According to the NY TImes, “The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and certain types of birth control.” This same proposal also wishes to define the use of common contraceptives as abortifacients because they terminate “human life” “before…implantation.”
Thanks to tikva’s highlight of the especially galling sections of the report and to hammercock’s link to NARAL, I E-mailed my Congresspersons.
Subject: I oppose the proposed HHS ruling where contraception = abortifacients
Dear [Decision maker],
I’m writing to express my opposition to a proposed new Health and Human Services regulation that could discourage doctors and health-care clinics from providing contraception to women who need it.
Not only does the proposal interfere with women’s rights to do as they wish with their own reproductive systems, but it also makes no sense, as on p. 30, lines 8-11. In this section, “abortion” is referred to as “the termination of the life of a human being…whether before or after implantation.” This definition equates an unimplanted embyro with a fully developed human being, which it is NOT. The proposed HHS rule would thereby privilege the unimplanted embryo over the fully developed, autonomous woman that carries the embryo.
Such discrimination against women should not be tolerated. Oppose these regulations and support reproductive rights for women. Thank you for your attention.
Of course, this won’t do anything, but I feel a tiny bit better for spitting in the hurricane. And look…I did it without swearing.
2 Comments
Here’s mine…
“Dear [Decision maker],
I’m writing to express my opposition to a proposed new Health and Human Services regulation that could discourage doctors and health-care clinics from providing contraception to women who need it.
Equating contraceptives with abortifacients and encouraging denial of care to women (especially indigent women) shows a complete lack of compassion. If this regulation is enacted, then that means that there is no realistic way to ensure that women have access to birth control at all. If this legislation is enacted, is the health care system in this country going to be able to handle the resulting deluge of women who would be injured by illegal abortions or suicide attempts by rape victims who will be forced to carry their attacker’s child (or women who fear retribution from their partners or families)? Will the social service and welfare systems be able to handle a booming rate of applicants at a time when their resources are already stretched to the limit? Will overseas adoptions come to a standstill so that children born here in the US will have a chance at being adopted?
Please, I am asking you as a woman, as a mother and as a survivor of incest – PLEASE do everything in your power to see that this regulation is not allowed to pass.”
Ugh. By that reasoning, every time a woman–or pubescent girl–is not having sex, she’s having an abortion, since that means implantation is being prevented.