They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

I'm not willing to believe that everyone who has an unfavorable opinion of it wants to ban it. So, we're looking at what, maybe 10% of the people who would like to ban it? Dear windword, you can find 10% of the population willing to ban anything.

I don't understand your cause for concern.

Exactly, there's no need to have such concern over something that's not even an issue yet (and probably never will be). Anyone can find something to be upset about if they look hard enough for it.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I pity the poor women who opt to use the morning after pill in place of contraception. That will not be a healthy decision I fear. As to the question of the uterus of women who have used the pill; the only thing I can come up with is maybe (only speculating here) they are talking about endometriosis? link

I do believe that this issue is being over-blown in that it would have absolutely no support with the vast majority of the population.

reply to post by charles1952


AH! That's what they WANT you think, Charles! But decidedly, these "anti-choicers" are working their way past a woman's uterus and into her ovaries! If they achieve their agenda of declaring that a fertilized egg is a person with rights that exceed those a woman's choice, we can kiss out birth control good by.


SOURCE

What this budget committee just did is redefine pregnancy as fertilization, ignoring the medical consensus that pregnancy begins upon implantation into the uterus. Then they go on to slyly, yet boldly defined that the fertilized egg is a developing human offspring who's gestational age is based on when the woman's last period ended. AKA, "personage".

They're slowly pushing the boundaries, trying to sneak in language that makes inroads to ban abortion, bypassing what is medically sound and constitutionally correct, for their opinion, or worse, for their political careers.

Technically, this budget bill defines a woman as pregnant before she even had intercourse! This could make a egg that's fertilization occurred hours before, be determined to be (?) 3 weeks? What if the woman is irregular and skipped a period? The egg that was fertilized a few hours earlier, could be determined to be 6+ weeks!

Since most contraception have an added protection, should fertilization occur, they make the uterus hostile to implant, thus redefining "The Pill" "Norplant" "The IUD" and all emergency birth control fall in the category of abortion. This has the ramification that could require extra costly tests for a woman just to obtain her regular form of control, because, by their logic, now she is asking for an abortion, even before she's pregnant, and may require and vaginal ultra sound and a 24 hour wait period!

Now they've included the use of certain birth control under their intrusive regulation of abortion. They've effectively equated contraception to abortion! These lawmakers have placed all kinds of unnecessary, expensive and intrusive barriers up, making it more difficult for women at risk to get the services and products that they need. WooHoo! More forced vaginal probes, required by law to be paid for by the woman, and deemed unnecessary by the medical community.

The all male budget committee has also redefined the term "Viability" beyond what the Supreme Court and the AMA believe to be true. (4) "Viable pregnancy" means a pregnancy in which a fetal sac is located inside the pregnant woman's uterus and fetal cardiac activity is present within the fetal sac."
SOURCE

Who are these guys?

The fetal heart starts beating during the embryonic stage of pregnancy at 22 days after conception

North Dakota enacted the “fetal heartbeat” ban to criminalize all abortion services after just 6 weeks of pregnancy.

Read more: communities.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal up to viability. 6 weeks is not viable!

These are thing to be decided by doctors, not a budget committee. If they're willing to overstep their authority here, they are certainly coming for our birth control too!

reply to post by windword


What "war on women"??

Do you think the only people against abortion are men?

reply to post by MsAphrodite


You are very right about these medications Not being good for females.

I think there is a terrible danger that there are going to be females to abuse the morning after pill and cause themselves permanent damage and Not be able to have children naturally. Unfortunately there will also be those who believe that this will be a viable alternative to TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

As far as endometriosis goes, I have known 2 females that did not take birth control of any sort that had it.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I agree with you that six weeks seems extreme. How about 13, the end of the first trimester? I hadn't read Roe v. Wade in a while, so I went back to it. There are some interesting things there.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. (Emphasis added)

So after the first trimester, the state is allowed to do many things which have the effect of reducing the availability of abortions. Further:

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined

But, I'm still not persuaded that the decision of North Dakota will be copied in many other states, if any. We know the law will be challenged immediately, and will be struck down. I hate to sound flip, but "No worries."

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

Dear windword,

I agree with you

that six weeks seems extreme. How about 13, the end of the first trimester?

Dear Charles,

This isn't a situation in which we can negotiate, back and forth, to strike a bargain of viability.

Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus. en.wikipedia.org...

While science can advance, and with good medicine and sound science, fetal age of fetal viability may be reduced. Making Abortion Obsolete

Fetal viability is for doctors and scientists to decide. Not lawmakers, and especially not a group of men on a Ohio budget committee.

I hadn't read Roe v. Wade in a while, so I went back to it. There are some interesting things there.

Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. (Emphasis added)

So after the first trimester, the state is allowed to do many things which have the effect of reducing the availability of abortions. Further:

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined

This statement seems to lean more toward lenient regulations than stricter, deemed not medically necessary by doctors, to even extend to allowing skilled RN's to perform abortions. No way can it be constrewed to imply that the state has the right place added burdens and obstacles in the way of a woman's right to safe, accessible, constitutionally guaranteed services and products.

These regulations need to be informed by the American Medical Association. Not some Hoedunk town family doctor's opinion, the opinion of uneducated politicians, or the lady next door.

But, I'm still not persuaded that the decision of North Dakota will be copied in many other states, if any. We know the law will be challenged immediately, and will be struck down. I hate to sound flip, but "No worries."

It's not just N Dakota. It's Ohio, Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Indiana, Mississippi and N Carolina.

Big worries!

there has been a documented upsurge in uterus removals in older women who started using the pill back in the 70s

Sure, there's probably 3 a year now instead of 2.

