Do YOU Think Birth Control Equals Abortion? Then You and the Bush Administration Are BudsSomervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas


 

Do YOU Think Birth Control Equals Abortion? Then You and the Bush Administration Are Buds
 


21 August 2008 at 6:16:33 PM
salon

The Bush administration, which has never let being outside of the law stop them from breaking it daily or trying to put in laws that are completely outside the scope of personal freedom, is at it again. From PRWatch.

The Bush Administration is proposing a new Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulation that would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception, and that would render unenforceable existing state laws that require Catholic hospitals and charities to cover birth control for their female employees. California and New York enacted such laws in response to health insurance plans that agreed to pay for male potency drugs like Viagra while denying women coverage for birth control pills. The administration's proposed rule would also allow pharmacists to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions and not refer customers to other pharmacies, as California's law now requires them to do. The rule proposes to define abortion as any procedure that terminates a human life after conception, "whether before or after implantation." DHHS Secretary Michael Leavitt says the proposed rule would protect healthcare workers' religious freedom.

I don't know about you, but if a pharmacist doesn't want to fill my LEGALLY OBTAINED prescription, then he or she needs to get in a different line of work. Also, what a nerve for the DHHS to want to say that birth control is abortion. You're a female and you want to pop out babies like a slot machine? Go ahead. Don't take birth control. But don't allow these men to say that you  won't be able to get a prescription filled for birth control.

I know a lot of women won't remember the whole deal about "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and how empowering that book was. It was a book about female bodies, written from a very feminist point of view, in that it encouraged women to be in charge of their own bodies, and not allow others, including men, to dictate the terms of reproduction. I"m sure a lot of men hated that, because it meant that women were acting responsibly or at least took responsibility for themselves. It stuns me that we are even near having this type of argument AGAIN.

Even if you are against abortion after conception, and, while I don't agree with that in the first trimester, I can respect that others feel differently, birth control BEFORE conception is a whole different animal. What's the point of this? Is it the insurance agencies that don't want to be forking out money for birth control? (while, as PRWatch points out, they pay for Viagra so that the men who would make the birth-control-less women preggers can do it gratis.) There's no way this ia  moral issue, the Bush administration does NOTHING unless it benefits a corporation.

If you're female, you better stand up and tell Congress you're against this. Or get ready, since health insurance is increasingly on the corporate chopping block, to figure out how you're going to pay for yet another kid AND keep your home from being foreclosed.

Pah!  I'm still counting the days till Chuckles is out of office.

P.S. Isee where this comes from-it's pandering to the religious right.

P.P.S Here's what Carolyn Maloney said in 2005 And remember, it was only FORTY FRIGGIN YEARS AGO That women won the right to get birth control without their husband's okay!

WASHINGTON, DC - On the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision that affirmed that the Constitution protects a privacy right to use birth control, Members of Congress and leading organizations stood together to celebrate the anniversary and to warn about new efforts to undermine this right. Griswold v. Connecticut may be 40 years old today, but the issues it resolved have risen anew in 21st century America.  

Recently, pharmacists with personal objections to birth control have imposed their beliefs on customers by refusing to fill perfectly legal birth control prescriptions and, in some cases, also refusing to return the prescription slip to the customers. In the House of Representatives, Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Christopher Shays (R-CT), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Joseph Crowley (D-NY) have introduced the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, which would guarantee pharmacies fill all legal prescriptions (http://maloney.house.gov/documents/olddocs/choice/ALPhAPacket.pdf). The bill has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

“It’s amazing that in 2005, in the Land of the Free, women have found their right to access birth control challenged,” said Rep. Maloney. “The Supreme Court decision made 40 years ago today should have removed all doubt and worry over whether women can get the birth control pill. It is important to remind all Americans today that the right to use birth control is the law of the land.”

“It is unfathomable to me that forty years after women won the constitutional right to birth control, pharmacists would take a woman's ability to control her reproductive health into their own hands,” said Rep. Shays. “We need to put an end to this abuse of trust and stop the increasingly-common practice of withholding safe, legal medication.”

“Make no mistake about this, the refusal to fill birth control prescriptions goes against the spirit of Griswold v. Connecticut, attacking women’s privacy and primary choice of contraceptive,” said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. “To put it plainly, if pharmacists were refusing to sell men condoms this issue would have already been addressed by Congress. Our legislation will require the pharmacies -the businesses employing the pharmacists- to provide a woman with access to legal forms of birth control.”

“Today represents more than just the 40th Anniversary of Griswold vs. Connecticut, and more than just the importance of preserving access to legal pharmaceuticals like birth control,” said Rep. Crowley. “It represents forty years of true equal healthcare rights for women in the United States and the right of women to space and plan their pregnancies and raise healthy and successful children.”

“Forty years after Griswold, American women face a growing threat to their right to privacy. The radical right is looking to make the pharmacy the next battleground in their assault on personal privacy. We salute those in Congress who want to make sure that we will be able to commemorate the constitutional protections of Griswold when the landmark decision turns 50, 100 and beyond,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which issued States of Denial: 40 Years After Griswold v. Connecticut Privacy and Birth Control At Risk Once Again, a report on the growing trend of pharmacists denying women their birth control prescriptions.

“Perhaps more than any other ruling, Griswold gave American women the ability to participate as equal partners in our society,” said Karen Pearl, Interim President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “40 years later, the vast majority of American women use contraception at some point in their lives -- yet many are still being denied access to birth control. Women's health must come first. The Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act is a fair and reasonable bill that requires each and every customer at a pharmacy to be treated the same as any other. This bipartisan bill affirms that all of us should be able to have our prescriptions filled without delay, and that none of us should be humiliated or sent away empty handed because of the personal biases of the pharmacist on duty.

According to Judith M. DeSarno, President and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, “Contraception is part of the most basic health care for women. Eighty-eight percent of voters, including four in five Republicans, support women’s access to contraception. And eighty-six percent support Title X, the government public health program that funds state and local family planning agencies that provide contraception to low income women. Despite this support, obstacles to universal access to contraception continue to be erected by Congress, pharmacies, insurance companies, and right wing political groups.”

“Forty years after the Supreme Court proclaimed a woman’s right to use birth control, women should not be fighting to have their contraceptive prescriptions filled at the pharmacy,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center. “Contraceptives are a crucial part of women’s basic health care. The Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act is a much-needed solution to the very real problem of women being denied contraception in the pharmacy.”

 

Background on Griswold v. Connecticut
June 7, 2005 marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, which invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of contraception. Griswold was the first case to recognize a constitutional right to privacy that encompassed the decision to use contraception.

This landmark decision secured the right of married women to use contraception, and opened the doors for a series of Supreme Court cases that broadened the rights of access to birth control and birth control information for all Americans, including unmarried persons and minors. Griswold laid the groundwork for widespread access to birth control for all American women.


Permalink Tags:          
     Views: 1548 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Trump Snorting Adderroll -Podcast interview with Noel Casler who worked on The Apprentice
More Posts You Might Enjoy
Some Interesting Abortion Statistics in 2014 for Somervell County
Ken Paxton's Nutty Wish List for Abortion for Texas Lege
Smackdown for Rick Perry- Texas Judge Rules to STOP key part of Texas abortion law
Free Speech Zones-Now that SCOTUS has ruled against abortion protest buffers

 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting



Click Here for Main Page



Guest
Today Is  
Friday, September 20, 2019






Latest Posts

Trump Snorting Adderroll -Podcast interview with Noel Casler who worked on The Apprentice
salon 9/19/2019

Time to Lock Up Ivanka Trump? She used a personal email account to send govt emails
salon 9/18/2019

Corey Lewandowski Is Just a Flat Out Liar
salon 9/18/2019

Not Ever Voting for Unethical Trump-but I'm not a fan of Biden
salon 9/15/2019

New in Trump's Swampy Government- Emuluments Case Back On
salon 9/15/2019

At what point will this country make sure our elected officials pass gun laws to ensure human safety?
salon 9/15/2019


More Blog Headlines
 



Comments

salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at salon@glenrose.net with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )








Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS

 

%>