Fine.
Yes, I apologize for saying something wasn’t true. I was in particular thinking of the Halappanavar case when I made that post, but it turns out as I said earlier that it wasn’t already dead, rather, just pretty much doomed. I will not make the same mistake again - some anti-abortion groups seek to ban abortions of nonviable pregnancies, but very few (although, as I have proven, still some activists) seek to specifically ban the removal of dead fetuses.
I’m still curious about your thoughts on your initial claim about Hobby Lobby’s position being a blatant lie. Both becuase it’s acutally an interesting and relevant question and because I’m feeling ignored (:()
Great – thank you. I appreciate the willingness to correct an error.
runner pat – you got anything to add?
I am not aware of any, but they also object to intrauterine devices, which as shown in this thread - and in the wikipedia article on them, even - have other uses.
I have never heard of the abortofacient claim a “mandatory Democratic talking point”. Please prove this.
By what medical or scientific standards are these drugs abortofacient? How they work seem pretty heavily against that. I would be highly interested in seeing why they should be considered abortofacients. Even going by previous assumptions of how they work, by blocking the sticking of a fertilized egg to a uterine wall, half of fertilized eggs do not actually stick to the uterine walls - should these be considered abortions/miscarriages?
I understand that IUDs do. I tried to address that (perhaps unsatisfactorily). That was just a question of curiosity.
This is going to be purely anecdotal (and maybe the problem was living in Virginia during the last gubernatorial election). But a common opposition to “personhood” legislation (and common criticism of those who had supported it) was that the bill would make all birth control illegal. Now, it could just be that (like people have been doing in this thread) that was just typical misleading politics. Or maybe “A will do B” is acceptable shorthand for “if we do A, then perhaps some people will argue that A requires B.” Becuase I don’t think that anyone actually argued that the point of the personhood bills was to attack contraception; it was to prevent abortion. Still, the only way to claim that personhood bills (rights at conception) will outlaw birth control is if you believe that birth control prevents implantation.
So we have two questions here, I guess. The first (your second) is: does pregnancy begin at fertilization or implantation? And, by extension, can anything that operates between fertilization and implantation be considered an abortofacient. That doesn’t strike me as a scientific question. “*Should *they be considered abortions/miscarriages?” I have no idea. Would people who believe pregnancy begins at fertilization consider them that way? I think so. I see no basis on which to conclude that one definition is inherently right, and I certainly can’t see any basis to conclude that the “fertilization” crowd is lying about when pregnancy begins.
The second issue is more interesting. Your article was a good read (and thank you for that). Given the fact that it appeared to be accepted (until recently) that the pills could prevent implantation, it seems like it probably isn’t a “blatant lie” to believe that. (I believe it is still accepted that IUDs likely can prevent implantation). The weight of the evidence appears to be shifting in favor of the view that the pills cannot work after fertilization, but I’m not sure it looks like it’s settled. The basis for them to be abortofacients, quite clearly, is that if they serve to prevent implantation following fertilization, these groups believe that the be an abortion. For a long time, everyone seemed to assume that the drugs could work that way (and emphasized their contrary view on the beginning of a pregnancy).
I don’t really have an opinion on this matter; I don’t have the background to critique it. But I also have no reason to believe that Hobby Lobby wouldn’t be pleased to discover that these drugs were not causing abortions. My objection is your accusing them of “blatantly lying” when there appears to be a (very recent) shift in opinion.
It is, however, an interesting question of whether or not a religious belief ought to be subjected to some sort of factual review. I’m not sure it should.
Yes, they should be considered miscarriages.
So what? Miscarriages happen naturally.
Here’s the one I remember most recently, from within the past year: Abortion refusal death: Hindu woman told Ireland 'is a Catholic country' | Ireland | The Guardian . Here’s one where a fetus is basically brain dead, but the woman is denied an abortion and has to undergo a C section instead: Baby born to El Salvador woman denied abortion dies after C-section | El Salvador | The Guardian .
I can’t seem to find the right search terms, but I know I’ve read about more cases. I’m going to plead Posting Under the Influence (Vicodin) for my lack of Google-fu.
So I find it very weird that some Christians apparently think that you’re more likely to cause an innocent life to die before being born than to give birth if you have sex. I find it extremely bizarre.
Unfortunately, the first they performed an abortion as soon as the fetal heartbeat stopped. They just waited until then, because the beliefs of Christians are more important than the lives of women. As for the first, remember Terry Shaivo? Republicans think people with liquified, non-existent brains are no different other people. I guess they think it’s a sort of kinship.