Seriously, has anyone actually heard of this ever happening? What a weak argument against on of the greatest advancements in the history of mankind. The main difference between us and the third world is that we don't have ten kids each.

reply to post by CB328


I am amazed but you may be young yet. It is well known that by the 1990s many many women that were on birth control since the 70s were having parts of their reproductive systems removed due to several common bad developments therein such as cysts, tumors ect.

Do young think those concerned with making money from female reproductive products are going to broadcast these facts?

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by CB328

 

I am amazed but you may be young yet. It is well known that by the 1990s many many women that were on birth control since the 70s were having parts of their reproductive systems removed due to several common bad developments therein such as cysts, tumors ect.

Do young think those concerned with making money from female reproductive products are going to broadcast these facts?

I'd like to see where you get those "well known" statistics.

There have been a lot of confusing headlines, so here's the bottom line. One: Despite what you may have heard, taking the Pill has no impact on breast cancer risk. Two: It drastically reduces the lifetime risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers—by 80 percent in women who take it for at least 10 years. Three: It slightly raises the chance of cervical cancer, but the extra risk disappears soon after you stop taking it. All in all, the good news far outweighs the bad
www.womenshealthmag.com...

"Today's Pill raises the likelihood of having a blood clot threefold," Kaunitz says. "By contrast, pregnancy and childbirth elevate your chances five-to tenfold." As long as you don't already have cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure or diabetes and you're not a smoker, OCs don't increase the risk for heart attack and stroke, and you can safely take them until menopause.
www.womenshealthmag.com...

I neglected to put this link in the OP.

Kasich signs Ohio budget with abortion restrictions, tax cuts Ohio will have some of most restrictive abortion laws in country

reply to post by windword


on a conspiracy site you would think people would understand the need for population control. Don't feel like looking it up, but after the introduction of contraceptives and abortion. hasn't the US population groth slowed to a nearly except able level?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What "war on women"?? Do you think the only people against abortion are men?

Men are unable to give birth, do not take birth control pills or the morning after pill, so yeah, this is a war on women. That doesn't mean thickheaded housewives aren't there holding signs looking like idiots too.

reply to post by windword


they may pull out quick on this (pun intended)

could not resist sorry in advance

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by CB328

 

I am amazed but you may be young yet. It is well known that by the 1990s many many women that were on birth control since the 70s were having parts of their reproductive systems removed due to several common bad developments therein such as cysts, tumors ect.

Do young think those concerned with making money from female reproductive products are going to broadcast these facts?

I'd like to see where you get those "well known" statistics.

There have been a lot of confusing headlines, so here's the bottom line. One: Despite what you may have heard, taking the Pill has no impact on breast cancer risk. Two: It drastically reduces the lifetime risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers—by 80 percent in women who take it for at least 10 years. Three: It slightly raises the chance of cervical cancer, but the extra risk disappears soon after you stop taking it. All in all, the good news far outweighs the bad
www.womenshealthmag.com...

So they are saying.....that women that take birth control pills for 10 years can drastically reduce lifetime risk, by 80%, instances of ovarian and endometrial cancers. As opposed to women that didn't take the pill who are 80% more likely to develop cancer......simply because they didn't take the pill.

Wow, sounds like they are onto a magical drug there. Women would want to take that even if they were a nun.

Anyway, sounds like a big sales pitch by the big drug companies here. Sounds like the early tobacco aids that claimed tobacco use was actually beneficial to health. You can find some of those on Utube. The goal at one time was to get every fertile l woman in america on the pill and watch the $ roll in.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What "war on women"?? Do you think the only people against abortion are men?

Men are unable to give birth, do not take birth control pills or the morning after pill, so yeah, this is a war on women. That doesn't mean thickheaded housewives aren't there holding signs looking like idiots too.

There are millions of pro-life women who are also against abortion. So this claim of "war on women" is absurd.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos & SEIU. 2/23-26. Registered voters. MoE ±3.1% (no trendlines):

Q: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of birth control?
Favorable: 66
Unfavorable: 16
Not sure: 18

www.dailykos.com...

I don't understand your cause for concern.

Unfortunately, the population (or the DailyKOS readership) are NOT the people making the laws. Let me remind you...

Background Checks for Gun Purchases

Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?
Favor 94%
Oppose 6%

And yet... Senate Rejects Background Checks for Gun Purchases

In other words, it's been a long time since Congress gave a crap about what the people think. The People aren't waging a War on Women.... The GOP is. The People's opinions matter not.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

What "war on women"??

Do you think the only people against abortion are men?

most of those against abortion are men....I think women should demand a law that all men immediately get their testicles snipped until they get married and want to have children...after all it's not their body, and women should have an equal say in what men can do inside their own body, just like the republican Taliban here in America can do

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What "war on women"?? Do you think the only people against abortion are men?

Men are unable to give birth, do not take birth control pills or the morning after pill, so yeah, this is a war on women. That doesn't mean thickheaded housewives aren't there holding signs looking like idiots too.

It been this way for years.....abortion promoters have hidden behind masks of several types, covering much ground, making much justification for an industry of death and gender division. And the worst sort of anti abortionist to them.......is other outspoken women. Hard feminist will wade neck deep in blood to destroy opposition coming from other females.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

What "war on women"??

Do you think the only people against abortion are men?

most of those against abortion are men....I think women should demand a law that all men immediately get their testicles snipped until they get married and want to have children...after all it's not their body, and women should have an equal say in what men can do inside their own body, just like the republican Taliban here in America can do

One would think by listing to the drivel, that women just go out here and get pregnant by themselves through some sort of hocus pocus. lol