BACK OFF OUR BABY MAKERS (OR OTHERWISE BARREN UTERI)

By Laura Dargus

del.ico.us | digg it! | reddit!

print | email | 0 Comments

The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed defining abortion to include birth control pills, implants, shots and intrauterine devices in a memo that caused an uproar among family planning groups and "at least one member of Congress" (only one!), according to Reuters, who received a copy of an HHS draft in mid-July.

To quote: "The Department proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance 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 the implantation.'" Ladies, that not only includes the hotly contested Plan B contraceptive (aka the morning after pill), but many other mainstream precautionary measures one might take to prevent unplanned miracles. The HHS proposal would classify the most effective methods—less than one in 100 chance of getting pregnant if used as directed—as "abortifacient," leaving us with two-four-six-ornine-in-100 chance alternatives: condom, pull-out, diaphragm or sponge, respectively, if used or performed correctly every single time.

While I respect those who morally object to the spilling of seed, I still have the freedom to disagree with their notion of baby making as the one acceptable outcome of such activity. And I, as an educated woman with innumerable resources at my disposal, vow to continue to pursue my sinful acts responsibly by taking precautions with the greatest rate of effectiveness and smallest margin of error in preventing me from starting a family until I'm darn well ready. Bill Clinton was noted for saying "Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare." And birth control prevents people like me (those who are unwilling or unable to carry a pregnancy to term) from seeking out abortions. While some may not approve of my methods, the government has no right to take a moral high ground and deny me protection against unwanted pregnancies.

Why would HHS restrictively define contraceptive measures? To regulate the family planning options available to the female populace. The Department seeks to cut off funds to hospitals and states that offer legal abortions and contraceptive services to women. HHS also seeks to require any clinics, hospitals or medical schools that receive Department grants to hire those opposed to abortion and birth control, thereby limiting the information available to their patients. You can have your parochial schools and insufficient sex education but when it comes to offering unbiased medical counsel, you cross a line if you limit the options offered to individuals seeking alternatives to abstinence.

Though HHS has declined to discuss the proposal, they've mentioned their responsibility to protect doctors and pharmacists who object to abortion or birth control on either religious or moral grounds. Oh, so it's an anti-discriminatory measure. Yet, I'm to be discriminated against because I choose to copulate without procreating? My medical options are to be limited because my fornication offends people? The Department's moral objections, if made into law, will do nothing but increase the rate of abortions sought, whether they're still legally available or not.