Virginia ban on Birth Control
 

Someone please tell me I misunderstood the news last night on this issue. If I heard correctly, Republican politicians in the State of Virginia are trying to pass a law that would make birth control pills illegal. Have they lost their mind? OMG

I keep hearing from my side (Conservatives) that government is too big and invasive into our lives.

WELL:::::::::::::: When government makes decisions about your reproductive life don't you feel that is more invasive than supporting a healthy lunch for children.

I think we all need to do some meditation and stop believing in someone else's interpretation of GOD's will. All we hear anymore is how you will be punished for this or that. Lets go back to the all loving GOD and focus on the positive for a moment. Like a lady on this site that I respect, she approaches Faith in a positive way and I listen closely to what she says. Then there is the six pac mentality that uses the gloom and doom method of your going to burn without any hope for forgiveness.

Example: (1) I go off the deep end and make a dumb statement.

(2) Katz will correct me and even suggest a better path with kindness.

(3) My 6 pac friend will call me a few slanderous names including liar.

In my opinion, there are two idiots out of three above. Can you pick the one smart person?

Is a wrong OK if it is done by our party.

Is a good thing not OK if it is done by the other party.

In case it is difficult to guess, number (2) is the smart one.

TVII, I would love to be able to say that I am speechless! But LOL, ya gotta know that ain't gonna happen, especially on this subject! I can't even take this advice from Honest Abe-"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln 16th president of US (1809 - 1865). Maybe not so smart after all. I also think that you and I both know a loving God who has already taken our punishment upon Himself (YEAH!)...since He and we all know that none of us is perfect.

This from Posh 08's link-'It’s time to show lawmakers that Virginians can see through this insidious attempt to undermine reproductive rights in Virginia and that we reject its goals of outlawing all abortion and attacking women’s access to common forms of birth control like the pill, emergency contraception and IUDs."


Virginia General Assembly: The "Personhood" Bill Passed in the House, Unborn Child A Person At Conception [AUDIO] | KissRichmond

Virginia delegates pass two of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills ever presented to a state legislature - NY Daily News

:clap2::clap2::clap2:It appears that the Virginina House of Delegates has chosen to pass a law giving rights to the "unborn", basically they are declaring that life begins at conception! :a040:This does not mean that they have banned contraception. Contra is latin for against or opposite + Conceptio is latin for conceive= contraception. Therefore a contraception is something that is against conception, prevents conception, etc...This law is giving rights to the results of conception. Apparently, rights to those whose conception was not prevented. It does not outlaw methods to prevent conception.
I need to point out though, that IUD's are not a true form of contraception. The presence of a foreign body (an IUD-intrauterine device) in the uterus prevents the fertilized egg (conception has already taken place) from properly implanting into the uterine wall where it can gain nourishment and continue to grow and develop. This result in a very early miscarriage and the woman will never know she had even conceived.:ohdear:

Interesting, little publicized "side effects" of abortion...


As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer...
The Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer

...abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40 percent...Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link


"There is an ominous relationship between the
abortion of your first pregnancy
and later development of breast cancer."...
Abortion Breast Cancer Link - Life Issues Institute

Well, here's a list of those disputing that:

From Wikipedia:
In fact, according to the American Cancer Society:

Now let's look at the list of those supporting the link:

National Physicians Center for Family Resources
Catholic Medical Association
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
The Polycarp Research Institute
Ehtics and Medics
MaterCare International

7 groups, two of which you don't even have to go past the name to know they'll be biased. (CMA and AAPLOG)

It really doesn't surprise me that conservatives will seize upon only those groups who support their political views and ignore the vast majority of research. Not that they're alone in that, I've seen liberals do the same thing.

Off the top of my head, I'd listen to the American Cancer Society before *any* of those listed in the second group.

What kind of paranoid hysterical thread is this? A U.S. State banning birth control?

I know this didn't happen. It's lunacy. There isn't one news story anywhere to support what "you think" you heard.

smells a lot like chum on the waters to me!

btk

I had to check it out.

