Tuesday, November 09, 2004

The Hell?

The New Birth Control Ban

Okay, you know, I can understand being morally against abortion. If all the pill was good for was preventing pregnancy, I might even agree in principal to the doctors and pharmacists refusing to prescribe or fill the prescriptions. However, I can not support any physician or pharmacist denying a woman what might just be an essential part of her healthcare because it might (it's never been proven scientifically from what I understand) prevent embryo implantation and they consider it a kind of pre-emptory abortion.

I'm not one of those foam-at-the-mouth type of feminists. I just want to live my life and have the option of choosing what is best for my body. I had a tubal ligation years ago and don't need the pill for birth control. I take it because I have debilitating menstrual cramps. The kind of cramps that leave me crying in bed for, literally, days. The thought that a doctor or pharmacist could, in some cases legally, deny me this enfurates me beyond belief.

Don't even get me started on the whole birth control aspect....
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

1 comment:

Christina Dunigan said...

What's interesting is that according to the Association of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns, it turns out that b/c pills aren't abortifacient after all. If there's breakthrough ovulation, the corpus leuteum puts out hormones that overpower the Pill and allow the embryo to implant. This is how women end up pregnant even though they're on the Pill.

Which reminds me, I need to blog about that and update my web site on the topic.

Do please keep in mind, though, that it was the Pill's cheerleaders that first touted the supposed abortifacient properties. They wanted to stress the idea of how effective the Pill was. The intent was to have this additional abortifacient effect, but it turns out the mother's body will trump the Pill should she actually concieve.

5/21/2005 9:29 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)