Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > In The News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2012, 09:23 AM   #21
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,589
Thanks: 5,992
Thanked 9,892 Times in 2,278 Posts
Rep Power: 21474846
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Five Big Facts on Birth Control Not Discussed Nearly Enough by Men in the Mainstream Media
by Erin Matson, National Organization for Women

Undoubtedly, you have heard: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops want to take birth control coverage away from all women under the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, you probably heard about that from men. Think Progress released research last week showing that the major cable networks invited nearly twice as many men as women to discuss the fight for contraceptive coverage.

When women aren't called upon to discuss the realities of our lives, we are left with men discussing the contents of our medicine cabinets as if they were "culture wars" or "assaults on religious freedom." (For the record: Women's bodies are not cultural commodities, and any meaningful freedom of religion requires freedom from an imposed religion.)

So here are five big facts on birth control not nearly enough discussed by men in the mainstream media:

1. Contraception is basic health care. Virtually all women use birth control at some point in their lives, and that includes 98 percent of Catholic women. A majority supports contraceptive coverage, including a majority of Catholic hospital employees.

2. This "controversy" has awfully strange timing. 28 states already provide for coverage of contraceptives.

3. Churches already have an out. 335,000 religious institutions, including Catholic churches, may refuse to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

4. Contraceptive coverage makes a difference for women. One of three women say they struggle to afford birth control.

5. This is sex discrimination. More than a decade ago the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that an employer's failure to cover contraceptives is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Late last week, President Obama announced a compromise that allows religiously affiliated institutions to not pay for contraceptive coverage, while still ensuring that every woman gets equal access to this basic medical care(private insurance companies will pay).

Yet the bishops continue to attack, revealing their true aims: It's not about Catholic dollars and "religious freedom," it's about refusing all women coverage for birth control. It's up to women to speak the truth about our health and lives.
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 09:29 AM   #22
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,589
Thanks: 5,992
Thanked 9,892 Times in 2,278 Posts
Rep Power: 21474846
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default

The High Costs of Birth Control: A Major Barrier to Access
by Jessica Arons, Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund

Many people seem to think birth control is affordable, but high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access. It is for this reason that the Obama administration recently followed the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to ensure that birth control will be covered as a preventive service with no cost-sharing beginning August 1, 2012.

Although three-quarters of American women of childbearing age have private insurance, they still have had to pay a significant portion of contraceptive costs on their own.

-A recent study shows that women with private insurance paid about 50 percent of the total costs for oral contraceptives, even though the typical out-of-pocket cost of noncontraceptive drugs is only 33 percent.

-In some cases oral contraceptives approach 29 percent of out-of-pocket spending on health care for women with private insurance.

-Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs.

High costs have forced many women to stop or delay using their preferred method, while others have chosen to depend on less effective methods that are the most affordable.

-Surveys show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money in the past year.

-Twenty-nine percent of women report that they have tried to save money by using their method inconsistently.

-More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.

Women are struggling to pay for birth control at a time when they need it most.

-Nearly half of women ages 18–34 with household incomes less than $75,000 report they need to delay or limit their childbearing because of economic hardships they’ve experienced in recent years.

-The average income for working adults ages 18–34 is $27,458.

So how much does birth control cost exactly? This chart lays it all out.*

Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 10:32 AM   #23
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Virginia Update and Strange Twist



According to the Richmond Times Dispatch the bill should be voted on today.

The article contained some curious info:

"Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell, who sponsored the House's version of the bill, said numerous misconceptions about the bill are circulating, which is driving the negative attention surrounding it.

She said that both Planned Parenthood and federal abortion guidelines recommend the ultrasound as best practice to determine gestational age.

"The only way that they can determine the age of the fetus at an early age is by performing a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and they're already doing this procedure as a common procedure at Planned Parenthood," Byron said.

Byron said that providing a precise age builds on the state's existing informed consent law and helps ensure the safety of the woman.

"It's all well within our goal of making fully informed medical decisions," added Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah.


Of course I went to the Virginia PP web site and this is what I found :

An abortion consultation appointment is required before the procedure can be scheduled. Please call any of our three offices to set up an abortion consultation appointment.

The following will be completed at the consultation appointment:

urine pregnancy test vaginal ultrasound pelvic exam discussion of the risks, benefits, alternatives, and a step-by-step review of what to expect during and after the procedure discussion of post abortion birth control options


So now I am confused. Is the legislature just legalizing what is already being done? Is PP giving mixed signals as to what the support vs what they actually do? Do different PP clinics have the ability to set different standards of care? If so, who sets the policies?

Puzzle it is. Must delve deeper.


__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 11:39 AM   #24
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default corrected link

Corrected link for Virginia PP or just one of their clinics. Not sure.
Virginia PP

Boston might require abdominal but rarely transvaginal.
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 12:38 PM   #25
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,589
Thanks: 5,992
Thanked 9,892 Times in 2,278 Posts
Rep Power: 21474846
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi View Post

"The only way that they can determine the age of the fetus at an early age is by performing a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and they're already doing this procedure as a common procedure at Planned Parenthood," Byron said.
Just for the record if it's that early an age it's not a fetus it's an embryo. I think fetal development starts around 10 weeks. But anyway, what I found at the Planned Parenthood site was

Before the abortion procedure, you will need to

discuss your options
talk about your medical history
have laboratory tests
have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound
read and sign papers

So I guess it's a possibility that an ultrasound may be needed. But it is not a given.
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 01:09 PM   #26
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,589
Thanks: 5,992
Thanked 9,892 Times in 2,278 Posts
Rep Power: 21474846
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default Here is one doctor's opinion on what all the fuss is about.

Laws Mandating Ultrasound Before Abortion Threaten Physician & Patient Rights
Margaret Polaneczky, MD

Part of me just shrugs my shoulders at the new laws being promulgated by state legislatures that require ultrasound prior to performing an abortion.

After all, in most practices, getting an ultrasound before doing an abortion is pretty much routine already. Doctors who do abortions don’t want to be surprised by an unexpectedly advanced gestational age, a uterine anomaly, an erroneous diagnosis or an ectopic pregnancy. Since most Ob-Gyns have an ultrasound machine in their office, the sono is fast and easy to do. Those docs who don’t have their own sono machines will refer out. And higher volume providers may employ a radiologist or sonographer to do the sonos in their practices.

So if we’re all doing ultrasounds anyway, what’s the big deal?

This is not about abortion – It’s about the practice of medicine and the rights of patients

The big deal is that patient and physician rights are being violated by legislators with an agenda that has nothing to do with the public health and everything to do with restricting access to a legal medical procedure.

We are not talking about a doctor ordering a radiologic test. We are talking about state legislators mandating that a patient undergo a medical procedure without her consent.

It’s not only invasion of privacy, and the physician-patient contract, it’s assault on the patient. It’s mandating that “as a component of informed consent”, a woman undergo a procedure without her consent. (Amendments that require the woman to consent for the ultrasound were voted down.)

HC 462 – The Virginia Ultrasound Law

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman’s medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261.

Do you see the legal precedent being made here?

Forget for a moment that this is about abortion.

Imagine instead that there is a law requiring you to get a chest x-ray before you can be treated for pneumonia. Or mandating that as a doctor, you order an MRI and show the patient the images before treating a headache. Or forcing a male patient to undergo a rectal exam before being treated for urethritis.

We’re not talking about whether or not these are things that are happening anyway as part of the current practice of medicine. We’re talking about a law requiring them to be done as a condition of treatment. The doctor must order the test and the patient must undergo the procedure. Or the doctor is breaking the law.

This is not just about abortion. Or women’s rights. Or Planned Parenthood.

It’s about the practice of medicine and the rights of our patients. It’s about physician-patient privacy and the authority of doctors to practice medicine without the fear of breaking the law.

All physicians and patients, whether they are male or female, pro-choice or pro-life, Republican or Democrat, should be outraged. Our medical societies and our patient advocacy groups - every single one of them, whether related to reproductive care or not – should be fighting these laws, and engaging physicians and patients everywhere to fight back. Publicly and vocally.

With the passage of Virginia HB 462, eight states now have laws mandating that a woman have an ultrasound prior to an abortion.

How soon before it’s your state? Or your specialty? Or your practice? Or your body?
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 07:06 PM   #27
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Not just a Catholic controversy: Protestant colleges threaten to drop student health care over contraceptive mandate

On a chilly winter day earlier this month, 120 college presidents--mostly of Protestant schools--from around the country met in Washington for an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a group that represents 136 American schools and more than 400,000 students. One topic kept coming up in the discussions: How to combat President Barack Obama's proposed mandate for religious employers to provide health insurance that offers free contraception, a decision that would affect all of their institutions--and could violate some of their deepest-held beliefs.

During the conference, 25 of the presidents held a separate policy meeting to discuss the proposed directive, which was first established in the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and was upheld this year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate, later softened by the Obama administration, would have required non-church religious institutions like schools and hospitals to offer health insurance plans that include free access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Many of these presidents made trips to the offices of their representatives to urge them to fight against the decision.

