Obama: Social issues are “nonsense”
You know something about that in Virginia; the kinds of nonsense that’s been going on…
But that’s all across the country….
When you have folks who are talking about not just constraining women’s reproductive health, but questioning things like contraception as part of our preventive care.
~ President Barack Obama, commenting at a “fundraiser jointly headlined with former President Bill Clinton at the home of Terry McAuliffe, … former chairman of the Democratic National Committee,” as quoted by The Washington Post, April 30
[Photo via The Blaze]
May.01, 2012 2:00 am |
Campaign, Contraception, Obama |
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’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: contraception is a losing issue for the Republicans. They walked into a trap on that one and let’s just hope Romney navigates the issue properly during the campaign. Hint: make it clear you will not ban or otherwise restrict contraception. Then move onto the real issues.
1. It’s not nonsense to require a littl intell of what you’re searching and destroying.
2. We’re not talking about constraining women’s reproductive health. We’re talking about constraining mothers’ anti-reproductive mayhem on their children.
3. It’s you “folks” who are questioning contraception as “preventive care”. Our answer is, “Do it on your own dime!”
Once again, Obama needs his butt kicked. For his own sake and for ours.
Why is this man so population control and abortion obsessed? What’s his personal motivation? Did/ does he feel wanted as a son? Is he defending someone’s abortion? It’s just too weird.
Contraception is only preventive care if pregnancy is a disease, which it isn’t. Contraception access is also not under threat- but several of our basic freedoms as Americans are. Vote the bum out!!!
It is SUCH a loser for the Republicans, and I think that’s why the Democrats pulled it out of thin air during the debates. Most of the Republican lineup was either Catholic or clearly not contraceptive-ee in actual practice. So the Dems thought they could cast them ALL as radicals by insisting that the government dole out the freebees! Even if the Republicans say (which is true) that they’re against free contraception on constitutional principles, no one will believe it now.
Jamie, there are only four reasons to use contraception:
1) to engage in promiscuous sex;
2) fear of getting pregnant by rape;
3) preventing STDs; and
4) relieving a particular medical issue.
The 1 reason is the predominant reason for contraception. The 3 reason is closely related to the 1st reason and becomes completely invalid as soon as a person decides to have sex with a healthy person inside a marriage or a long-term committed relationship. In short, reasons 1 and 3 disappear as soon as a person begins to act in aresponsible manner. The 2nd and 4th reasons are for the mistreated and the sick, respectively, and they don’t account for a majority of the people who use contraceptives.
The 1st reason is higly related to abortion, due to the fact that promisuous sex increases the chance of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. So if America wants to continue living the sexual revolution they will continue supporting abortion. Abortion is considered an emergency back-up birth control for a good portion of the people who use contraception for the 1 reason.
So you can stick your head in the sand or you can try to deal with problem and source of the abortion crisis.
Oh I’m with you Tyler! I believe in the correlation between contraception and abortion. I’m simply pointing out the political trap! Being true to your beliefs, constitutional and moral, is the only way to go. But we’re in a bind. Can’t deny it.
“Even if the Republicans say (which is true) that they’re against free contraception on constitutional principles, no one will believe it now.”
What in this world is ever free?
Jamie, the American public will be paying for this FREE contraception, gimme a break! It is not free.
The Republicans are not AGAINST contraception they are FOR the First Amendment. I am against contraception, the Catholic Church is against contraception, but the Republicans are not against contraception.
The Republicans are not in a bind. Well, at least not in the kind of a bind that you are thinking of.
The trap was laid by the Democrats/whacked-out feminists IN CONJUNCTION with the mainstream media. There was NEVER going to be a fair shake as far as religious freedom goes. Never. As a media consumer, you’d actually have to have a brain that registered more than sound bites, and really do research on the issue. Obama and his feminist cheerleaders count on our laziness.
It seems they can.
Funny how the man who does everything he possibly can to promote abortion both here and overseas says social issues are nonsense. I guess they’re only nonsense to him if you’re trying to push in the opposite direction.
Obama is laying a very careful, desperate trap. He knows that Americans are addicted to contraception, and he’s betting that we would rather have our addiction fed than talk about the economy and debt/deficits.
Here’s what I hope Romney says:
“NOBODY WANTS TO BAN CONTRACEPTION! Obama is the only guy talking about contraception, and he keeps saying we want to ban it. Well, I don’t believe that the government has the authority to ban contraception, just as I don’t believe the government has authority to force you to buy health insurance.
“Personally, I think that government should get out of the family planning business altogether! It is not the place of government to decide who should have a child and who shouldn’t, and we have already gone way too far down that path.”
It’s a very short walk from free sterilization to forced abortions — just look at China. We have a winning position here… and Obama just hopes we don’t see it. (Or the sociopath may already have a plan against us. He’s very good at this game.)
Well said, Del. Maybe Romney (and a few others) need you as an advisor. Or at least as a speechwriter!
Del 2012 :)
First I don’t think Obama is trying to make contraception an issue.
Second, the Republicans are NOT losing on the issue of the mandate.
Third, showing principled leadership never loses. How telling people the facts about contraception. How about telling the People that it has failed to reduce abortions and to make sex “safer”. He can tell the American they can contracept if they want to, but that he enjoyed the benefits of not contracepting and that he has five great sons to show for it, and I don’t know how many grandkids. IN YOUR FACE, you sterile kid-hating, tree loving, global warming fear mongers, tatooed, pierced through the nose, lip, and belly button, blue-haired, DINKs.
Opps, do you think I lost sight of the principled part?
Del: “Personally, I think that government should get out of the family planning business altogether! “
True — but those who support family planning tend to also be big government types. We need to oppose them federally on principle (“it’s not the federal government’s job”), but practically at local/state levels (“it’s not the state/local government’s best interest to do this, nor does it promote the common weal to do so”).
There’s a huge difference. De-emphasizing huge federal government and the tyranny it creates means acknowledging that our political opponents have a place at the state level, contesting for policy.
There’s a huge difference between saying “the federal government has no business doing this because it’s not their proper ROLE”, and saying that “the state government has no business doing this because it’s not good for the people of the state.”
You can make the latter assertion regarding the country, of course, but that’s missing a point that’s greater and more important than the particular issue at hand. Think of the many things the federal government has taken on that it really has no business being involved in. Is the proper argument that this one is not good and here are several reasons why, or that this other one is not good and here are several different reasons applicable to it, showing that it’s not good, or that this other area is a bad idea because yada yada yada? Nonsense. The single case can be made for them all: “None of these are the FEDERAL government’s role.”
The temptation is to stick with the issues, but my take is that will always be a losing proposition once the federal government is already of a certain size. That is, arguing one side of the issues, by sustaining the argument as one concerning what the federal government should do, is conceding too much as a citizen of a limited federal republic, failing to add the principled argument as a powerful adjunct to the pragmatic one, and at the same time going a bridge too far by exposing the first argument at both state and national levels.
Actually, I’m just thinking some of this through for the first time. Good grief, my aching head. Aching with irony that we can so easily miss the boat by failing to think carefully about why we argue what we argue.
Uh Barack,
Contraception was not an issue until you made it into one. Just in case you forgot.
Hi Del,
Romney should say the first sentence then say he is moving on to real issues. End of disucussion. It makes your opponents look foolish for even bringing up the subject. Anything more sounds defensive, gives your opponents ammunition, and tunes people out.
All that picture needs is a celestial choir.
It’s true that contraception access is a total red herring. But with Obama’s low approval rating and dismal record on the economy- and everything else- his only chance is slipping into reelection on a red herring.
Many politicians and Americans (of the pro-choice variety) seem unclear on the concept of ELECTIVE procedures and products.
Let’s go over this again, shall we?
Rhinoplasty: elective, Appendectomy: necessary, Hair plugs: elective, Treatment for broken arm: necessary, Breast enhancement: elective, Insulin for diabetes: necessary, Birth control: elective..
Are you beginning to get the picture? No one wants to BAN what you ELECT to do. So, stop being such entitled little whiners and pay for your own condoms!!
I disagree, Tyler. Many women, including myself, have used it to space their pregnancies, and I’ve never been a promiscuous person. Do you consider a single woman in a sexual relationship with one man “promiscuous?” I don’t.
Phhillymiss, I don’t understand the logic behind the actions of people who are in committed relationships using birth control. Why does a couple need birth control to space their pregnancies?
