That's horrifying. So as well as being able to refuse to give women the contraceptive pill or refer them for an abortion, it will also be OK for healthcare professionals to refuse to prescribe any hormonal contraception or fit any IUDs? Just in case the woman might be carrying a tiny ball of cells that may never make it to implantation in the first place?
This is all very silly. Granted, shops have a right to refuse service, and pubs have a right to refuse admission. Doctors are different in having a duty of care that trumps their right to refuse in most cases. Fair enough, if the doctor lacks the right skills then the patient will have to go elsewhere (as I found last year (http://fellcat.livejournal.com/288235.html)), but if the doctor has the skills then generally they should provide the treatment.
I remember reading the Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Attwood when I was at school. At the time the Soviets had not long left Afghanistan and Afghan intellectuals were fleeing the country, while those who remained were finding themselves in a wholly different world as the Taliban took over.
I recall someone saying at the time that there was no way that anything like Attwood described could actually happen in these days (early 90s). I pointed out that in fact it was happening, not all that far away and could in fact happen anywhere given the right set of circumstances.
The present incumbent of the White House appears to be doing a very good job of setting that particular sledge asliding.
The HHS' policy change is absolute tosh. Most recent studies have shown that the contraceptives in question work primarily by preventing the sperm from reaching the egg (the exception being the use of the IUD as EC), and the remainder are unconclusive. (Synopsis of how hormonal contraceptives and IUDs/IUSs work.) (http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/methodaction.htm)
Whatever one's view on abortion, access to contraception (with the possible exception of post-coital use of an IUD†) is undeniably a human right.
† I personally don't hold with that exception because whether a blastocyst could be present would depend upon when the woman had ovulated/would ovulate and how far the sperm had traveled since intercourse. If a couple had sex yesterday, the sperm might well still be in the uterus and get killed by the copper; if the sex was a few days ago then fertilisation may have occurred iff an egg was present. It's not possible to prove the existence of a blastocyst during the five days after sex, and in any case the woman could lie during consultation and state that she had abstained since her last period.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-17 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-17 03:42 pm (UTC)("You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means")
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-17 08:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-17 09:50 pm (UTC)PS: Especially if they are getting public money!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-17 06:56 pm (UTC)I recall someone saying at the time that there was no way that anything like Attwood described could actually happen in these days (early 90s). I pointed out that in fact it was happening, not all that far away and could in fact happen anywhere given the right set of circumstances.
The present incumbent of the White House appears to be doing a very good job of setting that particular sledge asliding.
View from the pro-life corner
Date: 2008-07-17 08:19 pm (UTC)Whatever one's view on abortion, access to contraception (with the possible exception of post-coital use of an IUD†) is undeniably a human right.
† I personally don't hold with that exception because whether a blastocyst could be present would depend upon when the woman had ovulated/would ovulate and how far the sperm had traveled since intercourse. If a couple had sex yesterday, the sperm might well still be in the uterus and get killed by the copper; if the sex was a few days ago then fertilisation may have occurred iff an egg was present. It's not possible to prove the existence of a blastocyst during the five days after sex, and in any case the woman could lie during consultation and state that she had abstained since her last period.