Colorado Governor's Emergency Contraception Veto Shows Contradictions in Pro-Life Position
Sunday April 16, 2006
Category: Abortion and Birth Control
As we speak, I'm writing an Abortion 101 section that will cover the abortion issue from soup to nuts--how abortions are performed, when they're performed, circumstances under which they're legal and illegal, and the history of the two movements that define the debate.
But I'm running into a snag: The term "anti-abortion" isn't really a complete description of the alleged pro-life movement, simply because most of the same politicians who claim that they would like to ban abortions are also working overtime to force women to have them.
Take Colorado's Governor Bill Owens, for example, who has just vetoed a bill making the Plan B hormone, levornogestrel, available to women over the counter. Plan B would seem to be a godsend for those who believe that life begins at conception, because its function is to prevent conception. If taken within the first 72 hours after sexual intercourse, it is 89% effective in preventing pregnancy. It is not the same as RU-486, the abortion pill; Plan B will not cause an abortion to occur. It will remove the need for an abortion altogether.
Owens justified his veto by saying that "it is irresponsible to allow minors to obtain emergency contraception without the counsel and guidance that could be provided by a doctor." In practice, due to the normal delays involved in scheduling doctors' appointments, this means that emergency contraception will probably not be administered in time. Pregnancy will occur, forcing many women to choose between abortion and carrying their pregnancies to term.
But surely Gov. Owens would make an exception in cases of rape, right? Actually, no. Last year, he specifically vetoed a bill calling on health care workers to inform rape victims about the option of emergency contraception. He did so knowing that his decision to veto would increase the number of abortions:
I have long considered the phrase "anti-choice" to be a shrill and unfair label to apply to those whose moral or religious beliefs force them to advocate a wholesale ban on abortion. But what am I to make of politicians who are so committed to eradicating every last medical option a woman has to prevent an unplanned pregnancy that they are willing to force a woman to have an abortion--a practice they claim to believe constitutes murder? Is it really accurate to even describe that position as "anti-abortion," much less "pro-life"?
See also:
As we speak, I'm writing an Abortion 101 section that will cover the abortion issue from soup to nuts--how abortions are performed, when they're performed, circumstances under which they're legal and illegal, and the history of the two movements that define the debate.
But I'm running into a snag: The term "anti-abortion" isn't really a complete description of the alleged pro-life movement, simply because most of the same politicians who claim that they would like to ban abortions are also working overtime to force women to have them.
Take Colorado's Governor Bill Owens, for example, who has just vetoed a bill making the Plan B hormone, levornogestrel, available to women over the counter. Plan B would seem to be a godsend for those who believe that life begins at conception, because its function is to prevent conception. If taken within the first 72 hours after sexual intercourse, it is 89% effective in preventing pregnancy. It is not the same as RU-486, the abortion pill; Plan B will not cause an abortion to occur. It will remove the need for an abortion altogether.
Owens justified his veto by saying that "it is irresponsible to allow minors to obtain emergency contraception without the counsel and guidance that could be provided by a doctor." In practice, due to the normal delays involved in scheduling doctors' appointments, this means that emergency contraception will probably not be administered in time. Pregnancy will occur, forcing many women to choose between abortion and carrying their pregnancies to term.
But surely Gov. Owens would make an exception in cases of rape, right? Actually, no. Last year, he specifically vetoed a bill calling on health care workers to inform rape victims about the option of emergency contraception. He did so knowing that his decision to veto would increase the number of abortions:
Republican supporters of the bill argued that studies have shown 50 percent of women who are raped and become pregnant have an abortion, reports the Rocky Mountain News. EC, which can be taken up to five days after unprotected intercourse to prevent pregnancy, would presumably lower these statistics.Other leaders focus on making traditional forms of contraception harder to obtain, which also stands to increase the number of abortions. Ironically, Planned Parenthood--which funds many of this nation's abortion clinics, and advocates for legal abortion--actively works to reduce the number of abortions by providing women with other medical options, while self-proclaimed pro-life groups work just as hard to increase the number of abortions by making those medical options unavailable.
I have long considered the phrase "anti-choice" to be a shrill and unfair label to apply to those whose moral or religious beliefs force them to advocate a wholesale ban on abortion. But what am I to make of politicians who are so committed to eradicating every last medical option a woman has to prevent an unplanned pregnancy that they are willing to force a woman to have an abortion--a practice they claim to believe constitutes murder? Is it really accurate to even describe that position as "anti-abortion," much less "pro-life"?
See also:
Comments
I have to disagree with this position that because of politicians’ vetoing of EC or a layman disagreeing with the option negates them being pro-life. The reaso most pro-lifers (myself included) reject the EC is that we believe that life starts at fertilization – there is a life forming whether it is allowed to implant in the uterus or not. To say that we are no longer pro-life because we “force” women to have abortions is contradictory at that point. I won’t speak for everyone, but for many, EC is as much abortion as anything else.
Thanks for the calm and well-measured response, which serves (I think) as a very good model of how folks on this site can have a productive discussion about abortion, emergency contraception, and so forth.
You wrote:
The reason most pro-lifers (myself included) reject the EC is that we believe that life starts at fertilization – there is a life forming whether it is allowed to implant in the uterus or not.
The trouble I have with this argument is that no genetic changes occur during fertilization. They only occur during implantation, which takes place a week or more after intercourse. So by saying that life begins at fertilization, one is essentially saying that the individual sperm and egg cells, even when the genetic material for the new person has not been formed, constitute a new human life if fertilization has technically occurred. That comes awfully close to saying that every single sperm and/or egg cell is a separate human life.
Cheers,
TH
Tom,
Thank you for your comment. Forgive me if by giving a rebuttal to your comment, I sound argumentative but I felt it deserved a response.
For any woman desiring to become pregnant, fertilization is considered the beginning of the pregnancy by both her and her physician and is counted as such in her term of pregnancy. To change this for women who did not intend or desire to become pregnant, I think is a great contradiction and appears very foolish as it is medically untrue by their own definition.
I agree that by themselves, the sperm and the egg do not constitue human life, however, once joined, there is an immediate reaction between the two while the cells multiply constantly, and life is begun. No, it does not resemble a baby at this point, but neither do many things at the beginning of life and there are many examples to choose from for this. So by definition, if you are terminating the pregnancy and not allowing it to continue, is that not abortion?
Thank you for your time and I hope that sheds a little more light on my and many other people’s position.
Heidi wrote:
Thank you for your comment. Forgive me if by giving a rebuttal to your comment, I sound argumentative but I felt it deserved a response.
Please, always feel free to be argumentative. If everyone always agreed with me, I’d never learn anything!
For any woman desiring to become pregnant, fertilization is considered the beginning of the pregnancy by both her and her physician and is counted as such in her term of pregnancy.
Fertilization is certainly the beginning of pregnancy for the woman, but it isn’t the beginning of pregnancy for the embryo because there is no embryo, and there isn’t even any DNA to make an embryo yet. The only DNA in a woman’s fallopian tubes prior to implantation in the uterus is the DNA of the parents. The fact that they happen to be sitting in the same place does not make them a new person.
I agree that by themselves, the sperm and the egg do not constitue human life, however, once joined, there is an immediate reaction between the two while the cells multiply constantly, and life is begun. No, it does not resemble a baby at this point, but neither do many things at the beginning of life and there are many examples to choose from for this. So by definition, if you are terminating the pregnancy and not allowing it to continue, is that not abortion?
Certainly the woman’s pregnancy is being aborted, but as there is no new DNA or new entity created by the pregnancy yet, I find it hard to describe this procedure as an abortion in the usual sense of the word.
One of the ways that a birth control pill reduces the odds of pregnancy is by thickening of the mucosal cervix-uterus barrier, reducing the chances of implantation if fertilization occurs. So if we say that emergency contraception causes abortion, then we’re also in the very strange position of saying that the Pill can do the same thing.
Thank you for your time and I hope that sheds a little more light on my and many other people’s position.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond! I try to be as fair as possible in dealing with these things. Most members of my family describe themselves as pro-life, as do 59 percent of people in my home state, so I’m not unsympathetic to your point of view. I just find the whole objection to emergency contraception to be confusing. It suggests that a human life begins even before the DNA for that human life is formed, which just doesn’t make sense to me.
Cheers,
TH
Hi,
Just a question:
Why not simply allow the freedom of choice? People choose to smoke – we know it’s a killer – there is no national ban on smoking, nor for drinking, which kills people in the form of liver disease and drunk driving.
If you don’t wish to have an abortion or use emergency ontraception, then don’t. Why be against the freedom of choice? It is part of what makes this country great; the fact that we have the freedom to choose. Once you take freedom of choice away, it’s not a democracy anymore.