From that link:
Neither of these cases supports what you’re saying.
It’s not a lack of Google-fu. It’s a lack of Truthful-fu.
OK. Thanks for sharing your views listing things that are bizarre to you.
Since that’s what we’re doing now, apparently…
I find it bizarre that some pro-choice advocates can’t tell the truth, and instead fake claims about refusals to abort an already dead fetus. I find it extremely bizarre.
(Note this does not apply to you: you recognized your error and withdrew the claim. Some of your brethern are constitutionally incapable of doing the same, it seems.)
I didn’t lie, I was going by the language in the stories.
Shockingly, none of the language in the stories actually supports the claim that you were trying to prove.
So what “language” were you going by?
And still sharing opinions of what I find bizarre: how bizarre is it that runner pat still tries to defend his lie? I think the answer is: “pretty bizarre.”
Getting away from the OMG CATHOLICS ARE TEH EVIL for a second, I’ve changed my mind. I think Hobby Lobby’s RFRA claim is valid. I still think the underlying principle - that a corporation can enjoy religious freedom - is invalid, and opens the door to litigation over all sorts of “religious” exemptions to employer mandates. “My company believes we live and die according to God’s plan, and that safety equipment is heresy!”
Of course it does. But that’s why the test isn’t (and has never been) religious belief equals exemption. (and this isn’t a problem exclusive to the corporate form). Leaving aside questions of sincereity, you also have the degree of the burden on the belief and (critically) the nature of the government interest. But you have the same problem as you do with the scope of free speech rights or free association rights, someone is going to take it too far.
If HL loses (and they might), it ought to be on the basis that the mandate both furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. I think that’s part of the reason that the “anti-HL” crowd consistently exaggerates and misrepresents HL’s religious claims, to make what they’re asking for seem onerous and unreasonable.
The other thing is that the principle isn’t really that HL, as a corporation, enjoys religious freedom (I’m personally ambivalent on that); it’s that HL’s owners enjoy religious freedom, even in the way they choose to conduct their business and even with HL’s corporate form. Other than out of simple animosity towards these people’s religion, I think most people agree with the first two parts of that statement. The third part is where it gets tricky.
This.
Here is an opinion piece (pro Hobby Lobby) from today’s LA Times (not their opinion, just one they published):
I am still perplexed that the supreme court is unable to distinguish between the press and anyone that wants to spend money for political speech. I am getting ready for the court to be unable to distinguish between religious establishments and anyone that has a religious objection to laws and regulations that might not have a compelling government interest or could be more narrowly tailored.
We will see about that. Lets see if Scalia still believes that allowing this sort of thing makes every man a law unto himself or if he has a double standard.
What argument can you make for plan B that you couldn’t make for birth control pills? Or does Levonorgestrel have no other use other than abortion?
Really? How do you do that? I just had a revelation and spoke to God the other day and he told me that I shouldn’t cover diabetes because it is God’s punishment for gluttony.
Its too facile. It sounds like a recipe for religious persecution in a more dystopian America.
I disagree.
Pregnancy is a state or condition of the mother. It is not a condition of the embryo or fetus. It begins when the embryo implants and initiates a cascade of metabolic changes in the mother which are essential to the continued development of the embryo into a fetus and eventually a baby. Without implantation there is no pregnancy. Without pregnancy there is no miscarriage.
What a weird world it would be to live in if freedom of political speech was actually limited to entities defined (I presume by the government?) as “press.”
I have a request for you. When the opinion comes out (either way), I want you to make a serious effort to distinguish between RFRA and the First Amendment. Failing to draw a distinction between what the First Amendment requires and what RFRA instructs lends itself to charges of hypocrisy that are best suited to partisans, journalists, and other extraordinarily stupid people. But you don’t strike me as any of those things.
This sort of result-based view of these cases does real violence to basic legal analysis. Before you pass judgment on the Court’s opinion (or the particular boogeyman justice de jour), consider Scalia’s opinion in Smith and the unanimous opinion in O Centro, which dealt with fundamentally the same question, but one from the standpoint of the First Amendment and the other from the standpoint of RFRA. And then understand that the HL case takes place in the O Centro world, not the Smith world.
I don’t know. I’m neither a theologian nor a pharmacologist. I could imagine that either dosage or frequency could cause the drug to perform differently when taken in routine monthly birth control form versus single-dose emergency contraceptive form.
But, I have no idea. My question was a result of the claim that the emergency contraceptives have substantial non-contraceptive therapeutic uses.
Cite for the Scalia quote?