posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mylescorcoran at 02:52pm on 18/07/2008 under health, reproduction, retrocontraception_for_barbara_bush, womens_rights
mylescorcoran at 02:52pm on 18/07/2008 under health, reproduction, retrocontraception_for_barbara_bush, womens_rightsSome of you will have already noticed the rotten development afoot in the US Department of Health and Human Services, discussed by (among others) liz_marcs, peaseblossom, and my own sammywol (also here).
Just looking at the text in question I really have to question the sanity (and the ulterior motives) of the drafters of the proposed regulation.
'...the Department proposes to define abortion as “any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”'
As per the clear-thinking analysis at Reproductive Health Reality Check, the proposed change in the definition puts the onus on the individual woman to prove she's not pregnant if she wants to obtain oral contraception, say, from any medical or pharmaceutical practitioner who decides that a contraceptive pill is a tool of abortionists.
This is a monstrous act, and one that clearly discriminates against women. Condoms = barrier method = no problem (subtext: condom = for men, allowable). Oral contraceptives = abortion (subtext: deny women control of their own fertility). By the above definition any act that could remotely be construed as likely to lead to a failed implantation (a hot bath, anyone?) is an abortion, and likely an entirely unconscious one. It's discriminatory bollocks and should be confronted as such.
twistedchick, for example, has links to actions US citizens can take. The rest of us should at least post and kick up a fuss.
Just looking at the text in question I really have to question the sanity (and the ulterior motives) of the drafters of the proposed regulation.
'...the Department proposes to define abortion as “any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”'
As per the clear-thinking analysis at Reproductive Health Reality Check, the proposed change in the definition puts the onus on the individual woman to prove she's not pregnant if she wants to obtain oral contraception, say, from any medical or pharmaceutical practitioner who decides that a contraceptive pill is a tool of abortionists.
This is a monstrous act, and one that clearly discriminates against women. Condoms = barrier method = no problem (subtext: condom = for men, allowable). Oral contraceptives = abortion (subtext: deny women control of their own fertility). By the above definition any act that could remotely be construed as likely to lead to a failed implantation (a hot bath, anyone?) is an abortion, and likely an entirely unconscious one. It's discriminatory bollocks and should be confronted as such.
twistedchick, for example, has links to actions US citizens can take. The rest of us should at least post and kick up a fuss.
(no subject)
I'm so glad that the US zeitgeist has been making such strident efforts over the last eight years to prove me wrong. Woohoo.
There is, sadly, a movement in Canada to introduce similar types of trap-door legislation (specifically criminalizing assaults upon a woman that endanger the life of her carried fetus) while swearing up, down, and sideways that abortion is not the target (oh noz!). Oddly enough, though, the supporters of these legislative manoeuvres just happen to also be, in the main, pretty strident pro-lifers (shock! awe!).
(no subject)
As for the Canadian trap-door trickery, I have to ask (as with the current US crap) why doesn't logic enter into it? The sort of legislation you describe would also stretch to criminalising certain surgical procedures, not to mention offering horse-riding lessons to pregnant women.
(Ok, I'm extending the concept, but hey, they started it!)
(no subject)
(no subject)
It really is infuriating. All I can hope is that Obama wins AND that he puts in a head of HHS that stops this nonsense. The problem is, I really am not entirely convinced of his feminist credentials ...
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Yes, this current act discriminates against women, but it might just be a stepping stone to blocking any sort of reproductive rights regardless of gender.
In response to your comment to Viktor, there are already multiple attempts towards criminalizing fetus-endangering behavior, such as alcohol consumption while pregant. See, if we make a medical abortion illegal women might try less savory methods, so we better ban them too.
(no subject)
However, regardless of the actual ulterior motive, I think we can agree that this proposed regulation is one we're both against.
(no subject)
(no subject)
The Fundies, however, are against the whole damn lot of 'em, women, homosexuals, atheists, non-Christians etc.