Hillary Blasts 'War on Contraception'

[ironmonk]

Friday, June 23, 2006 11:41 a.m. EDT
Hillary Blasts 'War on Contraception'


Hillary Clinton and her feminist allies are denouncing what they call a "war on contraception” being waged by the Bush administration.

"There’s a quiet war going on in America against the most basic rights of Americans to make their own personal decisions about family planning,” Clinton wrote in a mass e-mail.

"This war against contraception endangers basic American values.”

At a June 13 meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Clinton declared: "We know it’s not just ‘choice’ that is under attack, it’s contraception which is under attack.”

The New York Times joined the fray with a May 7 article titled "The War on Contraception.” Feminists point to several elements of the so-called war:

-The Food and Drug Administration has refused to approve the open sale of the morning-after pill in pharmacies.

-The administration has promoted abstinence as the chief way of avoiding pregnancy.

-Health insurers are reportedly under mounting pressure not to cover the morning-after pill.

-Four states – Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota – have approved laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell birth control pills.

"The right-to-life movement has moved on; they are on to fighting contraception,” charged Christina Page of the NARAL Pro-Choice America group.
"They’ve by and large won the abortion law. They are just waiting for an 86-year-old justice to step down,” Page told Agence France Press, referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, who has voted to uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But Carrie Gordon-Earll, a spokeswoman for the Christian evangelical group Focus on Family, said: "I do not think there is a war on contraception.”

Regarding The New York Times story, she added: "The article reads more like a political commentary than the news.”

Clinton has charged that the Bush administration is cutting back on contraception options for poor women who rely on government-funded programs.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt countered: "Once again, Hillary Clinton demonstrates that her top priority is increasing both the size and scope of the government.”

[prose]

Since when is the morning after pill contraception?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Abstinence as the chief way of avoiding pregnancy? How can we support such a ridiculous and unscientific position? And since when did pharmicists declare the right to follow their own conscience in moral decisions? George W. Bush must be stopped!

Sarcasm.

Bert Ernie Elmo Big Bird

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='prose' post='1010917' date='Jun 23 2006, 10:28 AM']
Since when is the morning after pill contraception?
[/quote]


It is in a way. Basically a double dose of the stuff in normal bc pills. Supposed to force the womb to reject the newly-implanted fetus, if there is one.

Just another form of abortion. Of course, when promoting the drug, the feminazis will casually gloss over the part that it also causes extremely painful cramping and internal bleeding. Nice huh?

BAH!

[Birgitta Noel]

Prose, the morning after pill [i]can[/i] be contraceptive (depending on which formulation is given), but it can [i]also[/i] act abortifaciently depending on when it is given etc. This is why there is a lot of controversy in Catholic health care about when it may and may not be given in cases of rape.

If you want (lots) more info let me know, I have a whole 30p written up on this.

Edited June 23, 2006 by Birgitta Noel

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' post='1010965' date='Jun 23 2006, 01:23 PM']
Prose, the morning after pill [i]can[/i] be contraceptive (depending on which formulation is given), but it can [i]also[/i] act abortifaciently depending on when it is given etc. This is why there is a lot of controversy in Catholic health care about when it may and may not be given in cases of rape.

If you want (lots) more info let me know, I have a whole 30p written up on this.
[/quote]
is it online somewhere?

[Birgitta Noel]

nope.

[cmotherofpirl]

it could be

[Birgitta Noel]

nope. I may be submitting it later for publication.

[prose]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' post='1010965' date='Jun 23 2006, 11:23 AM']
Prose, the morning after pill [i]can[/i] be contraceptive (depending on which formulation is given), but it can [i]also[/i] act abortifaciently depending on when it is given etc. This is why there is a lot of controversy in Catholic health care about when it may and may not be given in cases of rape.

If you want (lots) more info let me know, I have a whole 30p written up on this.
[/quote]

Why would there be any controversy in Catholic health care? Abortion AND Contraception are both against the Church's teachings.

I would be interested in how it would work as a contraceptive and not as an abortifacient. I understand that it is made of up "normal" contraceptives, so I guess it would make sense that it would prevent ovulation.

In any case, as stated, wouldn't it still be against Church's teaching either way??

[Birgitta Noel]

No, emergency contraception [i]in cases of rape[/i] is allowed (under certain circumstances) because it is seen as an act of self defense against an unjust aggressor, the rapist (the sperm are an extention of the aggressor). This teaching goes back to the 1500-1600s.

