Happy Sunday! Here are my top five favorite cartoons for the past week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of the post!
We begin with a twofer by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com:
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m voting for #2 this week.
Good morning all – happy Sunday!
The first one is lame – corporations aren’t religious entities and thus, the religious liberty argument is pretty weak. Anyway, Hobby Lobby is a joke – they invest heavily on abortion drugs, but somehow have an objection to them? Their cry of being offended rings pretty hollow now.
On number 2 – the worst thing we can do at this point is to repeal and go back to status quo. Seems like a settled issue of law, though the GOP will complain for every vote they get. Just don’t expect anything to change on the law. Maybe when Hillary takes office…
#3 – seems to be millions more than the GOP would have insured. In fact, under Bush about 8 million lost their insurance. Shows how clueless the right is on how the world works.
#4 – If the GOP got their way (at least most plans I’ve seen, including Paul Ryan’s) – most people would lose their doctor and their plan, and the system would not see any radical systematic change that might lead to lower costs. The one big difference is that Obama is using a pretty harmless bow, while the GOP would bring an AK47, and probably shoot a few school children in the demonstration.
Noah – I need to go see that film…tough to get out for a date night with 3 kids!
#1 is best.
Corporations are run by leaders — who are always persons with religious freedom. When Obama denies the Green and Hahn families their religious freedom, I see that my First Amendment rights are in danger.
So Del – if somebody gets hurt by a corporation, you are in favor of allowing the injured to sue the actual owners? Or if somebody is wrongly terminated, they should be able to sue the owners?
Ex-GOP says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:51 am
Anyway, Hobby Lobby is a joke – they invest heavily on abortion drugs, but somehow have an objection to them? Their cry of being offended rings pretty hollow now.
I think you are being intentionally stupid here. The Greens do not “invest heavily” in contraceptive drugs.
The Greens offer a variety of mutual fund investments to their employees’ 401k plans. Some of the mutual funds hold a portion of investments in some pharmaceutical companies. Mother Jones magazine says that this is hypocrisy on the Green’s part.
Don’t be fooled. If you have a mutual fund, some of the money is invested in something that you do not approve of. This is unavoidable with mutual funds.
EGV,
So Obamacare is so wonderful that Der Fuehrer finds it necessary to postpone implementation of parts of it? BTW, he has no constitutional authority to postpone portions of laws as he see fit but that’s beside the point.
Also, have those security glitches been fixed? I recall experts saying the security glitches would take months to repair. Wasn’t there another website crash as the deadline to sign up approached?
Mary -
I’d be much more concerned with a leader or plan that set dates far into the future, and then refused to adapt as the climate changes. We have a word in business for people who can’t adapt to changes – it is called unemployed.
A website crash does not equal security glitches – I’ve been in IT before. Two different things.
Del -
Yes they do. Hobby Lobby matches a percentage of funds for their employees. Therefore, the company has chosen funds that make money off the very thing that offends them – the success of their plans is tied to the success of these drugs.
And there are plans out there that work to avoid these potential moral issues. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby could run their own plan. If they are so offended that they are willing to take a case to the supreme court, you think they could research where they put their millions of dollars.
Do you have a list of these various constitutional freedoms and rights that you systematically apply to corporations as you see fit? Do you have a checklist, or is the right making this up as they go? Talk about rewriting the constitution – what a bunch of activists. It is disturbing.
RE: Stanek Sunday funnies:
Given the content of your highly amusing post “analyzing” the fiscal prospects of a Flagstaff Planned Parenthood clinic, in which you estimated PP’s cost of a medication abortion based on the cost of mifepristone in the US in 2001 and the cost of an Cytotec pill sold OTC in the South Caucasus, I most sincerely suggest that you start relying less on cartoons for your information about the current funding of health care in the US, and more on articles with text. Surely the readers who trust your blog for news deserve no less.
I like all of them!
In addition, I always find it amusing to read the comments from the Statist cultists (of which the Partisans are a subset) which are the textual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying loudly: “lah, lah, LAH, LAH, LAH! I CAN”T HEAR YOU!” :)
That said, I believe our efforts to change the culture are going to win the war, figuratively speaking. The True Believer Statists and pro-aborts will never change their mind- their identity is too dependent upon their ideology.