Much of the news coverage of the battle over the contraception mandate focused on the outcry from the Catholic Church, but employers affiliated with Protestant denominations--especially religious colleges who offer insurance plans to students--waged an equally outspoken crusade against the decision. A coalition of more than 60 faith-based groups co-signed a letter to President Obama in December urging him to broaden exemptions to the mandate, and the council's president, Paul Corts, twice sent letters to the administration urging them to reconsider.

After the Obama administration first announced the mandate, colleges associated with Protestant churches and schools founded as expressly Christian institutions fought for exemptions, warning that the mandate could force them to deny health insurance to students who rely on the school's health care plans.

These critics say that many of the students who attend the schools are unmarried, so covering even preventive products would violate their religious teachings. Similarly, because some within the faith consider drugs like Plan B and Ella--which reduce the chance of pregnancy when taken after intercourse--to be abortion-inducing, the mandate caused problems even for coverage of married students and employees.

"You'd be teaching your students one thing and then providing services that you're teaching are wrong," Shapri LoMaglio, the director of government relations and executive programs at the council, told Yahoo News.

To quell concerns like these, Obama announced on Feb. 10 an "accommodation" for religious employers that would allow those employed by religious institutions to obtain free contraception as part of their employer health insurance, but said that the insurance companies would be required to pay for it, not the religious institutions.

In a statement after Obama's announcement, Paul Corts, the council's president, expressed skepticism that the accommodation plan would resolve the issue.

"Without seeing the final rule it is impossible to tell from the President's general statement if our specific religious liberty issues have been addressed," Corts said. "Therefore, we remain unaware of whether the religious exemption will encompass our schools and their student plans and eliminate all of the violations of conscience issues. We are anxious to get the details and will continue to work with the Administration to try to ensure that the religious liberty of our institutions is protected."

While the Obama administration was still considering how to apply the health care law's mandate to religious groups, several presidents from Protestant colleges sent letters to their representatives and posted them on Regulations.gov, a government site that gathers public comments on rules before they are implemented. Of the schools in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, at least 12 submitted comments urging the administration to expand the mandate or eliminate it all together. If churches were exempt, they argued, why aren't institutions that base their bylaws on the same faith-based principles?

"The Department of Health and Human Services hardly seems like the appropriate place for such a determination to be made," wrote Mark Benedetto, the president of the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota, a school founded by Baptists in 1872. "I am concerned that the regulations as written will violate the conscience of our institution as it relates to the health care plan that we offer to our students--the exemption is for employer plans, as written it does not appear to also include the student plans. Not only would this force our institution to violate our religious convictions by offering emergency contraceptives to our students, it would put us in the awkward position of offering a health care plan to our employees that is consistent with their religious convictions while offering another to our students that violates their religious convictions."

Some schools have already made the decision to revoke insurance to students not covered by their parents. A spokesman from Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational school in Denver that has filed a lawsuit opposing the rule, said students will be forced to seek insurance options elsewhere if the administration does not change course.

"This plan will not be offered in the future if it must be compliant with the administration's mandate thereby forcing American citizens to either compromise their beliefs or go without," said Ron Benton, the school's assistant vice president for administrative services.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/n...232819956.html
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 07:17 PM   #28
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Debate over conscience in the workplace intensifies

(Reuters) - Can a state require a pharmacy to stock and dispense emergency contraception - even when the owner considers the drug immoral?

That's the question at the heart of a long-running legal battle in Washington state, expected to be decided Wednesday with a ruling from U.S. District Court in Seattle.

It's the latest twist in a contentious national debate over the role of conscience in the workplace.

In recent weeks, the debate has been dominated by religious groups fighting to overturn a federal mandate that most health insurance plans provide free birth control. But the battle extends far beyond insurance regulations.

Asserting conscientious objections, nurses in New Jersey have said they would not check the vital signs of patients recovering from abortions. Infertility specialists in California would not perform artificial insemination on a lesbian. An ambulance driver in Illinois declined to transport a patient to an abortion clinic.

In the Washington case, a family-owned pharmacy in Olympia declined to stock emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Co-owner Kevin Stormans says he considers the drug equivalent to an abortion, because it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. His two pharmacists agree.

Their decision to keep the drug off their shelves came under fire in 2007, when the state Board of Pharmacy enacted a rule requiring pharmacies to stock and dispense all time-sensitive medications in demand in their community. In the case of the Olympia pharmacy, that includes emergency contraception, said Tim Church, a state Department of Health spokesman. The pharmacy's owner and employees filed suit to block the mandate.