It would appear that there's a bill working it's way through the VA legislature that defines 'personhood' - that a fetus is a person. The effect of this is supposedly that it would ban many forms of birth control. Here are some quotes I found:

From Main Street Liberal (trying to keep the opinion out of it):

From Channel 4 in Washington DC:
Afternoon Read: Virginia GOP Stirring Controversy Nationwide | NBC4 Washington
So it looks like hormonal birth control (evidently what most women use) would be banned because the law would protect zygotes, fertilized eggs, blastocytes, etc (whatever development term you want to use) and, when given an opportunity to say the bill WOULDN'T ban birth control, the Republicans refused.

I would imagine this would also ban IUDs.

It's true Richie. Check your links. :a040:

You never cease to amaze me with your knowledge and wisdom. What would this forum do without you to discern who to listen to and who's name to go right past.

I do not want any more government interference in the private loves of Americans.

I heartily agree with you on this. However, I must wonder how you square this with you post on school lunches?

"Obesity and diabetes are at almost epidemic stages. They are hurting our country in many ways and costing you and me billions of dollars and having a crippling effect on our economy. We are a nation of fat pigs. We eat toomuch,we consume to much. Parenting in this country is a joke. Do whatever it takes to break the cycle. Check lunches,charge for healthcare by the pound,embarrass parents. I have no pity or feelings of sorrow."

I agree Katz...I've begun to use my scroll wheel much faster now!

This is still ridiculous no matter how one reads the links provided. If they're discussing "personhood", the prevention of that "person" being conceived is not what they're talking about.

Are you telling me they're going to outlaw condoms?

Get real.

If you're talking about terminating a pregnancy as "birth control", then you've crossed a line that's not the subject at hand.

It's not the subject at hand, but it has been presented by the All-knowing liberal reporting/media to be the subject at hand. Hard to find the right pew, when one is in the wrong church!

As far as I could tell, condoms weren't on the hit list. What WAS on the hit list would be hormonal birth control - specifically the kind that would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Condoms are something that the *Vatican* wants banned, not Virginia.

If the egg is fertilized, conception has taken place already. Hence, according to this law, this new person has rights-the right to life. This "hormonal birth control" would not qualify as a contraceptive method, since it can not prevent conception. Nuff said!

Of course, you *do* know what the upshot would be with that, yes?

It means that any miscarriage would, by law, have to be investigated to see if there was something like involuntary manslaughter.

I mean, in extreme cases, you're talking about having the Period Police.

According to what I've read, there are a lot more conceptions than you might think. One study said as many as 33% of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

Putting a personal bend on this, my ex-wife might have had to prove she did nothing wrong when she miscarried.

Even *Alabama* just voted down such a referendum.

...because the government would *never* abuse it's powers or try to do any power trips. (..he said while reading another story about TSA abuses)

Given the continual retractions from the medical community on so many issues it does confuse the majority of us. Coffee is good for you coffe is bad for you. Over doing vitamins will damgw your health,,,maga doses of vitamins extend longevity blah blah blah.

Medicine will never be a settled science. In the mean time people live on make errors, commit themselves to the wrong course in life.

Many states have a continual struggle with the legalities of "personhood" or the legalities of "a viable fetus" when it comes to crime and negligent acts.
If a person shoots a pregnant woman or runs over in her in a car accident did the perpetrator kill one person or two?

If I am the surviving father and my expectations of fatherhood had been crushed isn't it likely that i would feel that I lost two people?

One of the complaints of the VA law is that it is intrusive but is it anymore intrusive than an abortion?

Not so obvious is the denigration of a society when the sancity of life is lowered. Evolutionist explain those with the strongest desire to survive do

The case in Virginia will continue to be challenged but it is beneficial dialogue

I think this is really all about who has to pay for it. The laws being considered around the country are to allow insurance companies to just not be obligated to pay for birth control.
It's not to make hormonal birth control illegal.

Birth control would not be illegal, it would just not be covered by insurance. I don't see why it should, logically. What medical problem is it addressing. I think there is a reason beyond just preventing pregnancy that lead to a prescription of birth control pill, but I don't remember what. I'm sure someone is going to remind me.

I remember one snarky comment on this forum in another thread that if this is the case then Viagra shouldn't be covered. But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance? :ohdear:

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue. :icon_wink:

:1rotfl:

Mental health and sexual health is a bonafide medical necessity, I would think. You have a point with vasectomy, though.