God bless!
EGV,
Please address my question. If Obamacare is so efficient and well planned, why the postponements that the Glorious Leader has no Constitutional authority to implement? Ya think maybe its because this whole monstrosity is yet another government run colossal cluster#$@! ??
According to the testimony of experts, which I posted on previous threads, this website has serious security issues that will take months to address. A crashing, again, website hardly gives anyone a sense of efficiency and security.
Perhaps the Glorious Leader should consult with Amazon.com as to how to run an efficient website.
Mary – I thought I had answered your questions – anyway, I will answer them as directly as I can (though may I remind you that about 75% of the time you are asked a direct question, you fake confusion and bow out of the conversation).
– Why the postponements? Because the original dates were put in the original law, and since then, many variables have changed. Funding changes, other laws change. But this happens all the time – the Medicare changes the GOP passed under Bush had items that were delayed. Again, I’d be more concerned if they weren’t making changes as needed. It is stupid to cling to dates simply to cling to those dates.
Cluster#!? - where specifically? 6 plus million now have insurance. The markets haven’t freaked out. Health care and other stocks are doing great. Sure, you can find articles of individual people who are worse off – but there are millions more better off. You can’t just write a narrative based on hearsay – build it off of facts. How is the healthcare system in this country worse off then it was a few years ago? I could DEFINITELY paint a picture of how it was worse from 2000 to 2009 – the decline in the years the GOP last held control. It is a pretty nasty picture as well. So please, this is a direction question – using facts, how is healthcare in this country worse off than it was a couple of years ago?
You haven’t provided new security information in months – is there something new that you want to offer up? Have their been hacks? And if so, what information did they get? Look, I’m not saying that security issues won’t happen – I’m saying that this is getting to be like the IRS stealing documents story – that you are continuing to run with an issue that doesn’t have much meat – much facts behind it.
EGV,
Sure EGV, whatever.
So what variables have changed specifically? Is it that Democrats are concerned about the next election? Have you noticed the polls that point out that Americans are still not particularly fond of Obamacare, however wonderful it truly is.
Only 6 million now have insurance? I thought it was 7.1 million. Didn’t 20 million not have insurance before Obamacare? Or was it 30 million? How many got tossed from the insurance they had?
I’m asking you. Do you know if these serious security issues have been addressed? Were the experts who testified wrong? I don’t provide security info, I quote the experts.
LOL. EGV if you’re going to claim the IRS story is false, you will need to back it up your claim with a source. You have yet to do so.
Mary
7.1 million – but that’s enrolled – I discounted some who haven’t paid.
Anyway, I asked you a direct question – from a few years ago until now, what are the mesurable ways in which health care has gotten worse? How do you back up your cluster*(@& statement? Or you can’t?
The lack of any IRS follow-up stories seem to say it was a hoax. And on security, it is obviously pretty okay, given that there aren’t any security breaches that have been reported. I do know the company involved in fixing the security on the site, and they are top notch – so I’m guessing all is good.
Again though, looking forward to the answer to my direct question to you.
EGV,
You know how I hate to burst your balloon,
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/04/behind-the-7-1-million-obamacare-sign-ups/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/17/a-hackers-wet-dream-worlds-most-wanted-hacker-slams-obamacare-website-security/
The above is how I back up my cluster claim
Oh and EGV, anytime you can present a source that says the IRS story is false, please do so.
Mary, if your biggest complaint is that it might be a bit less than 7.1 million, or that security might be an issue – if that is your biggest complaint – well, then I’m moving on.
Mary – I believe you are truly Dick Cheaney. If you have an article that says you are not, then please do so. Otherwise, the lack of an article seems like a proof enough to prove that you are the former VP.
EGV,
LOLLLLLL.
Actually I am Dick Cheney! Please, in the future spell my name correctly!!
LisaC: I provided 2 links to the cost of mifepristone, one a Guttmacher article from 2012. My link to the cost of misoprostol in 2012 ($.40-.50 per pill), albeit in another country, sounded about right to me, since I knew they cost $.25 each at the American hospital at which I worked in 2001.
