124 Comments »

1. thankyou for the wake up call djinn…
   this movement is harmful and ludicrous.

   do you know of any letter writing campaigns (etc…) already in action over this?

   Comment by G — July 17, 2008 @ 9:45 am

2. (you know… to assist ‘putting up a fuss’…?)

   Comment by G — July 17, 2008 @ 9:47 am

3. This scares me to death. If she wants that many, fine. But I am not capable and nor should I be, of having that many children. Just what exactly are conservatives trying to accomplish here? Where are the corporations that own birth control pills? Corporations already own this country anyway, why not the ones that at least give us some ability to minimally control how many children we have?

   Comment by Lessie — July 17, 2008 @ 9:57 am

4. One quibble…wasn’t Romania’s orphan problem a result of Ceausescu’s mandate that all women have at least five children) in addition to outlawing abortion and contraception)?

   Comment by David — July 17, 2008 @ 10:02 am

5. I can appreciate the interest in this subject, but I would appreciate it a lot more if you had some references/sources. Otherwise, this feels more like ranting than informing. Where are the links supporting everything you’ve written? I’m simply not one to jump on feminist bandwagons without first having some hard facts and citations.

   Comment by Givemethefacts — July 17, 2008 @ 10:02 am

6. As a member of the conservative movement I am not aware of any serious efforts to ban birth control and see no reason to think that there is any threat to obtain BC.

   Comment by bbell — July 17, 2008 @ 10:05 am

7. The text of the proposal is here:
   http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf

   Note that the rule is currently just a proposal, but even if it does not pass, I think that it reveals a pretty frightening mindset regarding contraception and women’s control over their bodies. The proposed rule states that clinics and agencies receiving federal funds can refuse to provide abortions if it goes against their moral convictions, and then also provides a definition of abortion based on life beginning at the moment of fertilization, thus classing many of the most popular forms of contraception as abortifants. This might not seem like a big deal to some–why not just go to another doctor?–but if you are on Medicaid and the one clinic in the city you can go to refuses to give you contraception, it’s a pretty big deal. If your doctor also refuses to give you a referral to someone who will give you contraception, it’s another big deal. But, women don’t know what’s best for them or their families, so let’s make contraception really, really difficult to access (Viagra, on the other hand…).

   You can send letters to your Congressperson here:
   https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3253.

   Comment by Zillah — July 17, 2008 @ 10:14 am

8. I add that I don’t think that this argument has to be split along conservative/liberal lines. I am anti-abortion and even (gasp) a Bush supporter (in most cases). But I think that this issue strikes at the heart of deeply-held beliefs that a woman does not really know what is best for her, and that the ideology of a health care provider trumps the reality and the experiences of the woman trying to manage her life and family in the way that she sees fit.

   Comment by Zillah — July 17, 2008 @ 10:17 am

9. There are so many things wrong with this I don’t know where to start. First of all, there is no Department of Reproductive Health and Human Services. The article you cite does not even refer to such a Department. It refers to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a government agency. Starting off by referring to a non-existent agency makes all my little skepticism flags start waving.

   Then, if you read the actual proposal, it appears to me that it simply expands the grounds on which medical personnel, including pharmacists, can cite religious beliefs to refrain from doing something they consider immoral. The actual proposal also prevents discrimination against those who want to perform abortions or other acts that partisans may disagree with.

   While this proposal MAY restrict some access to birth control, it appears that it would do so in extremely limited circumstances and only when the provider cites religious or moral grounds. It is my understanding that pharmacists, doctors, etc. can already, under this law, refuse to provide abortions or certain contraceptives on religious/moral grounds. This proposal appears to expand those grounds. If this law has not already restricted birth control in a meaningful way, I can’t imagine that the few people in the world who actually believe that no birth control should be used would have much more impact on access.

   Even if you feel strongly about not expanding this definition, it is a long way from “you can’t be fired for refusing to sell birth control pills” to “under the McCain administration, birth control will be outlawed” which is what it sounds like you are arguing.

   I know I would want to be able to refuse to provide elective abortions and not be fired for that choice, if I were a physician.

   Fear-mongering is unattractive no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.

   Comment by Michelle — July 17, 2008 @ 10:21 am

10. Some of my links disappeared.

    Here is McCain refulsing to state his position on birth control:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147

    Another quote from the above link: “McCain’s stumbling answer is reminiscent of when he was asked in March 2007 about public funding for contraceptives and he could only reply, ‘whether I support government funding for them or not, I don’t know.’”

    He voted against having insurance companies being required to cover birth control, as shown here.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00045#position

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 10:31 am

11. As a single woman, the ideas presented here scare me. I can’t help but think this would be a giant step back for all women. I almost don’t believe (or maybe I just don’t want to believe) that our society could do something so limiting after all we’ve been through.

    Comment by amanda — July 17, 2008 @ 10:36 am

12. Michelle, (initially, forgive me for misspelling the name of the Department of Health and Human Services.) The reason this proposal is so troubling that if Abortion were to become illegal, which it will in many states if McCain gets into office, if all of the birth control types mentioned are considered Abortion, then they, too, become illegal. Preso! No IUD for you.

    It is troubling also because it will greatly limit the birth control options of many people even if Abortion remains legal, when they have don’t have access to a pharmacy that will allow them to purchase the contraceptives. This is already happening wiht Plan B (not an abortifactant, but rather, it prevents ovulation.)

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 10:37 am

13. Most laws begin with a “definition” of what is included as either legal or illegal. I have a huge problem with defining basic birth control as part of the defininition of “abortion”. It has to start somewhere and this would be the beginninng.

    I don’t think this is “fear mongering” as Michelle #9 suggsets. Most of the time, bad laws, poorly written laws are because people sit back and don’t get involved and ask the tough questions about how the new law/definition, etc. would impact the future.

    This is called becoming informed, asking tough questions, thinking things through.

    Comment by Abby — July 17, 2008 @ 10:44 am

14. I just read up some more on Romania under Ceausescu; he did not order that women bear a certain number of children, rather he gave out prizes for those with large families. After abortion was outlawed and birth control was scarce, family size initially jumped, but then fell back down to lower levels once again. However, maternal mortality rates skyrocketed. Women were dying in droves getting illegal abortions. Children placed in orphanages skyrocketed too.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 10:45 am

15. #9

    This is a topic that has been much debated on a forum I lead.
    Doctors are free to provide whatever services they wish, they are not free to deny services based on the patients race, marital status, etc.

    IMO, pharamists should not be allowed to deny medications. If they hand off the prescription to another pharmaist and don’t lecture me, I don’t care. If this person lectures me on why my scrip can’t be filled, and refuses to give to another to fill and won’t give it to me to find another place to fill it then I have a problem and they will feel it.

    It would be like going to a restaurant and the server refusing to fill your order because she is a vegan and your order has meat and then refuses to reseat you in a different area so your order can be filled.

    Comment by Starienite — July 17, 2008 @ 10:48 am

16. The proposal has nothing to do with what is considered abortion. It has to do with the rights of providers to choose not to cover birth control. No one in the government is trying to keep women from access to BC. Frankly, men have a lot to gain from women’s birth control methods as well.

    As to your #12 post, IUD’s are not considered aborficants. It is a misunderstanding of how IUD’s work which leads people to think they are aborficants. It was once believed that fertilized eggs could not implant with an IUD (we know they sometimes do); further study shows that sperm cannot normally travel to the fallopian tubes to fertilize the egg with an IUD. Fertilized eggs will implant, but this rarely happens.

    I really think assertations about Romania need to be backed up with sound sources. It is true the idea in communist Romania was to grow the population, but is tha what lead to unhealthy babies in orphanages?

    Comment by mami — July 17, 2008 @ 10:49 am

17. And the result of Ceausescu’s initiative in Romania is hundreds of thousands of children stuck in over crowded orphanages, kept in cribs even into childhood so their growth is stunted, and no personal attention so many of them haven’t yet learned how to speak.

    I believe firmly that birth control and the morning after pill should be very readily available to all. The result of those medications being withheld is too tragic for me.

    Comment by Racheldmc — July 17, 2008 @ 10:52 am

18. Try this link

    Comment by Lessie — July 17, 2008 @ 10:54 am

19. It gives a citation for the actual movement, I believe.

    Comment by Lessie — July 17, 2008 @ 10:55 am

20. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf

    Pg. 16, “Abortion is defined as anything that results in the death of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” This covers a wide range of birth control, esp. considering that specific medication, such as “emergency contraception” mentioned by name, behaves very similarly to “the pill.”

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 11:00 am

21. Oh, and as how “it is a misunderstanding how IUD’s work leads people to think they are abortifactants?” That’s all that’s necessary.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 11:02 am

22. Fortunately, there’s a link to the actual Dept. of Rep. Health and Human Services document on the Health Reality Check Website. Or, just click here.

    Some interesting background: The proposal is intended to better enforce laws designed to prevent discrimination against people, whatever their moral stand on abortion. Specifically, to protect doctors and pharmacists who have a moral objection to abortion, but who believe they are obligated by law to participate in practices they find objectionable. Study quoted on p. 17 shows that:

    although many physicians oppose the procedures (52% objected to abortion for failed contraception, for example), 86% felt they were obligated to present all options regardless of their own objections and 71% believed physicians were obligated to assist objectionable procedures by referring the patient to another clinician.

    If I understand correctly, then, the proposal is designed, in part, to define abortion more specifically than it has been in the past, in order to protect both those who believe it’s okay, and those who believe it’s wrong.

    But here’s where I think the actual proposal significantly diverges from the commentary on the Health Reality Check Site. The following passages are from pages 16 and 17 of the proposal, and I think are the crux of this issue:

    “An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus) … Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice.”

    The proposal then quotes a variety of sources that define pregnancy either at conception or at implantation. It goes on to say

    “Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. … The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion. Therefore, for the purpose of these proposed regulations, … the Department proposes to define abortion as “any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” Emphasis mine.

    In other words - because we want to protect people who act according to their conscience, we propose they be allowed to call a procedure an abortion if it terminates a fetus any time after conception, whether or not it’s before or after implantation.

    Now, I admit I read the document quickly, but I couldn’t find ANY language that proposed to lump procedures designed to prevent conception into the category of abortion. As far as I can tell, only procedures that would affect a fertilized egg would be included.

    And to reiterate - the point of the proposal is to allow conscientious objectors, whether physicians, pharmacists or anyone else, the freedom to abstain (pardon the pun) from participating in a procedure they consider to be abortion.

    Comment by danquixote — July 17, 2008 @ 11:02 am

23. Wow, lots of comments while I composed mine. Sorry if I repeated anything said in posts 7-21. They didn’t exist when I started.

    Comment by danquixote — July 17, 2008 @ 11:03 am

24. The problem is that it defines abortion as anything that happens after an egg is fertilized. Because using many forms of birth control gives a tiny chance that an egg will be fertilized but not implanted, they fall under the “abortion” umbrella with such a regulation. See the link below.

    http://www.thepillkills.com/points.html

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 11:08 am

25. And, again, the larger problem is that if abortion were to become outlawed, so would they. Even though what they almost always do is prevent conception.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 11:09 am

26. Oh, and danquixote, they specifically mentioned “emergency contraception” (i.e., plan B) in a footnote; it prevents conception, too, just like the pill and many other popular forms of birth control. But, there is a tiny chance….. so many people are up in arms about it.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 11:12 am

27. Mami, I can’t figure out how to link to a specific article. But if you simply google Romanian orphanages, you will find abundant academic resources on the topic.

    Comment by Racheldmc — July 17, 2008 @ 11:21 am

28. It is all very well that they want to define abortion to give doctors and pharmacists the right to refuse to do something that is against their personal beliefs, but how many people are going to understand the law that way? I can just see the headlines “Birth Control Banned!”. Everyone will see it as an attempt to make birth control illegal which will get the whole nation up in arms for both sides. I can’t even imagine the problems it would create just in the church. That is already a hotbed for birth control disagreements. Add a messy law and you have a huge argument, and not one that I want to have to deal with. The abortion debate is difficult enough without adding birth control to the mix.

    I agree with Abby in #13. You have to ask the tough questions about how this will affect everything. I’m all for protecting a doctor’s right to refuse to perform an abortion, but if they try to make my IUD illegal, I will be seriously peeved.

    Comment by Sarah — July 17, 2008 @ 11:49 am

29. I just don’t see the proposed legislation as threatening to women’s choices, but only threatening to their medical coverage. Unless this was drug through the courts with the issue of time of conception at the center, I don’t think it would change much for women’s hoices excet for an increase in personal monetary costs to them when purchasing BC.

    I don’t believe people, for the moost part, intentionally mislead the public about IUD’s. It comes down to misinformation. Also, researchers are not certain how the morning after pill works. An egg may not be fertilized in these instances also.

    Djinn-
    Linking to inflammatory websites (ie. the pill kills) that have little sway with the public at large, except in fringe circles, is not helpful in this discussion.

    I don’t see any sign that BC itself will ever become illegal.

    Comment by mami — July 17, 2008 @ 11:53 am

30. I am sorry, but I have been an active reader of this site for some time (years in fact) but I have never encountered anything so preposterous as this post. As an active conservative Republican Feminist who voted for Bush, and helped out in many campaigns, this idea that if McCain gets elected, you will never again have access to birth control is insane! It is ridiculous fear-mongering.

    I am not Mormon and live in Texas (Bush country) and have been on the pill for 5 years. There is not an ounce of truth to this. The reason McCain stumbles over the Viagra vs the Pill issue is because like anything he could possibly be in league with their lobby, who knows — not a big fan of him personally. It’s like why don’t we ask him what he is going to do about the difference in pay between men and women? Hell, ask Obama! Just another man that will just shrug or stammer or say “yes, we’ll change that” yet knowing that nothing will ever be done to fix the inequality.

    Ladies, (and the gentleman that support the feminist cause) I assure you that this is blatantly wrong. The fundamental difference between birth control and abortion are clear. The reason that birth control was ushered in was that women would have an option instead of abortion to control their family size (and thus their independence). The reason so many conservatives and myself are upset with the unbridled abortions is that the fact there is no excuse! You have the pill as well as many other methods, and are children are getting condoms thrown at them in school (yes, at college they really threw condoms at me). Let’s not argue about rape, incest, and health of the mother (since factually, statistic show that 93% of the over ONE MILLION ABORTIONS performed in this country are accidental — that means only 7% are for the latter) and I will as a more liberal conservative than most am ok with the 7%. It’s the other 93% that irks me. And price is not an issue either, as you can go to Planned Parenthood and get care for free but I digress.

    I am sorry to go off on a rant, but seriously I have seen quite a bit of stuff on the internet, but this outrageous. I am offended as a feminist, as a conservative, as a trying-to-be Mormon to read such trash. I hope you all realize that this is crazy talk and nothing will ever become of it.

    Comment by Smelltheroses — July 17, 2008 @ 11:53 am

31. and mfranti, you shouldn’t post something so explosive and ask for civility……

    Comment by Smelltheroses — July 17, 2008 @ 11:57 am

32. I am offended as a feminist, as a conservative, as a trying-to-be Mormon to read such trash.

    i thought you said you weren’t a mormon?

    Comment by mfranti — July 17, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

33. I think doctors, clinics, and pharmacists have the right to run their business as they please and in a way that conforms with their moral beliefs. It sounds like this would give further freedom, not take it away, so what’s the big deal?

    I am pro-choice, but I don’t think we should be forcing those who are “pro-life” to participate in what they consider abortions, as much as we might think their definition is incorrect. How would you like it if you were a doctor and forced by law to kill children when requested by their parents? I know, I know, you don’t think that’s what giving the pill is, but for those that believe it is murder I will fight to protect their right to practice their moral beliefs.

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

34. But, Smelltheroses, five Justices on the Supreme Court right now, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Chief Justic Roberts, are all Catholic. They all, at least ostensibly, don’t believe in any type of birth control, and most likely believe it to be a supremely moral issue. I don’t see why this is such a leap.

    The problem with the proposed regulation that I posted is that it breaks down what you call “the fundamental difference between birth control and abortion.” What is “the fundamental difference between birth control and abortion” in your book? Is it that one you perform before the, uh, deed, while the other happens after? Not quite a medical definition.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

35. It isn’t necessarily trash to point out that a badly written proposal could have the effect of making birth control pills harder to obtain, whether that’s the intention of the legislation or not. And if nothing ever comes of it, it’s because someone read it carefully and pointed out what it was actually saying.

    And pharmacists who won’t give people medication because they have moral objections bother me — if a Christian Scientist became a pharmacist and then refused to fill any prescriptions because he/she had a moral objection to medicine, and couldn’t be fired because of religious discrimination, that would be bad, right? When you choose a career, you choose what goes with it, and you should do the job you signed up for. Can you imagine a grocery store clerk getting to keep his/her job because of a moral objection to scanning the beer the customers came to buy? Or a moral objection to scanning the beef? Grr.

    Comment by Beth — July 17, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

36. Oh, and doctors can choose a specialty that won’t require them to perform abortions. I’m guessing that radiology is one like that . . . orthopedics, maybe?

    Comment by Beth — July 17, 2008 @ 12:24 pm

37. “What is not her own choice is her movement’s belief not only that birth control is the same as abortion, but that it is their moral duty to make birth control illegal–which, re the regulations above, appears to be working.”

    Since we live in a democracy and have the Bill of Rights, this is also her choice. Because standard methods of birth control are wildly popular she isn’t likely to be very successful–but we don’t void people’s right to tilt at windmills simply because we don’t fancy their lance. Freedom of speech is the right of all Americans–something demogogues on both the right and the left quickly forget when they don’t like what they hear.

    More generally, trying to defend a constitutional right to an abortion is a bit like trying to defend the Kinderhook Plates translation–look too close and you are going to have to do some soul searching. Personally I would gladly see the matter returned to the states to decide as it would fracture the Republican Party and force political accountability on pols such as Bush Sr. who want to see abortion kept legal without incurring the political cost of legislating to do so.

    Comment by Mathew — July 17, 2008 @ 12:37 pm

38. Beth, I agree with what you’re saying to a certain extent, especially regarding pharmacists (although I think jumping to the Christian Scientist analogy is a bit extreme). But I think its going too far to say a doctor should choose a different path if she/he doesn’t want to perform abortions. What if birthing children and taking care of women’s health is their passion in medicine? They should have the right to deny a service if they are against it, just like in any other industry.

    Comment by Racheldmc — July 17, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

39. “What is “the fundamental difference between birth control and abortion”

    Constitutionally speaking, there isn’t much of a difference. The right to an abortion and the right to birth control both sprang from the same place–the right to privacy. The entire line of cases is constitutionally suspect but their results (with the exception of the right to an abortion) are probably too popular to ever roll back without irreparably impairing the prestige of the court.

    Comment by Mathew — July 17, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

40. But Mathew, what I am attempting to point out is a paradox at the heart of the birth control/abortion quandry. If you define Life to start at conception (as the proposed HHS regulation does) and you define Abortion anything that interferes with a conceived egg, (as does that same proposed HHS regulation) then you’ve defined Abortion to equal many of the most common forms of birth control, as they have a small potential of causing a fertilized egg to not implant.

    Unintended (or perhaps intended by some) consequences.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

41. It depends on the state. In my state, doctors do not have perform services they do not agree with, but it has to be across the board, they do not perform that service for anybody. They must also refer you to a doctor that will.

    Here is my take on pharmacist who refuse to fill a BC scrip, find a job or start a pharamacy that doesn’t stock BC or at least give it to a pharmacist who will fill it.

    Comment by Starienite — July 17, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

42. Djinn,
    The justices’ Catholicism has not affected Roe v. Wade–howwould it affect this issue? This truly is a mountain ot of a mole hill–or a mountain out of a speck of dust,

    Comment by mami — July 17, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

43. Exactly, Mathew. You say that birth control is too popular to “roll back” but it could certainly be made much more difficult to obtain, rulings like the one above could be issued, what we think of as our rights could be eroded away without us really noticing…..

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

44. I just finished reading the proposal in its entirety - slowly and carefully - every word on all 39 pages. The proposal as written says nothing about preventative birth control. There is nothing in the language at all that says or even implies that preventative contraception has any bearing whatsoever to the proposal. Drawing a line from this proposal to the outlawing of contraception is a gargantuan leap.

    That’s all I have to say about that.

    Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

45. THe justices’ Catholicism has not affected Roe vs. Wade because Kennedy (one out of the five) has upheld it. One more conservative justice (cue McCain who said that he would appoint justices similar to those appointed by Bush) and poof!

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

46. Ray, just because it is cleverly, or poorly, written does not mean that that will not be the consequence. It does discuss “emergency contraception” which behaves just like “the pill.”

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

47. […] A big discussion up at Feminist Mormon […]

    Pingback by Even More on the HHS « This is What a Feminist Blogs Like — July 17, 2008 @ 1:01 pm

48. Re: #12
    I am still missing the logic between McCain taking office and birth control becoming illegal under this proposed regulation. This regulation defines abortion ONLY for this reg, not for any other purpose. I cannot conceive (pardon the pun) of how this definition under this regulation could do any more than allow certain medical personnel to deny services/contraceptives on moral grounds. It is certainly worth discussing whether that is desirable, but it is vastly over-reaching to claim that this definition in this reg would ban birth control under McCain. You need to show much more support for that argument before I buy it. And I don’t even like McCain.

    Comment by Michelle — July 17, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

49. Djinn–you have a quick trigger finger. I was just composing an email asking to have both my #37 and #39 deleted.

    My point is that both Roe (abortion) and Griswold (contraception) are the result of an active imagination at One First Street. Neither one stand on firm constitutional footing–so yeah, they could, and probably should, be overturned–although one of them surely won’t be.

    In the cases of abortion and contraception our “rights” are not guaranteed by the constitution, so if we can’t get a majority to protect them then we have only ourselves, and powerful interests groups, to blame.

    If, in fact, Roe and Griswold were overturned birth control would continue to be freely available in all fifty states and abortion would be outlawed entirely in some and allowed to varying degrees in the rest. If that happened, whether you like abortion or not, you might still be pleased that our democracy was functioning as a democracy.

    Comment by Mathew — July 17, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

50. If Ray is correct then djinn is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Classifying the pill, the patch, and the ring as abortion is silly. Classifying emergency contraception as abortion is more believable.

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

51. Oh, and Ray, the proposal does mention birth control, as something that some employers are now required to cover, with the clear implication that this is a very bad thing.

    I know, this is incredibly silly; everyone uses birth control, but here we are.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

52. Plan B works just like the pill. The only difference is that it is post act rather than pre act.

    The link below, by a professor of Biology, gives a very very detailed description of how plan B works, complete with graphs and everything.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/why_the_wingnuts_hate_plan_b.php

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 1:18 pm

53. The state’s rights argument is attractive to conservatives, but the trouble with kicking the abortion rights debate back to the states is that we’ll end up with a patchwork of state laws that protect and criminalize abortion. This means that wealthy women will have the resources to travel to states that allow legal abortions while poor women will turn to dangerous methods of terminating a pregnancy.

    Our current constitutional floor under Casey is a slippery one, but it has dramatically reduced the number of deaths and injuries caused by unsafe abortions.

    The states’ rights mantra shouldn’t trump protections afforded by modern democratic governments.

    Comment by ECS — July 17, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

54. I am offended that, by definition of this bill, I (mom of six) have possibly had dozens of abortions by being on the pill (or other contraception). I wonder if there will be a line to my bishop’s office with women coming to confess their multiple abortions.

    The other concern for me is that it could affect government funding due to a new definition. Could physicians, clinics and hospitals lose funding if they recommend “abortion” in the form of the pill or IUD?

    As I understand it, doctors and pharmacists are already protected from going against their personal beliefs about contraception. I have never heard of a case of one being fired or sued successfully because they wouldn’t help a patient with such matters. If I am wrong, please give me an instance.

    Comment by sofia — July 17, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

55. Djinn #51: So are you retracting your statement that the “Department of Health and Human Services proposed regulations to redefine common methods of contraception, such as the pill…under the classification “abortion.”” ?

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

56. No, I am not retracting my statement about the regulations. If they consider Plan B an abortifactant, which the reg does, then all those other forms of birt control are, as well.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

57. “The states’ rights mantra shouldn’t trump protections afforded by modern democratic governments, including the protection of minority rights.”

    I can’t make sense of this. Do you mean that we should look to see what other modern democratic governments are doing in oder to determine the proper relationship between the US federal government and the state governments? Shouldn’t that relationship be determined by our own constitution as it has come to us through the course of American history?

    It doesn’t follow that because states’ rights arguments were used in defense of slavery and Jim Crow that we should discard states’ rights as a fundamental governing principle. Depending on whose ox is being gored, states’ rights are attractive to both liberals and conservatives. Arguments supporting assisted suicide, SSM and medical marijuana, for example, are often couched in terms of states’ rights.

    I agree that if Roe is overturned there will be a patchwork of laws that will affect people of different classes differently. Class, however, is not a protected class and there already exist a host of state-specific laws which adversely affect people of different classes. The fact that my neighbor has more money than me itself means that I am at a relative disadvantage to him. But the constitution was not written or meant to protect against that–it was meant to protect fundamental rights, one of which is not abortion. That fact is independent of one’s opinions on the morality of abortion, contraception etc.

    Comment by Mathew — July 17, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

58. ECS,

    Why is it that you and I can basically agree on preferred outcomes in almost everything but have so much disagreement about how we get there? I place so much emphasis on process due to my skepticism that my fellow men will choose good when it is not in their interests. It seems to me that history has borne that point out more than often enough.

    Comment by Mathew — July 17, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

59. Starienite, as I read the proposed HHS regulation, doctors would no longer need to give you a recommendation for a doctor that would write a scrip for a medicine that they had moral qualms about passing out.; I believe (without at this second re reading) that it is at least implicitly, and possible explicitly, discussed.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

60. OK, I got dragged back to make one more citation clarification and one other correction:

    1) Plan B is mentioned once in the proposal, in a citation of a Connecticut law that required all hospitals to provide it to rape victims - even though “religious organizations objected due to the abortifacient nature of the drug”. No matter whether someone agrees or disagrees with that classification, this law dealt explicitly with providing abortions - not contraception. The purpose of the administration of the drug was to abort any pregnancies that resulted from rape - not contraception.

