What a demagogue, devoid of intellectual integrity, lying about a bill that would certainly not prevent dying women from being treated medically in an abortion situation.
In the above embedded video, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) claims that under the terms of the “Protect Life Act:
…women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene…It’s just appalling.
No, Pelosi’s “leadership” is appalling. And note, it isn’t a misstatement to a question. She made a point of bringing it up and looked at notes before doing so.
To see the unveracity of Pelosi’s claim, let’s look at the bill itself, shall we? From HR 358:
‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
So, a woman with a troubled pregnancy that could endanger her life could have a what used to be called therapeutic abortion, covered by insurance if the bill becomes law. In other words, there is no way to reasonably construe the bill as requiring women to be left to die on the floor–which would be illegal for a hospital or clinic to do in any event, even if they never got paid. Good grief.
And notice, states can fund abortion coverage under Obamacare and the bill would not prevent private insurance companies from offering coverage so long as no federal moneys help pay for the premiums.
In essence, the bill merely extends the Hyde Amendment–and not even that far since states can pay for abortion coverage. Hyde, which has been the law for decades, prevents Medicaid from covering abortion–whether with state or federal funds–and poor women are not being left by doctors to die on the floor.
This is a prime example of why Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House. What a disgusting and nasty display of political demagoguery.
Update: Commenter Raven suggests that this might be the part of the bill about which Pelosi claims women will be made to die on the floor:
‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–
‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;
‘(B) require or provide such training;
‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.
That’s a pretty standard medical conscience clause, which now exist in federal and state laws. No women are “dying on the floor” now, and it won’t happen if the bill becomes law. Indeed, no hospital or clinic has a conscience right to just stand around while a woman dies in this circumstance. So, my post remains valid regardless of the clause to which she is referring. Pure damagoguery. For more on my take about conscience clauses, hit this link.
October 14th, 2011 | 11:40 am
Why is this woman never interviewed by someone who will actually challenge one or more of her many ridiculous assertions?
October 14th, 2011 | 11:59 am
1. the bill is DOA
2. Republicans have used abortion for 30 years to distract easily fooled voters – particularly southerners – from their true political goals of eliminating workers’ rights, living wages, expanding corporate welfare, massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and corporation backed candidates. Somehow, they have never succeeded in eliminating abortion…
Ignore the noise – from both Pelosi and the Republicans.
Pelosi is just being a politician. HR 358 is not newsworthy in anyway.
Moving on…
Chris Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
@David, Well David, we have you to blame for not succeeding, but we’ll be happy to succeed and be done with that issue once you stop thinking it’s OK to kill more than one million innocent human beings every year. Just think, you can win every election and have every social program you ever wanted, and all you have to do it say every human beings has human rights. It’s so easy, why don’t you get on board?
David Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@Chris, you and Smith are not getting it. This bill will extend a conscious clause to bizarre health care providers, who could permit a patient to die if they needed an abortion.
How ironic that “pro-lifers” are so pleased with a bill that actually permits death.
Talk about a culture of death… and the hypocrisy.
Doesn’t matter, the bill is going nowhere.
And no, I’m not going to get on board just because it would benefit me to increase the ranks and the bodies I can climb upon. That thought never occurred to me; I’m not a conservative – I don’t think that way.
Chris Reply:
October 17th, 2011 at 7:52 am
@David, That’s what I thought, you proclaim a conspiracy because Republicans can’t eliminate abortion, but you yourself vocally argue to keep it legal at every turn.
Guest Reply:
October 16th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@David, Hey [guy], not a single republican voted for this [smelly] health care bill. Its YOUR DIXIECRATS-…-who are cheerleading the killing of babies
October 14th, 2011 | 1:00 pm
You’re looking at the wrong section of the bill, Wesley. If it becomes law healthcare providers may refuse to provide abortion services or even provide referrals for emergency abortions with impunity. The argument is that this creates a loophole which allows providers to bypass the Emergency Treatment and Active Labour Act. Nancy Pelosi was trying to bring this apparently little-known fact to the public’s attention.
If centres are permitted (for “conscience reasons”) to opt out of providing either therapeutic abortions or appropriate referrals, it hardly matters that these procedures may be federally funded.