Number 5 is pretty much just feeble. The denialists will give a mild chuckle and move on and the rational will go ‘meh’ and move on.
Numbers 1 to 4 I absolutely love! They show the sheer desperation of the obamacare opponents as it reaches the point of success.
They’re all from the wackaloon brigade at Townhall anyway, ’nuff said.
Ex-GOP says:
April 6, 2014 at 11:17 am
Del - Do you have a list of these various constitutional freedoms and rights that you systematically apply to corporations as you see fit? Do you have a checklist, or is the right making this up as they go? Talk about rewriting the constitution – what a bunch of activists. It is disturbing.
Yes, of course. There is a hierarchy of natural rights and civild rights.
The “corporation” allows the separation personal assets from corporate assets. That is one set of laws to be judged on their own merits.
Meanwhile, the natural human rights of the Green family being forced to act against their family conscience is another matter. It deserves to be considered separately, as it has absolutely nothing to do with their business assets or their personal assets.
Hobby Lobby is a privately owned “S-corp,” which means it is a privately owned family business or partnership, organized as a corporation for the sake of liability protection.
the natural human rights of the Green family being forced to act against their family conscience is another matter……it is a privately owned family business or partnership, organized as a corporation for the sake of liability protection. – can’t have it both ways.
Does Number 1 seriously not offend Christians? They are using iconic Christian imagery for a cheap political point on something that will probably be a non-issue in less than a decade. Seems like people would not like that.
I saw Noah, Ex. It’s pretty good as a movie of its own, but don’t expect it to be anything like the Bible story lol. And Russell Crowe has crazy eyes.
Del -
Yes, Hobby Lobby itself is a corporation. And Corporations don’t go to church or pray.
Regardless, the Greens and Hobby Lobby showed to me it is more political than religious when the news of the 401K holdings came out. For a while, I felt like they might just be really trying to live out their faith, and while I didn’t agree with how they say this injustice, I at least felt their hearts were in the right place. The 401K news simply shows a hypocrisy that is unacceptable. What a joke.
On the rest of your post – so yes, the right is making it up as they go. Corporations are people too, when it is convenient for us, but not when it isn’t! Come on man…
DLPL –
I enjoy that some people are against Noah because it isn’t 100% accurate…but I’ve never heard anybody have an issue with Biblical characters being played by Vegetables (Veggie Tales).
The Supreme Court had no problem discerning that the Green family has the protection of religious freedom as they operate their company. Your assertion has no part in the dispute. The Court is not even asking the question of whether a family gives up their conscience rights and religious liberty by organizing their business as an S-corp.
The Supreme Court is deciding whether the Obama Administration has done enough to accommodate their religious freedom, and whether the government has an interest so compelling that they must force the Greens to violate their conscience.
As to your opinions concerning the funds in the employee 401k plan — I don’t understand what your confusion is. The employees save for retirement in mutual funds. The Greens contribute matching funds to the employees. The employees decide which funds they want to invest in. Some of the healthcare-sector funds hold 1 or maybe 2 percent in a drug company. That company makes a few percent points of their own profit from an abortion drug.
I’m sure this .01% position troubles the Greens. I know that my retirement fund has a similar position, and it troubles me that my portfolio is tainted by a drop of blood money.
But this doesn’t prevent me from being a pro-lifer. And it doesn’t apply to the matter of the Green Family making their own choices about providing coverage for contraception and not providing coverage for abortion-drugs.
“Does Number 1 seriously not offend Christians?
Hi Jack. What offends Christians is how O Care prevents the exercise of religious freedom by curtailing it. Or was it not obvious from the cartoon :)
I think you are right: in less than a decade O Care will bite the dust…
# 4 is 100 percent correct. It has my vote.
“#4 – If the GOP got their way (at least most plans I’ve seen, including Paul Ryan’s) – most people would lose their doctor and their plan, and the system would not see any radical systematic change that might lead to lower costs. The one big difference is that Obama is using a pretty harmless bow, while the GOP would bring an AK47, and probably shoot a few school children in the demonstration. “
Ex – the above is definitely a case where the pen is mightier the sword. Obama holds the pen and millions like the deceptive ink :)
What offends Christians is how O Care prevents the exercise of religious freedom by curtailing it. – which it doesn’t. It curtails the exercising of religious doctrine on others.
I think you are right: in less than a decade O Care will bite the dust… to be replaced by a universal healthcare scheme like other modern western nations already have.
“I enjoy that some people are against Noah because it isn’t 100% accurate…but I’ve never heard anybody have an issue with Biblical characters being played by Vegetables (Veggie Tales).”
Ha. I can’t stand Veggie Tales because that baby asparagus’s voice makes my skin crawl, don’t know what it is.
“I think you are right: in less than a decade O Care will bite the dust… to be replaced by a universal healthcare scheme like other modern western nations already have.”
This is literally exactly what I was going to write!
My link to the cost of misoprostol in 2012 ($.40-.50 per pill), albeit in another country, sounded about right to me.
Sure. If something “sounds about right” to you, why should you have to waste time looking up what it actually is?
My apologies on the cost of the mifepristone: the lawsuit linked in your other story does say that it costs about $90 per 200 mg pill.
Why do you refuse to inform your readers that all major medical organizations think that the 600 mg dose of mifepristone is too high and is more likely to cause side effects than the lower dosage in current usage?
Don’t hold your breath anytime soon “reality” and Jack. Less than a decade is still a long time you know.
“This is literally exactly what I was going to write!”
But you didn’t so its moot now :)
Ex-GOP says:
April 6, 2014 at 11:16 pm
Del - On the rest of your post – so yes, the right is making it up as they go. Corporations are people too, when it is convenient for us, but not when it isn’t! Come on man…
There is a very simple principle at work here. It is the principle that the Supreme Court is using, and you can also use it to understand their decision:
The right purpose of government is to protect the natural human rights of the governed.
Everyone has the natural human right to own property and engage in social commerce. The laws of incorporation are civil rights that help to protect this natural right.
Everyone has a natural human right to the free exercise of his conscience and religion. The HHS Mandate threatens this natural right, so we fight it.
Try to see the wrong-thinking as you argue that the laws of incorporation (protecting our property rights) defend the HHS Mandate (offending our conscience rights). If your argument it true, then we need to fix the laws of incorporating property. The duty of government to protect our religious freedom is still the guiding principle.
Everyone has a natural right to life. This is the most basic and fundamental human right. Allowing abortion is a terrible violation of human rights, because it robs the person of every human right. It is the Choice that ends all Choices.
LisaC wrote: Why do you refuse to inform your readers that all major medical organizations think that the 600 mg dose of mifepristone is too high and is more likely to cause side effects than the lower dosage in current usage?
Take that up with the FDA, who obviously disagrees.
Del says:
April 7, 2014 at 8:55 am
Ex-GOP says:April 6, 2014 at 11:16 pmDel - On the rest of your post – so yes, the right is making it up as they go. Corporations are people too, when it is convenient for us, but not when it isn’t! Come on man…
I hope you do not mind. I am trying to help restore your common sense.
Yes, “juridical persons” such as corporations are not real persons. We treat corporations as persons when it is convenient to do so (such as tax laws and trials of civil liability). We protect the human rights of the natural persons who run the corporations when we must do so.
No one should argue that the laws of corporation ought to be used to deny the human rights of any natural persons, most especially the owners of a privately owned S-corp.
Do you know the difference between an S-corp and a C-corp? It is a distinction that is important for tax accounting. Many mid-sized, family-owned businesses are organized as an S-corp.
Jill Stanek says:
April 7, 2014 at 10:24 am
LisaC wrote: Why do you refuse to inform your readers that all major medical organizations think that the 600 mg dose of mifepristone is too high and is more likely to cause side effects than the lower dosage in current usage?
Take that up with the FDA, who obviously disagrees.
=============================
We are content to warn the world that the abortion pills are very dangerous to women.
If this abomination must continue, then we do not trust the abortion industry…. They score higher profits by giving the lower doses, and even more profits when the dose fails and follow-up surgeries must be performed.
Given abortionists’ record of lying to preserve their profits, we will let them defend their practices against the FDA. It suits us to support the FDA, who do not profit and only desire to keep women safe.
Del –
You keep jumping ahead a few steps. Read through the recaps of the arguments – there is a massive question of the intent to have the law (RFRA) apply to businesses. That is a huge jump because, as discussed before, businesses aren’t people (for the record, I worked at an S-Corp, 100% ESOP company).
So the Greens have a massive amount of offense to this (so massive, that they send money to companies to make these drugs through a 401K), and now people are simply willing to say that their offense is more important than the rights of the thousands of employees that work there?
Do we want that slippery slope? Should employers be able to get the list of services that they object to, and just work down a list? If your employer was a JW for instance, you think it’s just fine for them to not cover blood transfusions?
I’d rather be holding my breath until universal healthcare arrives than holding it until ‘you’ have removed all of womens reproductive rights and freedoms “thomas r.”
Reality –
I talked to a health care exec recently who thinks that healthcare will move towards highly regulated plans that have small windows of defined price points that all insurance companies need to adhere to. Would allow for non-government run healthcare while balancing the rights of individuals with the insurance providers.
I think universal care is inevitable – health care reform delays it – if reform gets repealed, I think it happens much sooner.
That sounds like a reasonable start Ex-GOP.
But what is really needed is a system where everybody pays a relatively equal percentage of their income via income tax or whatever, everything is available but nothing is mandatory, and if the government wishes it can outsource the administrative delivery.
Reality -
I agree 100%.
The thing that I don’t like is that increasingly, employers are going to get more proactive in controlling costs.
Biometric data will be a huge one – essentially, like smoking, if your numbers are too high, or you aren’t achieving certain targets, you’ll pay more. And wages will stay stagnent when so much of a compensation package is tied to insurance.
Time to uncouple and get smarter about insurance.
Too true Ex-GOP. Medical cover should not be the confusingly mixed bag approach it currently is. It needs to be along the lines of everything else which is federally operated.
Ex-GOP says:
April 7, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Del – You keep jumping ahead a few steps. Read through the recaps of the arguments – there is a massive question of the intent to have the law (RFRA) apply to businesses. That is a huge jump because, as discussed before, businesses aren’t people (for the record, I worked at an S-Corp, 100% ESOP company). ……………… Do we want that slippery slope? Should employers be able to get the list of services that they object to, and just work down a list? If your employer was a JW for instance, you think it’s just fine for them to not cover blood transfusions?
Okay…. at least you seem to understand the argument better than I thought you did.
My short answer: Yes, I don’t mind the “slippery slope,” because all I really want is the independence that we enjoyed two years ago — when no one had a problem with the healthcare insurance options and the tolerable level of government coercion.
I still don’t get your point that “businesses aren’t people.” Every business I have ever heard of is owned and run by people. I don’t know a business that isn’t people. The whole “corporate person” argument is a red herring. The issue is that the Green Family and the Little Sisters of the Poor object to this violation of their basic human rights, and their employees are supporting them.
Concerning the chaos of conscientious objections coming from JW’s and Christian Scientists and Jews and Moslems and who-knows-what: I don’t think there will be a problem. We didn’t have a problem before the HHS Mandate, so there is no reason to expect one.
But if it does become of problem, them perhaps we should admit that this attempt to solve healthcare by assorted mandates to purchase insurances is just not viable legislation. You have advocated for single-payer (socialized) healthcare. That seems to work well for some other nations. Perhaps that is a better solution than the AHCA.
The issue is that the Green Family and the Little Sisters of the Poor object to this violation of their basic human rights – their human rights are not being violated. Their desire to violate the human rights of others is being curtailed.
and their employees are supporting them. – are they?
Concerning the chaos of conscientious objections coming from JW’s and Christian Scientists and Jews and Moslems and who-knows-what: I don’t think there will be a problem. – if there is a problem with the Greens wishing to make certain elements of health cover off limits due to their personal beliefs why would it not occur with JW’s etc.? It’s exactly the same situation.
Finally! – yes, universal healthcare is the best option.
Question for Ex-GOP: Can you define your position on the Green family and the HHS Mandate?
You are pro-life. The Greens are pro-life. The Greens do not want to pay for abortion-causing drugs. Do you believe the Obama Administration should force them to pay for abortion drugs?
It seems that you do.
If so…. Why do you think that employees have a “right” to employer-funded abortion drugs? How will you react if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Green family, which seems likely at this point?
I’m not going to argue with you. I just want to understand your position. Thanks!
People need to stop saying “abortion causing drugs” because it’s inaccurate, there’s no evidence Plan B and Ella interfere with implantation, and plenty of evidence that it doesn’t. There’s not much evidence that IUDs interfere with the implantation of a new human life either. I realize people don’t want to take the minuscule chance that they could possibly interfere, which is fine (but unnecessary, in my opinion, because other daily activities that fertile women do have the possibility of causing the same “interference” that IUDs and EC might). But people have to stop spreading around information that has no scientific backing, it makes us look uninformed about more than just EC, it makes truth about abortion look suspect coming from the pro-life movement if we spread around hypotheses that have not been proven and actually have a lot of evidence against them.
But I know it doesn’t matter what I say or what the truth is, people are going to say what they will.
The Greens aren’t being forced to pay for ‘abortion-causing drugs’. Hobby Lobby the company is.
If the Greens win, then as I said previously, pandora’s box will be open on anything and everything. Blood transfusions, organ transplants, mainstream medical care in general and who knows what else.
“reality:” “It needs to be along the lines of everything else which is federally operated.”
Can you say “goodbye efficiency, hello mismanagement?” The citizens pay for extremely inefficient services and suffer but not a matter of concern for some. Healthcare is best left out of the big brother’s clumsy hands….
According to livescience.com, emergency contraception costs anywhere btw 10 and 70 dollars per the folks at PP. Are women not fooling themselves with a product that lines the pockets of PP while that sorry “organization” promotes irresponsible intercourse?
We need to spread the news how PP overcharges fulnerable women laughing all the way to the bank.
I don’t know what your sources are, DLP-L. Most of us are convinced that hormonal contraception has three modes of action, and one of those is to prevent the implantation of a conception. We believe that this is the primary mode of action for “emergency contraception.” Some IUD’s create a hostile environment that kills the new life, before or shortly after implantation. And so we call these “abortion-causing.”
At the Supreme Court, arguments for the HHS Mandate insisted that Plan B and Ella do not cause abortions because they prevent implantation. In the minds of Sebelius and Obama, there is no pregnancy (and no abortion) until after implantation. Justice Roberts’s bombshell question reminded the Defense that the Greens believe that preventing implantation is abortion, and that their position of conscience is the case matter which HHS fails to accommodate.
If what you say were true, then the abortion-causing drugs do not cause abortion according to our own pro-life definition of abortion. We have been very concerned about getting that right.
“Most of us are convinced that hormonal contraception has three modes of action, and one of those is to prevent the implantation of a conception. We believe that this is the primary mode of action for “emergency contraception.” Some IUD’s create a hostile environment that kills the new life, before or shortly after implantation. And so we call these “abortion-causing.””
I know y’all think this but the scientific evidence doesn’t back it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Yes I know it’s NYT, but it goes over the issue real well. There is zero evidence that Plan B and Ella cause the new embryo to fail to implant, and plenty of evidence it has no effect at all after fertilization.
For IUDs: “http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/Sivin.pdf”
I’ve found zero scientific evidence IUDs kill the baby after fertilization, there’s seems to be no backing for the claim. And copper IUDs work because they are toxic to sperm, not because they screw with the woman’s reproductive system. IUDs CAN raise the risk miscarriage after a baby is implanted, however, so they remove it if she gets pregnant. There’s no evidence of IUDs acting on a not yet implanted embryo, though.
I don’t really care about what Hobby Lobby thinks the drugs do or what Justice Roberts thinks. They apparently haven’t read the research.