    Frankly, I have no problem with using the drug in this way, but this law is a clear violation of the federal conscience laws that are on the books already (as referenced in the proposal itself among other instances of actions that violated the federal conscience laws), particularly since it did not exempt religious hospitals who are committed to not providing abortions. That was the point of the reference to Plan B - that it was being required of all hospitals to be used explicitly as an abortificient. Without that specific state law, which violated the federal conscience laws, Plan B would not have been mentioned in the proposal, at all.

    Again, equating that reference to outlawing the pill is a massive stretch.

    2) The following statement might be misleading, although I don’t believe Djinn meant it to be:

    “The proposal does mention birth control, as something that some employers are now required to cover, with the clear implication that this is a very bad thing.”

    The “bad” being defined in this quote is not the use of birth control; it is the legality of requiring employers to cover its use based on current federal law. This is something about which reasonable people can disagree, but the proposal doesn’t call birth control a bad thing.

    Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

61. Btw, just so everyone understands where I am coming from, I am about as pro-choice as it gets. There are a few very narrow exceptions, but I am clearly pro-choice.

    Comment by Ray — July 17, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

62. I think this issue is receiving a lot of lime-light because of what happened a few days ago, when Carly Fiorina (possible choice for VP…although now it’s not so likely) totally embarrassed him by making a statement about birth control.

    Read about it at ABC:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5355748&page=1

    listen to it on NPR:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92442919

    watch it on CNN:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/mccains-birth-control-pro_n_112048.html

    I know it’s a little off-topic, but I do think it’s interesting how topics seem to re-emerge in the news, on the radio, on my favorite blog. Also, I’ve been doing some family history work from around the 1850’s…yeah…those people definitely did NOT have birth control.(kid 1 born: 1870, kid 2 born: 1871, kid 3 born: 1872, kid 4 born: 1873, kid 5 born: 1875, kid 6 born: 1876…)

    Comment by Kalzbeta — July 17, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

63. But Ray, using Plan B as an “abortifacient” is THE SAME THING as using the pill to prevent contraception. You can just do it a few days later. It’s simply terminology. The two drugs behave in the body EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. It’s just one use comes with the scare word “abortifacient” attached, while, currently, the other one comes with a much nicer sounding word “contraception.” But it is just a linguistic difference. It doesn’t change the matter that biologically the same things are happening.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

64. (threadjack)
    to bad McCain’s “most visible woman surrogate and a possible vice presidential pick”…. is too feminist for him… (or for herself?)

    Comment by G — July 17, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

65. It was once believed that fertilized eggs could not implant with an IUD (we know they sometimes do); further study shows that sperm cannot normally travel to the fallopian tubes to fertilize the egg with an IUD. Fertilized eggs will implant, but this rarely happens.

    I am pro-life, wildly, loudly pro-life. I think those little two cells are a person. And I once believed that an IUD prevented implantation and caused abortions after implantation. Heck, What to Expect said it; it had to be true. But after my fifth and last baby, all of my mid-wives (including my conservative LDS midwife) and an OB told me about the new research that had been done that showed how the IUD worked as a contraceptive. (Very interesting reading, by the way.) So I read and pondered and prayed. Prayed, pondered and read some more. And finally opted for an IUD instead of a tubal ligation. I loved it, right up until I got pregnant.

    I now have six lovely children. Because though rare, IUD babies can be both conceived, implanted and delivered. So where I used to educate my friends about the IUD being an abortifacient, I now tell them it is not an abortifacient but to use two forms of BC if you really mean it. Really. Believe me about this. Double up.

    (This time I opted for the tubal and an IUD. Don’t ask about the vacectomy. It makes me grumpy.)

    Comment by Jami — July 17, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

66. jami- same with my sis-in-law. and I feel HORRIBLE because i was the one who talked up the IUD to her.

    Comment by G — July 17, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

67. Ray- re #60 this is a really common misconception about plan B that should be cleared up for the sake of this discussion.

    There are two drugs that are similar, but are not interchangeable because they do different things.

    There is RU-486 ‘The Abortion Pill’ which will end pregnancies within the first two months. This pill is can be used as an emergency contraceptive device, preventing pregnancy at all stages (it prevents ovulation if it hasn’t occurred, and implantation as well), and also terminating a pregnancy (abortion) if the fertilized egg has already implanted.

    Then there is plan B which first prevents ovulation, second makes the uterus inhospitable to sperm (not fertilized eggs), and may prevent implantation, I say ‘may’ because this is not an expected result. It will not interfere if the process of implantation has already begun, and it is arguably less likely to prevent implantation than daily BCP because with plan B the hormones were not in the system during the creation of the uterine lining. Medically there is little difference in the functionality of plan B and regular oral contraceptives. They do the exact same thing, even though one is taken after coitus.

    So if one objects to the physical results of plan B then one should also object to the results of regular oral contraceptives, and conversely if one is okay with the physical results of oral contraception then one should be okay with the physical results of plan B. I don’t, however, think it’s inconsistent for one to find the social differences between the two objectionable.

    Comment by Starfoxy — July 17, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

68. I don’t, however, think it’s inconsistent for one to find the social differences between the two objectionable.

    Why not? Procrastination now a mortal sin?

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

69. Just a quibble: the Duggars are not “quiverfull.” I’ve seen interviews where he has said that he leaves the decision of how many children to have to his wife. That’s not part of the quiverful mentality.

    Comment by Julie M. Smith — July 17, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

70. G–IUDs are really great, just not fail-proof. Neither is doubling up but we all take our chances at some point.

    Comment by Jami — July 17, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

71. Julie,
    Their website claims otherwise.

    Comment by mami — July 17, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

72. even the mirena iud?

    holy hell! you make me nervous. ( yes, i know, all bc has a failure rate. i try not to think about it)

    Comment by mfranti — July 17, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

73. I can’t find it on their site but it is in this article.

    Comment by mami — July 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

74. I do not believe that Djinn is “making a mountain out of a molehill.” I have had conversations with quite a number of conservative Mormons who feel birth control should be banned because it is close to abortion. I was involved in an online Christian forum on which many of the members, including the forum founders, insisted that chemical birth control (pills, patch, etc) often flushed the eggs after fertilization, and were thus abortion. They talked about the need to have Roe overturned and those forms of BC included in anti-abortion legislation. Bear in mind that this was not some wacky fringe, Fred Phelps sort of group, but very much mainstream Evangelicals.

    Such people may not constitute the majority of Conservativism, but they are a real presence in the group.

    Comment by Derek — July 17, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

75. As to the Duggars being a “quiverfull” family, the decision of how many kids being left to Mrs. Duggar seems to consist of her weaning her children very early so that she can get pregnant faster. Not sure that this drops them out of the “quiverfull” movement.

    Comment by Djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

76. Djinn- it is inconsistent to say “all post-coital contraceptives are abortifacents, but daily oral contraceptives are not.”***
    It is not inconsistent to say “using contraceptives before or during sex is socially/morally/mentally different than taking care of it after the fact.”

    I only commented on the internal consistency of objecting to post-coital birth control on strictly social, and not medical, grounds. I am under the impression that one can recognize a position’s internal consistency without necessarily proclaiming to agree with it.

    *** which is why I, like you, find the classification of plan B as an abortifacent troubling, because you could easily make the position consistent by moving most hormonal BC methods into the abortifacent camp with plan B.

    Comment by Starfoxy — July 17, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

77. Zillah: you are so right on. Again hats off to you Mormon women carrying the banner of women’s rights to their own bodies. We have to fight this yet again. Without control of our reproductive lives we are not in control of our lives.

    Comment by Ruby — July 17, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

78. Matthew: You don’t get it. You don’t ever have to be concerned about an unwanted pregnancy so you can’t make a cognant arguement about it. You business is to educate other males that sperm causes pregnancy. All pregnancy. If you don’t want babies or abortions don’t get a woman pregnant. But stop pretending that you have anything to say about this issue. You don’t. Your job is to support candidates who will support womens rights. TO PRIVACY in making such personal decisions. It’s not about the RIGHT to an abortion. It’s about the right to make that private choice. Nobody is proposing to monitor your sperm. You would be outraged if they did. Now do you get it????

    Comment by Ruby — July 17, 2008 @ 4:26 pm

79. Derek #74: I understand that extremists exist, but as Ray has shown (#60), it appears that claims made here about the proposal by the DHHS are exaggerated. I agree that if the DHHS proposal goes through it would leave us a little closer to extreme pro-life views, but let’s please not suggest the views are equivalent. I’m calling this out as a straw man argument.

