to implant, and you get something that is both unlikely and merely hypothetical. Why emphasize this? Only if you have some vested interest in being dishonest, whether its a pro-life or pro-choice bias.

Erik V.

I hate to tell you this, but the medical term for a "miscarriage" is a spontaneous abortion. Abortion is a clinical term in every respect medically and the abortion at a clinic is termed a "therapeutic" or "induced" abortion, depending on the reasons.

And I agree that the real problem most on the allegedly "pro-life" side of the argument have with contraception is the untethering of female sexuality from reproduction, because those who hold that position don't seem to mind taking lives in many other arenas. . .

You know, the argument against abortion isn't so much whether it's right or wrong so much as it is, 'there's nothing on tv, let's go stick our noses in everybody else's business.'
Some religions forbid eating meat, some forbid women to show their faces in public, some forbid people to enjoy sex, and some go as far as requiring bodily mutilations, but if any of those people came wandering around trying to mess with our rights, there would be an uproar.
As a side note, I hope by conception they mean fertilization and not physical creation of the cell, because otherwise tampons are going to be contraband and guys, hide the tissues: that's illegal now.

In my opinion, if one believes and a soul, and believes that ensoulment happens at fertilization—which I don't find to be an unreasonable assumption because there is an important qualitative change that happens then—then a pro-life belief is a reasonable consequence because abortion would seem to be equivalent to murder. I assume that pro-lifers are arguing in good faith and believe the argument I describe above, so I don't think they (you) are being unreasonable or acting in bad faith.

supply vast kinds of styles handmade jewelry

thaaaaanks

http://www.fantastic-replica.net