"All our family wants ... is to serve our customers in keeping with our deepest values," Stormans said in a statement issued by his attorneys.

The state argues that it has a compelling interest in protecting the right of patients to legal medication

The conscience debate has implications for a vast number of patients. A 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study found that 14 percent of doctors do not believe they are obligated to tell patients about possible treatments that they personally consider morally objectionable. Nearly 30 percent of physicians said they had no obligation to refer patients to another provider for treatments they wouldn't offer themselves. A more recent study, published last week in the Journal of Medical Ethics, echoed the finding on referrals.

And abortion and contraception aren't the only medical services at issue. Physicians also may object to following directives from terminally ill patients to remove feeding tubes or ventilators, said Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, an advocacy group that backs physician-assisted suicide.


A FAMILIAR DIVIDE

The arguments for and against expanded conscience rights fracture along familiar lines.

Religious liberty advocates argue that protecting an individual's right to heed his conscience is a core American value. They advocate broad laws that would shield most anyone in the health-care field from doing any work he or she deems objectionable, even if it's several steps removed from the actual act of terminating a pregnancy or supplying emergency contraception.

Under this view, a translator could refuse to convey family-planning information to a patient; a custodian could refuse to clean the operating room after an abortion; a billing clerk could refuse to process insurance claims for birth-control pills.

Conscience is, by definition, a highly individual value set; neither an employer or the state should "get to define the conscience" of an individual worker, said Matt Bowman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative non-profit law firm focused on religious liberty.

Bowman recently represented a dozen nurses who sued a New Jersey hospital over a requirement that they tend to abortion patients before and after surgery.

One of those nurses, Fe Esperanza Racpan-Vinoya, said even a routine blood pressure check would be abhorrent to her if the patient was in for an abortion. "Absolutely," she said, "there's a big difference" between a patient in for an abortion and one in for an appendectomy.

The hospital, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, settled the case in late December. It pledged to hire new staff so nurses with objections wouldn't have to help with abortion patients, except in emergencies.


RETAINING PEOPLE OF FAITH

Religious liberty advocates say they worry that narrowing conscience rights will drive people of faith out of medical professions. "The government cannot single out people with conscientious objections ... and seek to exclude them from the public square," said Eric Kniffin, legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the pharmacy in the Washington case.

But women's groups and other patient advocates argue that expansive opt-out clauses create workplace chaos and risk patient harm. They worry about rural patients, where there may be just one pharmacist or gynecologist within 100 miles.

"It leads to one group of people imposing their religious belief on the public health of everyone else, and that's just unacceptable," said Susan Berke Fogel, an attorney with the National Health Law Program, which advocates for family planning access.

Paige Gerson, a dietician in the Kansas City suburbs, experienced the sting of a doctor citing conscience objections several years ago, when she called her gynecologist early one Saturday seeking an emergency contraceptive. The doctor on call declined to prescribe it or refer Gerson to another doctor.

"I was in disbelief," Gerson said. "I absolutely felt she was judging me." She drove into the city to get help from Planned Parenthood.

COURT RULINGS VARY

Case law on conscience rights is a confusing patchwork.

Federal law offers clear protections for doctors and nurses who don't want to participate in abortions.

Nearly every state has similar "conscience clause" laws in place for abortion. A number go further still -- 17 states allow health-care providers to refuse to sterilize patients on moral or religious grounds, and 13 states permit providers to refuse to prescribe or dispense contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a family planning research group.

The broadest conscience protection of all is in Mississippi, where state law allows nearly anyone connected with health-care service to refuse to participate in nearly any procedure.

State and federal courts, however, have signaled a wariness to extend such broad protections.

Letting citizens freely opt out of civil laws by citing their religious beliefs would effectively "permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," Justice Antonin Scalia warned in a 1990 decision curtailing the rights of workers to claim religious freedom exemptions.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court cited that ruling in deciding that infertility doctors were wrong to deny a lesbian artificial insemination on religious grounds. Their denial ran afoul of a California law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, the court found.

On the other hand, some courts have signaled strong support for religious freedom protections.

A state court in Illinois last spring overturned a regulation, similar to the Washington rule, that required pharmacies to carry and dispense emergency contraception.

And late last month, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled in favor of a graduate student studying for a counseling degree who said she couldn't counsel clients on same-sex relationships because of her religious belief that such relationships were wrong. The university expelled her, citing intolerance; she sued, claiming religious discrimination. The appeals court said she should get a trial.

"A reasonable jury could conclude that professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith," the court wrote. "Tolerance is a two-way street."


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/debate-over...231341506.html
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2012, 07:24 PM   #29
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,589
Thanks: 5,992
Thanked 9,892 Times in 2,278 Posts
Rep Power: 21474846
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Here is the link to the article in Post #15. I somehow neglected to post it.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154144...ow?page=entire
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2012, 08:58 AM   #30
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,589
Thanks: 5,992
Thanked 9,892 Times in 2,278 Posts
Rep Power: 21474846
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default Pesonhood Bills Herald A Dark Age For Women

It seems to me the personhood bills are the ones to watch out for and, at the moment, there are two poised to become law in the next couple of days in Oklahoma and Virginia. If states start to pass laws determining life begins at the moment of conception it won’t matter if they have passed a law requiring women to fly to the moon for a piece of green cheese to present to her physician two hours before her abortion, because abortion will be illegal. And the outlawing of contraception won’t be long in following.
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2012, 03:12 PM   #31
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default McDonnell rejects mandatory invasive ultrasound law

UPDATE 2:45 P.M.:

Gov. Bob McDonnell this afternoon said he opposes requiring Virginia women to undergo a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.

Having reviewed the current proposal: "I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done," the governor said in a statement.


"Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."

McDonnell said he has recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to the bill "to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily."

"I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age," McDonnell says in the statement. "Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision," it reads.

McDonnell has tempered his earlier support for the ultrasound measure.

In late January, he said on a radio show that "to be able to have that information before making what most people would say is a very important, serious, life-changing decision I think is appropriate."

More recently, however, McDonnell has been less decisive, with his spokesman telling the Times-Dispatch on Saturday that "if the bill passes he will review it, in its final form, at that time." This morning, McDonnell refused to answer questions about it after a news conference on an unrelated matter. He would only tell reporters that he's concerned about the budget as he walked away.

House Republicans now have before them a substitute to the ultrasound mandate measure that would allow women to reject the procedure if it must be done vaginally.

Under the substitute proposed by Del. David B. Albo, R-Fairfax, women would still be required to have an ultrasound before an abortion to determine the gestational age, but women subject to a transvaginal procedure would be able to decline.
Oftentimes, the procedure must be performed that way, versus on the abdomen, early in a pregnancy.

The woman would still have an opportunity to view the image and receive a printed copy.

The chamber has not yet started to debate the bill.

(This has been a breaking news update.)

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/v...ll-ar-1707568/
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2012, 04:40 PM   #32
Soon
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Relationship Status:
attached
 
Soon's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SW Ontario
Posts: 6,896
Thanks: 29,046
Thanked 13,120 Times in 3,399 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
Soon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST ReputationSoon Has the BEST Reputation
Default

When a Country Cracks Down on Contraception: Grim Lessons from the Philippines

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...#ixzz1n9Yi4IoQ
Soon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Soon For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2012, 05:17 PM   #33
Corkey
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Human
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
Relationship Status:
Very Married
 
Corkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,323 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853
Corkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I don't mean to sound alarmist, there is going to be, if this personhood amendment crap passes, infanticide the likes we haven't seen since before RvW. How on earth can they call themselves pro-life.
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)
Corkey is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Corkey For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2012, 05:20 PM   #34
Sparkle
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She, please
Relationship Status:
Loved Up
 
Sparkle's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Western MA
Posts: 2,174
Thanks: 8,970
Thanked 6,630 Times in 1,557 Posts
Rep Power: 21474847
Sparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST ReputationSparkle Has the BEST Reputation
Default

this is all so deeply disturbing in an "A Handmaid's Tale" way, ...except more so because it is our reality.
__________________
I am made of stars
Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sparkle For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2012, 03:55 AM   #35
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Judge strikes down law mandating sale of emergency contraception in Washington State

TACOMA, Washington (Reuters) - A federal judge declared on Wednesday that a Washington state rule requiring pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptives against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional.

In a decision with national implications for the role of personal morality in the workplace, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton also imposed an injunction blocking enforcement of the regulation.

Leighton said he struck down the state rule because it trampled on pharmacists' right to "conscientious objection."


The ruling only applies to Washington state but is sure to reverberate nationally, as it comes in the midst of a roiling political debate about a new federal regulation mandating that all health insurance plans - even those sponsored by religious employers - provide free birth control.

Several religiously affiliated universities have sued to block that insurance regulation. Their arguments are similar to those that prevailed in the pharmacy case - namely, that the government has no right to compel individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire, a Democrat who had pushed for the pharmacy mandate, said the judge's ruling left her concerned that some women will be denied timely access to emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within a few days of unprotected sex.

Gregoire said she saw "strong arguments" for an appeal of the ruling, though she said no decision had been made.

The lawsuit was brought by a drugstore owner in Olympia, Washington, and two of his pharmacists, all of whom shared the religious conviction that emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion because they can block a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

They refused to stock or dispense the medication, often referred to as the "morning-after pill" or by the brand name Plan B, and sued to block the regulation.

"I'm just thrilled that the court ruled to protect our constitutional right of conscience," one of the pharmacists, Margo Thelen, said in a statement issued through her attorneys at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The case stems from a rule adopted by the Washington State Pharmacy Board in 2007 requiring pharmacies to stock and dispense most medications, including Plan B, for which there is a demonstrated community need.

In his 48-page opinion, Leighton noted that Washington permitted pharmacy owners to decide against stocking certain medications for any number of "secular reasons" - because they are expensive, for example, or inconvenient to dispense, or because they simply don't fit into the store's business plan. Yet the rule did not allow pharmacists to assert a religious reason for keeping certain drugs off their shelves.

"A pharmacy is permitted to refuse to stock oxycodone because it fears robbery, but the same pharmacy cannot refuse to stock Plan B because it objects on religious grounds," the judge wrote. "Why are these reasons treated differently under the rules?"

TIMELY ACCESS

The judge also accused the state of enforcing the mandate selectively, noting that regulators had not opened cases against the many Catholic-affiliated pharmacies in the state that also refuse to dispense Plan B.

He suggested that a more logical way to ensure access to the contraceptive - while respecting religious conscience - would be to require pharmacists to refer patients to another drugstore that would fill the prescription if they declined to do it themselves.

The governor, however, has suggested that referrals would hinder timely access to the medication in rural areas, where there might be just one pharmacy for many miles.

Rene Tomisser, senior counsel for the state Attorney General, vehemently disputed the judge's assertion that the regulation was being applied selectively or that it targeted Christian pharmacists in particular.

"From the earliest years of our republic, that a rule that is neutral and general has to be complied with by everyone, even if it affects someone's religious beliefs," he said. He said the Washington rule was intended to ensure women's access to an important and time-sensitive medication and that it was applied evenly to all pharmacies.

Leighton concluded in his opinion that the rules in question "are not neutral," adding: "They are designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted."

Tomisser acknowledged that the state had not investigated or disciplined Catholic pharmacies for non-compliance, but said that was because they had received no complaints from consumers about those businesses. He, like the governor, said the state would consider an appeal.

While Leighton's injunction technically applies only to the plaintiffs, Becket Fund lawyer Luke Goodrich said that as a practical matter, the state would now find it more difficult to enforce the regulation against other pharmacists.

Last spring, a state judge in Illinois struck down a similar law requiring pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception.

A handful of other states, including California, New Jersey and Wisconsin, have laws requiring pharmacies to fill all valid prescriptions, but loopholes allow pharmacists with moral objections to refer the patient to another drugstore.

Six states explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, and several more have broad right-to-conscience laws that provide some protection to pharmacists as well as to other healthcare professionals.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strik...013210965.html
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2012, 11:03 AM   #36
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Virginia Ultrasound bill changes


At the request of the Gov, after he consulted with doctors and lawyers, the House bill was changed to mandate abdominal ultrasounds, but giving women, requiring a transvaginal one to determine gestational age, the right to opt out of the procedure. The House passed it yesterday. The Senate is to vote on it today.

I'm sure the testimony from womens rights activitists, the parodies on this issue showing Virginia in a foolish light, and the lack of public support also helped.

The "personhood" bill is also supposed to make its way to the floor today.



__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2012, 02:05 PM   #37
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Virginia GOP Lawmakers "Not Feeling The Love"

Immediately following a Senate committee’s advancement of two abortion-related bills, about 300 people gathered along 9th Street at the state Capitol to decry the measures and rally for women’s rights.

At first, the group, mostly women, gathered on the western side of the street, facing off with a handful of anti-abortion protesters opposite them.

While the hundreds of protesters chanted “Our bodies, our lives” and held a variety of signs, some reading “Stop the War on Virginia Women,” the pro-lifers shouted back, holding posters of fetuses.