    Djinn #68: You said: “Why not? Procrastination now a mortal sin?” At first I thought your reply was too simplistic. But as I carefully consider it I think you are right on. You have convinced me that it is difficult to make a rational argument for the moral difference between taking a pill before and after…without proclaiming that procrastination is a severe sin in this context. But, despite the fact that we might believe their argument is irrational, and despite the fact that I am pro-choice, I still think others should not be forced by the government to commit an immoral act and it isn’t our place to force it upon them. I’m just not understanding how people can be pro-choice and then not allow someone the choice of not participating in what they consider an abortion.

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

80. There is no written right to abortion or lots and lots of other things we decide to do. That is the beauty of our constitution. To limit government and keep as much power as humanly possible in the hands of the citizen. Because It doesn’t speak to abortion it implies that this is not the business of the government but that of the individual. To be self-governed.

    Comment by Ruby — July 17, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

81. #80…and choose whether or not to participate in abortions.

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

82. Matthew, don’t worry, not all females feel like the comment in #78. I have enjoyed your comments and think they make the most sense of any that I have read on this post.

    Comment by Amanda — July 17, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

83. Ray, Djinn, and others: It is slightly misleading to say that Plan B “works just like the pill.” Saying two things “work like” each other sort of implies that they are two different things.

    In fact, Plan B *is* the birth control pill (BCP).

    It is the same medication, just in a higher dose format. It’s like the difference between Advil and prescription Motrin–the chemical in both is Ibuprofen (Advil is 200mg per pill, Rx Motrin is 800mg). The chemical in Plan B, Levonorgestrel, is available in smaller doses as a regular daily BCP. (Actually there are many different formulas for daily BCP, but a pure low-dose Levonorgestrel is one formula in use.)

    I think there are arguments to be made that the morality of the two are different (like what minnie mouse said). But the chemical is the same.

    Comment by sister blah 2 — July 17, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

84. The problem that I see is that the Pill is prescribed for hormonal issues, not just birth control. I was prescribed the Pill even though my husband had had a vasectomy because of serious hormonal issues. Will they designate prescriptions for medical issues versus prescriptions for birth control??

    Comment by StillConfused — July 17, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

85. I just want to express my personal love for the depo shot and my perfectly spaced children. They bring me a lot of joy.

    Comment by ESO — July 17, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

86. I haven’t read all of the comments, but I’m having a hard time believing that this has any real threat. In this day and age, illegalizing birth control is simply political suicide - no politician is going to hang himself like that even if he did have a warped sense of what is morally right or wrong, and although I don’t have any statistical data on the subject, I would be shocked to find that the majority of voters in this country are anti birth control, even if some are anti abortion (in the more common sense of the word). If, in some crazy alter reality, this proposal would pass, I would imagine that condom sales would hit the roof and people would find ways to live their lives as they see fit. But seriously, what leader would want more teenage pregnancies, abandoned babies, uncertified abortions, escalatoins of post partum depression, and any other side affect such a legality would cause? I need more proof that this is really a threat.

    Comment by POM — July 17, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

87. #86: From what I understand, it’s not about banning birth control, it’s about giving pharmacists and doctors the right to refuse providing birth control if they consider it immoral. Besides, Ray has done the hard work in reading the proposal and has explained in posts 44 & 60 that the proposal is not even doing that.

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

88. Djinn:

    What is not her own choice is her movement’s belief not only that birth control is the same as abortion, but that it is their moral duty to make birth control illegal–which, re the regulations above, appears to be working.

    What does the fact that her movement’s belief is not her own choice have to do with anything?

    Comment by minnie mouse — July 17, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

89. It is my opinion that posting a picture of the kids, in a context that is somewhat critical of their parents, isn’t very considerate. Just sayin.

    Comment by sister blah 2 — July 17, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

90. Ruby, Mat does “get” it. Your comment #78 is unproductive and rude. Any additional comments of that nature are not welcome.

    Mat - I don’t support a federalism argument for abortion rights. I support Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Casey, which articulated the prevailing undue burden standard.

    I guess we could have a legal debate over the constitutional underpinnings and merits of this standard, but the practical effects of the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings and state abortion laws protecting a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy are: (1) deaths and serious injuries resulting from botched abortions have significantly decreased since 1973 and (2) while abortions still cost money, poor women are not disproportionally affected by a nationwide floor of abortion rights as they would be if their state outlawed abortion completely.

    Reason number one is good enough empirical evidence for most people that abortion rights should be and will be upheld.

    Scarily enough, however, while sitting on the Third Circuit, Justice Alito approved the spousal notification rule in the Pennsylvania law, which the Supreme Court struck down in Casey. Alito stated that the Pennsylvania law’s restrictions should have been upheld, saying “the Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.”

    Forcing a woman to talk to her spouse, without consideration for her safety, before obtaining an abortion shows an astonishing lack of foresight. I’m not comfortable with Alito’s presence on the Court for precisely this reason.

    Comment by ECS — July 17, 2008 @ 6:22 pm

91. sister blah #89, considering the amount of media attention this family courts, I say they opened themselves up to criticism a long time ago. It’d be different if it was just some random family in her neighborhood and she was breaching their privacy; but this family has actively put itself out there.

    Comment by Quimby — July 17, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

92. In reference to the physicians being given the right to refuse certain services that make them uncomfortable-

    If you are a gyno, I’m going to assume you have no problems giving me birth control as a single woman- I think most people would. Therefore, so you don’t waste my time, my co-pay, and my cold bare feet in your stirrups, you should have to put it out there, UP FRONT, that you choose not to offer things that the vast majority of doctors in your profession are assumed to not even have a choice in whether or not they will offer it. I think it’s akin to lying to your patients by omission. That way, all the people who don’t want their gyno’s giving abortions, and birth control to unmarried women, or morning after pills to rape victims, can patronize those who share their beliefs.

    And I’ll go somewhere I can be fully taken care of according to mine.

    Comment by sophia*rising — July 17, 2008 @ 7:23 pm

93. I’ve read quite a bit about this on other feminist blogs–I’m a bit surprised at the number of women here who haven’t heard about this before or who don’t consider it a reasonable threat.

    I rely on the mirena IUD, not just as birth control, but to keep me from having the worst periods in the world–periods that leave me cramped up and crying and puking and in bed for a week and half at least. Once I got Mirena, it was like a dream come true, I was finally able to function for an entire month without worrying about my period. I’ve tried other bc methods and nothing else has worked ever. I’ve even asked my doctor to just remove my whole reproductive system, but he thought the IUD was a better idea. I agree with him now, though at the time I wasn’t so sure.

    The point is, if my bc becomes illegal or very, very expensive, or just terribly difficult to gain access to, I’m in a very bad position. If it becomes labeled an abortifacent, my insurance won’t cover it–and there’s no way I can afford it on my own. And it is the only thing that has ever helped me survive my periods. And what if some doctor here in conservativeland decides I shouldn’t get it because his beliefs trump my health (I’ve had doctors try to deny me bc before)? Should I just lump it because that’s what I get for being a woman?

    The right to an abortion (and access to birth control and all that goes along with that) may legally be held under the right to privacy, but it goes much deeper–it is the right to bodily autonomy–it is the right for us to say that our bodies do not belong to the men who are so overrepresented in the government. Th right to choose is a sacred right. If it is ever overturned, the value of women will plummett

    Comment by AYW — July 17, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

94. blast. I can’t spell.

    Comment by AYW — July 17, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

95. The headings in the document and lack of Table of Contents make the document a bit hard to read because I tend to forget if I’m in the “state of the law,” “the problem,” “the rule,” etc sections.

    My understanding (based on a first reading) of the draft RFC is that it is proposing that church-based institutions can avoid recommending or not cover procedures to which it is posed. I.E. they hypothetical Our Lady of Snows hospital funded by the hypothetical Communal Congregation of the Church of Christ By The River can refuse to provide abortion procedures. Similarly the hypothetical St Jerry’s Community Insurance organized by the hypothetical Last Day Angels can refuse to pay for birth control drugs.

    That beings aid I don’t see anything in the draft mandating that all federally funded or privately funded programs may deny these services based on the beliefs or whims of a patient’s doctor or pharmacist.

    At times reading comprehension has been a weak spot for me. What am I missing?

    Comment by Janell the Great — July 17, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

96. Minnie mouse and Ray, thank you for pointing that out - I don’t always have time to read all of the comments and this looks like a day where that would have particularly helped me understand the issue:) Why does the day go by so fast!

    Comment by POM — July 17, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

97. Janelle the Great, the problem with the proposed regulations is that they are soooooo very broad that anyone who has anything to do with a procedure that “anyone with a logical connection to an objectional procedure” can opt out. The janitors, the nurses, the people who make the appointments, etc. This means that a very small minority of people will effectively control the choices of the rest of us. Federally funded or privately funded programs may deny these services to us based on the beliefs or whims of a patient’s dr’s janitor or receptionist. Happy, uh, speech fails, not happy.