I think the point here, whether you use contraception or not, is that for the most part it is not a medical need, like insulin. You can live without it forever simply by modifying your behavior. What this all has to do with a candidate for president I’ll never know, but here we are!
When I first read this quote, I didn’t think he meant social issues were nonsense. He referred to “the kinds of nonsense” in the context of what’s happened in Virginia lately.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but last August it looked like the Virginia law that would cause abortion facilities to have to meet the same standards as other out-patient surgical centers was nearing implementation. Hallways wide enough for gurneys and the like. Combine that with the recent VA ultrasound legislation, and the quote reads to me that Obama finds women’s safety and informed consent to be “nonsense”.
Though I agree with posters above that the introduction by the leftists with the lie of “they want to ban contraception!” is utter nonsense. In case you need a reminder of George Stephanopoulos’ introducing the question about states having the power to ban it, (who instructed him to ask that?) after Santorum’s wins, here it is:
Romney tells Stephanopoulos the contraception question is silly
I think Dick Morris got it right as to the reason G.S. brought this up. I have no doubt that Cecile, in one of her many visits to the W.H., has been coaching Obama & co. on how to spin this.
Try the first link again:
Romney tells Stephanopoulos his contraception question is silly
Notice how he starts with bashing Santorum about ‘right to privacy’ with no mention of the “A” word and quickly jumps to banning contraception.
Two weeks back I had a driver stop and ask what we were doing while sidewalk counseling. After learning what the term “pro-life” meant, he asked about birth control. I told him that contrary to what he may have heard in the media, no one is proposing its ban.
President Obama is engaged in a shameless effort to manipulate, divide and destroy the Catholic Church in America. He seeks to undermine the teaching authority of Catholic Bishops and force Catholic institutions to either violate Catholic moral principles or abandon their ministry to those in need, so that the government can expand further. If Americans are not alarmed at what the Obama administration is trying to do, then it is because Americans are not well-instructed in 20th century Euro-Asian history.
People who are willing to sell out the Catholics’ religious freedom for the sake of no-pay contraceptives will not be willing to fight to preserve any other freedoms provided by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It kind of reminds me of the story about Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of lentil soup. We’ll see in November.
I agree, Barb, but there are two fatal flaws in his plan:
1: The Catholic Church survived and flourished while it’s members became lion poop, AND while it’s members were poached away by dividers, AND currently while it’s being repressed and oppressed in many parts of the world. In communist China, despite all the persecution, over 22,000 new members were baptized this Easter. We’re like one of those science fiction entities: the more weapons you throw at us, the stronger we become.
2: Shhh, don’t tell Obama, but his target pet demographic is smaller than he thinks: most adult women have already been accustomed to buying their own elective “healthcare” and those who are less adult and less responsible, **whispering now** , well, their voter turnout statistics are a wee bit on the low side.
**still whispering** Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake. Statistically, he’d be better off trying to give ”free” viagra to all the middle aged/older guys to win their hearts and votes, but then his precious Master and Benefactor Cecile would become very angry with him.
LOL
Not even Santorum wanted to ban contraception. He recognized it as bad, but never said it should be outlawed. Unlike left wing politicians who try to ban stuff like Happy Meals. By liberal logic, the mother of an unborn child automatically has all the knowledge and wisdom she needs to make a choice in favor of abortion, but the mother of a born child is far too stupid and weak to stop her kid from eating too much unhealthy food.
Reminder to self: never insult hair color.
The love embrace that so many people have with their contraception is outstanding. Some of these people sound junkies addicted to drugs. Oh wait…
@rasqual: Maybe I’m not understanding your post correctly, but why can’t we do both? Object to “public family planning” (good grief, what an oxymoron) as not the appropriate role of the federal government and object to state funding as bad for the people of the state? There isn’t any reason that the one would conflict with the other. And while you say that this would, in a way, legitimize abortion apologetics on a state level, the truth is that abortion defenders are going to have a voice in the debate no matter where it takes place. Free speech being what it is, we can hardly take that away from them, nor should we try. Or even worry about it. The fact that those defending abortion are allowed to have their say hardly makes them any less wrong or illogical, after all. We can easily beat them in an arena
Or do you mean that efforts to argue that this isn’t the proper role of the federal government would undermine efforts to federally ban abortion? Which I agree might be true, and is certainly a strategy concern that should be considered.
Alice, the issue as I see it is that at the federal level, the argument should not be whether a,b,c are good policy. The only argument should be whether such policy considerations belong at the federal level at all — and the answer is no. In other words, arguing the merits at the federal level is already conceding a prerequisite premise: that federal government is a proper locus for considering such policies. That’s not only conceding too much from a strategic point of view, it’s conceding too much from a standpoint of basic understanding of republican government. In other words, one’s not just being a bumbling pro-lifer by falling into the naive trap of arguing the propriety of some policy, one’s being a lousy citizen by failing to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies who support totalism, wherein the State becomes The All at the federal level, leaving the 50 states to diddle trivially in their own deliberative bodies.
Alas, I suspect few Catholics are strong citizens in this respect. We see it in the bishops’ frequent belief that whatever’s right in the world ought to be led by the federal government. But why? The federal government should not be taking sides one way or another on a vast number of things. That’s not what it’s there for — to make everything right. It’s there to do a very few things quite well, and leave the rest to the states.
A federal ban on abortion is not going to happen until persuasion has moved far beyond where it is now. I think it could be argued that such persuasion will work better not just for abortion, but for further emerging issues, if the federal government is divested of power and states take up the questions.
No one thinks, surely, that the enemies of life, liberty, and God will fail to introduce some other evil before abortion goes the way of the dodo. Surely not. Surely we’re not imagining that eliminating abortion will leave us unsullied by misadventurous, inhuman notions that have yet to gain traction in the culture.
This was the delusion of the Jews: “Never Again.” No, the like (or worse) WILL come again. If the Holocaust happened on modernity’s watch, with modernity’s heirs on watch and feeble, who in their right mind supposes worse is not to come where postmodern relativism is run amok?
I’m quite sure that abortion’s just the beginning of worse, and anyone who imagines we’re fighting for a day when breathing a sigh of contented relief is possible, is utterly unfamiliar with the world.
Thus, it matters that powers not be centralized, and that there are places to flee when more regional powers go bad. We need 50 diverse experiments in democracy, not a single hegemon to rule us all.
Why does a couple need birth control to space their pregnancies?
I can’t speak for Phillymiss, but non-Catholics and those who are not religious are not under any artificial, arbitrary rule to have as many children as physically possible. I’m an anti-abortion, agnostic, married mom of 3. Anti-abortion doesn’t mean one size fits all.
Let’s wait ’til one of Bewrong O’Bummer’s girls’ contraception fails and see if he changes his tune.
Jess says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:38 am
Why does a couple need birth control to space their pregnancies?
I can’t speak for Phillymiss, but non-Catholics and those who are not religious are not under any artificial, arbitrary rule to have as many children as physically possible. I’m an anti-abortion, agnostic, married mom of 3. Anti-abortion doesn’t mean one size fits all.
Jess: CORRECTION to your posts: Catholics are NOT under ANY rule (religious or otherwise) to “have as many children as physically possible.” We’re only required to be open to the possbility of life. That is, when a married, Catholic couple has sexual intercourse, they do not do anything artificial to block conception. They can prayerfully and carefully plan their family size, but they must understand when they have sexual relations pregnancy MIGHT happen. If the couple does get pregnant they are NOT to do anything to end the pregnancy artificially (i.e. abortion).
Some couples are called to have only one child. Some none at all. It depends on the couple and what God wants for that couple, but we Catholics are NOT required to have as many children as physically possible, only to be OPEN to the POSSBILITY of children. (it’s in the marriage vows).
Tyler: May 1, 2012 at 7:54 am
”there are only four reasons to use contraception:
1) to engage in promiscuous sex;
2) fear of getting pregnant by rape;
3) preventing STDs; and
4) relieving a particular medical issue.
The 1 reason is the predominant reason for contraception.”
By far, most sex is not had with the intent to cause a pregnancy. It’s hardly “promiscuous.” This is normal man-and-wife stuff.
The truth is that most Catholics use contraception anyway. It’s not “98%” but I’m sure it’s well over half. It’s an individual’s or couple’s decision.
