dKos: Justice Dept gag rule on emergency contraception . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

dKos: U.S. Department of Justice applies gag rule on emergency contraception intervention . . .

"Justice Dept: no info on emergency contraception if you're raped . . . by pamindurham Fri Dec 31st, 2004 at 05:08:48 PST"

"Women's rights are being chipped away with small steps like this. What is the rationale (sorry -- spin) for not telling a sexually assaulted woman that a morning-after pill is available as contraception?

"Mention of emergency contraception was included in an early draft (and was not opposed), but is not in the final document. Was removal of this standard precaution info from the Justice Department's medical recommendation guidelines the work of bible-thumping John Ashcroft and our Dear Leader? This development is so frightening, it sends chills down my spine.

"We're not even talking about any language pertaining to advocacy of using the contraception in the Justice Department's new guidelines -- just the mere mention of the option was removed. What is happening to our rights, our country?"

(bold face type emphasis in original dKos post)

. . . more . . . http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/31/8848/8376

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

[GOPFighter]

1. Because the morning after pill is really an aborton...

...and abortion is a sin and anyway the woman who was raped probably asked for it 'cause god would let a virtuous woman be raped so she'll just have to suffer the consequences and I think I'm going to throw up.

Our government is not ours anymore. :-(

[TaleWgnDg]

5. The morning after pill need not be an "abortion pill" . . . why?

The morning after pill need not be an "abortion pill" . . . why? The religion-into-law folks, those who are "pro-life," are not correct in their protestations or of their analysis about the morning-after pill.

Conception need not have occurred when one injests the morning-after pill and the blastocyst gets "aborted." Therefore, if there's no conception and the morning after pill is administered, what's the beef? There's no fertilized egg within the female, so, again, what's the beef? There's no potential life, there's no "life" whatsoever. So, again, what's the beef?

Thus, there's no "sin," per se. Oh, of course, there is if, and only if, one's religion prohibits contraception before fertilization, such as Roman Catholics who prohibit the use of condoms. Those are the religion-into-law zealots who are against this contraceptive device - and all contraceptive devices, entirely!

This entire issue is ill-understood, overly-emotionalized, and pandered about . . . it's really stupid. The religious institutions pander emotions in order to lessen cognitive thought.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

edited to correct typo.

.

[antigone382]

8. Exactly! Conception takes three days.

It typically takes three days for the sperm to reach the egg. I learned that in HS Human Anatomy, and it's the science behind the "rhythm method" that so many RWers espouse. Therefore, a morning after pill would, in all probability, not be aborting a fertilized egg. What's the pro-lifers' beef here? :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

2. If there were no federal guidelines before, than guidlines

which omit things aren't going to stop doctors and nurses from practicing as they have up until now.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. You are missing the point . . . entirely . . .

You are missing the point . . . entirely . . .

The point being is that unless the hospital and M.D. fully inform the patient, then that patient cannot give informed consent about her medical choices if raped. She has no full knowledge. Her choices remain limited. She remains purposefully and intentionally ignorant of these medical procedures by the medical professionals. This, not only flies in the face of the M.D.'s ethical Hippocratic Oath, but also flies in the face of appropriate medical interaction at hospitals.

However, this blatant omission of necessary medical information for women comports with a recent appropriations law passed by congress and signed into law by GWBush that allows M.D.'s and hospitals that are "morally" against abortions not to perform or inform about this medical option. This goes way beyond the religious exception for M.D.'s and hospitals. The law was *hidden* into the last and much protracted appropriations bill. Majority leaders in both Houses have promised House Minority Leader Pelosi that new legislation in the new session will be drafted to over-ride this law. I believe litigation is pending regarding this law as well.

Thus, the DoJ injurious misrepresentation complies with GWBush's overall religion-into-law stance.

Next up is GWBush's "tort reform" so that these women and their families cannot sue such M.D.s and hospitals.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

[enough]

3. Front page Philadelphia Inquirer today.

Sex-assault treatment guidelines omit pill
Victims' advocates call emergency contraception key, seek Justice changes.
By Marie McCullough
Inquirer Staff Writer

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10536368.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
snip>

Advocates say emergency contraception, which is high-dose birth-control pills, reduces the chance of pregnancy 75 to 90 percent - but only if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

"This narrow window of effectiveness makes timely access to emergency contraception critical," declares the petition.

Five states - New York, Illinois, California, Washington and New Mexico - have laws requiring hospitals to provide the contraception to victims, or at least tell them how to get the pills.

snip>

"I think it's very smart not to put that in the guidelines," said Dr. George Isajiw of Lansdowne, a board member of Physicians for Life, a Philadelphia antiabortion group.

By giving emergency contraception, he said, "you're giving a dangerous drug that's not doing any good, or else you're causing an abortion. As a moral principle, a woman has the right to defend herself against an aggressor. But she doesn't have the right to kill the baby."

more>

[WildClarySage]

6. The danger I see

after working with grant funds from the Violence Against Women Act federal block for a couple of years is that these guidelines can now be much more easily tacked onto how the grants are allotted. How long before they decide that agencies/advocates who do inform women about EC are no longer eligible for federal grant money? A gag rule for advocates is going to increase the harm to women. And the fundies are salivating.

But will this really hurt women? Do raped women get pregnant often enough for this to be worth the time and energy of fighting? You're damn right it does and it is. As a sexual assault intervention advocate, I assisted on a case of a raped 12 year old girl who became pregnant. The hospital hadn't offered her EC because she had not yet had her first menses. Unfortunately for that sweet little girl, she was 2 weeks from her first period when she was assaulted. It broke my heart to learn that she faced the choice to abort or to bear the assailant's (her cousin's) child. This wasn't the result of any 'statement' or in any way about politics, just a hospital error, but it happened. And when this type of public policy manouvere goes down without a murmur, when we complicitly agree to allow this one more injustice against women, someone will be irrevocably harmed by it.

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Great work that you do . . . and great words here . . . n/t