    Comment by djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

98. minnie mouse, the quiverfull’s belief that all abortion is murder may be written into procedures that affect all of us. I think you misunderstand me. It’s not her choice to make my choice. Under the no contraceptives rule, I’d prob. be dead. Fun times.

    Comment by djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

99. I think that we as women, and men too, need to start interviewing our care providers to explicitly determine what they will and will not provide. Up front. To avoid heartache later.

    Comment by djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

100. Minnie mouse, Ray is a truly wonderful human being, but he does not know how to read a legal document. This is a scary one. It will have far-reaching consequences, as mentioned in various places in the above thread. For example, it explicitly calls out plan B as being an aborifactent, even though plan B is just an extra large dose of the pill. If Plan B gets a pass as an aboritifactent, ten that legally opens up all similar contraceptives as abortifactents i.e., the four extreme Catholics on the Supreme Court along with the various and assorted members of the (what term to put here? uh, negative? women hating, uh positive? (none come to mind) ) religious right (I hate to use the term “religious” in such a context, sounds like a swear word) have an “in” to ban them. In spite of their popularity. Good times.

     Comment by djinn — July 17, 2008 @ 9:58 pm

101. I’m not sure why all you liberal Mormons are wringing your hands. Your community organizer with one year in the US Senate has already been anointed president. Bring on all the liberal judges!

     Ray is pro-choice? My! Mr. “I’m in a very visible leadership position so..blah, blah, blah?”

     Comment by A Republican — July 17, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

102. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that all of us are Obama supporters. I can’t stand the man.

     Comment by Quimby — July 17, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

103. i’m about as liberal as you can be while still wearing clothing on a regular basis and i also do not plan to vote for obama.

     Comment by chandelle — July 17, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

104. Amanda (#80) and ECS (#90)–thank you for your kind words. Ruby’s comment (#78) was rude, but also kind of awesome. The bloggernacle should take a collective minute to meditate on the kind of world that would want to monitor my sperm.

     Ruby,

     It is obvious you feel strongly about reproductive issues. My comments did not address the morality of abortion or birth control, but examined instead the intersection of our chosen system of government and how ideas lay claim to legitimacy. If, however, I should wander into an area more on point, it might help not to think of me as a male, but as a person with a wife, daughter, mother and sisters about whom I care deeply. Feel free to email me at mathewparke@hotmail.com if you would like to discuss anything with me in person.

     Comment by Mathew — July 17, 2008 @ 11:38 pm

105. Dear A Republican,
     If you would like to make an argument based in reason rather than throwing out accusatory and inflamatory words that place all liberals and progressives on the same plane, I feel you will be much better received. As is, your comment doesn’t make clear what you feel so vitriolic about. Are you angry that we are worried? Are you angry that some of us are liberal? Are you angry that we identify as feminists? Are you angry that we wish to preserve our right to birth control? I don’t understand the point of your vitriol. Perhaps you can clarify this in a concise and reasonable manner.

     Comment by AYW — July 18, 2008 @ 4:12 am

106. I’m reading with great interest. I work in a faith based and sponsored nfp hospital and am very grateful for that on most issues. However, the one issue I detest is the BC/abortion subject. I know where this latest proposal came from- my hospital was up in arms about the law that would require all EDs (even faith based, prolife hospitals) to administer the morning after pill. As an employee of this hospital (from docs to food service), we are gagged from day one. We may not speak about BC as an option and abortion is also taboo. I’m an RN in critical care, so it doesn’t come up too often, thankfully, but the nurses in the ED and L&D get very frustrated (especially as we are in the inner city and this information is needed). I have recovered two women who had what is technically/medically called an abortion- one a tubal pregnancy and another who had bleeding in the early term that couldn’t be stopped. I was amazed that under the procedure listed, the hospital required it to be described as: Evacuation of products of conception. Can’t even use the medical term abortion when it happens in a medical emergency.
     It is a sly rebuttal, make no mistake. Prolife interests know that the chance of getting Roe v. Wade reversed is unlikely so, they are setting up legal roadblocks by using technical definitions. On the face of it, it may look like prolife interests are just defining their own right to refuse to perform abortions or prescribe or distribute BC. Yet, the moment any legal document contains a definition of when life begins- especially if it is written now as being the second that egg is fertilized, then a legal precedent will be set and can be built upon…and several forms of BC do become classified as abortificients, thus, banned from these hospitals legally, instead of philosophically. I have used various forms of BC, including when I was only 12 years old, when it was used as hormonal therapy for horrendous periods- it also protected my future fertility (ironically) because it turns out, I had endometriosis- later, uterine cancer. The pill held back the webbing effect that could have caused me to lose my entire reproductive system at 20 years old.
     In my personal choices, I never received an abortion nor did I ever opt for one, but I am a medical person. It is my job to give information and provide treatment, regardless of my personal tendencies. I don’t believe it is ever correct to withold our knowledge and if our convictions are so strong that we can’t prescribe or dispense BC, then said person needs to choose specialties where he/she is not in that position. It is inexcusable for an OB/GYN to practice with such a huge hole in available alternatives. A major aspect of their practice is in hormonal therapy…why would anyone bother to practice in this field if against using every alternative- I understand leaving abortion procedures to specialty clinics. But BC? Nope. Deliver mail for a living instead.
     Watch it sisters. Don’t freak out, but always disect legal documents for definitions because any such statement within the documents sets up the legal witholding of treatment- and allows insurance companies to redefine what they have to cover as well. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

     Comment by Kimberly — July 18, 2008 @ 6:13 am

107. these are her words, not fmh’s. whatever your views on birth control, abortion and family planning are, remember to keep it civil.

     Why are the rest of us expected to “keep it civil” when the original post uses words like “crazy” and “insane”?

     I don’t deny the importance of the issue, but I refuse to discuss it in this context, with such biased and inflammatory rhetoric.

     Comment by Naismith — July 18, 2008 @ 7:53 am

108. THe HHS writing rules that make most forms of birth control be classified as “abortion” strikes me as crazy. Just the use of the word, not applied to an individual, is enough to make what you refer to as an important issue — “biased and inflammatory rhetoric?” What’s biased? What’s inflammatory?

     Comment by Djinn — July 18, 2008 @ 9:52 am

109. Watch it sisters. Don’t freak out, but always disect legal documents for definitions because any such statement within the documents sets up the legal witholding of treatment- and allows insurance companies to redefine what they have to cover as well. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

     Amen. You’ve already struck the lottery if your insurance pays for BC, (a non-necessity to the health insurers). Men, If you’re not careful, they may re-label Viagra as a “male self-esteem enhancer” and deny you your blue pills.

     Comment by HMR — July 18, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

110. I haven’t read all the responses, but I wanted to post something. I’m pregnant with my fourth baby, which was NOT planned. My DH and I were using birth control and I still got pregnant. My children have to be delivered via C-section. This pregnancy is very risky for myself and my baby because of possible uterine rupture. If I were not able to obtain birth control after the birth of this baby, I would be putting my life in danger and that of any other future children. If I do get pregnant again, I am going to have to consider an abortion. I couldn’t bear knowing that the four children I already have would have to live without a mother. It is a choice that I hope I never have to make because I don’t know what I would do, but if I do ever have to make that choice, I hope someone hasn’t legislated it away from me.

     Comment by annonymous — July 18, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

111. “Ray is a truly wonderful human being, but he does not know how to read a legal document.”

     *Sigh* - Seriously, why do we have to resort to these types of statements?

     “Ray is pro-choice? My! Mr. “I’m in a very visible leadership position so..blah, blah, blah?”

     *Double or triple sigh* - The only times I have ever said that quote (and I have said it multiple times) is when it was necessary to make a specific point that dedicated, visible members aren’t all ultra-conservative, Birch Society sympathizers. Again, why do we have to resort to this?

     Yes, I’m pro-choice - when dealing with abortion as a political issue. Frankly, it could be argued that the Church is pro-life when dealing with abortion as a moral issue and pro-choice when dealing with abortion as a political issue - or at the very least neutral politically. The Church’s official statement includes the following about abortion as a political issue:

     “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”

     If anyone cares at all, read what I wrote at Mormon Matters. It explains why I am pro-choice politically while accepting the Church’s overall abhorrence for abortion on a personal level.

     When Moral Issues Become Political Issues

     Again, can we please lay off the personal attacks? They don’t contribute anything to anyone’s understanding of anything.

     Comment by Ray — July 18, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

112. I’m sorry, Ray, I didn’t mean to attack you personally; I should have said something along the lines of “his parsing of the document leads to a much narrower reading than, it seems to me, is intended.