Contraception is prohibited because it separates the unitive and procreative nature of the conjugal act (even if it is not a true conjugal act, ie fornication, but even in fornication it is consensual so it is a perversion of the conjugal act).

Rape is an act of violent aggression and the woman has the right to protect herself from conception, but not at the cost of the life of an embryo.

There are women who choose not to get emergency contraception after rape believing that any resulting pregnancy is the will of God. While this may be admirable (or not (I'm not trying to start a debate here)) it is a supererogatory act, above and beyond what is required by Church teaching.

[prose]

That is really interesting. I had no idea. Maybe some women don't get the EC then b/c they didn't know it was okay?

And why don't Catholic Hospitals provide the option?

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='prose' post='1011001' date='Jun 23 2006, 01:25 PM']
That is really interesting. I had no idea. Maybe some women don't get the EC then b/c they didn't know it was okay?

And why don't Catholic Hospitals provide the option?
[/quote]


Catholic hospitals DO provide the option. Anyone who tells you otherwise has read the report by Catholics for a Free Choice or Planned Parenthood (I don't remember which it was) which was poorly done.

The catch is that they don't provide ec for just any reason, only rape. And then there are some caveats. And there is a debate in Catholic circles over what constitutes a sufficient confirmation that the ec won't cause an abortion. There's further debate over whether ec can even BE abortifacient, but that's a whole other can of worms.

The other part of the problem is that Catholics speak a different language than other folks. For example, the medical establishment in general believes that pregnancy occurs only AFTER implantation. We believe it begins at conception. So, some who say the morning after pill isn't abortifacient say so based on that understanding of pregnancy.

There are also many different formulations of the morning after pill.....

Edited June 23, 2006 by Birgitta Noel

[prose]

Very cool.

My husband and I are NFP speakers, and this would be something that would be very useful to have more (or in this case better) information about. I am sure it is only a matter of time before someone asks about it in marriage prep.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' post='1010994' date='Jun 23 2006, 02:17 PM']
No, emergency contraception [i]in cases of rape[/i] is allowed (under certain circumstances) because it is seen as an act of self defense against an unjust aggressor, the rapist (the sperm are an extention of the aggressor). This teaching goes back to the 1500-1600s.

[/quote]


If the sperm meets the egg, there is a human. The child is innocent.


[quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum5&recnu=5&number=471639"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.a...5&number=471639[/url]
Emergency Contraception
Question from April on 6/8/2006:

Good day Father. I have a question about Emergency Contraception and Abortion. In cases of rape and or incest what does the church do to help the victim? Can a young lady request Emergency Contraception when she reports a rape? If not what does the church do to help this young lady deal with what has happened to her, while being pregnant & after the child is born. It is completely unfair that she would be forced to relive the rape over & over again until the child is born if she can not take emergency contraction. Or, if she does not report the rape right away & finds out she is pregnant about 5 or 6 weeks later, can she get an abortion? And what if the rape is of incest? What can this person expect as support from her church? Thank you so much for helping me understand this difficult situation. April

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 6/9/2006:
The contraception-abortion oriented attitude of large segments of our contemporary culture presents special problems for the faithful Catholic physician and the authentic Catholic hospital, not the least of which concerns the appropriate treatment of the victim of rape who is admitted to the emergency room. The problem, of course, has nothing to do with the need for the utmost gentleness and compassionate care to be extended to the victims of rape. Nor is there any problem with the duty of carefully collecting and preserving accurate evidence that may be needed later in court. Nor is there any problem, from a moral viewpoint, with efforts to prevent conception in these tragic circumstances, provided such attempts to prevent conception do not endanger or destroy an embryo which might already be present. In regard to preventing conception in the circumstances of rape, the teaching of the Church regarding the evil of contraception in relation to sexual intercourse does not apply to rape simply because rape is not INTERcourse - it is an act of the aggressor only, and the victim has the right to repel the aggression before the act of rape begins, or during the rape, and also the right to expel or block the continuation of the act in the form of the aggressor's sperm still invading her body. BUT, in the event that conception has occurred, or even MAY have occurred, the rape victim has no right to take measures which would destroy or endanger the newly conceived child. Obviously the new embryo is not an unjust aggressor but rather, like the woman, an innocent victim of a criminal act. To destroy this new life would simply be an abortion. Abortion is out of the question.



[/quote]

Knowing when ovulation occurs is not exact science.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited June 24, 2006 by ironmonk