Eventually, women’s rights rally moved across the street and protesters stood shoulder-to-shoulder along the sidewalk leading from the General Assembly building to the Capitol, cheering Democratic legislators as they made their way to caucus meetings.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, sponsor of House Bill 1, the contentious “personhood” measure that would define life as beginning at conception, decided to bypass the gauntlet after being jeered when his bill cleared committee earlier in the morning.

“Even Christ avoided stonings,” he said.

Marshall’s bill advanced to the Senate floor on an 8-7 vote after being amended to specify that that the bill would not prohibit the use of contraception.

“I’m pleased. This is a very simple proposition,” he said of the bill’s advancement, adding that the amendment was fine with him. “If it helps people understand it better, OK.”

Katherine Greenier, director of the Women’s Rights Project with the ACLU of Virginia and one of the rally’s organizers, said she was disturbed by the measure moving forward despite weeks of public denouncement.

“This bill would lay the legal foundation to ban abortion and contraception in the event of a Supreme Court reversal [of Roe v. Wade],” she said, adding that there were “numerous other concerns” with the legislation.

Marshall called claims that the bill would prevent women from undergoing in vitro fertilization “completely disingenuine.”

Another bill, House Bill 462, sponsored by Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell, was amended in the committee to weaken the measure, which originally proposed requiring ultrasounds, including vaginal, for all women about to undergo an abortion.

Under pressure from Gov. Bob McDonnell and the public, the bill was altered in committee to only require abdominal ultrasounds and offer vaginal probes early in a pregnancy.

“The amendment is nonsensical,” Greenier said. “We’re now mandating that a doctor perform a test on a woman, whether she consents or not, that is medically unnecessary. I can’t think of a bigger intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.”

The staunchly pro-life Marshall said he was disappointed that the ultrasound bill had been altered.

“I think it was a reaction to this screaming out here,” he said, adding, “The women were already undergoing the transvaginal ultrasounds. This is nothing new.”

Asked if he felt like his Republican colleagues were succumbing to public pressure, Marshall said he could only answer for himself.

“I don’t back down from this one,” he said. “There’s no reason to.”

Senate Democratic Leader Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, emerged from the gauntlet to cheers and applause. Asked if the amendments to the two bills made them more palatable to Democrats, he responded: “Hell, no.”

He added: “Republicans are really screwing this place up.”

http://virginiapolitics.tumblr.com/p...res-protest-at
---------------------------------------------------

Senators and most others in attendance were aware of the national attention on the measure and late-night comedy ridicule of the "personhood" bill and other abortion-related measures.

"We are a laughingstock of the world because of things like this," said Sen. Mamie E. Locke, D-Hampton, who opposed the bill. "The individual rights of women are being challenged continuously," she said, calling the issue of a woman's pregnancy a matter between "them, their family and their doctor and their God."

A number of speakers -- including a physician and a mother who has gone through multiple in vitro fertilization procedures -- were concerned that the proposed legislation was not precise enough to safeguard the procedure and provide for all the ramifications of how fertilized eggs would be handled.

Still others wondered whether forms of birth control that prevent fertilization of an egg, or implantation of a fertilized egg in a uterus could become criminal acts.

Proponents of the measure, however seemed ready for this concern. Sen. Stephen D. Newman, R-Lynchburg, proposed an amendment that specified that nothing in the law could be interpreted as "opposing the use of lawful contraception."

The amendment passed on a party-line vote, and a few minutes later, the committee voted to report the bill.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/v...om-ar-1710295/
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-23-2012, 04:26 PM   #38
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default UPDATE: State Senate scuttles 'personhood' bill

RICHMOND, Va. --
UPDATE:

In a stunning turn of events, the Virginia Senate has voted 24-14 to scuttle a bill that would have given fertilized eggs the same legal rights as people.

Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, proposed that House Bill 1, which had passed the Senate Education and Health Committee earlier today on an 8-7 party line vote, be sent back to the committee and carried over to the 2013 legislative session for further discussion and deliberation.

Then Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, the Republican leader of the Senate, rose to support the motion, saying that the issues raised by the bill are more complex and far-reaching than previously thought and merit further study.

The vote effectively kills the bill for the year.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/v...om-ar-1710295/

-----------------------------


Wow this is good news....I think.....for now anyway.
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Old 02-24-2012, 11:04 AM   #39
MsTinkerbelly
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married 7/3/08, Together 17 years <3
 
MsTinkerbelly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 6,243
Thanks: 28,641
Thanked 21,855 Times in 4,737 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
MsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default Good news...

Virginia lawmakers halt anti-abortion 'personhood' bill State Senate votes to send measure back to committee until 2013

PORTSMOUTH, Virginia — Virginia lawmakers on Thursday shelved until next year a measure ultimately aimed at outlawing abortion by granting individual rights to an embryo from the moment of conception.

..The state Senate voted 24-14 to send the so-called "personhood" bill back to a committee to be taken up again in 2013.

The move effectively killed the bill for this year.

Va. lawmakers scale back controversial abortion bill
Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates voted 66-32 in favor of defining the word person under state law to include unborn children "from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development."

Republican Delegate Bob Marshall, an abortion rights opponent who introduced the legislation, said the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States would not have been rendered if Texas state law had regarded the unborn as a person "in the full sense."

"So this is a first step, a necessary step, but it's not sufficient to directly challenge Roe," Marshall said in a phone interview.

A spokesman for Republican Governor Bob McDonnell said the governor would review the measure if the Senate sent it to his desk but did not give any insight into whether McDonnell would sign it into law.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.
Virginia's approach differs from failed attempts to define a fertilized egg as a legal person in Colorado in 2008 and 2010, and in Mississippi in 2011 where voters rejected the measure.

Virginia's effort avoids involving a constitutional amendment like those states, instead seeking changes throughout the legal code, said Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Washington-based Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health issues.

But she said the intent was the same, with the measure ultimately aimed at banning abortion, contraception and infertility treatment.

"Should this bill become law, it could have a far-reaching impact on women's access to health care," Nash said. "No state, as yet, has adopted anything like this."

Marshall said the measure did not have the authority to ban birth control or infertility treatment.

"Let's just say that the imaginations of the opponents are fertile, but their arguments are sterile," he said.

Ted Miller, a spokesman for abortion rights supporter NARAL Pro-Choice America, said state Republicans pushing the Virginia measure had hoodwinked voters after campaigning on the economy and jobs before last autumn's general election, when the Republican Party gained seats in the General Assembly.

"That agenda is out of touch with the values and priorities of Virginians, as well as Americans across the country," Miller said.

Similar legislation failed last year in the Virginia Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats.

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters
MsTinkerbelly is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post:
Old 02-24-2012, 03:29 PM   #40
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,221
Thanks: 9,828
Thanked 34,438 Times in 7,631 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default 7 states challenge birth control coverage rule

LINCOLN, Neb.—Seven states asked a federal judge Thursday to block an Obama administration mandate that requires birth control coverage for employees of religious-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court of Nebraska, alleges that the new rule violates the First Amendment rights of groups that object to the use of contraceptives.

It marks the first legal challenge filed by states.

The rule, announced as part of the federal health care law, has come under fire from religious groups that object to the use of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. In response to the criticism, Obama administration officials have said they will shift the requirement from the employers to health insurers themselves.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general from Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. Three Nebraska-based groups -- Catholic Social Services, Pius X Catholic High School and the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America -- are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, a Republican who is running for U.S. Senate, said the administration's regulation "forces of millions of Americans to choose between following religious convictions and complying with federal law.

"We will not stand idly by while out constitutionally guaranteed liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them," he said.

The lawsuit alleges that the rule will effectively force religious employers and organizations to drop health insurance coverage, which will raise enrollment in state Medicaid programs and increase patient numbers at state-subsidized hospitals and medical centers.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is named as a defendant. A phone message left with the agency on Thursday wasn't immediately returned.

The contentious issue has pushed social issues to the forefront in a presidential election year that has been dominated by the economy. Issues such as abortion, contraception and requirements of President Barack Obama's health care law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans' conservative base, which is critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.

The new policy has angered some religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, who say the requirement would force them to violate their stances against contraception. It has also drawn a sharp response from congressional Republicans.

Obama administration officials have said they don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedom, but want to give women access to important preventive care. Supporters of the rule, including the ACLU and women's advocacy groups, say the measure is about female health.

Republican lawmakers in a handful of states have seized on the contentious issue, presenting bills that would allow insurance companies to ignore the federal rules. Measures in Idaho, Missouri and Arizona would expand the exemptions to secular insurers or businesses that object to covering contraception, abortion or sterilization.

Officials have said the Obama administration's ruling was carefully considered, after reviewing more than 200,000 comments from interested parties and the public. The one-year extension, they said, responds to concerns raised by religious employers about making adjustments.

Administration officials stress that individual decisions about whether to use birth control, and what kind, remain in the hands of women and their doctors.
__________________




Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21 AM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018