From HR 358:
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Conscience clauses already exist about not performing abortions, as a matter of federal law and state law–and women are not dying on the floor. There is, under law, no right to refuse to treat a woman who is dying from whatever cause in any hospital or clinic. The whole thing is a big bogus bundle of demagoguery. If that is the section to which she was referring–and note that explicit coverage is permitted for women whose lives are in danger–she is still not telling the truth.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, “Conscience clauses already exist about not performing abortions, as a matter of federal law and state law–and women are not dying on the floor.”
Yes – but, as I understand it, under existing law, providers who opt out of performing abortions are still required to provide referrals in emergencies. This bill would remove that requirement.
Obviously no hospital is going to literally let ailing women die “on the floor” but going by the text of the bill itself it appears, at least to my untutored eye, that HR 358 would provide legal protection to centres whose refusal to provide abortions or relevant referrals results in patients’ deaths. These facilities would almost certainly provide supportive medical care – just not the specific procedures which may save the patient’s life.
Remember, Pelosi didn’t actually make the statement you attribute to her in your title. She didn’t say that the bill would require doctors to let women die – she said it would permit them to do so. In this respect, I think, she was right.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
No. Not here. I think that is only true in Victoria, Australia.
Chris Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
@Raven Chukwu, So Raven, why don’t you actively promote air-tight language that allows pro-life people from not being forced in committing what is in their minds an act of murder, and the exceptionally rare case of induced labor required in cases of life or death, which as Wesley points out has not been an issue anyway, will continue to not be a problem?
Raven Chukwu Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
@Chris, I’m not sure I understand you.
First of all, no one is currently forced to provide abortion services. The legal language is air-tight already. This bill goes one step further than existing legislation and allows providers to refuse to provide referrals as well.
Secondly, I don’t see how my personal views about conscience clauses have any bearing on this discussion. The issue before us is, quite simply, the justifiability (or otherwise) of Nancy Pelosi’s statement. Did her words, in fact, represent “a disgusting and nasty display of political demagoguery” or was there an element of truth in them?
As an African living in the UK, I feel rather removed from your so-called “culture wars” (and I’m assuming here that you are American). I harbour tribal sentiments for neither pro-life nor pro-choice people and don’t know why you assume I would be opposed to stronger conscience protection clauses (which nonetheless ensure that patients interests are looked after).
October 14th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
Aren’t you being a little hard on Nancy, the woman, the Catholic, the wife and good Mother of several children? I imagine that she, like the Head of Health and Human Services, is personally opposed to abortion for herself but recognizes the fairness of “pro-choice” in the real world.
I like to think of myself as an independent (a Ralph Nader independent.) I am opposed to abortion, personally. I understand however, that our culture that pushes “sex” as a constitutional “recreational” right needs the services of planned parenthood.
Sex in the marketplace is used to sell products and produce profits and our children are brainwashed to believe that sex is “fun” and has nothing to do with reproductive matters. It’s all about “fun” and “love” as defined by Fifth Avenue. Sex is no longer advanced by our culture as a manifestation of love and commitment in marriage, Sometimes, it is the nicest girls and women (who believe in “love”) who are used by men and forced to a decision about “abortion.” (I heard or read recently that there was a time in the USA, under the law, where the “age of consent for the girl” was age 10! Is it still a man’s world?
I’ve never understood how “thinking” people can be opposed to both abortion and Planned Parenthood but I am open to being educated.
October 14th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
Carol Eblen: “I imagine that she, like the Head of Health and Human Services, is personally opposed to abortion for herself but recognizes the fairness of ‘pro-choice’ in the real world.”
If a famous senator announced that he was “personally opposed” to rape, but that he feels as though he should not “force his views” on others by keeping rape illegal, would that seem “fair” to you?
“I’ve never understood how ‘thinking’ people can be opposed to both abortion and Planned Parenthood but I am open to being educated.”
Well, as a proud, thinking person, I am glad to help you. First, Planned Parenthood is one of the nation’s biggest providers of abortions, which means those opposed to the latter will by extension oppose the former. Second, many oppose NOT the LEGALITY of contraceptives but rather their widespread USE, which paved the way for abortion’s having gotten a foothold in this and other countries. It has been demonstrated that an increase in the use of contraceptives will not cause an decrease in the number of abortions that take place, so the argument that we simply need more information about contraceptives falls on its face.
Harryhammer Reply:
October 17th, 2011 at 9:25 am
@bmmg39,
bmmg,
There’s no denying that you are proud, but, I wouldn’t describe you as a thinking person.
A thinking person wouldn’t talk such nonsense.
October 14th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
Carol, I thought your post was in jest based on the first paragraph’s description of Nancy Pelosi and Sebelius. To my horror, I realized you were not joking. Don’t be fooled. Pelosi and Sebelius are about as pro-abortion as you can get.
Let me ask you this, would someone who is personally opposed to abortion (as you claim Sebelius is) host a party for a notorious late-term abortionist at her home? Not on your life. However, that is just what Sebelius did in Kansas, in addition to ensuring that Kansas’ late term abortion laws were never enforced against PP or George Tiller.
Also, Nancy Pelosi is about as personally opposed to abortion as she is to plastic surgery. She loves abortion because of the blood money that enriches her political and personal coffers.
If these women had ever claimed to be personally opposed to abortion (do they even pretend to do this anymore?), it is only further evidence that they are complete liars.
Also, you should think about how abortion, and a culture that relies on abortion, actually benefits and encourages men to use women.
Go Wesley. Pelosi is truly despicable.
Pelosi’s opposition to this bill as well as Obama’s promise to veto it show that they lied to the American public in passing Obamacare. If it were true that Obama’s executive order would prevent abortion funding, why would they oppose a law that merely makes Obama’s EO into law? Things that make you go Hmmm.
October 14th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
While I admire your idealism, we do not live in a perfect world, and we humans are “flawed and fallen.” Abortion on demand has always been the privilege of the rich and powerful who, perhaps, have always had lower morals than the poor, uneducated, and underprivileged.
And, I don’t see any of you who line up to yell at Nancy Pelosi and me also lining up with equal passion to donate money to take care of all of the “unwanted” babies who would suffer from lack of love and support in the “real” world we live in.
When our culture does not teach our children respect for the “egg” and the “sperm” that produces the miracle of life, the uniqueness of every human being, what can we expect?
I wish you were equally as passionate about protecting the sanctity of the life of old people who are this moment being sacrificed to the sanctity of the “money” that is saved if they leave this world earlier rather than later.
In a nation, or perhaps a world, now, where adultery is celebrated in books and movies and on the television every night, and in a world where young girls and women are inspired to dress to inspire the LUST of strangers, perhaps abortion becomes the only reasonable response to “that other kind of greed and lust” –the lust for money.
Sure looks to me like “politics” have interferred with your reasoning ability and I’m, surprised that Wesley Smith, whom I admire, would stoop to the old “liar” game. “Liar — Liar — pants on fire.”
October 14th, 2011 | 4:54 pm
And, I don’t see any of you who line up to yell at Nancy Pelosi and me also lining up with equal passion to donate money to take care of all of the “unwanted” babies who would suffer from lack of love and support in the “real” world we live in.
So you’re saying that if I neglect to spay or neuter my pet, and animal rights lovers do not volunteer to pay all the expenses and care for the pet, I’m within my rights to just drown all the puppies?
Why would babies be entitled to less protection than animals?
There are NUMEROUS religious organizations that help women and girls.
And of course they’re all religious, because humanists don’t care enough about these girls to offer them options – “choice” is a lie: after your people are through lying to them about how great and fun and safe and “empowering” sex is, you guys don’t care what happens to them. Just lie to them some more – tell them it isn’t really a baby, and they won’t really be affected, and it will all be okay. As if puncturing a baby’s skull were somehow harmless – not like puncturing, say, a puppy’s skull or a lizard’s skull, which no decent person would say is harmless.
Lies, lies, lies.
October 14th, 2011 | 4:57 pm
While I admire your idealism, we do not live in a perfect world
These justifying comments made me feel dirty. I’m sending money to sistersoflife.org and maybe I’ll buy something for the local group that gives stuff to local poor babies of infants.
I suggest everyone else do the same.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:36 pm
Why don’t you “morally certain” people direct your anger at the Courts who have decided that abortion is legal and that the union of the egg and the sperm in the womb has not produced a “human” being with constitutional rights?
We live under “the rule of law” and you cannot shoot down laws or ideas or people that you don’t like because you don’t agree with them.
If you feel dirty, Blake, be sure to wash your brain as well when you pick up the soap.
