i think i just got heartburn.
no longer just a hidden paranoia amongst the pro-choice, the new evangelicals' 'war' on contraception has finally broken the surface. i hate being right!
i love all the space given to the anti-family planning side while the pro-family planning side is given just a few inches toward the end, legitimizing the idea that people (mostly women) shouldn't have the right to use contraception.
Abortion foes' new rallying point | Chicago Tribune
so.
all those married ladies on the pill or using the sponge, diaphragm or IUD? forget it.
all those married guys who don't want to get a vasectomy and so use condoms? too bad.
everyone else who doesn't want to get pregnant (for various reasons) and who don't believe the same as others about the place of sex in a relationship (or out of one)? yeah, too bad.
sex is only for married folks, people. the fundies have said so.
and now they're going to FORCE you to be celibate.
whether you like it or not.
20 comments:
Hey, i'm in town monday, oct. 2. wanna have dinner? you, your roomie, chili and me?
regarding your post, i had some nasty comment about...well, how shall i say it....if you love a guy and he loves you and he gives you a pearl necklace to show his love everying night, will the fundies have a problem? Is that technically contraception? I mean, grandma bush always wore pearls...
dislaimer: pearl necklaces are not a reliable choice for birth control and will not protect you from STDs.
Actually, I thought the quotes from the anti-contraception squad were loony enough that they made their own case against themselves... but perhaps I'm just not mainstream enough anymore.
i don't want this to turn into a quagmire - truly i don't. . . .
i disagree with Joseph Scheidler's argument re contraception. it reminds me of the whole argument against people owning guns because guns kill people. people kill people, not the guns. and contraception doesn't cause abortions, people do. while i am staunchly opposed to abortion i just don't agree with this fella nor do i embrace his reasoning.
ding; your comment "sex is only for married folks, people. the fundies have said so" is true but it has nothing to do with what the fundies say - it's a god thing, don't you think?
and. . . you have spurred me (as a "raging fundy) to give thought to explain why i disagree w/ abortion using NO scripture. someday i'll post it. when my skin gets a little thicker ;)
rather frightening comment on the second page of that article:
"It's time to get serious about denying Planned Parenthood funding for birth control or sex education and abortion" (my emphasis)
And another item in the article got my attention: I don't know what the situation in the States is, but in Australia a pharmacist is within rights to not sell contraception for reasons of conscience; that's something I support because I don't think there should be laws forcing people to do anything they don't believe they should do...
How does this work in the States? I ask because of a paragraph that said:
"Likely it also would involve a state-by-state push to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions for reasons of "conscience.""
-peter
peter said (allowing pharmacists to refuse to supply contraceptives is) something I support because I don't think there should be laws forcing people to do anything they don't believe they should do...
peter - if providing first-aid is against my conscience, should I be allowed to become an EMT? This is not about forcing people to do things that they don't want to do - last I checked no one anywhere is the world is forced to become a pharmacist. It is about truth in advertising: if you claim to be a pharmacist, then you should fill presciptions for legal drugs. If you have a problem filling those prescriptions, then don't become a pharmacist.
jesus chick (God bless her!) said ...it reminds me of the whole argument against people owning guns because guns kill people. people kill people, not the guns. and contraception doesn't cause abortions, people do. jc - I'm confused. The purpose of a gun is to kill people. The purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy, thereby preventing the need for abortions. I don't see how preventing a pregnancy is the same as terminating a pregnancy. By that logic practicing abstinence is the same as having an abortion.
wow. a lot so far.
miri - have to check my sched, but would love to catch up - it's been years! (and thanks for the 1st ever mention of pearl necklaces in political discussion - nice.)
trope - i think it's their illogic that's really interesting to me. the article tries to make a connection between what they want and what Catholics have always believed, but to the best of my knowledge, mainstream Catholicism doesn't try to legislate their anti-contraception credo for *everyone* - just Catholics.
religious activists aren't just keeping their beliefs for those who believe like them, but they want to make it the law of the land for everyone.
jesus chick - thanks for the reminder that not all evangelicals can be painted with a broad brush. and no quagmire here! i think most reasonable people can argue that contraception, and the use of it, is a good thing.
now, to your point about this being a 'God thing.' (putting on my ChurchGal hat) that may be so; but whether we believe God's laws apply to everyone, not everyone believes in God and, frankly, I don't think we expect everyone to. since we already expect a split in opinion, is it really in the best interest of society to *force* those who don't behave/believe like us to act so?
in a pluralistic society that espouses religious freedom (as in the freedom to shrug and say, 'I don't want to be celibate') that kind of social coercion just don't work.
peter - one of the beauties of the fundamentalist activist is that their work is always regressive. it never moves forward. so it's pretty easy to predict where they'll go. abortion-contraception-sex education. once you stop sex education, where can you go from there? what more can you abolish? criminalizing sex outside of marriage and a western version of sharia law.