JDC: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: contraception is a losing issue for the Republicans. They walked into a trap on that one and let’s just hope Romney navigates the issue properly during the campaign. Hint: make it clear you will not ban or otherwise restrict contraception.”
That has already been made clear since the “issue” was even raised (by ABC News and the Obama Administration, by the way). None of the Republican candidates wanted to band contraception. They simply (and rightfully) oppose the government’s forcing an institution, religious or secular, from having to provide it.
I can’t speak for Phillymiss, but non-Catholics and those who are not religious are not under any artificial, arbitrary rule to have as many children as physically possible.
Agreed.
We’re only required to be open to the possbility of life. That is, when a married, Catholic couple has sexual intercourse, they do not do anything artificial to block conception.
Absolutely. This is a specific marriage requirement according to your faith.
only to be OPEN to the POSSBILITY of children. (it’s in the marriage vows).
Well, exactly. Your marriage vows make reference to one particular model of family life. Our vows were absent any requirements of children, so we might well have decided we were complete as a family of two. My point was that a catholic marriage is required by the tenets of that faith to not use contraception (other than NFP) for the spacing or limiting the number of children. Hence my reference to an artificial, arbitrary rule.
Gerald the use of contraception is irrelevant to whether it is best for a couple to use contracpetion.
Jess the Catholic ant-contraception, pro-natural relations is the default position of every marriage and monogamoues union between a man and a woman. Contracpetion is the artificial rule. Please don’t confuse the two. Contraception is the unnatural method. It is the decision of the couple to mask the natural purpose of the sexual union, but it is “masking” nonetheless.
The vows of a particular marriage ceremony do not change the natural purpose of the marital act.
Erin, sex between a huaband and a wife is normal, but it can be promiscouous and it can, it worst case scenarios, amount to rape. The husband and wife relationship does not obviate the need for the each person in the relationship to respect the natural purpose of the procreative and marital act. Couples can and do mask the procreative aspect of the sexual union, and often times it is simply to engage in self-gratification and the concern for the other partner is not there. Contraception represents a closing of oneself to the full union and acceptance of the other person – that is just a fact, it is not a philosophy or an arbitrary rule.
Erin: “By far, most sex is not had with the intent to cause a pregnancy. ”
The intention of the partners cannot override the inherent purpose of sexual activity. The partners wish/intend to contracept, and todisrupt the natural purpose of sex, but as everyone knows that intention is silly and not accepting the reality that when two people have sex pregnancy is going to result.
A person can try to deny the truth of their actions, but the thankfully the truth cannot be hidden.
Women on hormonal birth control experience break-away ovulation and when those eggs get fertilized the hormonal birth control causes the hardening of the uterine lining that prevents the embryo from implanting and causes abortion. Sorry all you women who like to keep your heads in the sand and refuse to accept that your contraceptive do cause abortion but they do.
Actually, that’s not necessarily a fact. There are competing hypotheses with at least as much support suggesting that most hormonal contraceptives act strictly through a pre-fertilization mechanism (ella is the exception, not the rule). It isn’t, and might never be, settled science:
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2008/06/dangers-of-overstating-our-case-serge.html
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2008/06/does-thin-uterine-lining-support-pill.html
Navi, most of the dissent that argues hormonal bc doesn’t cause abortion is recent. It is also advocated and pushed by the pro-abortion lobby. Keeping contraception on the market is not only financially profitable by itself but it is also a way to sell future abortions due to a faulty product and misuse. Finally, promoting contraceptions allows the pro-aborrtion crowd to push the “pregnancy is bad” message.
Conversely, what stake do pro-lifers, or any doctor for that matter, have in saying that hormonal bc cause abortion? Most importaantly, they don’t have any reason to. Being anti-hormonal bc doesn’t profit them financially. Debunking the claims of hormonal contraception also doesn’t help the pro-life argument.
Navi, most of the dissent that argues hormonal bc doesn’t cause abortion is recent.
Why is that a bad thing? Scientific knowledge is always subject to change. In light of new evidence, we modify our understanding of things (like the shape of the Earth for example). There is more than one plausible explanation for how hormonal birth control works, and we need to acknowledge that.
It is also advocated and pushed by the pro-abortion lobby.
I beg to differ. Mississippians for Healthy Families (known in some parts as Planned Parenthood) repeatedly claimed that amending the law to define personhood at fertilization would ban the pill and other common forms of hormonal birth control. People on both sides overstate their case when arguing that the pill causes abortions.
Keeping contraception on the market is not only financially profitable by itself but it is also a way to sell future abortions due to a faulty product and misuse. Finally, promoting contraceptions allows the pro-aborrtion crowd to push the “pregnancy is bad” message.
Nothing in there implies that hormonal contraceptives directly cause early abortions.
Conversely, what stake do pro-lifers, or any doctor for that matter, have in saying that hormonal bc cause abortion? Most importaantly, they don’t have any reason to. Being anti-hormonal bc doesn’t profit them financially.
Again, this doesn’t change the science.
Debunking the claims of hormonal contraception also doesn’t help the pro-life argument.
As I stated above, the Mississippi personhood amendment is a perfect example of how it would. It was defeated largely because voters thought that it would ban birth control. Had pro-lifers been all on the same page and adequately refuted this argument (which we have the resources to do), the amendment would have passed (probably by a huge margin). Planned Parenthood et al. would have been stuck with their usual “War on Science” videos to make their case.
I beg to differ. Mississippians for Healthy Families (known in some parts as Planned Parenthood) repeatedly claimed that amending the law to define personhood at fertilization would ban the pill and other common forms of hormonal birth control. People on both sides overstate their case when arguing that the pill causes abortions.
Glad that you were able to somehow derive that PlannedParenthood thinks Harmonal Contraception causes abortion. I am going to keep this one. However, just because Planned Parenthood can be hypocritical doesn’t change the fact they are pro-contraception, and are the biggest pusher of all forms of contraception, including hormonal contraception.
The recent arguments that hormonal contraception does not cause abortions are philosophical and are not science based. These philosophical arguments are simply a reaction to the preborn personhood amendment efforts. They are made by secular pro-life groups who think that for political and strategic reasons they must argue that a woman’s access to hormonal contraception would not be made illegal by a passage of a personhood amendment.
Alternatively, the Pro-Life movement should be educating women about the harms of hormonal contraception and not defending its use. The Pro-Life movement should not sell its principles in order to keep the Pill legal.
The Mississippi personhood amendment failed because it decided to engage in lies and to get in bed with evil. God knew what was going on, and he didn’t want his Name tarnished.
BTW, lying is completely different from the incremental approach.
However, I did like the video.
All pro-lifers must be anti-hormonal contraception because if they are not they will end up passing a personhood amendment that will be lie, and that will not protect all human life.
Remember hormonal contraception is only one form of contraception. I don’t agree with using condoms but at least condoms don’t cause abortions.
Glad that you were able to somehow derive that PlannedParenthood thinks Harmonal Contraception causes abortion. I am going to keep this one. However, just because Planned Parenthood can be hypocritical doesn’t change the fact they are pro-contraception, and are the biggest pusher of all forms of contraception, including hormonal contraception.
Planned Parenthood supporting something doesn’t imply that it’s actually an abortifacent.
The recent arguments that hormonal contraception does not cause abortions are philosophical and are not science based. These philosophical arguments are simply a reaction to the preborn personhood amendment efforts. They are made by secular pro-life groups who think that for political and strategic reasons they must argue that a woman’s access to hormonal contraception would not be made illegal by a passage of a personhood amendment.
Visit the links I provided in my May 3 comment. They are indeed science based. A philosophical argument would be like saying that birth controll pills are not really abortifacents because they don’t end an implanted pregnancy. This would be intellectually dishonest, as a human life does begin at fertilization (not implantation). But that is not what the articles I cited are saying. Instead, they discuss a scientific hypothesis (hormonal contraceptives only work to prevent fertilization and don’t interfere at all with implantation).
Alternatively, the Pro-Life movement should be educating women about the harms of hormonal contraception and not defending its use. The Pro-Life movement should not sell its principles in order to keep the Pill legal.
I mostly agree. But overdoing it hurts us. It doesn’t make sense to say that we should try to ban something that’s so widely used when there’s no compelling evidence that it actually causes abortions. This is bad strategy. As for contraceptives that actually are abortifacent (such as ella), I agree that we do need to take those seriously. As I said before though, ella is the exception and not the rule.