Is vasectomy coverage by insurance companies mandated by law?

I'm sorry, but if regulating a woman's period isn't covered, neither should the completely one-sided argument in favor of Viagara be allowed.

Or perhaps it should be but only if the man is married and can supply documented proof that the sex was with his wife and was for procreation only. We can call this The Santorum Ammendment. (He's made statements as to what sex should and shouldn't be for)

I don't have a clue. There must be a link somewhere that will tell you. :icon_wink:

You were just commended by Barefoot in another post, but IMHO this reference to a "Santorum Amendment" is quite "snarky".

Richie: I'll go this far. I'll admit that I can see how someone can interperet that as "snarky". I wasn't intending to be that way. I was intending to point out that Santorum is the only major candidate who is actually on record as for what kind of sex is "ok" (to my knowledge).

Specifically, he said it was for married couples only and for the purpose of creating children. So, if that's the case, in a hypothetical Santorum administration, Viagara shouldn't be covered unless it for sex to produce a kid for a married couple.

You mean Santorum will do this by Executive Order?

I'm guessing Santorum is all for the state-ordered trans-vaginal probe approved by the republican legislature and governor of Virginia, Santorum's home state.

I am just amazed at the folks who are up in arms to have a simple, painless transvaginal ultrasound on women who are pregnant...not virgins mind you. FYI, the size of the probe being used is about the diameter of a slender tampon. I manage an ultrasound department at a teaching hospital, so I have seen the probe. So give us all a break on the inference that the procedure is tortuous.

You probably have the patient's permission to do these probes, unlike the Virginia law which forces this state-mandated trans vaginel probe on women without their permission.

To have the same party that complains of government intrusion in private affairs mandating such a physical intrusion is quite the irony.

It's way way way less invasive than the abortion.

They are mandating the ultrasound prior to the abortion. The comparison between what the woman goes through with the ultrasound and the actual abortion procedure is night and day. She won't even feel the ultrasound...and once the abortion is complete, she will wish she had stopped with the ultrasound. Why don't you google what actually happens with an abortion, or check out a youtube video. You might learn something, something very graphic, gorey, and painfully disturbing.

This is mandated terrorism on a woman. Her body, her choice. It is Federal law that gives a woman free choice. A state mandating invasive procedures violates her dignity.

'Nuff said on this matter, too.

I cant believe women will stand by and let theur rights be trampled by these groups. Its their body,their choice.

How about the terrorism on the ody of the unborn child? A forcep is put through the artificially dilated cervix to tear each leg and arm off and pull it out. Then the body is crushed and torn from the head to pull it out. The head is also crushed to be pulled through the tiny opening. Talk about pain! Pain for both the mother and the baby. Violation of dignity? Who's dignity? I'd say there are two victims of an abortion. If a slender little probe can give the mom a birdseye view of the tiny face and hands, beating heart and gently closed eyelids-it could save mom a life of mental anguish and give a child a chance to someday read and post on a political forum while sipping a cool drink poolside in America's Friendliest Home Town.

I don't think the liberals can comment on your post. I'm not sure it's in their talking points. Liberals don't really want to know what's in there, they just think they have a constitutional right to kill it.

Richie.... so sorry but on this point:

But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

Birth Control pills are used for conditions other than birth control. In fact in my teens I was given these pills in an attempt to control pain. I am providing a link to support this...

Now to the snarky comment, cause I said it..... The Catholic Bishops will not compromise on this issue. As a person who who was raised as a Catholic I can remember being told "Sex is for procreation NOT recreation." Viagra for men whose wives are unable to have children, under the teachings of the church, would be the same as the use of birth control.

But this brings up a larger point... Birth control prevents, to a large extent, unwanted pregnancies. Something I would think those who are against abortion would support. If the pregnancies are not prevented then the children produced have to be supported. But those who are opposed to birth control seem also to be opposed to safety net.

Seems silly to support the men to create, children but not support women to prevent them.


Sexism is alive and well.

Good post! Love the Lincoln line. Especially appropriate on President's Day.
 

Good post KatzPajamas. My mother had an illness at birth which seriously harmed by development during the first six years and me very slow to develop after that. I am not operating on a whole brain from what I hear. But, then again, I think that can be said of a lot of people about and IN politics.