(any takers on that bet?)
and i have to stand with greg here; the pharmacy issue isn't one of conscious. that buys into the moral hysteria of the anti-choice crowd. pharmacy refusals are about not doing one's job. if it's one's conscious that says not to fulfill the requirements of employment, then one needs to rethink their employment.
as long as we're throwing around slightly inaccurate analogies, here's mine:
it's as ridiculous as a vegan working at a meat packing facility and going on strike because he's morally opposed to the usage of cattle for food. the protesting vegan needs to rethink if his current employment is a good fit.
a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication stops being a pharmacist and needs to have their license revoked or suspended. period. after all, we put soldiers in jail for conscientious objecting; we fire employees who blow whistles; we disbar lawyers who fail to provide an energetic and legally required defense.
so why is the conscious of a pharmacist so special when my moral framework shuddered every day i was working for corporate america? it's not.
the appropriate frame for this issue isn't morality; it's about doing one's job.
(and how it works in the states is that each state has its own rules for dealing with pharmacy refusals - largely because of the corporation's own rules. in IL, where i am, the governor passed an executive order that imposed a rule saying pharmacists in IL cannot refuse to dispense or tell a woman where she can get her prescription filled without reprisal. he could do this because the large companies here - walgreen's, target, CVS - will take action against that employee on their own if they hear about it.)
I like the vegan analogy. Well said. Thanks for the heads up on this; if it got to the LA times, it was buried. I'm giving the article to my students who seem to think that this sort of thing can never happen here.
and by here, I mean the U.S.
greg - perhaps my thoughts were flawed. . .i'm sleep deprived and starting to mumble incoherently. . .traveling husband, 3 children, new baby. . .ack! what i meant to get across is that contraception does not prevent nor cause abortions. removal of access to contraception is not going to prevent/nor cause abortions. only a person's decision prevents or causes an abortion.
ding - i agree, not everyone believes in god's law. i was making a gross assumption that anyone who claims the christian faith will agree that sex is reserved for marriage. i've always wondered why persons would claim the christian faith but not adhere (poor word choice?) to the christian tenets. why bother? but alas. . i ramble
interesting... if the fundies do have/get the power to get rid of sex education, I can totally believe that they wouldn't stop at that...
"is it really in the best interest of society to *force* those who don't behave/believe like us to act so?"
...and that's precisely why I don't think pharmacists should be *forced* to fill contraceptive prescriptions...
though perhaps I should be a little clearer here: the situations I know of in Australia are usually in small family-owned pharmacies (so no 'corporate' rules, and no get-a-job-elsewhere) who make it clear (eg, with a notice at the door) that they won't fill the prescriptions... as to a low-level employee working in a place where the job of the company is to fill those prescriptions, then i agree, they need to rethink their job
and I know u know those analogies are a stretch, but is it so hard to understand that someone might become a pharmacist because they want to help people? (keeping in mind that there are those of us who consider those contraceptives for which one requires a prescription - eg ru486 - to be aborti-facient)
anyway, i've possibly misinterpreted the situation... as i say, I'm getting the impression I'm talking about one thing that happens in Australia while some rather more sinister things are going on in the States...
-peter
Peter, RU-486 is indeed an abortifacient, but it's not prescribed as a contraceptive anywhere I've ever heard of.
Prescription contraceptives (the pill, emergency contraception) are not abortifacients.
One note to clarify this prescription refusal thing... pharmacies are not required to stock any given drug. So Peter, the situation may not be as different as you think: some smaller stores just decline to carry EC, or other hormonal BC methods. The state laws preventing pharmacist refusal state that if the pharmacy stocks the drug, it must be dispensed to anyone with a prescription for it, without discrimination or hassle. Other states have regulations that require pharmacies to post notice if they do NOT carry EC or other birth control methods. (I'd love to do a survey and see how many of those pharmacies are stocking condoms.) Of course, now that the US is going to provide EC over the counter (sometimes), the whole landscape of this debate is about to shift.
that's right!
i totally forgot about the over the counter availability of EC.
that will change a lot. (if it's ever allowed to happen.)
Jesus Chick, what ding is saying with her churchgal hat on, she doesn't believe in the bible. She doesn't believe in anything I suppose, wait a minute,yes she does, he, he.
Jesus Chick, you WILL get thick skin, keep reading your bible and you know the rest that goes with that.
I can't believe some of these comments.
ding, it is okay to admit that your not a christian. Really!
I tried to resist - really I did. anonymous - who appointed you the definer of "Christian?" Who appointed you the definer of "believe in the bible?" The fact that ding does not share your interpretation of the bible does not mean that she doesn't "believe in the bible" (whatever you think that might mean), or that she's not a Christian. God is infinitely bigger and broader than you, your thoughts, your ideas, and your beliefs (e.g., Isaiah 55:8-9). Try to keep that in mind.
Greg,
2Peter 1:20 and 21
scripture that will help you understand interpretation a better.
Ding,
1 cor.6:9,20 Eph,5:17-21;phil.2:12
I hope those help.
SPEAKING TO CHRISTIANS ONLY!!!!!!
-MA
i know i'm going to regret this...
i'm not going to get into an interpretation war because that's not the point. precisely i'm talking about the fact that not everyone has the same religious belief.
you wanna make this about me? good way to distract from the issue - ad hominem attack. nice.
it's about the fact that not everyone believes the same, it's about the fact that contraception is not a sin (at least that wasn't how i was raised), and it's about the fact that one small religious group is trying to legislate one particular view of morality for the rest of us who don't adhere to it.
i don't care what you think about my own personal whatever. thanks for the opinion but it's just ash in the wind. if you comment here, stick to the point or i delete you.
sorry
*you* i'll talk to - judgmental strangers, i don't.
Post a Comment