Navi,
I don’t need to debate the science with you because the writer on these sites merely says that the science is inconclusive. Inconclusinve means to me that the writer can’t prove the position that hormonal contraceptives aren’t abortifacients. Plus I am not a scientist.
So instead of trying to resolve the scientific question I will let you know my problem with supporting the use of the Pill and not being persuaded by the indirect evidence and what I would call common-sense:
1) Since the science is inconclusive I believe that you and the writer should err on the side of caution. Furthermore, since you readily admit that you can’t prove whether or not hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients you also cannot prove that the personhood initiative will be harmed if it supports the banning of hormonal contraceptives;
2) If the pill and hormonal contraceptives are definitively proven to be abortifacients after personhood amendments have been enacted with caveats allowing the use of hormonal contraceptives, we will have passed onto the future generations a political struggle not unlike the current situation. Even more tragically we will have actually killed many of the people who would’ve been part of that future generation. Do you want that on your conscience? Making mistakes on this issue can be deadly.
3) The harms caused to women by the hormonal contraceptives provide suffient enough reasons to demand that these drugs not to be consumed by women and that they be made illegal. I am sure that you would agree that a woman’s life is equally worth saving as much as her child’s life is worth saving.
“But overdoing it hurts us.”
Navi, waht do you mean “overdoing” it? And could clarify what “it” refers to? Finally, how does it “hurt” us?
I just want to be sure that we are talking about the same thing.
Navi, I also didn’t like how the article singled out Jill. There are many people who know that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients. I thought the author did not need to mentioning Jill in order make his/her point. It was unnecessay.
Tyler,
The peace of Jesus Christ be with you.
I don’t need to debate the science with you because the writer on these sites merely says that the science is inconclusive. Inconclusinve means to me that the writer can’t prove the position that hormonal contraceptives aren’t abortifacients.
Correct. I said in my first post on the subject that this is not settled science.
1) Since the science is inconclusive I believe that you and the writer should err on the side of caution. Furthermore, since you readily admit that you can’t prove whether or not hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients you also cannot prove that the personhood initiative will be harmed if it supports the banning of hormonal contraceptives;
I agree with erring on the side of caution. But telling people that the pill might have an abortifacient effect and refusing to condone it or use it ourselves is quite different from stating that the pill is an abortifacient and trying to ban it.
As for not being able to prove that banning hormonal contraceptives harmed the personhood initiative, it should be noted that public support for the measure was extremely high early in the campaign, but fell drastically as the opposing campaign (largely focused on birth control) was underway. Notably, Governor Barbour expressed concerns about the amendment (that it would ban birth control). Planned Parenthood capitalized on his comments and robocalled them to many voters. Although the governor ultimately retracted his statement and voted in favour, the damage was of course already done. A scientific analysis of the polls showed that he pushed just enough undecided voters over the edge to defeat the measure:
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/11/five-reasons-mississippis-personhood-initiative-lost-aside-from-the-other-sides-whopping-lies/
2) If the pill and hormonal contraceptives are definitively proven to be abortifacients after personhood amendments have been enacted with caveats allowing the use of hormonal contraceptives, we will have passed onto the future generations a political struggle not unlike the current situation. Even more tragically we will have actually killed many of the people who would’ve been part of that future generation. Do you want that on your conscience? Making mistakes on this issue can be deadly.
I’m not an expert on the legal semantics here. But you could make that argument with virtually anything. Cosmetic 3D ultrasounds, for example, might have harmful effects on a developing baby. But there isn’t conclusive evidence that this is really the case. There are countless other substances in our environments that we don’t know about that might be dangerous to humans (born and/or unborn). But to actually ban something, you need sufficient evidence that it causes harm. I’m not convinced that you have this with birth control pills and embryos, and you haven’t offered anything to resolve the scientific question. In fact, you already said that you’re not going to.
3) The harms caused to women by the hormonal contraceptives provide suffient enough reasons to demand that these drugs not to be consumed by women and that they be made illegal. I am sure that you would agree that a woman’s life is equally worth saving as much as her child’s life is worth saving.
The critical difference is that the woman (in theory) is a consenting adult who is fully aware of the risks involved. Other unhealthy behaviours (such as tobacco smoking) are legal for consenting adults.
Navi, waht do you mean “overdoing” it? And could clarify what “it” refers to? Finally, how does it “hurt” us?
I mean overstating the case that birth control pills are abortifacient. I believe I already gave sufficient examples of how this can hurt us.
Navi, I also didn’t like how the article singled out Jill. There are many people who know that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients. I thought the author did not need to mentioning Jill in order make his/her point. It was unnecessay.
I like and respect Jill too, and I support most of what she does. I’m sure the author feels the same way. But that doesn’t mean she’s infallible and above constructive criticism. The context of the first article, in my understanding, is a response to a column on a widely read website (not a personal attack on a fellow pro-lifer).
Navi,
Since these high doses of hormones women ingest are designed specifically to disrupt a woman’s reproductive biorythm; and since it is scientifically proven to have a great effect on disrupting/reducing menstruation; why would anybody who was scientifically unsure believe hormonal bc does not harden the uterine lining? It is prescibed to stop menstruation…..um…isn’t this a no-brainer?
That’s a great question. The hormones found in hormonal contraceptives do indeed cause the uterine lining to thin (which, in theory, would considerably reduce the chances of successful implantation). But there is more to it than that. The second link I provided covers this in detail.
The hormones found in hormonal contraceptives do indeed cause the uterine lining to thin (which, in theory, would considerably reduce the chances of successful implantation).
OK then. The hormones are designed to reduce a woman’s ability to reproduce by disrupting her reproductive cycle. Whatever else there is to it does not change what you agreed to above. Accept the evidence; quit denying it and move on. Just admit that it is happening. Thats all I am saying.
I agree with erring on the side of caution. But telling people that the pill might have an abortifacient effect and refusing to condone it or use it ourselves is quite different from stating that the pill is an abortifacient and trying to ban it.
What matters it is the degree of the “might” or, in the other words, the probability that hormonal contraceptives cause abortions. Personally, I think the scientific evidence is in on this issue. As the sites you referenced readily admit that there is indirect evidence that hormonal contraceptives does weaken the uterine lining and thereby increase the chance of failed implantation. Unlike the example you gave, there is no indirect evidence about ultrasounds causing failed implantation (indeed ultrasounds would not be done if the Mother was not already pregnant).
I believe I already gave sufficient examples of how this can hurt us.
Navi your concerns seem to be primarily about the success of the personhood initiative; however, your concern for the children and women who may be harmed by the continued use of hormonal contraceptives seems to be near non-existent. Your argument seems to lack compassion because it dismisses the Mothers and children harmed by hormonal contraceptives as a non-issue and as a mere roadblock to the passage of a personhood amendment. Support of hormonal contraceptives weakens the moral argument of the Personhood initiative.
To me the use of hormonal contraceptives can be compared to a person who put their hand in a hornet’s nest or a beehive. Most people would never advise someone to put their hand in a beehive or a hornet’s nest even though most people have never directly witnessed a person getting stung by a bee or hornet when the other person puts the hand in the nest or beehive. Indeed, without the aid of TV it is usually impossible to see the hand inside the nest or hive. However, there is tons of indirect evidence that people do get stung when they stick their hand in the nest or hive. Morevover, when you compare the indirect evidence of the frequency of those got stung after stick their hand in a hive or nest with the indirect evidence of the number people who have been stung without sticking their hand in a hornet nest, most reasnoble people would conclude that sticking your hand in a hornet’s nest or a beehive is not a wise move. And this advice is given even though no one has seen another person’s hand stung when that person’s hand was inside the hornet’s nest or beehive.
I agree that it is not an attack on Jill personally. But it was still unnecessary to mention her by name.
Navi, no offense but your arguments sound a lot like a pro-choicers argument. How do we know that this whole controversy surrounding the Pill was manufactured by PP and the pro-choice lobby simply to throw a wrench into the Personhood movement. I believe the pro-hormonal contraception lobby and pro-lifers are holding back the personhood amendment by giving ammunition to the pro-choice lobby. If you agree there are no positive benefits to using hormonal contraceptives why are you defending it? Are you simplying defending it for strategic reasons? Even the government has become involved in warning the public about the harms of smoking. And smoking has been banned in a lot of public spaces.
Navi, thanks for the link to Jill’s analysis of what wrong with the Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment initiative. I hadn’t seen it. They were very insightful, and her call for agreement and unity in the pro-life movemnt was spot-on. I don’t know if she arranged the issues by the degree to which they need to be corrected but I would say the ordering was spot-on if that was the case.
Navi,
From a legal perspective I think the issue is moot because I don’t think that a Personhood Amendment will automatically make contraception illegal or even abortion illegal. However, Personhood Amendments will give more legal strength to those who want to make contracpetion illegal by passing new laws, just as it would help make abortion illegal. I would support making abortion and contraception illegal or at least highly regulated. Making abortion illegal is really a two step process. First, one needs a Personhood Amendment. Second, new laws concerning the legality or the illegality of abortion need to be passed. I would advise that governments, after a Personhood Amendment has been passed, simply abandon the old laws on abortion and create new laws.
The scientific arguments impact the legal environment more than the moral environment. Morally, I think that we can both agree that hormonal contraception and abortion are wrong. From a legal perspective, the Courts would need evidence in order to make contraceptives illegal, just like the Court would need (and would have) that abortion harms an innocent life.
Navi
I found this comment by Dan Baker of Georgia Right to Life on the
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/11/five-reasons-mississippis-personhood-initiative-lost-aside-from-the-other-sides-whopping-lies/
thread very instructive and informative:
When Georgia filed the first Personhood amendment in 2007 we were hit by the other side with exactly the same tactics of lies and fear. Satan never changes effective tactics. We made a mistake that has been repeated twice iin CO and now in MS . . . we didn’t have “enabling legislation” to direct the press to that debunked and exposed the outrageous charges made to intimidate and scare the populace.
Nationwide state legislatures offer constitutional amendments year after year. They ALWAYS file an omnibus statute that clearly spells out the legislative intent of the amendment. It is a “trigger” statute that only goes into effect if the amendment is approved by the voters. Here in Georgia we are offering language that has been approved by FRC and other pro-personhood legal scholars AND we have EVERY section of the GA code being examined by a large group of pro-life attorneys to identify every conceivable impact that a Personhood amendment would have on our current law. By just filing the statute we take the press out of the equation. We just point to page 42 of the bill where it clearly states that doctors will continue to operate under the same “standard of care”, the section on Tort clearly absolves doctors of liablility claims when performing to save the life of the mother, a child in the womb WILL have “rights and responsibilities” granted to it under the law. Each state can trust their legislatures to decide which and to what degree.
We will be glad to make this statute avaiulable to any state legislative counsel for the purpose of adapting it to their respective state code.
Dan Becker
Georgia Right to Life
OK then. The hormones are designed to reduce a woman’s ability to reproduce by disrupting her reproductive cycle. Whatever else there is to it does not change what you agreed to above. Accept the evidence; quit denying it and move on. Just admit that it is happening. Thats all I am saying.
I said “in theory” and that “there’s more to it than that”. The order and context of events is critical. Specifically, if breakthrough ovulation occurs (which would be a necessary prerequisite for fertilization), the corpus luteum effect would restore the uterine lining (just as it does for ovulating women who aren’t on the pill). This would make implantation possible if the egg is fertilized.
What matters it is the degree of the “might” or, in the other words, the probability that hormonal contraceptives cause abortions. Personally, I think the scientific evidence is in on this issue. As the sites you referenced readily admit that there is indirect evidence that hormonal contraceptives does weaken the uterine lining and thereby increase the chance of failed implantation.
You haven’t given me the evidence, and the links I provided show that this isn’t necessarily the case due to breakthrough ovulation and the corpus luteum effect. You need to account for this if you want to convince me.
Unlike the example you gave, there is no indirect evidence about ultrasounds causing failed implantation (indeed ultrasounds would not be done if the Mother was not already pregnant).
I wasn’t referring directly to failed implantation. I was referring to the broader context of doing things that might be harmful to an unborn child (humans are valuable after implantation too, you know), but where there is no conclusive evidence that it actually does cause harm. A responsible person should probably avoid it, but we can’t necessarily ban it without sufficient evidence.
Navi your concerns seem to be primarily about the success of the personhood initiative; however, your concern for the children and women who may be harmed by the continued use of hormonal contraceptives seems to be near non-existent. Your argument seems to lack compassion because it dismisses the Mothers and children harmed by hormonal contraceptives as a non-issue and as a mere roadblock to the passage of a personhood amendment.
I take great offense to this statement. I already said that contraceptives that actually do cause abortions need to be taken seriously by pro-lifers. I gave ella as an example.
Support of hormonal contraceptives weakens the moral argument of the Personhood initiative.
Not support, neutrality. The status quo is that they are legal, which would not be changed by the initiative. It would only weaken the moral argument if abortifacient contraceptives were ignored (which I oppose and would expect the personhood amendment to ban).
To me the use of hormonal contraceptives can be compared to a person who put their hand in a hornet’s nest or a beehive. Most people would never advise someone to put their hand in a beehive or a hornet’s nest even though most people have never directly witnessed a person getting stung by a bee or hornet when the other person puts the hand in the nest or beehive. Indeed, without the aid of TV it is usually impossible to see the hand inside the nest or hive. However, there is tons of indirect evidence that people do get stung when they stick their hand in the nest or hive. Morevover, when you compare the indirect evidence of the frequency of those got stung after stick their hand in a hive or nest with the indirect evidence of the number people who have been stung without sticking their hand in a hornet nest, most reasnoble people would conclude that sticking your hand in a hornet’s nest or a beehive is not a wise move. And this advice is given even though no one has seen another person’s hand stung when that person’s hand was inside the hornet’s nest or beehive.
You haven’t provided the critical evidence related to the breakthrough ovulation case.
I agree that it is not an attack on Jill personally. But it was still unnecessary to mention her by name.
Technically, it was unnecessary to write the article in the first place. I don’t have a problem with how it was written.
Navi, no offense but your arguments sound a lot like a pro-choicers argument. How do we know that this whole controversy surrounding the Pill was manufactured by PP and the pro-choice lobby simply to throw a wrench into the Personhood movement. I believe the pro-hormonal contraception lobby and pro-lifers are holding back the personhood amendment by giving ammunition to the pro-choice lobby. If you agree there are no positive benefits to using hormonal contraceptives why are you defending it? Are you simplying defending it for strategic reasons?
I am not defending or condoning the use of hormonal contraception. I am questioning the assertion that it’s abortifacient and showing why overstating this is a bad strategy for pro-lifers. Pro-abortion arguments either question whether the unborn are valuable humans or argue that a woman has a right to abort to protect her bodily autonomy (even if the unborn are full fledged members of the human community). I have not done this. I agree that embryonic humans should be protected before and after implantation and that abortifacient contraceptives should not be legal. My only objection is that we don’t know that most contraceptives really are abortifacients. Everyone knows how abortion works.
Even the government has become involved in warning the public about the harms of smoking. And smoking has been banned in a lot of public spaces.
I support informing the public on the dangers of hormonal birth control. Smoking has been banned in public places to protect non-smokers from dangerous secondhand smoke. But it’s still legal for consenting adults on their private property.
Navi, thanks for the link to Jill’s analysis of what wrong with the Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment initiative. I hadn’t seen it. They were very insightful, and her call for agreement and unity in the pro-life movemnt was spot-on. I don’t know if she arranged the issues by the degree to which they need to be corrected but I would say the ordering was spot-on if that was the case.
I thought it was excellent commentary as well. But it’s a waste of web space if pro-lifers don’t actually learn anything from it.
From a legal perspective I think the issue is moot because I don’t think that a Personhood Amendment will automatically make contraception illegal or even abortion illegal. However, Personhood Amendments will give more legal strength to those who want to make contracpetion illegal by passing new laws, just as it would help make abortion illegal. I would support making abortion and contraception illegal or at least highly regulated. Making abortion illegal is really a two step process. First, one needs a Personhood Amendment. Second, new laws concerning the legality or the illegality of abortion need to be passed. I would advise that governments, after a Personhood Amendment has been passed, simply abandon the old laws on abortion and create new laws.
That’s another important point, and it really is hard to say how the law would actually be affected if the personhood amendment passed. The best legal experts on our side all say different things, and have different positions on whether personhood is even the right approach to take. Jill pointed this out in her analysis.
Not support, neutrality. The status quo is that they are legal, which would not be changed by the initiative. It would only weaken the moral argument if abortifacient contraceptives were ignored (which I oppose and would expect the personhood amendment to ban).
Navi, I think you may be confusing moral and legal concerns. Navi, you make a fair point in here; however, I would advise you to notice that people are justified in being morally opposed to contracpetion but not legally opposed to it. Ithink you would agree with this last statement?
I am questioning the assertion that it’s abortifacient and showing why overstating this is a bad strategy for pro-lifers.
Navi, I would really appreciate if you would elaborate on why you view the assertion that the Pill is an abortifacient is a ”bad strategy” for pro-lifers. I agree in the contect of the personhood intiative it can be left out and is irrelevant issue, legally speaking. However, factually and morally, the two are completely separate but linked issues. Navi, how would you suggest pro-lifers respond to PP and the Pro-choicers who bring up this link?
Overall, it seems we agree on a lot of issues. It seems we both needed to refine our arguments a little. I think we both agree that precision in how pro-lifers talk about the life issues is important.
Pro-lifers are not overstating their case when they argue that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients. That is both a legitimate and necessary scientific investigation and moral argument. However, in the context of the Personhood Amendment and in the legal world it may not be. You appear to be arguing that the evidence that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients is not relevant and/or conclusive enough to establish a law banning contraception. What kind of evidence are looking for? I think it is highly improbable if not impossible for science to ever determine that contraceptives are conclusively the cause for any failed implantation. I think a person needs to apply a level of reasonability when examining the scientific evidence concerning hormonal contraception. To demand only 100% direct evidence is an unreasonable demand.
Navi, I think you may be confusing moral and legal concerns. Navi, you make a fair point in here; however, I would advise you to notice that people are justified in being morally opposed to contracpetion but not legally opposed to it. Ithink you would agree with this last statement?
I understand that. The question of whether someone should use contraception is quite different from whether we should ban contraception. I’ve only dealt with the latter here.
Navi, I would really appreciate if you would elaborate on why you view the assertion that the Pill is an abortifacient is a ”bad strategy” for pro-lifers. I agree in the contect of the personhood intiative it can be left out and is irrelevant issue, legally speaking. However, factually and morally, the two are completely separate but linked issues. Navi, how would you suggest pro-lifers respond to PP and the Pro-choicers who bring up this link?
I already showed how it directly hurt the passage of a personhood initiative. How should pro-lifers respond? I would go as follows:
– Be more honest than Planned Parenthood. Life begins at fertilization, not implantation. A drug that prevents implantation of an embryonic human is an abortifacient.
– Provide the scientific case for both sides of the issue.
– Acknowledge that the science is not settled, and might never be.
– Stress that, if you’re not convinced that the pill is safe to use, you should err on the side of caution.
Overall, it seems we agree on a lot of issues. It seems we both needed to refine our arguments a little. I think we both agree that precision in how pro-lifers talk about the life issues is important.
I couldn’t have said it better.
Pro-lifers are not overstating their case when they argue that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients.
Yes they are. There is no scientific consensus that this is true. That’s my whole point.
That is both a legitimate and necessary scientific investigation and moral argument.
Yes it is, and it’s not resolved.
You appear to be arguing that the evidence that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacients is not relevant and/or conclusive enough to establish a law banning contraception. What kind of evidence are looking for? I think it is highly improbable if not impossible for science to ever determine that contraceptives are conclusively the cause for any failed implantation. I think a person needs to apply a level of reasonability when examining the scientific evidence concerning hormonal contraception. To demand only 100% direct evidence is an unreasonable demand.
I’m looking for evidence that the use of hormonal contraceptives sometimes results in a scenario where ovulation occurs and the egg is fertilized but the uterine lining remains hostile to implantation. That is, either the development of a corpus luteum is prevented or the hormones associated with the luteal phase are blocked out. What kind of evidence are you looking for that would convince you? Why is your case any more reasonable?
I will now try to deal with your questions about the science since I now more clearly see that is your primary issue. You now have motivated me to investigate the science behind this issue more thoroughly. This means that currently I will not be able to provide you with a great or even adequate response. It is going to take me some time before I feel comfortable discussing the science behind this issue.
“I’m looking for evidence that the use of hormonal contraceptives sometimes results in a scenario where ovulation occurs and the egg is fertilized but the uterine lining remains hostile to implantation.”
As far as I know, I thought this issue was settled and that it was confirmed. I will need to read respected medical journals/opinion before I think otherwise.
“That is, either the development of a corpus luteum is prevented or the hormones associated with the luteal phase are blocked out.”
I can’t speak to this because I don’t really understand what you are talking about here.
I am looking for peered review well respected medical studies that definitively say that the Pill doesn’t cause implantation failure. This means that I expect the Pill to be 100% effective in preventing pregnancy when used. I feel that deamnding a 100% effective rate is reasonable given that unintended and reasonably possible side-effects of failed hormonal contraception can result in an abortion.
The problem I see with your argument Navi is that you really don’t have an issue with your fellow pro-lifers. Rather, it appears you have an issue with views of the established scientific and medical communities that have said that hormonal contraceptives can and does result in failed implantation.
Navi, for the sake of transparency, do you mind disclosing your background? Are you Christian? Are you a creationist? Are you secular? Do you consider yourself a feminist?
I am Catholic as you probably know. I am not a creationist.
I humbly hope that this new opposition to the established science on the abortive nature of hormonal contraception is not due to some anti-Catholic sentiment. I hope my fellow Christians aren’t worried about agreeing with the established medical community because it will mean that the Catholic Church was right again on another important life issue.
Specifically, if breakthrough ovulation occurs (which would be a necessary prerequisite for fertilization), the corpus luteum effect would restore the uterine lining (just as it does for ovulating women who aren’t on the pill). This would make implantation possible if the egg is fertilized.
Navi,
True that the pregnancy would cause a woman’s body to increase in hormones to prepare for implantation but in order to do that they would be overcoming high doses of hormones that cause the opossite effect.
Navi, I also hope that this “strategy” was due to fear. Fear that “we can never convince women to give up the Pill.” I also hope it was defeatist by thinking that people will never want to give up the Pill.
To me, I don’t see the strategy. In fact I see this whole issue as a distraction. It makes come back to one of my original questions: why are prolifers trying to defend the Pill?
As much as you say that you are not defending the Pill, you are. There is no suh thing as neutrality on this issue – either the Pill causes abortions or it doesn’t. “I don’t know” is not a valid response.
The argument against the data demonstrating that hormonal contraception is not abortofacient is “recent” is seriously flawed at best. The truth is, Scientists finally stopped taking Pharmaceutical companies at their word about the mechanism, and conducted studies of their own. In the end, the data strongly support that HC is NOT abortofacient.
Also, even if a Personhood amendment passes in a State, as long as the PRIMARY FDA-approved labeling is that the pill is a CONTRACEPTIVE, then the Amendment cannot make it illegal under Griswold vs Connecticut. One need not even look to Roe vs Wade to strike down a Personhood Amendment. 7/9 Justices have publicly stated they support Griswold.
Essentially, the Court hearings would go:
Justice: What is the FDA-approved labeling?
Lawyer: The FDA says it is indicated as a contraceptive Pharmaceutical
Justice: So the FDA – which is granted with sole approval power and Marketing regulatory powers – says it is a contraceptive?
Lawyer: Yes
Justice: Have you read Griswold vs Connecticut?
Someone needs to start educating us Catholics about the possible legal predicament our moral views on hormonal contraception are in.
Dave, I disagree I think hormonal contraceptives may get a second look by the courts if Personhood Amendments are passed. The indirect evidence about the abortive quality will be given greater weight and the FDA may be asked to revisit their approval methods in relation to hormonal contraceptives.
I don’t think any court will ask the FDA to amend its approval methods. Aside from the strong evidence there is NO abortifacient effect, if you look at Clinicaltrials.gov, there are over 500 clinical trials for hormonal contraceptives. Look beyond that, and well over 5000 trials REQUIRE the use of contraception for women of child-bearing potential. There is no court on Earth that will work to disrupt any of that.
