A Government Threat to Birth Control
Sen. Hillary Clinton and other advocates of women's rights say a planned regulation could cut access to contraception
A new set of health laws that could be proposed by the government sometime in the next few weeks has women's health activists steaming. If the laws are implemented, they claim, women will have a harder time getting access to contraception.
The legislation, a draft of which was leaked last week to the New York Times, stokes the debate over when human life begins by taking the position that birth control that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg actually results in abortion. It would prohibit federally funded medical facilities—including teaching hospitals and Planned Parenthood clinics—from refusing to hire doctors who don't want to dispense birth control pills and other types of contraception that may cause the expulsion of a fertilized egg. (It's already illegal to discriminate against doctors who refuse to perform abortions.) The new laws would also override state laws that require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims and those that require employers to provide contraceptives along with other prescriptions.
Late last week, Sen. Hillary Clinton called the planned rules (which could be imposed without congressional approval) "damaging" and a "dire threat to women" and warned that contraceptive coverage would "disappear overnight" if enacted. Dozens of organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Planned Parenthood, have also voiced their objection, especially to the government's definition of the onset of pregnancy. According to ACOG, "conception is the implantation of the fertilized ovum," based on the ability to clinically detect pregnancy through elevated hormone levels. Hormonal contraceptives—especially those that contain only progesterone like the minipill and the Mirena intrauterine device—don't always suppress ovulation, so sometimes a fertilized egg is expelled before it's implanted in the uterus. Refusing to comment specifically on the draft proposal, the Department of Health and Human Services yesterday issued a statement saying it is "exploring a number of options" to enforce the antidiscrimination laws put in place by Congress.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Congress is not my Church!
it is not the responsibility of our government to do God's job! and it is time that women stand up for themselves and stop letting men try and control us. Health Insurance pays for Viagra and not birth control! how is viagra a true medical need?? do 55 yr old men need to be making babies? and i'm with katie, it doesn't make sense that poeple who are against abortion also want to cut back on welfare? you want poor people to not have the choice of controling how many babies they have and then sneer and judge them because they cannot afford to better themselves? birth control costs $50 a month... try and tell a 16 yr old that that is good investment. and while there used to be widespread availability of low income birth control congress has ended its outsourcing of cheap birth control.
In response...
It would be clear that your definitions of "Witch" and "Murderer" are severely skewed. A Witch is a type of Pagan. Hillary Clinton is not a Witch nor pagan.
You also called her a murderer. To my knowledge she has not killed anyone. Would she not be in jail if she supposedly killed someone's unborn child?
I find your reasoning akin to the thoughts of 17th century English priests. Would you like to burn us too?
Amazed at Ruben Haddad
Wow that has got to be the most ignorant statement I've ever witnessed. You should consult a good friend named Websters Dictionary. Do you know the true definition of a witch? Do you even know what murder is? The people you pointed out don't fit those descriptions at all. You should really get proper information about these claims before you make statements like that. Otherwise, the insult isn't effective at all if the words don't apply.
By the way, what difference does it make what her last name means? Either that's her family name or the name she married into. Why should she be ashamed of that? If you have a true issue with her last name then be grateful that your last name is ?Haddad? instead.
I'd appreciate it if you'd prove a VALID point. And the point has to be about the article in question.
I believe that the point in which life begins is highly controversial and differs for each person. I just think this is all rather ridiculous and I pray that our government is wise enough to throw this out.
I have a bright future ahead of me. I look forward to going to college and yes, I take birth control. I will not bring a child into this world if I am not be able to support it. Now, what kind of life would that be for my child if I were to get pregnant as an age where i have no means of income ? I look to the quality of life and I simply cannot provide for a child. I think children should be brought into a situation in which they can be cared for entirely. So that they may grow up secure and healthy. I cannot do this at this stage in life.
Some are forgetting something quite simple: We are entitled to individual rights. If it is my body, shouldn't I be able to decide what happens to it? I think I'm well qualified to make that decision, wouldn't you?
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement
