Pill propelled into abortion debate.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Pill propelled into abortion debate.
23
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 1:35pm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3652462.stm

The birth control pill revolutionised women's health - and grew to become one of the most popular forms of family planning. But it is now under attack from pro-life groups in the US.






Birth control pill dispenser
The birth control pill does not always prevent ovulation

A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now refusing to dispense it, on the grounds that it is actually a form of abortion.

Pro-choice groups fear this new moral objection to the Pill could lead to more unplanned pregnancies, even more abortions.

A woman taking the Pill does not usually release eggs. But occasionally she might - and it is possible that egg could be fertilised.

The hormonal conditions created by the Pill mean, if that happened, the fertilised egg would not be implanted or survive.








It's called a chemical abortion


Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek,
Family doctor
Mainstream medicine does not define that as a pregnancy. But some of those strictly against abortion do.

Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek - a family doctor in Milwaukee - now refuses to prescribe the Pill. She opposes it on moral grounds, arguing it is a form of abortion.

"The contraceptive pill doesn't always prevent ovulation. As often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that happens, fertilisation may occur," Dr Jones-Nosacek says.

"Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that being from surviving. It's called a chemical abortion."

'Caught off-guard'

That definition is suddenly gaining support and some pharmacists now refuse to dispense the Pill.

Julee Lacey, a mother of two, had used the Pill for nine years when a pharmacist at her local chemist in Texas refused her prescription.








They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion


Lisa Boyce
Planned Parenthood
"She began to tell me she personally does not believe in birth control," says Ms Lacey.

"I was a little caught off-guard and shocked... I asked her again. She said: 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'...

"I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me," she adds.

At first these were just isolated cases, mostly in the Midwest. But recently they have increased dramatically.

Pro-choice groups now call it a significant and growing trend. Lisa Boyce of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin says it is a conscious extension of the abortion debate.

"They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion here in Wisconsin," Ms Boyce says.

"Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."

Conscience clauses

And in the run-up to the election, it is a hot political topic too.

This year 12 states took steps to try to introduce so-called conscience clauses. They allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs, including the Pill, on moral grounds, without losing their jobs.

In Wisconsin, the mostly-Republican assembly passed the bill, only to have it vetoed by the Democratic governor.

Representative Curt Gielow says pharmacists should be protected.

"There was an incident where a pharmacist who worked in a retail drug store refused on conscience to fill a prescription and that individual was terminated from employment," Mr Gielow says.

"That, I believe, set the stage for concern there might be employment discrimination opportunity here if in fact you listened to your conscience instead of doing what the boss told you to do."

At the moment, the Pill is hugely popular in the US. But calling it a type of abortion opens up a whole new front in the pro-life, pro-choice debate.

This moral condemnation is a fresh challenge to one of the most used, most reliable methods of family planning.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 1:54pm
Oh wow.......I'm joining you in shaking my head, what next????? Maybe condoms should be outlawed next, they kill sperm! The Pill is so important for women's rights, puts them in control of their own fertility, and also helps protect from certain reproductive cancers. I've been on it for 18 years, this is the first time I've heard THIS argument! Studied how it works in many a women's studies or human sexuality class......it prevents ovulation. So they are basing their argument on the POSSIBILITY that an egg MIGHT be released and then MIGHT get fertilized?????
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:13pm
Years ago, as a young wife wanting to wait to start a family until my husband and I were more settled, I looked for a safe form of birth control and went to a military hospital to get an IUD (family history of breast cancer made the Pill questionable). I don't recall if the doctor I saw was a GP or an OB/GYN but he refused to be part of the procedure to insert the IUD since it too can allow fertilization without implantation. It didn't bother me, I just said "fine, show me a doctor who WILL do the procedure" and there were no hard feelings between us.

But I am bothered by the apparent attitude that somehow puts the wants and needs of a fully formed human being at the mercy of a morula or blastocyst. Dear God, we have come so far in our struggle to have equal opportunities. Please don't send us back to be reluctant mothers if we want to have other choices.

Also, I want to know whether those "people of conscience" have any qualms about dispensing male potency drugs like Viagra or Cialis!

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:31pm
This came up on another board a while back, and my view is exactly the same now as it was then... if a pharmacist is hired to dispense medications, and refuses to do so for personal reasons rather than because of objective concerns for the health of the client, they need to consider finding another line of work. The most assuredly shouldn't be protected from being fired for refusing to fulfill their job requirements.

It isn't the job of a pharmacist to impose their belief systems on the clients of the pharmacies they are employed at. Nor is it their job to refuse to dispense valid, legal, and accurately prescribed medications in accordance with the directions of a physician on the basis of their personal morals.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:46pm
Your stance makes a lot of sense! Does it apply to doctors as well?

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 4:07pm
Yes and no to my mind, as it depends on the circumstances.

If a physician is working for a hospital or clinic and was hired to perform duties which he or she later refuses to perform, the hospital or clinic should have every right to dismiss him or her. If a physician runs *his own office* and decides to no longer perform certain procedures, they have the right to make that decision for themselves.

In regards to pharmacies and pharmacists, should the pharmacist own or run the pharmacy, they likewise have the right to stock and dispense whatever medications they choose. They also then have the right NOT to stock a given drug. When they work for someone else though, that isn't the case if the pharmacy chooses to stock drugs the pharmacist finds so offensive they refuse to dispense them. Then, the pharmacy should have the right to dismiss the pharmacist for failure to fulfill his employment obligations.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 4:20pm
I agree; for example, until recently I worked at a Catholic hospital. My dr would prescribe my bc pills for me, but my health coverage (provided by the hospital, as I was a full time employee) would not pay for them. I was aware of that (the hospital does not perform vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc, either as per their observance of the Catholic belief in no artificial contraception) and paid for them myself. As the owners of this hospital, this was their right. So I agree that a pharmacist that does not OWN that pharmacy should not be allowed to inject his personal beliefs into his work.....
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 4:28pm

"Please don't send us back to be reluctant mothers if we want to have other choices."


Amen!

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 5:31pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 5:43pm

I'm not surprised.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 5:49pm

The RC church has long thought BC wrong, but all RC I know choose to ignore this.


I also agree with Mark's post.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages