WWTBAM Bored
http://wwtbambored.com/

Abortion-inducing drugs
http://wwtbambored.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56485
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Bob Juch [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:39 am ]
Post subject:  Abortion-inducing drugs

Time wrote:
During the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh referred to the use of contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs” in response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz about a 2015 case.

I call them abortion-preventing drugs.

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Plan B is an abortificent. It causes the body to prevent the sperm and egg from meeting up, or causes the already-fertilized egg not to attach to the uterine wall, or causes the egg not to release from the ovary. A devout Catholic, for instance, would struggle with the morality of this treatment, as it is not simply preventing contraception, but sometimes rearranging one that has existed overnight or longer.

I agree we should have fewer abortions because of the availability of Plan B, but morally, it is NOT a simple "take this pill and everything will go away." Yes, things will go away, and that's why it's not simple.

Author:  Bob78164 [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
Plan B is an abortificent. It causes the body to prevent the sperm and egg from meeting up, or causes the already-fertilized egg not to attach to the uterine wall, or causes the egg not to release from the ovary. A devout Catholic, for instance, would struggle with the morality of this treatment, as it is not simply preventing contraception, but sometimes rearranging one that has existed overnight or longer.

I agree we should have fewer abortions because of the availability of Plan B, but morally, it is NOT a simple "take this pill and everything will go away." Yes, things will go away, and that's why it's not simple.
He wasn’t talking about Plan B. He was talking about the requirement that employers provide run-of-the-mill birth control (the kind that prevents conception from happening in the first place) as part of health insurance. He’s apparently ignorant of the biology, which is not a good qualification in someone on the verge of being able to upend 45 years of settled law that he won’t acknowledge is settled. —Bob

Author:  BackInTex [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Bob78164 wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:
Plan B is an abortificent. It causes the body to prevent the sperm and egg from meeting up, or causes the already-fertilized egg not to attach to the uterine wall, or causes the egg not to release from the ovary. A devout Catholic, for instance, would struggle with the morality of this treatment, as it is not simply preventing contraception, but sometimes rearranging one that has existed overnight or longer.

I agree we should have fewer abortions because of the availability of Plan B, but morally, it is NOT a simple "take this pill and everything will go away." Yes, things will go away, and that's why it's not simple.
He wasn’t talking about Plan B. He was talking about the requirement that employers provide run-of-the-mill birth control (the kind that prevents conception from happening in the first place) as part of health insurance. He’s apparently ignorant of the biology, which is not a good qualification in someone on the verge of being able to upend 45 years of settled law that he won’t acknowledge is settled. —Bob


"Settled law is settled law, until it isn't." - Dred Scott

Author:  Pastor Fireball [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Bob Juch wrote:
Time wrote:
During the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh referred to the use of contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs” in response to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz about a 2015 case.

I call them abortion-preventing drugs.


The way it's phrased, alcohol and cigarettes are technically "abortion-inducing drugs", as well.

Author:  jarnon [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
Plan B is an abortificent. It causes the body to prevent the sperm and egg from meeting up, or causes the already-fertilized egg not to attach to the uterine wall, or causes the egg not to release from the ovary. A devout Catholic, for instance, would struggle with the morality of this treatment, as it is not simply preventing contraception, but sometimes rearranging one that has existed overnight or longer.
Excuse me for being picky, but doctors define conception (the beginning of pregnancy) as when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall. So a drug that stops that process at any point is, technically, a contraceptive. Even Catholics who oppose all contraception don't think it's as serious a sin as abortion. (There are some people, like the owners of Hobby Lobby, whose religion teaches that life begins at fertilization; for them, artificially preventing an egg from attaching to the uterine wall is like abortion.)

Bob78164 wrote:
He was talking about the requirement that employers provide run-of-the-mill birth control (the kind that prevents conception from happening in the first place) as part of health insurance.
A big problem: the same drug, taken at different times and doses, can be a contraceptive, an "emergency contraceptive" like Plan B, an abortifacient, or a treatment for many diseases unrelated to pregnancy. It's hard to restrict a drug for one purpose while allowing it for others.

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

I apologize for not understanding the context. When I heard "abortion-inducing drugs" I made a wrong assumption.

I do agree that companies should not be required to provide birth control as part of their health insurance plan. It is good business to provide it, and as an employee I might be more likely to choose to work for such a company (who does provide it), but I agreed with the Court on the Hobby Lobby case that it should not be legally required. Birth control is a luxury, in that you can abstain or in other ways, not run the risk of pregnancy.

Hobby Lobby is a private company: no one has to work there and no one has to shop there.

I have very different standards for public entities, where people must work or must shop or must go (for instance, I am fine with banning smoking in courthouses and restricting it on the campuses of public colleges).

Author:  Bob Juch [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
I apologize for not understanding the context. When I heard "abortion-inducing drugs" I made a wrong assumption.

I do agree that companies should not be required to provide birth control as part of their health insurance plan. It is good business to provide it, and as an employee I might be more likely to choose to work for such a company (who does provide it), but I agreed with the Court on the Hobby Lobby case that it should not be legally required. Birth control is a luxury, in that you can abstain or in other ways, not run the risk of pregnancy.

Hobby Lobby is a private company: no one has to work there and no one has to shop there.

I have very different standards for public entities, where people must work or must shop or must go (for instance, I am fine with banning smoking in courthouses and restricting it on the campuses of public colleges).

There are many, many, women who take "birth control" pills to treat hormonal problems that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy.

BTW, what were you doing on this day in 2002?

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Bob Juch wrote:

BTW, what were you doing on this day in 2002?


Seriously? Sept 7, 2002? What the what?

Author:  BackInTex [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:

BTW, what were you doing on this day in 2002?


Seriously? Sept 7, 2002? What the what?


Seriously, have you seen his house?

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

I never said people can't be prescribed hormones for other purposes. If a company provides health insurance, those should be included like any other prescription.

TMI alert: I am one of those people. I get a shot of Depo-Provera every three months but the reason is not to prevent pregnancy (not sure I would be in that group at 51).

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

BackInTex wrote:

Seriously, have you seen his house?


It is a multitude of things I don't understand today. No I have not seen his house. He moves every ten minutes anyway, so who could?

Author:  Bob78164 [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
I do agree that companies should not be required to provide birth control as part of their health insurance plan. It is good business to provide it, and as an employee I might be more likely to choose to work for such a company (who does provide it), but I agreed with the Court on the Hobby Lobby case that it should not be legally required. Birth control is a luxury, in that you can abstain or in other ways, not run the risk of pregnancy.

Hobby Lobby is a private company: no one has to work there and no one has to shop there.

I have very different standards for public entities, where people must work or must shop or must go (for instance, I am fine with banning smoking in courthouses and restricting it on the campuses of public colleges).
Doesn't that same argument apply to requiring companies to provide health insurance at all?

Except for that part about birth control being a luxury, which I disagree with. I think it's an important part of the ability for specifically women to control their own lives. Heterosexual men get to have sex without having to worry about whether their employers pay for birth control (unless their partners are insured through their plan). Heterosexual women don't. That seems morally wrong to me. --Bob

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

I'm saying if it is a potential problem for anyone, don't have sex with other people that could lead to pregnancy. There are plenty of options.

Author:  Bob78164 [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:

BTW, what were you doing on this day in 2002?


Seriously? Sept 7, 2002? What the what?
You (and Bob) were at Play It! watching me run the table. --Bob

Author:  Bob Juch [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:

BTW, what were you doing on this day in 2002?


Seriously? Sept 7, 2002? What the what?

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Image


I'll bet Bob#s remembers.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Image

Author:  Bob78164 [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
I'm saying if it is a potential problem for anyone, don't have sex with other people that could lead to pregnancy. There are plenty of options.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this. --Bob

Author:  Bob Juch [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
I never said people can't be prescribed hormones for other purposes. If a company provides health insurance, those should be included like any other prescription.

TMI alert: I am one of those people. I get a shot of Depo-Provera every three months but the reason is not to prevent pregnancy (not sure I would be in that group at 51).

Are you aware that regular birth control pills are prescribed for that as well? Should women have to justify to their employer the reason they want them?

Author:  Bob Juch [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Seriously, have you seen his house?


It is a multitude of things I don't understand today. No I have not seen his house. He moves every ten minutes anyway, so who could?

Hey, the previous time I moved was from Raleigh just over four years ago.

Author:  Bob78164 [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Bob Juch wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:
I never said people can't be prescribed hormones for other purposes. If a company provides health insurance, those should be included like any other prescription.

TMI alert: I am one of those people. I get a shot of Depo-Provera every three months but the reason is not to prevent pregnancy (not sure I would be in that group at 51).

Are you aware that regular birth control pills are prescribed for that as well? Should women have to justify to their employer the reason they want them?
I agree with your implied point here as well, but fundamentally I don't think employers should have the right to opt out of providing health insurance for birth control (for women) just because they don't like birth control. Employers already have too much control over our lives. (California is better about this than many states, thanks to our strong rules against non-compete clauses.) I'm on the side of employees' autonomy here. --Bob

Author:  elwoodblues [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
I'm saying if it is a potential problem for anyone, don't have sex with other people that could lead to pregnancy. There are plenty of options.

I learned early in life that if you couldn't have sex with other people there were other options.

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Bob Juch wrote:
Are you aware that regular birth control pills are prescribed for that as well? Should women have to justify to their employer the reason they want them?


Thought I said it is up to a doctor to prescribe what is medically appropriate, not what is merely for birth control. That should be between a patient and the doctor, and not the insurance people.

Author:  Bob78164 [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

Ritterskoop wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Are you aware that regular birth control pills are prescribed for that as well? Should women have to justify to their employer the reason they want them?


Thought I said it is up to a doctor to prescribe what is medically appropriate, not what is merely for birth control. That should be between a patient and the doctor, and not the insurance people.
That's always true. But if your doctor thinks it's medically appropriate but your carrier won't pay for it, your doctor's opinion doesn't do you much good. --Bob

Author:  Ritterskoop [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

I can't think why a carrier wouldn't pay for Depo if my doctor said it is right for me.

I thought the argument about Hobby Lobby was about preventing conception, not about hormones in general.

Author:  BackInTex [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Abortion-inducing drugs

I could be wrong, but I believe the Hobby Lobby issue was around Plan B. I don't believe they were standing their ground on regular contraceptive pills. They are not Catholic, so they are not against contraception. They did not want to provide what they deemed to be abortions.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/