In addition, many pharmaceuticals carry huge risks for developing fetuses, and the FDA mandates pregnancy “registries” for women who become pregnant while taking one of these. These registries are NEVER mandatory for the women though, so the data collected are always biased. The FDA almost never mandates post-marketing follow-ups to detect how many women became pregnant, and what were the consequences.
In most clinical trials, women of child-bearing potential are REQUIRED to use contraception or abstain from sex. Over 90% agree and use contraception. Getting rid of hormonal contraception would decimate women from clinical trial populations, thereby violating basic tenants of evidence-based trial conduction.
As for “indirect evidence”: This study here (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/11/3031.full) provides strong data that there is NO abortifacient effect. It uses *ACTUAL human embryos* in a 3-D in vitro model with HUMAN tissue.
“This study conducted in human samples, further supports the earlier findings in rodents and monkeys that post-coital administration of levonorgestrel does not interfere with post-fertilization processes required for embryo implantation, such as development of embryos, acquisition of endometrial receptivity and embryo attachment (Mulle et al. 2003; Ortiz et al. 2004).”
Additional studies that demonstrate there is no abortifacient effect:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19909947
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15192056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12100805
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226671
I will now try to deal with your questions about the science since I now more clearly see that is your primary issue. You now have motivated me to investigate the science behind this issue more thoroughly. This means that currently I will not be able to provide you with a great or even adequate response. It is going to take me some time before I feel comfortable discussing the science behind this issue.
Fair enough. I admire your humility. I’m open to being wrong on this issue. I’ve been wrong before, and I probably still have some ideas that are wrong. The only problem is, of course, that I don’t know what they are.
I am looking for peered review well respected medical studies that definitively say that the Pill doesn’t cause implantation failure. This means that I expect the Pill to be 100% effective in preventing pregnancy when used. I feel that deamnding a 100% effective rate is reasonable given that unintended and reasonably possible side-effects of failed hormonal contraception can result in an abortion.
A 100% pregnancy prevention rate is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove the pill is not an abortifacient. Condoms have a failure rate, yet they do not prevent implantation. Conversely, a theoretical birth control drug could be created that always renders the uterus hostile (hence acting as an abortifacient), but never resulting in a viable pregnancy (therefore being 100% effective).
The problem I see with your argument Navi is that you really don’t have an issue with your fellow pro-lifers. Rather, it appears you have an issue with views of the established scientific and medical communities that have said that hormonal contraceptives can and does result in failed implantation.
See Dave’s comments. He said it well.
True that the pregnancy would cause a woman’s body to increase in hormones to prepare for implantation but in order to do that they would be overcoming high doses of hormones that cause the opossite effect.
The concentration of hormones (particularly progesterone) released by the corpus luteum is magnitudes greater than those found in the pill.
Navi, I also hope that this “strategy” was due to fear. Fear that “we can never convince women to give up the Pill.” I also hope it was defeatist by thinking that people will never want to give up the Pill.
I would never have that kind of mindset that we can “never” convince women to get off the pill. Smoking was once as widespread as automobiles are today, yet by and large society has weaned itself off tobacco. But I think the pro-life movement already has enough to deal with (surgical and chemical abortions, actual abortifacient contraceptives, human embryo exploitation, cloning, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide). I don’t know why diverting resources to go after something that is probably completely harmless to embryonic humans is a good strategy.
As much as you say that you are not defending the Pill, you are. There is no suh thing as neutrality on this issue – either the Pill causes abortions or it doesn’t. “I don’t know” is not a valid response.
Questioning your understanding of how something works is not defending its use. And yes, “I don’t know” is a valid response to many of the unsettled issues in science. We need to deal with that.
I expect hormonal contraceptives to be 100% effective at preventing ovulation. If the hormonal contracpetive was 100% effective at preventing ovulation then there would be zero chance that it caused abortions.
Everything Dave said applies to a world where the preborn do not have constitutional rights. The FDA would be required to change its policy and its investigative procedures more than likely as soon as the preborn are granted constitutional rights.
In most clinical trials, women of child-bearing potential are REQUIRED to use contraception or abstain from sex. Over 90% agree and use contraception. Getting rid of hormonal contraception would decimate women from clinical trial populations, thereby violating basic tenants of evidence-based trial conduction.
I am not sure what Dave is trying to get at here.
I don’t know why diverting resources to go after something that is probably completely harmless to embryonic humans is a good strategy.
We are investigating hormonal contraception because it affects a human life, the same reason we are fighting the other issues that you mentioned. If we are fighting surgical and chemical abortions, actual abortifacient contraceptives, human embryo exploitation, cloning, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide why not fight hormonal contraceptives if they are abortifacients? Why don’t you want to save these human beings as well? I really see thay you must have some other agenda for arguing against the pro-life movement investing some of its resources into fighting and making the truth of hormonal contraceptives be known. Protecting humans, even in embryonic stage, should never be seen as an obstacle to a political strategy. To me the position you presented reeks of political expediency at the expense of truth and possible (your own view point) human life - no thanks.
Do you use hormonal contraceptives? Not to be rude, but could guilt be causing you to be pro-hormonal contraceptives?
We should not risk human lives when the science hasn’t been settled, just as the Justices who decided Roe should not have needlessly sent millions of unborn children to death based on their belief that the science was not settlesd as to when life or legal personhood began.
I agree that questioning how something works is important and why I support further scientific investigations into the workings of hormonal contraception. However, it is those who wish to exile the anti-hormonal contraception pro-lifers who are harming the pro-life movement by engaging in a strategy that is not open to the truth. You are advocating the pro-life movement take a legal position when, in yor own words, the science is not settled. Since you are trying to prove that hormonal contraceptives doesn’t harm a human being you have the burden of proof, and not the pro-lifers who merely wish to ban one form of contraception among many (and not to mention harms women)!
By the logic of expecting hormonal contraceptives to be 100% effective at preventing ovulation, antipsychotics should be 100% effective at preventing relapse in Schizophrenia. However, they are not, as in NO drug.
There is something called the “number needed to treat” and the “number needed to harm”. That is, how many patients do you need to treat in order to get ONE beneficial effect or harm. Statins number needed to treat are on the order of 25-63 for a *preventative event*. You can’t even calculate a NNT for HC, because its clinical trial failure rate is below the threshold. It’s that effective statistically.
The relative risk of cardiovascular death in elderly dementia patients taking antipsychotics is 1.7. However, the *actual numbers* of deaths were quite small (antipsychotic vs placebo) in the CATIE trial. However, the average cardiovascular mortality in the average antipsychotic user is substantially higher than vs placebo. Yet, the FDA allows these medications on the Market, in living breathing, adult human beings. The same would hold true for hormonal contraception. They would look at the relative risk, hazard ratio, cox-proportional hazard of HC causing failure of implantation and would determine that hormonal contraception is significantly safer for embryos than antipsychotics are for adults! The data and statistics are there.
So, should we ban antipsychotics because they FOR CERTAIN have a less than 100% effect AND cause horrific neonatal neurological issues? Fingolimod for multiple sclerosis is a class 1 teratogen, which I am betting has caused more spontaneous abortions per-pill than HC. Should we ban that too?
If HC does not increase the relative risk, odds ratio, proportional hazard ect, ect, there is no possible way that a Personhood Amendment would strip the FDA’s powers to allow its continued marketing and approval. Courts are always going to defer to hard science.
Also, Webster vs Reproductive services already decided that a Personhood amendment does not negate Roe. They didn’t even come close to even looking at Griswold and contraception, which is what will have to happen for Personhood legislation to make hormonal contraception illegal. And court challenges following that will demonstrate there is no increased risk of implantation failure due to HC, and thus it will not be outlawed.
By the logic of expecting hormonal contraceptives to be 100% effective at preventing ovulation, antipsychotics should be 100% effective at preventing relapse in Schizophrenia. However, they are not, as in NO drug.
Interesting point Dave; however, there I don’t think one can compare the effects/harms that hormonal contraceptives cause versus other drugs. The possible harms caused by hormonal contracceptives are unique. Unlike other drugs hormonal contraceptives can cause harm not only to the person who takes them, similar to other drugs, but it can also harm another human being. It is the potential to harm another human being that is the unique problem with hormonal contraceptives.
Once the Personhood Amendment is passed I think the government should up its efforts to see if can legalize hormonal contraceptives. I am not against hormonal contraceptives if they can prove not to be harmful and deadly to the preborn.