October 14th, 2011 | 7:13 pm
Wesley, I have to agree a little with Nancy Pelosi on this when she says “…women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene…It’s just appalling” with one exception. Women are now dying on the floor from legal abortions and it is appalling. It is appalling that the abortion movement doesn’t give a rip about it. NARAL knew about Kermit Gosnell for a long time and didn’t do anything about it. Tom Ridge and Ed Rendell cared more about abortion being very accessible than they cared about what happens inside the clinic and stopped inspections. They know all about Pendergrass down in Florida too and others elsewhere. As I’ve said many times, these sort of casualties are an acceptable cost to the abortion movement. I spoke with Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman about a clinic they bought. He said they brought in some sort of blue light that detects blood. He said it was everywhere. On the floors, the walls, you name it. Six women died from an off label use of RU 486 in CA. Hear anybody care about that besides pro-lifers? Not much.
Women are dying now of legal abortion and abortion advocates oppose almost all efforts to make sure these butchers are put out of business and laws and regulations are enforced. Our brothels in Nevada are likely much more sanitary than many abortion clinics. But then again, they are a far more noble profession than abortion. Our dog pounds are cleaner than many too. If Nancy Pelosi cared about women, she’d not only shut her mouth, she’d shut down some of these abortuaries.
October 14th, 2011 | 8:53 pm
[...] Continue… [...]
October 14th, 2011 | 11:42 pm
Carol Eblen: “And, I don’t see any of you who line up to yell at Nancy Pelosi and me also lining up with equal passion to donate money to take care of all of the ‘unwanted’ babies who would suffer from lack of love and support in the ‘real’ world we live in.”
You don’t need to “line up” to donate money. For all you know, we all volunteer at the same crisis pregnancy center. Oh, wait! Crisis pregnancy centers are maligned by the same pro-choice people who two minutes earlier had accused pro-lifers of not doing anything for the babies once they’re born.
But, you know, if someone saved me from being killed earlier in life, I really wouldn’t expect anything else from him/her. So even if your accusation that pro-lifers don’t do anything for born children and their families were true, which is not, they would still have given the world to them already.
“I wish you were equally as passionate about protecting the sanctity of the life of old people who are this moment being sacrificed to the sanctity of the ‘money’ that is saved if they leave this world earlier rather than later.”
Why, yes. We are against the government deciding that an older person is not worth the trouble and expense to receive treatment or an operation. See also Wesley’s columns on euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Hint: he’s not for ‘em.)
“Why don’t you ‘morally certain’ people direct your anger at the Courts who have decided that abortion is legal and that the union of the egg and the sperm in the womb has not produced a ‘human’ being with constitutional rights?”
Dred Scott. Roe vs. Wade. Sometimes it takes a while for the Supreme Court to correct itself.
October 15th, 2011 | 12:11 am
Bmmg39:
I admire your passion and your respect for life —but surely you know that Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned unless it is good for big business!
October 15th, 2011 | 1:25 am
“And, I don’t see any of you who line up to yell at Nancy Pelosi and me also lining up with equal passion to donate money to take care of all of the “unwanted” babies who would suffer from lack of love and support in the “real” world we live in.”
This is has got to be the most boring chant of the pro-death cult. The majority of staunchly pro-life people I know (ie, those who bother going on forums to argue about it, or stand outside clinics and the like), donate time, money, lodging, care, or the like to help women who have crisis pregnancies.
If I told you I housed women with unwanted pregnancies in my home, would you then accept my belief that the size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency of a particular HUMAN (science tells us that, indeed, they are humans, just little ones ;-]) should not be taken to justify the murder of that human?
Or is this just an “unthinking” mantra that appears to convince people that two wrongs indeed do make a right?
We all have intellectual and emotional positions based on our lives, our politics, our interactions and our experiences which seek to cloud the clear teaching and internal witness of our Lord. I am guilty of this too. But I felt the need to try, at the very least, to get you to give it a second thought.
I am not saying that every woman who has an abortion is hopelessly wicked. The sad fact is that the very people you defend (Planned Parenthood) have been found over and over and over again to lie to the woman about what is really inside her. “A little blob of cells”, when a Being with hands and feet, a beating heart and working brain are inside. Women in that position have had the excuse of ignorance for a long time. But the people who makes the policies (the others you defend, the politicians) and the abortion providers (Planned Parenthood) *know* the truth.
And, speaking of two wrongs not being a right, since when does the fact that pregnancy was oftentimes the result of a sin (lust) justify a second sin (hatred, murder, selfishness, etc)? Since when does one sin (greed) justify another, perhaps more grievous sin?
I urge you to get down on your knees and pray that God would give you the strength and moral courage to embrace the truth. There is no doubt that abortion is not to be found among “Have no other God before me” and “Love your neighbor as yourself”, which are, as we know “the sum of the law.”
When you stand before Christ on judgement day, would you be content facing him if you had to do so while standing in the ocean of torn flesh, fingers, eyes, brains and blood of the Little Butchered Ones we — as a nation — have decided to abandon to the malice of selfishness and greed?
October 15th, 2011 | 9:47 am
Excuse me, but she’s not lying. Don’t you see the classic Catch 22 here? You have to put the two clauses together where a)federal funds can in fact be used to perform an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, BUT b) the hospital is not obligated to treat the woman or inform her of where such treatment can be obtained. Part a and part b are mutually exclusive, written in black and white. The fact that you just say, “oh, but they wouldn’t do that” does not make it impossible.
There are definitely people out there with extreme “moral” convictions. Try googling pharmacist Karen Brauer. She’s the one that admitted lying to a patient on the Bill O’Reilly show by telling the woman that her pharmacy didn’t carry the birth control pills she was seeking (it did) and refused to inform her of another pharmacy that did. Now, consider that some women use birth control not because they are seeking promiscuous sex but because pregnancy could endanger their lives, on what moral grounds should it be denied?
Kathleen Lundquist Reply:
October 15th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
@Chatty Kathy,
Yes, I agree that some health care providers have ‘extreme’ moral convictions that cause them to lie when the truth doesn’t comport with their views.
A nurse practitioner once recommended birth control pills to me because of irregular menses, and I told her I was concerned because BCPs can act in some cases as an abortifacient (my husband and I did want to conceive a child at some point in our marriage; we later discovered infertility issues). At my expression of caution, she visibly bristled and lied to my face: no, BCPs are not abortifacients. There are some side effects, but they’re not harmful at all.
I also have a family history of heart attack and stroke a mile long (my 34-year-old cousin had a stroke they believe was due to BCPs). The NP didn’t even review my history before she sent me home with them. After taking some time to read the warning label, I threw them in the trash and tried other measures, which eventually worked for me.
So, yeah – I know what you mean about people who push an agenda that endangers women without regard for their safety.
Chatty Kathy Reply:
October 15th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
@Kathleen Lundquist,
Kathleen, my husband happens to be a pharmacist and I’m a nurse. We both looked up the latest pharmacy resources and could find NO sources that indicated BCPs are abortifactants. In fact, most sources stated that women who are unaware of their pregnancy and continue to take BCPs have not experienced any untoward effects to the fetus. If you google “BCP and abortifactant” you’ll see that all the sites are conservative religious groups. Biased much? Consider the source.
October 15th, 2011 | 12:05 pm
[...] The legislation is intended …Pelosi Warns: Protect Life and Women DieAmerican Thinker (blog)Pelosi Lies About Pro Life Bill Requiring Doctors to “Let Women Die on the Floor”First Things (blog)Pelosi Says 'Women Can Die On the Floor' under GOP 'Protect Life [...]
October 15th, 2011 | 12:14 pm
Actually, you’re still looking at the wrong section of the bill. It’s very obscure, but this line:
“(D) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘Nothing’ and inserting ‘Subject to subsection (g), nothing’”
effectively creates an abortion exception to EMTALA, according to the USCCB.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/fact-sheet-emergency-services-protect-life-act.cfm
Of course, the USCCB doesn’t have a problem with that, but I do. I’m pro-life, and to me that includes safeguarding women’s lives.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 15th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Once again, no: From the analysis: Since the “Subject to” provision was restored to HR 358 this February, pro-abortion members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have sharply attacked it for “allow[ing] a hospital to assert a religious objection to the medically necessary termination of a pregnancy” despite the existence of laws like EMTALA (House Committee Report on HR 358, “Dissenting Views,” page 30).But of course, since 2004 the Hyde/Weldon amendment has protected decisions (and not only decisions based on religion) to care for a pregnant woman without being forced by government to perform an abortion for any reason. So what these objectors are admitting is that the “Subject to” provision simply brings PPACA into line with the federal policy that already has long applied in every other government program.
In other words, the law will remain the same in this area as it is currently And women are not dying on floors as medical personnel watch.
October 15th, 2011 | 3:47 pm
I’d have to check Hyde/Weldon, but if it allows the same thing, then it is also flawed. That it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean that there are adequate safeguards in place.
October 15th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
To put it another way: would a hospital be breaking the law if someone refused to do an abortion (or a procedure that some do and some don’t consider an abortion, such as removing an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy) and a woman died as a result, would they have violated the law? If the answer is “yes,” what law, if there is an abortion exception to EMTALA? And if the answer is “no,” then Pelosi’s characterization of this law is correct (except for the “on the floor” hyperbole, if we’re being nitpicky).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 15th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Regardless of what this particular statute would say, other laws would prevent that scenario as they do now. And she knows it.
October 15th, 2011 | 6:04 pm
I certainly hope so. What laws?
October 16th, 2011 | 10:28 am
Chatty Kathy: “Kathleen, my husband happens to be a pharmacist and I’m a nurse. We both looked up the latest pharmacy resources and could find NO sources that indicated BCPs are abortifactants. In fact, most sources stated that women who are unaware of their pregnancy and continue to take BCPs have not experienced any untoward effects to the fetus.”
CK, Kathleen Lundquist is the one who has this right. If fertilization has already taken place, a BCP can make it very difficult for the embryo to implant — BEFORE (s)he is able to make it to the fetal stage. The sources you should be questioning and “considering” are you own, if they failed (or simply chose) not to mention that.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
October 16th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
@bmmg39, I assume you are aware of the terminological controversy surrounding this. Oral contraceptives (in addition to suppressing ovulation and hence preventing fertilisation) may, it is thought, sometimes prevent or hinder implantation of a blastocyst. Many healthcare professionals, however, count implantation rather than fertilisation as the onset of pregnancy. Since an abortion necessarily involves the termination of an established pregnancy, a drug which disrupts implantation but has no adverse effect if taken during pregnancy would not be described as an abortifacient – at least not by the National Institutes of Health or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [1][2]
When you ask a health care professional whether a contraceptive is abortifacient, they either assume you want to know if it is likely to interfere with an established pregnancy – or if it acts primarily after fertilisation rather than before. For the most common OCPs, the answer to both these questions is “no” – so it seems me that Kathleen’s nurse practitioner’s response was, at the very least, justifiable.
Kathleen Lundquist Reply:
October 16th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
@Raven Chukwu,
Thanks to you and bmmg39 for your comments. You are both most likely correct in your assumptions that: 1) my NP held the “implantation” definition of pregnancy and 2) the available literature on BCPs acting in an abortifacient manner makes use of the “fertilization” definition.
The encounter with the NP still bugs me because of the family history issue (i.e., certain kinds of BCP are contraindicated if the patient has a family history of heart attack, stroke, or blood clots). If I hadn’t carefully read the warning label on the package of pills the NP gave me, I would have put myself at great physical risk. It’s possible she could have simply missed that, or that I “read her wrong” in terms of her outlook on the issue of abortion, but throughout the conversation I did feel that she was simply throwing drugs at me as a simple solution to my problem, and when I had questions, she didn’t like answering them.
Because of this lack of a decent ‘risks v. benefits’ discussion between us, whatever the reason was – I never went back to that clinic. Simple as that.
October 16th, 2011 | 5:42 pm
Since a new human being’s life begins at fertilization, Raven, to argue that an ethical problem exists only after implantation has taken place is to split hairs. Obviously, KL expressed her worry that a BCP could easily have the effect of causing a blastocyst to die, and the health-care professional was pretending not to know what KL was talking about.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
October 16th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
@bmmg39,
” . . .to argue that an ethical problem exists only after implantation has taken place is to split hairs.”
Saying that a drug is not “abortifacient” (or “teratogenic” or “psychoactive”) is rather different from claiming that there are no ethical problems associated with its use.
“Obviously, KL expressed her worry that a BCP could easily have the effect of causing a blastocyst to die, and the health-care professional was pretending not to know what KL was talking about.”
Not according to Kathleen’s own testimony. Read her comment above (8.21pm).
October 17th, 2011 | 11:41 am
When people object to abortion, they are objecting to the end of a human being’s life, not the end of a pregnancy. With that in mind, if someone frets about a drug being abortafacient, (s)he is worried about the prospect of a human being (in an early stage of life) dying, and is not concerned with whether or not pregnancy has technically begun or not, according to someone else’s arbitrary definition.
If KL said she didn’t want the BCPs because they might cause an already existing embryo to perish, then arguing that the embryo hasn’t implanted yet is rather a non sequitur.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact