It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Birth Control harder to obtain (in Bush America)?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Is this a joke?!? Besides from the fact that people need to have contraception available, and it should be encouraged to avoid unwanted pregnancies, some women need these medications to live healthy lives! There are several female medical conditions, such as polycystic ovarian syndrom, wherein the symptoms are only remedied by oral contraceptives.


The members of the antiabortion group Pharmacists for Life International say they have every right to make that kind of decision. "Our job is to enhance life," explains the organization's president, pharmacist Karen Brauer, RPh, who first refused to fill prescriptions for some types of birth control pills in 1989. "We shouldn't have to dispense a medication that we think takes lives."


this is a long article so here's the linkage. Curious to see what the opinions on this are.

www.prevention.com...

[edit on 9-11-2004 by duh squared]
edited to replace ?s in subject

[edit on 9-11-2004 by duh squared]




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I am gunna bump this because I think its worth a discussion. This article is frightening to me. some other highlights of the above link (Prevention Mag online)




Planned Parenthood's Feldt believes anti-Pill groups, like the larger anti-abortion movement that spawned them, have been emboldened by the Bush administration's antiabortion policies and appointees. "Pro-life groups know they have friends in high places," she says. In his first budget to Congress, President Bush stripped out a provision that required insurance companies participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to cover contraceptives. He has also withheld funding for international family planning; signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which critics say could result in making even second-trimester abortions illegal; and signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which gives a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus separate legal status if harmed during a violent crime. (Abortion rights groups say that giving a fetus separate legal rights from the pregnant woman opens the door to prosecuting anyone involved in an abortion.)



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Let me ask you this question. Is there any money or profit to be made from outlawing birth control? Does anyone profit?

No? Then it won't happen.

Note: The Catholic Church is the exception to this, but their profit from not allowing birthcontrol is the next genertion of sheep ---- er, worshipers. That is a long range plan and there isnt' much profit to be realized in the short term.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
No one's gone so far as to say it will be outlawed, people are just getting a lot of crap when they try to get it in some of the more "moral" areas of the country. I suppose I found it alarming because I never knew there were Pharmacists and Doctors who believed that it was "silent abortion" and taking it upon themselves to prevent it.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Much easier to get in Iraq. Over there they have no condoms, they just kill the parents before they can procreate.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
But our Moralistic leader thinks this is the right thing to do


Okay so I guess there is a recurring theme of "How can you reason things with 'morality' and consider it wrong to take a pill that may cause miscarriage, but support a man who waged an unnecessary war killing innocent people for oil"....yeah....I was trying not to bring that up.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by duh squared]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
ds- I was going to give you a hard time and wonder where you have been for the last 6 years. This little group of pharmacists has been a pain in the arse for a long time now. This was the oldest article (March of 1999) I could find on the subject:


Pharmacists for Life urges its 1,500 members to refuse to fill not only emergency contraception but all birth-control prescriptions -- pills, implants, injections and intrauterine devices -- because of the chance, no matter how remote, of disrupting implantation of a fertilized egg.


Link

Many women (and men) have been complaining about this for years, but few noticed. It is only now that the movement is getting larger and more organized that people are finally starting to say - hold the phone just a minute.

One thing you should note some of the states currently seeking to protect the right of pharamicists who refuse to dispense birth control are not your bible belt states but Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio.

The best option we have right now is monetary. Refuse to do business with any pharmacy or store that allows their pharmacists the option of saying no. Hit them where it hurts - in their bottom line.

B.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by duh squared
But our Moralistic leader thinks this is the right thing to do


Okay so I guess there is a recurring theme of "How can you reason things with 'morality' and consider it wrong to take a pill that may cause miscarriage, but support a man who waged an unnecessary war killing innocent people for oil



from Bleys
This was the oldest article (March of 1999) I could find on the subject:

duh squared

I was wondering...how can you make a statement like you did, blaming Bush, when Bleys has shown us that this has been an issue since at least 1999?

Is it because you just hate Bush so much that you are willing to blame him for anything, regardless of the facts?

Do you realize that one of the reasons that this country is so divided is because people make statements like you did, just to stir things up, and to try to blame Bush for anything and everything?

Why do you do this? Blame someone before you know all the facts? Or worse, maybe you did know the facts and tried to slip another beer party soundbite off as truth?

I'm really curious as to what motivates people like you.




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
It is simple jsobecky since Mr. Bush is in power his endorsment to these groups has make posible for them to get bolder and to be able to push their religious views on women, not on men but on women.

If things keep going like this very soon they will start burning places that are filling out birth control prescriptions for women.

In the name of God and their views worst atrocities has been comited already in this world.

