A friend who is fond of spamming her friends with glurge sent out an “OMG! They’re taking away our rights!” email today. Before deleting it, I researched and found out the gist of the email was true:
Basically, a Bush administration memo proposes to cut funding to all clinics that don’t allow their employees to not sell birth control, and also attempts to define pretty much all birth control as abortion.
I’m starting this thread to ask: is this a threat to pro-choice people? Or is it just some rhetoric for people like my friend to get excited about?
(I did a search and didn’t find an earlier discussion of this issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I missed it. If there’s an existing thread, please point me to it and ask someone to close this one. Thanks.)
There was an article in the Sunday Times magazine a while back about how the religious right was aiming at contraception as the next target after abortion. They were already spreading lies about how supposedly dangerous it was.
This might actually be good. Congress can pass something forbidding funding to be cut on this basis. People like their birth control, and any Republicans voting against will have one more strike against them in November. (I think the subtleties will get lost in ads saying “Rep. X wants to let them take away your pills.”) it also forces the anti-abortion forces into an extreme position against public opinion, since to be consistent they have to be opposed to methods that prevent implantation. This is going to tough, since a few cells isn’t nearly as cute as a fetus.
Just to clarify, the contraceptive devices targeted in this memo are ones that prevent implantation of fertilized ova, such as certain birth control pills & IUDs (I wasn’t sure the latter were still being used)- it’s not ALL contraception.
Now, my pro-liferry doesn’t get all worked up about implantation-prevention, so I could well argue against this memo’s policy recommendation also. And alas, it is important because it muddies the waters & gives pro-abortion folk ammo against right-thinking Americans.
What is the federal government doing meddling in what should be state business in the first place? Keep in mind that Roe v Wade doesn’t mandate the federal government to fund abortion just as *Griswold *doesn’t mandate the federal government to subsidize birth control.
I agree that politically this has the potential to backfire in a big way. There have got to be millions of people who are uncomfortable with abortion, but have no problem with IUDs or the pill. I count myself among them. I can’t imagine having an abortion, but I also can’t imagine not using the pill.
Okay, this doesn’t cover “all” contraception. But the article says “including birth control pills and intrauterine devices.”
So what do we have left?
Condoms, of course. Widely used. I don’t trust these as my only method though.
Diaphragm - never met a person who used one of these. Doesn’t mean no one does, however, but I am 21 and know a lot of other 21 year old girls - we don’t use them.
Depo-provera shot - isn’t this expensive? I don’t know anyone young who’s had this at least.
patch
Nuvaring
sterilization
I’m not sure about how Depo, the patch, and the ring work. Are they the same kind of hormones as the pill? Would they also fall under the new “abortion” title? I couldn’t tell from the article. So is this saying it would be more difficult to get pretty much everything but rubbers and other barrier methods? Do we just have to ask our guys to pull out and hope for the best? Just stop having sex altogether?
I already have to pay way too damn much to get my pills each month. I don’t want a kid. I don’t care what YOUR religion says, I am an adult and want to have sex with my boyfriend. As to not bring yet ANOTHER unwanted baby into this world, I use contraception. I use condoms too for even more protection. I am being pretty smart about it. Don’t take away my freedoms in any sense to procure a pill I pay out the ass for on my crappy salary - I’m doing this for the good of everyone in a sense. I’m not getting knocked up when I don’t want to - not having another kid that is ill-provided for. I’m not having a kid while ill-prepared and then getting money and breaks from the government. I’m saving everyone money. Don’t call my birth control pills abortion. That’s a bunch of bullshit.
I don’t understand. You can have a right to an abortion and a right to take birth control pills. But where does a supposed right to federal funding for these things come into play?
I have a right to free speech. Does that mean that the feds have to pay for a half an hour of airtime on NBC for me to speak?
Isn’t the concern here that clinics could get all federal funding cut, even for procedures that have nothing to do with abortion or birth control? I can imagine a stealth pro-lifer who wants to get a clinic shut down, gets a job there, immediately refuses to dispense birth control, gets fired, files a federal lawsuit, puts the clinic out of business, leaves an entire neighborhood without health care.
Colorado has a “Personhood Amendment” on the ballot this fall, being pushed by the CO Springs religious right. It reads like this: *Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms “person” or “persons” shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." *
Republicans running for office are terrified of this - they don’t talk about it, they evade questions about it - they don’t want to have anything to do with it but the need the religious right support. In addition to opening up huge new areas of law and litigation, it will also effectively ban the practice of in-vitro fertilization.
This is definitely the direction the religious right is going and it is going to be a trainwreck for the Republican Party.
Birth control is available at any pharmacy. There are probably 20 within 2 miles of my home. You have no right to free birth control or abortions, or federal funding for either.
Why should the taxpayers pay for your birth control pills? My wife pays for her own out of our checking account with most of it covered by insurance. Why should I chip in for someone else’s?
But the pill has to be taken far in advance of sexual contact. Certainly not after. You are talking about “Plan B” and putting it in the “birth control” category. That’s a very debateable issue and you want to make them equivalent.
Like I said, there are 20 pharmacies close to my home. Say 10 of them have a pro-life religious zealot working the counter (unlikely) and won’t sell the Plan B script. I can register my complaints and shop the competition.
You live out in the sticks where only one clinic can give you pills? Tough shit. That’s the trade off for living away from civilization. You can’t have everything…
Except that by cutting federal funding for contraception you will by default be creating more kids that people can’t afford, which puts a greater drain on the taxpayer. What’s cheaper from your pocket? 18 years of birth control pills or 18 years of raising a child?
Seems like a no brainer. Hopefully this goes supernova on the pubs. Damn fool ideas.
Plan B IS birth control. It’s the same active progestin found in many single and combined oral contraceptives. It functions in the exact same way as Mirena & Depo-Provera. It’s not debatable at all. It’s a high-dose progestin used, via negative feedback mechanisms, to suppress the proliferation of endometrial tissue, to thicken cervical mucus, and to prevent ovulation. The only difference between Plan B and single-agent OC pills is the dose.
Besides, as I understood Qadgop’s statement, he’s not talking about Medicaid not paying directly FOR the birth control–he’s talking about Medicaid not paying a clinic because they OFFER birth control. Big difference.
Exactly. Not paying for birth control is one thing.
Not paying agreed-upon services unrelated to birth control because the clinic has prescribed 'birth control pills" (often prescribed for other reasons than birth control anyway) is quite another, and detrimental to public health policy.
Not quite. Under this proposal, medicaid would not pay for services at a clinic that FORCED a particular pharmacist to dispense meds that would conflict with his/her religious beliefs. I don’t think that there is a pharmacy in the whole country that doesn’t dispense birth control meds.
Plan B is a different beast. While I agree that it is not abortion, and closer to birth control, I understand that some have an objection to it. It is now up to the individual pharmacy as to how to handle that.
The Feds are saying that a pharmacist should be protected in his or her beliefs by, not passing a law prohibiting it, but simply withholding funds from pharmacies who don’t abide by it.
Really? Sounds more like the Feds are telling clinics that they’ll punish them by withholding funding for firing employees for cause, because they have sympathy for this particular cause.
Wrong. It happens, which is why there need to be laws forcing them to dispense them, religious beliefs or not. Unless you want to live in a country where it’s a roll of the die whether or not you’ll get the medicine you need.