And yeah, according to our own definition, the drugs don’t cause abortion based on the evidence available, and accusing women of using them of having “abortions” is ludicrous. Well, it was ludicrous anyway, the most you could say if it did have a small chance of preventing implantation is “you’re risking an abortion” not “you had an abortion” because there’s no way to prove that.
On #5 – uhhh…. sea levels really are rising, and pretty darn fast, geologically speaking.
To DLP-L: I’ll give you ground on the IUD mechanism. I haven’t paid much attention to IUDs. I have heard that some work as abortifacients, but I don’t know which ones or how. My impression is based on hearsay, and could be wrong.
I do know that common hormonal contraceptives have three modes of action. I have read these on the info pamphlet insert of a prescription product:
1) Suppressing ovulation
2) Thickening cervical mucus, which impedes sperm motivation.
3) Thinning the uterine lining, such that if conception occurs (due to break thru ovulation and highly motivated sperm) then implantation is possible. This mode of action is abortifacient.
Without doing hard research myself, it is easy to believe that a heavy dose of hormones may prevent implantation or be toxic to a newly implanted embryo. We have sharp biochemists and bioethicists in the pro-life community…. if the EC is not deadly to new life, then they figure that out for us.
Meanwhile, “EC as abortifacient” is guilty until proven innocent — and we do not want to have any part of it.
Del – Working through multiple posts here – so let me know if I miss something you really care about. – I do understand businesses are made up of people. I also understand that these entities are separate from people from a rights standpoint. Historically, we haven’t given businesses individual rights because, well, they aren’t a singular person. I mean, if a company has 20 Christians working for one Muslim, you are saying it is a Muslim company? And who validates the legitimacy of one’s religion. If somebody is anti-population growth, are you saying you are legally fine with them not funding maternal care and funding abortion? Heck, giving bonuses for abortions? The reason it wasn’t an issue before is that legally, this country has not allowed businesses to pick through a health care plan and decide what should or shouldn’t be covered based on the objections of the owners.
My position is multiple. One, I am not convinced that these drugs cause abortions (and quite frankly, I don’t understand how so many people can claim something with as little evidence definitely does cause abortions, and then when we talk about things like climate change, these same people are willing to find some odd guy in Montana who did a study once, so now they are convinced climate change is a farce…but I digress).
So back to my point, I’m not convinced of the science. I’m furthermore not convinced that if I work in a business that provides some sort of service that somebody may or may not take advantage of – that I myself would be sinning if they did that service. I mean, seriously – I bet people spends thousands with companies that do things they disagree with concerning the money. I’m a Christian – and I just can’t piece the logic together using actual verses that this would be a sin for me.
Continuing on with my position, I think it is massively dangerous grounds to say that congress could pass what they see as rights for employees and individuals, and a singular individual within a business can trump those rights. This country, more and more, is sacrificing the individual for big money – and I don’t like the trend. While I sympathize with others (not the Greens – I think they are hypocrites) on the position, I just don’t think it is worth it to give such a massive trump card to business owners. Employees need some rights too – and those rights need to be beyond “you have the right to go find a new job”.
I think that’s more than 2 cents – again, if I missed something, let me know.
Take that up with the FDA, who obviously disagrees.
As you know, this is patently false. The FDA’s position is that a physician ought to prescribe medication according to the physician’s best knowledge and judgment, and it recognizes that off-label use of a drug may be the medical standard of care. The FDA’s approval conveys approval for marketing purposes, not prescribing guidelines. You know that, I know that, and the AUL knows that. It’s fascinating that the pro-life movement’s signature show of concern for women’s health is based entirely on the premise that if you tell a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.
It suits us to support the FDA, who do not profit and only desire to keep women safe.
You must have been very upset when the HHS tried to overrule the FDA’s recommendation to remove age restrictions on the sale of Plan B few years ago.
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/what-about-fda-information-serge.html
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2013/12/evidence-that-emergency-contraceptive.html
tl;dr: ella probably has a post-fertilization mechanism, but Plan B doesn’t.
Thimble collecting; Join the UK’s leading suppliers of thimbles and thimble accessories.