It is just a matter of time if somebody does not put a stop to their agenda.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Let me ask you this question. Is there any money or profit to be made from outlawing birth control? Does anyone profit?

No? Then it won't happen.

Note: The Catholic Church is the exception to this, but their profit from not allowing birthcontrol is the next genertion of sheep ---- er, worshipers. That is a long range plan and there isnt' much profit to be realized in the short term.

I tend to agree with you..As long as there's a buck to be made, they'll be available to anyone who wants them.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   


I was wondering...how can you make a statement like you did, blaming Bush, when Bleys has shown us that this has been an issue since at least 1999?


Actually, Jsobecky, if you read the article it would point out that this was going on since 1989. This is not my point that it is a new phenomena, it is that it is now in a climate where it is growing. Think of it like yeast, in a hot moist place. This deserves attention, hence a rash of new articles on the matter.




Do you realize that one of the reasons that this country is so divided is because people make statements like you did, just to stir things up, and to try to blame Bush for anything and everything?


I realize, that division is prevailing right now, I think your response tells us much of its cause. I propose discussion of an article (i accidentally deleted the ?s from the subject title upon editiing), and a current and credible one at that. You then come forth with an accusing and abrasive attitude about hatred of bush this and that. The point is that there is now a lot more focus on "pro life" issues and and funding, and it deserves attention.

Thank you for understanding my point, Marg.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by duh squared
This is not my point that it is a new phenomena, it is that it is now in a climate where it is growing. Think of it like yeast, in a hot moist place. This deserves attention, hence a rash of new articles on the matter.

The point is that there is now a lot more focus on "pro life" issues and and funding, and it deserves attention.



I actually wish this had been an issue with more people sooner. The damage is already done and it's not going to be rectified in the near future. The fact that some of these laws protecting "a pharmacists right to refuse" were being instituted in the 1990s speaks volumes. We were not as vigilant as we should have been.

But do I think birth control will ever be banned outright? Not a chance - too many protestant politicians beholden to the pharmaceutical companies in this country.

Like I said earlier - the potential monetary loss to certain retail pharamacies will hopefully be our "ace in the hole" so to speak. Their own greed will get them to sacrifice their moral imperative. Until then - I'll take my business elsewhere.

B.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by duh squared
This is not my point that it is a new phenomena, it is that it is now in a climate where it is growing. Think of it like yeast, in a hot moist place. This deserves attention, hence a rash of new articles on the matter.

The point is that there is now a lot more focus on "pro life" issues and and funding, and it deserves attention.



I actually wish this had been an issue with more people sooner. The damage is already done and it's not going to be rectified in the near future. The fact that some of these laws protecting "a pharmacists right to refuse" were being instituted in the 1990s speaks volumes. We were not as vigilant as we should have been.

But do I think birth control will ever be banned outright? Not a chance - too many protestant politicians beholden to the pharmaceutical companies in this country.

Like I said earlier - the potential monetary loss to certain retail pharamacies will hopefully be our "ace in the hole" so to speak. Their own greed will get them to sacrifice their moral imperative. Until then - I'll take my business elsewhere.

B.


I only learned about the issue recently. I found ATS not that long ago, and I really like that people can post with links to back up info, so I cn do some research for myself. I had no idea this issue involved more than a few bible belt areas until today. With all the other crap being foisted on us by the freshly empowered Bush Co. I feel extremely motivated to step up to the plate and see what I can do in my area and with my bank account to work for keeping people free to choose for themselves.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith
I only learned about the issue recently. I found ATS not that long ago, and I really like that people can post with links to back up info, so I cn do some research for myself. I had no idea this issue involved more than a few bible belt areas until today.
--Saerlaith


I had heard sporadic reports of birth control being denied single women in the bible belt for years - but to be honest I just shook my head and figured it would result in a lawsuit and the pharmacist being fired.

Then I read about an article that noted that a fertilized egg can sometimes be spontaneously aborted if you are on birth control. The article didn't mention that most women have two or three miscarriages during their lifetime regardless of whether they are on the pill or not. The pro-life crowd latched onto it like a dog on a bone. Here's an example - Link

You knew it was getting bad when other states starting passing laws protecting these Pharmacists rather than protecting the women. I posted this somewhere else on ATS:


LANSING, Mich. The state House has voted to protect health-care workers and insurers from being fired or sued for refusing to perform a procedure, fill a prescription or cover treatment for something they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons.

The measures would apply to doctors or nurses who decline to perform or assist with abortions and to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills.


1st amendment center

We just haven't been paying attention for far too long.


B.