     Comment by Djinn — July 18, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

113. I have no problem with that wording, Djinn - especially since it’s completely accurate.

     Comment by Ray — July 18, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

114. Djnn thanks for the response

     Comment by Janell the Great — July 18, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

115. Kimberly-
     Thank you for explaining how insiduous documents like this can be and why many of us are concerned.

     Comment by AYW — July 19, 2008 @ 1:50 am

116. There is so much muddling of issues, it is nearly iimpossible to sort out the facts.
     There was an earlier post regarding States Rights. I would like to commment further on that concept, particularly with respect to the overall issue of “reproductive rights,” including abortion.
     States rights is not an optional “device” thrown up by conservatives to derail unwanted legislation. It is an intrinsic check and balance built into the Constitution just like the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. It is contained in the 10th Amendment (part of the Bill or Rights) under the language, “The powers not delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
     This is a HUGE protection afforded the people of the United Stated and the individual States to prevent the Federal Government from overrunning the nation. It is fundamental to the concept that “to secure these rights [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” [Declaration of Independence.]
     Nowhere does the Constitution or any Amendment delegate to the Federal Government nor prohibit the individual States or the people from defining when life commences, or what constitutes abortion. Hence, these matters should be left to individuals. By definition, persons have whatever reproductive rights they deem personally appropriate, and do not need or want the Federal Government defining those rights for them.
     The rub comes that certain persons believe the Federal Government should indulge their personal definition of reproductive rights by financially subsidizing their pursuit of those rights. Many persons of this mind set want to be able to define those rights to their own liking, yet expect the Federal Government to provide financial support without having a say in what that definition is or should be. I personally find such a position self-serving at best, and more than a little childish.
     If framed in these terms, the question becomes:
     “Should the Federal Government be granted authority to define what constitutes acceptable reproductive behavior and then confiscate through taxation property belonging to all citizens, including those morally opposed to certain reproductive practices, and dole that property to others to enable and facilitate those very practices to which those from whom the property was confiscated are morally opposed?” And the corollary question is: “Should the Federal Government be granted authority to force a person to perform procedures and treatments in violation of his or her own conscience?”
     We need to be VERY CAREFUL how we answer these questions….we may get a whole lot more than what we are anticipating.
     Personally, I believe the dangers inherent in inviting the Federal Government into that intimate contact with any person’s reproductive life far exceed any anticipated benefits. To me, the precedent is appalling. Once that door is opened, how does it get closed, or where does the next boundary lie? What is to stop our Government, like the Chinese, of limiting family size? What is to stop our Government, like the Romanians, of mandating family size? One says, well, the people of the United States would never allow that. It was not long ago that people were sold the notion of direct taxation (the Federal Income Tax) under the promise that it would never be more than 5% of a person’s income, and if the Federal Government tried to make is such, the people of the United States would never stand for it. So the only consistent, mature approach is to retain to the individual the right to determine what is acceptable reproductive behavior / treatment, and not only not request, but categorically reject any Federal Government financial support on the very basis that it provides a way to intrude on the entire matter of family planning / reproduction.
     One can argue that we allow the Government to confiscate property to dole it out to other causes…Medicare, AFDC, etc. That is certainly true. But I find few persons who believe that too little property is confiscated, and even fewer who VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT beyond what their 1040 form states they must by law provide.
     I believe the matters of contraception and abortion are much better left to individual consciences. If the majority of persons in a particular area believe government intervention is deemed necessary, let it be done at the local or State level where ongoing oversight and control is much easier than at the Federal level..
     If there are persons that feel strongly that property resources should be pooled to assist less fortunate persons receive these reproductive benefits, why not set up abortion insurance companies for that very purpose. Or let persons of means who support such practices set up philanthropic societies to fund such voluntarily. Even let contributions to such philanthropies be tax exempt. Such a course remains voluntary and does not require persons violate their own consciences by being forced to support what they consider to be an immoral activity.
     The corollary question:
     I have a strong abhorrence to any government at any level mandating that a person support activites which that person finds morally reprehensible.
     There have been some posts stating that if a medical practitioner does not want to become involved in contraception or abortion, he / she should find another field of endeavor. To me, that is like telling a physicist that if he does not want to work on nuclear weapons, he should not take up physics. What about DO’s.who have a non-classical approach to medicine? Is there no room for them in the medical field? And what of their patients who want be treated in that way?
     I have lived in many parts of the nation, including the rural West and the suburbs of New York City. I find that everywhere I have lived (even the most remote areas) there always have been varying degrees of medical skill levels from outright quack to highly skilled. To be sure, there are some “world renowned” specialists concentrated at places like Mayo Clinic of Columbia-Presbyterian. But those skill levels are not normally necessary, and by definition, the “worlds best doctor of anything” cannot be omnipresent. I have never observed a situation where desired medical practices / procedures at a reasonable skill level were not available. The level of medical care in the US, including OB/GYN, family planning and even abortions, are the best / most prevalent on earth. In this day of mail order medications, I find the protests against pharmacists that will not dispense certain medications particularly specious. If an MD were advised of a situation where the local pharmacist would not fill a prescription, he could provide enough professional courtesy samples to bridge over until a mail order supply could be acquired. My private insurance mandates mail order prescriptions, and every time my MD writes a prescription, he gives me a 2 weeks supply to bridge the gap.
     Forcing persons to practice against their consciences will only drive talented persons from the professions and make services scarcer. I simply do not follow the logic that goes: “If you live in a small town where the MD or pharmacist refuses to provide a treatment you want, then let’s pass a law that he / she MUST do that and drive them to seek another career because they will not violate their conscience.” After the MD moves on and the pharmacy closes, where will the persons of that town get services then? This is not making the services more available…rather it is punishing the practitioner for having a moral conscience and sticking to it. And this in America, no less!!!
     Enough said.

     Comment by BCC — July 20, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

117. I’m a bit late to the party but while support for birth control among people of deep faith is far higher overall there’s a strong (and heavily recruited by control-women types) contingent that’s uncomfortable with non-barrier, non-”rhythm” types. For instance the Christian Medical and Dental Association has a web page (http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3822) that pretty clearly endorses combined estrogen/progesterone contraceptives but objects to IUDs, progesterone-only contraceptives such as the “mini pill,” and emergency contraceptives might somehow have what they call a “post-fertilization effect.”

     And I think they’re the good guys on that side of the debate! There are others who believe, passionately (as “Robinson Crusoe” author Daniel Defoe did) that unless it’s strictly for reproduction then even sex in marriage is “Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom.” This nearly 300-year-old opinion wouldn’t be at all relevant except that President Bush keeps appointing adherents to that view like Eric Keroack (deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services) or Joseph Stanford (F.D.A.’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee) who both insist that contraception is “disrespectful” of women. Stanford’s concern was that men might begin to see their wives as “objects of sexual pleasure.” Oh, he also appointed the passionately conservative Leon Kass to a bioethics panel on reproduction. This would be the Leon Kass who’s written “when we are sexually active we are voting with our genitalia for our own demise” so you can imagine how he feels about contraception!

     Again, this wouldn’t be an issue if, you know, people like George Bush, his backers, and his appointees weren’t persistently trying to make that position federal policy.

     The upshot? If Djinn overstated her case she merely overstated it, she isn’t just crying “wolf.” The wolves are real.

     figleaf

     Comment by figleaf — July 21, 2008 @ 8:30 pm

118. “There have been some posts stating that if a medical practitioner does not want to become involved in contraception or abortion, he / she should find another field of endeavor. To me, that is like telling a physicist that if he does not want to work on nuclear weapons, he should not take up physics.”

     Actually, not a valid example. Nuclear development has always been optional, medical care isn’t. Much of what you say is very true, about State’s rights and government becoming overly involved in personal decisions. What you in turn advocate is medical people being overly involved in personal decisions.

     Since medical care is involved in abortions, and it was a disaster when it wasn’t (I know, there are people who believe a mother trying to end a pregnancy deserved whatever happened to her- but I am speaking from a strictly medical standpoint).
     I don’t believe in doing drugs, but I treat drug addicts. I have never needed or opted for an abortion, but a 15 year old girl who has just been raped needs to receive the information- she can reject it,certainly, but a medical person who wouldn’t make that choice herself does not have the right to withold vital information, allowing the girl to make the decision that is best for her. Medical people already have the option to refuse to perform any procedure- it’s called a referral. The trouble is, you are also wrong about all these options you think people have out there. Many insurance policies are closed little communities. You go to whichever docs are on the list. Period. If the 5 OB/GYN’s on the list all refuse to prescribe BC or refer patients to abortion clinics, then what? Yes, you can pursue private care, but if you are already paying for legitimate insurance coverage, why should you have to and what if you can’t afford it? Then, another unwanted babe is born (what a great way to start a life) and the state bears the burden of either placing the child or caring for it because the mom couldn’t afford BC to begin with. Let’s not even get into the probability that docs who “morally” refuse to prescribe BC help keep the insurance costs down and may be offered a nice little kickback at the end of the year for doing so. A very slippery slope.