If HC does not increase the relative risk, odds ratio, proportional hazard ect, ect, there is no possible way that a Personhood Amendment would strip the FDA’s powers to allow its continued marketing and approval. Courts are always going to defer to hard science.
I think the FDA would be obligated to examine its approval of hormonal contraceptives given that it involves another person, unlike the other drugs that you mentioned that only affect the user.
Also, Webster vs Reproductive services already decided that a Personhood amendment does not negate Roe. They didn’t even come close to even looking at Griswold and contraception, which is what will have to happen for Personhood legislation to make hormonal contraception illegal. And court challenges following that will demonstrate there is no increased risk of implantation failure due to HC, and thus it will not be outlawed.
I don’t know much about the Webster case; however, I am of the opinion that Roe would not be overturned automatically. I am not aware about the technical term, but I think Roe would be rendered obsolete and need to be re-decided. Roe never granted a right to abortion, it only found a right to privacy. This means the Law and Courts are trusting that women and their Doctors are making ethical decisions. The Personhood Amendment would add a new standard that both the women and Doctor would need to consider. Court challenges will come on this issue and on the issue of hormonal contraceptives if the FDA does not voluntarily decide to re-examine its approval of HC.
After a Personhood Amendent there definitely will be Court challenges to existing laws on HC. However, the Courts won’t be seeking to make hormonal contraceptive illegal but the Courts will be seeking to make Hormonal Contraceptives legal.
Personhood will far reaching positive benefits the entire US civil society. It will stop people from looking at their offspring as commodities or waste.
The unintended consequences of a Personhood Amendment will be positive for both women and the preborn. It will elevate the standards for the drugs that a Mother may take and this will benefit her and her preborn child. The Personhood Amendment will also elevate the level of care that women will receive from their Doctors. It will also elevate the level of care from Doctors for the preborn – and this will be important for not only the women who always wanted their children but important for women who may require an abortion.
I expect hormonal contraceptives to be 100% effective at preventing ovulation. If the hormonal contracpetive was 100% effective at preventing ovulation then there would be zero chance that it caused abortions.
I see your point now. Yes, that would be sufficient but not necessary to show that the pill is not abortifacient.
We are investigating hormonal contraception because it affects a human life, the same reason we are fighting the other issues that you mentioned. If we are fighting surgical and chemical abortions, actual abortifacient contraceptives, human embryo exploitation, cloning, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide why not fight hormonal contraceptives if they are abortifacients?
If being the key word here. You need more evidence to show that they’re abortifacients.
Why don’t you want to save these human beings as well? I really see thay you must have some other agenda for arguing against the pro-life movement investing some of its resources into fighting and making the truth of hormonal contraceptives be known. Protecting humans, even in embryonic stage, should never be seen as an obstacle to a political strategy. To me the position you presented reeks of political expediency at the expense of truth and possible (your own view point) human life - no thanks.
Nope, I just want us to be accurate in our accusations and avoid difficult battles that we don’t actually need to win. Surely this is reasonable?
Do you use hormonal contraceptives?
I do not.
Not to be rude, but could guilt be causing you to be pro-hormonal contraceptives?
Never said I was pro-hormonal contraceptives.
We should not risk human lives when the science hasn’t been settled, just as the Justices who decided Roe should not have needlessly sent millions of unborn children to death based on their belief that the science was not settlesd as to when life or legal personhood began.
This is a false analogy, firstly, because the science is clear as to when human life begins. If it was unsettled in 1973 (which I highly doubt), it certainly isn’t today. Secondly, there is no more actual evidence that hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient than any other chemical that a potentially pregnant woman may encounter. How exactly do you determine what a personhood amendment will ban if you don’t demand evidence that the chemical actually causes harm? Do you expect 3D ultrasounds to be banned as well because they might cause harm to an unborn child (look, we’re going in circles)? Everyone knows how abortion works, the only question is what it is that is killed by abortion.
To put things into perspective, James Trussel (one of the leading researchers in the field), stated the following after providing evidence supporting the hypothesis that Plan B type drugs are not abortifacient:
“We have about the same level of evidence for each of the following statements:
– Oral contraceptive pills may inhibit the implantation of an embryo into the uterine lining.
– Emergency contraceptive pills may inhibit the implantation of an embryo into the uterine lining.
– The contraceptive effect of breastfeeding may inhibit the implantation of an embryo into the uterine lining.”
I agree that questioning how something works is important and why I support further scientific investigations into the workings of hormonal contraception. However, it is those who wish to exile the anti-hormonal contraception pro-lifers who are harming the pro-life movement by engaging in a strategy that is not open to the truth.
How am I not open to the truth? Requesting evidence is not exiling pro-lifers who oppose hormonal contraceptives.
You are advocating the pro-life movement take a legal position when, in yor own words, the science is not settled. Since you are trying to prove that hormonal contraceptives doesn’t harm a human being you have the burden of proof, and not the pro-lifers who merely wish to ban one form of contraception among many (and not to mention harms women)!
Both sides normally carry at least some of the burden of proof. If I argued with tenacity that eating apples (only one type of fruit among many) can have an abortifacient effect and placed the entire burden of proof on you, you would probably think I was crazy.
Hi, Navi,
Forgive me if this was already addressed, above (my time is limited at the moment, and I’m skimming rather mercilessly), but: so long as the NIH itself says, in its treatment of the topic of hormonal contraceptives, that:
“[e]ven if ovulation occurs occasionally, the changes which occur secondary to chronic exposure to the progestin portion of OCs make both fertilization and implantation unlikely”
…and:
“Through continued OC use, the endometrium becomes a hostile environment to implantation and further embryonic growth–due to glandular atrophy and stromal decidualization.”
…then why would we be remiss in holding them to their own standard, and assuming that they are correct, at least from a legal stand-point?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7026108
I’m not a legal expert, but that does sound reasonable. Maybe Tyler has a point in that the government would need to do another review of the studies if a personhood amendment were passed, and (if applicable) hormonal contraceptives would be legalized again.
However, two questions come to mind:
1. The review you cited is from 1984. Is there a more recent one available?
2. Since the review was published in 1984, has anything changed related to the birth control pill available? If the drug on the market today is different from the one studied above, wouldn’t this invalidate the legal ramifications?
Navi wrote:
I’m not a legal expert, but that does sound reasonable. Maybe Tyler has a point in that the government would need to do another review of the studies if a personhood amendment were passed, and (if applicable) hormonal contraceptives would be legalized again.
Perhaps… though I certainly hope that, if the “pill” becomes illegal, the latter prediction (i.e. legalisation again) does NOT happen. But I digress.
1. The review you cited is from 1984. Is there a more recent one available?
I have no idea; it was a rather rapid Google search which yielded it. :) The results, however, came through the NIH’s own search engine, which yielded no contradictory data in any of the other 20-30 of the first hits.
2. Since the review was published in 1984, has anything changed related to the birth control pill available? If the drug on the market today is different from the one studied above, wouldn’t this invalidate the legal ramifications?
Hm. Short answer: theoretically (though it’d be difficult, since the chemicals [estrogen and/or progestin] and their proportions have changed very little, and since I wouldn’t expect the mechanism of the “new pill” to differ substantially, simply because of a reduced and/or slightly altered amount/proportion). However, I would expect this particular abortion-philic, contraception-philic administration to be very speedy and pro-active in any corrections which helped their cause; and the fact that the NIH studies have not been deleted/amended is rather suspicious, to me.
Navi thanks for the conversation. It helped me clarify where I stand, from a legal perspective, on hormonal contraception. The conversation made me realize that I have some work to do to increase my understanding of the science hormonal ocntraception.
My other personal reasons against hormonal contraception have not changed.
Paladin, very thorough and fact based responses in such a short time.
Well folks, I am going to be away for a while. Keep up the good fight Paladin. Chat with you in a month.
Thank you Tyler, Truthseeker, and Paladin for the conducive and mostly civil dialogue. I enjoyed it as well. I clearly need to do more research on the legal aspect of things (which, unfortunately, looks even more complex than the science).
Sorry a quick apology from me – I just want to apologize to the people who are Creationists. I did not mean to associate Creationism with the pro-contraception bandwagon or to disparage the Creationist perspective.
Navi, you’re welcome. I am still astonished with the zeal by which the pro-contracpetive crowd believe that the abortive mechanism of hormonal contraception is “unsettled.”