[edit on 11/9/04 by Bleys]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by duh squared

Actually, Jsobecky, if you read the article it would point out that this was going on since 1989. This is not my point that it is a new phenomena, it is that it is now in a climate where it is growing. Think of it like yeast, in a hot moist place. This deserves attention, hence a rash of new articles on the matter.




Do you realize that one of the reasons that this country is so divided is because people make statements like you did, just to stir things up, and to try to blame Bush for anything and everything?


I realize, that division is prevailing right now, I think your response tells us much of its cause. I propose discussion of an article (i accidentally deleted the ?s from the subject title upon editiing), and a current and credible one at that. You then come forth with an accusing and abrasive attitude about hatred of bush this and that. The point is that there is now a lot more focus on "pro life" issues and and funding, and it deserves attention.

I think you know what I meant. If the law allows for a pharmacist to refuse to write a prescription for moral or religious purposes. (i.e., Conscience Clause) then the law is wrong and needs to be changed.

For you to bring Bush into something that has been going on for 15 years is just an attempt to agitate a divisive attitude in this country. Your title should have indicted those responsible for the clause to begin with. But then, naming Pharmacists for Life International would not have been as sensational.

A growing number of physicians and pharmacists have made this a personal choice. If it is wrong for them to make their choice a part of their practice, then the law needs to be written accordingly. Because the president has a certain stand on abortion does not automatically make him complicit in the physicians' actions, even though he may agree with them.

I ask you, where did Bush promote the Conscience Clause? He didn't. But he is pro-life, so he is guilty by association, according to you.

That is how division starts, and grows. Take a half-truth, spin it as a fact, and hope people buy into it.

Now, when the issue comes up in a discussion, you can just shake your head and mumble "Bush". Poof! A new banner for a protest rally has been born!




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Going by the established pattern.. the propaganda: pill causes cancer.. [there might be a link but the alternative is unwanted pregnancies], the 'conscience clause' which makes it pretty inaccessable when franchises have been monopolised [pay attention kids] by pro-life groups.. other things like medical coverage not being covered by it.. and the inevitable banning of abortion altogether when the court decides 'life begins at concepton'- the pill falls into that category and is most obviously being phased out now.. there is more money in religion so even consumer demand won't protect women. The pill can prevent concieved eggs from being implanted and the pro-life groups are adement that it is abortion so l would place bets that it will get banned as well. If people assume this is all co-incidental and they wouldn't go that far.. they'd best take a closer look.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by riley]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I am fightin for the rights of my 20 year old daughter to be able to have the chioces that I had when I was her age, I had my prepscription pills and never had aproblem with them.

I am going to start visiting pharmacies in the area and I will ask about the this so call fanatical group that thinks that they are in a mission of "God" into taking away the rights of women.

And by the way my 20 year old daughter is not sexualy active she believe in finding the right man, but if she wants to have sex I want her to have a choice on what kind of birth control she can used.

And I also have to think that she is living in a dorm in college and if she find herself in a situation and get rape I want her to have also the choice to carry the product of being a rape victim if that happend or not.

So you see, I am not fighting for me.



[edit on 10-11-2004 by marg6043]

[edit on 10-11-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
This anti-birth-control thing has been going on since birth control methods have become popular.

Since the 70s, Blue Cross Blue Shield has not covered birth control pills, IUDs or tubal ligations. I'm pretty sure they don't cover diaphrams, either.

Catholic hospitals, and I know there are many, will not perform tubal ligations. They will not do hysterectomies on women of child bearing years, even when deemed medically necessary.
In some areas, the only available hospital is Catholic.

While the growing trend among pharacists is quite troubling, it is equally wrong to blame Bush. This has been going on for over 30 years, both religiously and secularly.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
This anti-birth-control thing has been going on since birth control methods have become popular.

Since the 70s, Blue Cross Blue Shield has not covered birth control pills, IUDs or tubal ligations. I'm pretty sure they don't cover diaphrams, either.


The difference now, DTOM, is that it's no longer a question of whether your insurance company will pay for your monthly prescription (mine doesn't and never has). The problem now is that there are pharmacists/pharmacies who refuse to fill a legal prescription for a legal medication, based solely on their own personal views.

This doesn't cause a problem for me: I live in a large metro area, and if one pharmacy doesn't want my business, there's always another right down the street that *does*. However, for women in rural areas or smaller cities, there may only be one or two pharmacies. If *those* refuse to fill a prescription, those women are screwed.

Wal-Mart has already refused to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, or the "morning after" pill. If you live in a small town where W-M has driven out local pharmacies, and a condom breaks, you are just out of luck.


On a more positive note, K-Mart has said it will fire any pharmacist who refuses to dispense any FDA-approved medication.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join