     Becoming an OB/GYN already comes with the burden of understanding that there will be many situations you may consider immoral. What if the doc decides not to treat any unmarried people because it’s sexual sin? Next, no fertility treatments because the doc personally feels it is an unnatural way to conceive. Pregnancies enterred into by homosexual couples…no way…that’s immoral. Do you see what I mean here? I treat people all the time who have done things I wouldn’t even contemplate and that is part of my job…I am not allowed to inflict my personal values or morals on another human being requiring medical attention. Treat the problem, leave the judgement at the door- it is our job to maintain a professional detachment for the sake of the patient. Some of us even manage to find it in our hearts to have compassion in some very weird instances.
     Finally, choosing your field of specialty based on care you know you won’t be able to provide is done every day. I know, because of my personal history, that I am incapable of being a pediatric nurse that comes into contact with abusive parents. I cannot maintain my professional detachment and I’d be in jail or a psych ward within a month. That’s why we have clinical rotations- to discover these things about ourselves. I also cannot work with eye injuries- it revolts me and I am no help to a patient that has one. However, I will find another nurse and doctor that can provide the care I cannot. No one should be forced to do what they can’t- but in the interests of the patient, provision (or referral) of necessary medical care is exactly what we are supposed to do, including care and procedures we do not condone.

     Comment by Kimberly — July 22, 2008 @ 5:14 am

119. djinn, I agree with your basic premise about birth control, but what I don’t understand is why you chose to incorporate the Duggars into your post, particularly when you say, “What is not her own choice is her movement’s belief not only that birth control is the same as abortion . . .”

     What is the purpose of dragging Mrs. Duggar into this? Because she chose to use her reproductive choices to have a lot of children? If we are going to respect each others’ reproductive choices, then let’s actually respect them - not use them as an example (particularly in a negative way) to somehow prove your point.

     Comment by Stephanie — July 22, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

120. Just to be clear, based on a quick Google it appears that both Newsweek and MSNBC/Today verify that either or both Duggars *are* members of the Quiverful movement.

     figleaf

     Comment by figleaf — July 22, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

121. Hmm, okay. I read the Newsweek article and see the point. Sorry, djinn.

     Comment by Stephanie — July 22, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

122. A lot of hype, this post.

     As a rep. conservative who just is sick about abortion…. there is no way it will ever be banned again, not birth control.

     Let’s be serious.

     But I am glad to read that democrats can be just as hysterical as my fellow republicans.

     Comment by Lo — July 23, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

123. I feel that a doctor or other health care provider SHOULD NOT be able to refuse birth control of ANY kind to a woman. In some cases the BC is being used for health reasons. Like in my case, I have poly cystic ovarian syndrome. Instead of releasing an egg, my ovaries just form cysts. I take mono-cyclic birth control with metformin to regulate my cycle so that WHEN my husband and I feel the time is right we can try to conceive. I also take it to prevent cysts because they can turn in to tumors, AND if the lining of the uterine wall is not shed it can cause more health problems.

     I am pro-choice to a point. If the pregnancy is posing a danger to the health of both the baby and the mother I have no problem. BUT if a teenage girl or young woman is pregnant for the 3rd or 4th time and this will be the 3rd or 4th abortion I have a problem. There is OBVIOUSLY a need for birth control. AND proper sex education.

     Comment by Ashley — November 16, 2009 @ 2:39 am

124. In the UK this wouldn’t be an issue or rather isn’t an issue. Birth control is seen as something different from abortion and doesn’t have any issues attached to it or at least by the vast majority of the population. I am always amazed by fuss this creates in the USA.

     Comment by medical abortion — January 26, 2010 @ 9:23 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

• Information
  • Introduction & Contact Info
  • Comment Policy
  • Newbie? Introduce Yourself
  • fMh bloggers
  • Submit a Guest Post
  • Need Advice? "Ask fMh"
  • T-shirts Cafepress or Zazzle
  • fMh Facebook group            
  • Help us pay our server fees:
  
• Search
  • 
    

• Recent Comments (IE click link twice)
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • JNR: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • djinn: God in the gaps.
  • LindseyM: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Ray: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • Coffinberry: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • nat kelly: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • James McOmber: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Ray: Our Blue-Eyed Savior
  • Mommie Dearest: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Alicia: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
• Do Good
  • Join fMh's Kiva microloan team
  • Join Team fMh at Kiva
• Sideblog
  • - Ms: Obama Signs Act To Empower Native Americans to Fight Rape
  • - What’s Hard to Look At
  • - BCC: A mother’s heart, A father’s heart
  • - The Fifty Deadliest Things
  • - I Enjoy Crushing Bastards
  • - Latter-Day Saints and Modern-Day Pioneers
  • - From Untouchable to Businesswoman
  • - Ms. Mag: Women’s Rights Quiz
  • - The Stigma of Being a Housewife
  • - One Bride for Two Brothers: A Custom Fades in India
  
  
  • more » | feed »
• Facebook Blog Network
  Blog Networks

  Blog:

  feminist Mormon housewives

  Topics:

  feminism, Mormon, LDS

  Join my network
• FMH Book Group
  "Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich -----Sep 1st-----
  
• Special Guest Discussion
  
  • Women & Authority:
  • Re-emerging Mormon Feminism
  • Discussion Lead By: Lula and Stephanieeeeeee
  • Now Reading:
  • Chapter Three
  • Discussion Date: Wednesday (usually)
  • Discussion Archives:
  • Introductory Material (2006)
  • Introductory Material (2010)
  • Ch. 1 (2006)
  • Ch. 1 (2010)
  • Ch. 2 (2006)
  • Ch. 2 (2010)
  • Ch. 3 (2006)
  • Ch. 3 (2010)
  • Ch. 4 (2006)
  • UP NEXT Ch. 4 (2010)
  • Ch. 5 (2006)
  • Ch. 6 (2006)
• Feminist Mormon Blogs

  A Liberal Mormon
  Beginnings New progressive site for YW leaders!
  By Common Consent
  Dave's Mormon Inquiry
  Doctors & Covenants
  Erin's LDS Women's History Blog
  Exponent II blog Am I not a woman and a sister?
  Hieing to Kolob
  Letters from a Broad
  Mama Nirvana
  Mind on Fire
  On Our Own
  PilgrimGirl
  Sunstone Blog
  The Faithful Dissident
  Zelophehad's Daughters
  




• Blogs by Mormon Women

  • Groups
  Mormon Mommy Wars
  Segullah Blog
  
  • Individuals
  Almost, But Not Entirely
  But I digress . . .
  Cchrissy's Tender Cargo Blog
  Dandelion Mama
  Enduring to the End
  Excelling at Mediocrity
  Gay Blanchard
  good times, noodle salad
  How I deal Faithful Gay Woman's Blog
  I hope you dance
  Keepapitchinin
  law blawg of theres petrey
  Lollygaggering
  Miss Jill in NYC
  Mom on a Wire
  Mrs. Everything
  Navel Gazing at it's Finest
  Neddy Palaver
  Posts of My House
  Reese Dixon
  Selo's Mini
  Tater Tot Casserole
  Tickle the Pear
  Watch out For Mama
  

• Official LDS sites
  LDS.org
  Mormon.org
  
• Random Links
  • (Because we're nice like that.)
  11 D
  Advice for New Feminists
  Black LDS.org
  Danithew
  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  EMSA
  Ethesis
  FHA site (Geoff's)
  Gospel Cougar
  Holla Back NYC
  Invisible Green Photography
  Kulturblog
  Latter-day Main Street
  Liberal Oasis
  Life On Gold Plates
  Morman Mentality
  Mormon Chic
  Mormon Matters
  Mormon Stories
  Mormon Women's Forum
  Mormons for the Environment
  New Cool Thang
  Our Thoughts
  Segullah
  Sunstone Magazine
  Tender Cargo Baby Store
  The Good Democrat
  The Red Brick Store
  Times & Seasons
  
• 
> > Archives
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004

• July 2010

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Jun
  			1	2	3	4
  5	6	7	8	9	10	11
  12	13	14	15	16	17	18
  19	20	21	22	23	24	25
  26	27	28	29	30	31

• Categories
  • Abortion/Contraception
  • Abuse
  • Best Posts
  • Body
  • Book Club
  • Career
  • Conversion
  • Day in the Life
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Faith
  • Father in Heaven
  • Feminism
  • Food
  • Jesus Christ
  • Just Life
  • Humor
  • Marriage
  • Mormon Culture
  • Mormon History
  • Mother in Heaven
  • Motherhood
  • Parenting
  • Patriarcy
  • Politics
  • Polygamy
  • Pop Culture
  • Prayer
  • Priesthood
  • Reconciling Questions
  • Sexuality
  • Social Issues
  • Spirituality
  • Temple
  • Womens History
  • Young Women
• Meta:
  • RSS 2.0
  • Comments RSS 2.0
  • WordPress
  • JS Quicktags
  • 
  • 

•