• SeanRenaud said on Jul 17, 2008....

  The religious right has always held this opinion. 

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....

  yes, but it's amazing to see an executive follow through on it.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 17, 2008....

  One could argue that their refusal to hand out condoms in Africa and not funding organizations that do, or for that matter teaching abstinance only was a follow through long ago.  Don't get me wrong this is horrible and needs to be stopped I'm just far from shocked.

• TinSoldier said on Jul 17, 2008....

  The religious right has always held this opinion.
  
  
  Since when?
  
  Maybe Catholics, but not mainstream protestants from what I understand.
  
  *reads NY Times article*
  
  You know, bloc, for someone who hates dishonesty and spin in the media you post a link to a blog which is doing just that.
  

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....

  how so?

• TinSoldier said on Jul 17, 2008....

  I should just tell you to compare and contrast your title and the blog title with the actual substance of the article. But I'll spell it out for you:
  
  The proposed rule change would make it possible to deny  federal funding to organizations who discriminate against hiring people who have objections to providing abortions or drugs which cause abortions.
  
  Now the obvious intent is to prevent organizations which receive federal funds from discriminating against those who believe that abortion is wrong -- including such things as the so-called "morning-after" pill.
  
  It has nothing to do with redefining either contraception or abortion.
  
  Now, the rule could be read more expansively to include such contraceptive measures but I'm sure that wasn't the intent, and I doubt that it would be read that way.
  
  Your title and the blog you link to makes it sound like the Bush administration is taking steps to ban the pill, ban condoms, ban IUDs, etc. Which is very misleading.
  

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....

  "Emergency contraception (EC), or emergency postcoital contraception, refers to contraceptive measures that, if taken after sex, may prevent pregnancy.
  ...
  As its name implies, EC is intended for occasional use, when primary means of contraception fail. Since EC methods act before implantation, they are medically and legally considered forms of contraception. Some scientists believe that EC may possibly act after fertilization (see Mechanism of action). Some religious conservatives consider EC to be an abortifacient."

  
  

  The morning after pill prevents pregnancy. Some believe that it may at times prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but that's not how it's designed to operate or the intent. It is contraception, and this does attempt to redefine it.

  
  

  I admit the headline is not nuanced. 

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....

  "The United States FDA states that progestin-only ECPs like Plan B work by preventing ovulation. It also says "it is possible" that progestin-only ECPs may interfere with the embryo implanting in the uterine lining, and that they have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.[107][108]

  A number of studies in the 1970s and 80s concluded that emergency contraception could cause changes in the endometrium[109] that would prevent implantation of an early-stage embryo in theuterus. This research led many pro-life advocates, who believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization, to oppose ECPs as an abortifacient.

  In recent years—especially in light of U.S. ethical controversy over the research's claims—the scientific community has begun to critically reevaluate the early studies, introducing doubt into the argument that ECPs prevent implantation. Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates.[110][111]Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills,[112][113] suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy.

  However, these studies have also shown that, in women who ovulate despite taking ECP before ovulation, there are changes in certain hormones such as progesterone and in the length of luteal phase.[112] These secondary changes might inhibit implantation in cases where fertilization occurs despite ECP use. Because of the difficulty of studying embryos inside the uterus and fallopian tubes prior to implantation, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.[114][110]

  When used as a regular method of contraception, IUDs have been proven to act primarily through spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms, but it is considered possible that these same mechanisms are also harmful to embryos that have not yet implanted.[115]

  Hormonal progestin-only and combined estrogen-progestin emergency contraceptives such as Yuzpe regimen or Plan B are different from the anti-hormonal drug mifepristone (also known as Mifeprex and RU-486), an abortifacient which can induce abortion if taken after implantation. Yuzpe and progestin-only emergency contraception will have no effect if taken after implantation"

• TinSoldier said on Jul 17, 2008....

  Right -- I'm not trying to argue for or against Plan B or ECP or whatever the nom du jour is.
  
  I'm just pointing out an inconsistency between the blog title and the actual matter at hand. Which, while related to Plan B contraceptives, doesn't ban anything at all except for discrimination in certain hiring practices -- if the hiring agency wants to receive federal funding.
  
  Now sure, the title doesn't say that anything is being banned, but the implication is there, and is heavily hinted at in the linked blog.
  

• Antimatter said on Jul 17, 2008....

  “The proposed rule change would make it possible to deny federal funding to organizations who discriminate against hiring people who have objections to providing abortions or drugs which cause abortions.”

  Not quite. The proposed rule would threaten federal funding for family planning programs who refused to hire people who would refuse to provide abortions or birth control. This has nothing to do with those who simply have objections to these procedures. It has everything to do with employees who would refuse to provide these services, even at the patient's request.

  But I agree that bloc's title is fairly misleading.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2008....

  looks to me like you're taking nancy pelosi's take on this matter as fact, bloc.
  
  ed

• husbandhater said on Jul 18, 2008....

  Well I expect Good ole boy McCain to jump on the banwagon anyday now. As I said before in another post,: he's going to return us to the stone age should he have the ability to elect the next 2 judges. God help the children and us all. Move over China.

• bloc said on Jul 18, 2008....

  the title is bad, I admit. But, this is an attempt to group a contraceptive with abortions and treat them the same.
  
  
  It seems like a silly word game, but we all know how the Bush admin plays with words and then use it to go to an extreme.

Comment on "Bush Administration Tries to Redefine Contraception as Abortion"

Currently tagged	bush abortion politics stupidity contraception McCain the bandwagon jumper (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment