Republicans want to limit access to contraception

[BenBurch]

This is a pill that is specifically designed to cause abortions. Do you have something besides a slippery slope fallacy to fall back on?

They contend that birth control pills ARE designed to deliberately cause abortions, though.

That's the whole point.

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidence?

The only education required of a judge in most places is a law degree. To be a juror, you simply need to be fluent and literate in English.

That doesn't guarantee that a jury is going to understand the scientific evidence in any case that comes before them.

Worse yet, when cases go before a judge who was appointed by a POTUS with the mental accumen of a bowling ball, I really don't expect science to win out over religion 95% of the time that they come into conflict.

 

[RandFan]

In this case semantic arguments are silly and absurd. We are a talking about cells. These cells are not very different before and after conception. They cannot think. They cannot feel. They have no hopes or dreams. They cannot suffer. The word "abortion" in this context, while technically correct is a useless distinction. Sperm is human life. Ovum is human life. Skin cells are human life. It takes special pleading to make a zygote different in such a way as to render it sacrosanct. Functionally there is very little difference between ovum, sperm and zygote. All take in oxygen and energy and dispose of waste.

 

[Newtons Bit]

They contend that birth control pills ARE designed to deliberately cause abortions, though.

That's the whole point.

The writers of this bill do?

 

[BenBurch]

The writers of this bill do?

I cannot read minds, but many of the pro-life movement who support such legislators do think that. And I doubt any legislator is unaware of the opinion of that constituency.

 

[RandFan]

The "Abortion Pill" Lie

The claim that the contraceptive coverage rule includes abortifacients is simply not true. Ella and Plan B, which are covered along with other contraception, are taken after unprotected sex to prevent an unintended pregnancy from occurring. They are not abortifacients. The FDA does not classify them abortifacients. Here's how the Mayo Clinic explains the difference (emphasis added):

Keep in mind that the morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill. The morning-after pill can prevent pregnancy. If you're already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won't harm the developing baby. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.
​

If the FDA started using the Bishops' pseudo-science to classify drugs, that would be . . . . well, exactly what the Bishops want: the law to be based on their religious beliefs. And that would be an unconstitutional infringement of everyone else's rights.

The distinctions are absurd but for those who want to make those arguments, get your semantics right.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's not really about wanting babies, it's about wanting to punish people for having sex.

Actually, just the women.

 

[leftysergeant]

I meant: evidence supporting your statement that this law will somehow give a green light to restrict contraceptive pills.

Camel's nose.

 

[leftysergeant]

The writers of this bill do?

Was this bill actually written by the redneck who introduced it in Alabama or did it come out of the ALEC stink tank? If the former, it is highly likely. If the latter, we know it is so.

 

[Puppycow]

This is for RU-486, the abortion pill. Not the morning after pill. It has nothing to do with contraceptives. The law is EXTREMELY clear on this.

Ah, you are right. I blame Jezebel. I thought they were smart enough to know the difference, seeing as they talk about women's issues a lot.

For some time I was confused by all the different names floating out there (morning-after pill, Plan B, the abortion pill, etc.) and sort of thought they were the same thing.

Still, this is just the latest example in what seems to be a trend among Republicans to introduce laws that make it more of a hassle to access family planning services.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Nothin' stops me from contraceptin'.

 

[RandFan]

This is for RU-486, the abortion pill. Not the morning after pill.

Ah, you are right.

A technical distinction. Can anyone tell me why the distinction is important?

 

[RandFan]

Update: The requirement that a woman take the pill in front of a doctor applies to RU-486, the abortion pill, not the morning after pill. Sources we consulted in writing this post conflated the two — the morning after pill does not lead to abortion. It just prevents pregnancy.

• The morning after pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.
• RU-486 results in the fertilized egg being aborted.

And?

 

[tyr_13]

A technical distinction. Can anyone tell me why the distinction is important?

Because they have different medical effects, different supervision requirements (outside of this bill), and work fundamentally differently.

This was explained up thread. I know this distinction might seem trivial, but there must be lines somewhere. A fertilized egg not attached to the wall not being allowed to attach to the wall prevents a pregnancy. That is not an abortion. An egg that is fertilized and attached to the wall means the woman is pregnant. Terminating that is an abortion.

Now I don't know if this bill is well founded in good medical practice or if it is just more attempts to restrict abortion somehow. It does seem unlikely to be a backdoor attempt to limit contraceptives because, well, that pill isn't one.

 

[RandFan]

Because they have different medical effects, different supervision requirements (outside of this bill), and work fundamentally differently.

This was explained up thread. I know this distinction might seem trivial, but there must be lines somewhere. A fertilized egg not attached to the wall not being allowed to attach to the wall prevents a pregnancy. That is not an abortion. An egg that is fertilized and attached to the wall means the woman is pregnant. Terminating that is an abortion.

Now I don't know if this bill is well founded in good medical practice or if it is just more attempts to restrict abortion somehow. It does seem unlikely to be a backdoor attempt to limit contraceptives because, well, that pill isn't one.

Thanks, I seriously doubt that safety is the basis for the law.

 

[epepke]

Jerry Falwell did say, back in the 1980s, when his Moral Majority was a big deal, that going after abortion was a first step toward getting rid of all birth control.

The Catholic Church is opposed to contraception.

The Supreme Court of the US is majority Catholic.

Conservatives will swear up and down, back and forth, that it's all about cute little murdered babies and not about keeping contraception away from women, nosiree Bob!

If you believe them for a nanosecond, it's your own damn fault.

 

[Lowpro]

Oh let's just make ALL medications be taken in front of a qualified supervisor. This law IS just meant to curb contraceptive use by any means possible. It's not health oriented, it's politically oriented. Retarded crap...

 

[RandFan]

Oh let's just make ALL medications be taken in front of a qualified supervisor. This law IS just meant to curb contraceptive use by any means possible. It's not health oriented, it's politically oriented. Retarded crap...

We can always pretend there is a medical basis.

 

[BStrong]

That's the problem with the republicans.

They believe that keeping gays from getting married and women from using contraceptives makes America a better place.

 

[shecky]

Now I don't know if this bill is well founded in good medical practice or if it is just more attempts to restrict abortion somehow.

I'd vote the latter. I'm unaware of any surprising new medical issues arising from standard usage, in which it is prescribed. Certainly none that need addressing by Alabama state legislature, of all entities. It looks like a backdoor attempt at chipping away non-invasive abortion options.

It does seem unlikely to be a backdoor attempt to limit contraceptives because, well, that pill isn't one.

Strictly speaking, it isn't a limit on contraceptives. However, the move is predictable enough, as Republicans seem in a mood to restrict not only abortion actoss the country, but also contraception by backdoor attempts.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.