The extremist Christian Right doesn't give up. They do get more evil, however. What follows provides a disturbing example of how the Bush administration rejects real science in favor of pseudo-science to placate the religious beliefs of the Christian Right, or the Roman Catholic Right.
Everything is political in da Bush's administration.
The American Medical Association as well as the British Medical Association defines pregnancy as beginning "when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus."
Cristina Page writes that the Department of Health and Human Services "released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40 percent of Americans use, as abortion."
This convoluted attempt to restrict the use of contraceptives depends upon the definition of pregnancy. The HHS, in contrast to the majority of medical opinion, intends to define pregnancy as beginning at conception! As Ms. Page points out, this is a "biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a women's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS's new science."
The idiocy of this proposal becomes clear when one realizes there is no evidence whatsoever that hormonal contraception prevents "a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb." Hormonal contraceptives do not abort a "fertilized egg."
Ms. Page describes what this means for women. "Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding -- even in the form of Medicaid -- and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so."
The extremist Christian Right and their cohorts in the Roman Church must be in hog heaven! This is a new opportunity for them to impose the will of their god upon the rest of the population: Redefine pregnancy as beginning with fertilization of an egg; accept the pseudo-science that contraceptives inhibit the implantation of the egg into the lining of the uterus, and bingo, you can prohibit women from obtaining contraceptives, because contraceptives cause "abortions"!
Just think how happy god will be!
It might be appropriate to point out that the head honcho of the Department of Health and Human Services in none other than Mike Leavitt, a Bush crony of the Mormon, ultra-right variety, who was also responsible for the medical response to Hurricane Katrina!
It's way past time to throw da Bush and his prehistoric, demented religious freaks the hell out of our government!
1 comment:
I find it hard to accept that these decisions keep popping up. Where is the outrage from women of all denominations? Where is the news coverage? Where is the Medical profession?
I agree that women should not have sex unless they and their partner want to make a baby that they will take care of forever in a satisfactory manner to me and all the rest of the right thinking citizens of the USA. It would be a good idea for all couples wanting to have sex, go to a governmental agency and get an examination to determine if ovulation probably would occur. This might require a few tests for the presence of an egg and the sperm of the potential father. Both parties must prove they are legally married and economically ready for children. While these tests are being taken, the couple must be held in custody and kept apart until all the tests are concluded. They must then go into a room and proceed to try to make a baby. The lack of privacy and all the time it takes to get to that point might mean some loss of spontaneity, but if God demands that, it is not that great a sacrifice. After all, if the goal of sexual intimacy is only for procreation, than enjoyment is not actually necessary.
After all this, a chastity belt, with a government seal, should be affixed and sever penalties isued if any kind of sex is even contemplated by the woman. I have not worked out how to deal to with the father ion the event he wants to waste his potential for fatherhood in some manner. Perhapos reversible vasectomies could be requeired. I also do not know how to handle unmarreid partners but perhaps our readers have some acceptable ideas.
Bob Poris
Post a Comment