Virginia's Latest Threat to Reproductive Rights

Capitalism Magazine ^ | May 21, 2003 | Jim Woods

[presidio9]

Yes Virginia, at least for the moment, you have access to contraception. Virginia State Delegate Robert Marshall (R-13th) has ignited a firestorm on college campuses in the Old Dominion by advocating that the dispensing of emergency contraception, a.k.a. morning after pills, violated Virginia's 24-hour waiting period for abortion services. Thankfully, the Virginia Attorney General's Office intervened with a letter advising that Marshall's opinion was not based in law, but this dispute yet again identifies that leading opponents of reproductive rights seek not only to regulate abortions, but to also prevent access to contraception.

This year, Marshall's crusade against reproductive rights includes his sponsorship of eleven bills regulating abortion. Marshall began this controversy though by sending letters to Virginia's public colleges and universities advising that the dispensing of emergency contraception violated Virginia law. As this medication is only effective within the first 72-hours after intercourse, the application of this law to morning-after pills would unreasonably limit access to the treatment.

The James Madison University Board of Visitors did succumb to Marshall's intimidation by banning university health officials from providing morning after pills on campus. In the previous eight years, an annual average of 260 JMU students obtained emergency contraception through the student health center. It is unknown exactly how many women were denied their right to medical care as a result of Marshall's pressure.

In its refutation of Marshall's letter, the Virginia Attorney General's Office advised the state's public colleges and universities that emergency contraceptives are a prescription that is not subject to the law's informed consent provisions for abortion services. Responding to this official rebuke, Marshall said that he would introduce legislation during the next General Assembly session to close what he calls a loophole in the informed consent law.

The Virginia dispute is not singular. In statehouses across the country, opponents of reproductive rights are advocating legislation to make their opinion law. Ironically, intervention by the Food and Drug Administration could make the power flexing of these legislators moot. Women's Capitol Corporation, which makes the emergency contraceptive marketed as Plan B, has asked the FDA to approve the over-the-counter sale of their product. Opponents of reproductive rights oppose removing the prescription requirement.

Today, in the United States, emergency contraception is available without a prescription through a network of pharmacists in Alaska, California, and Washington state. Elsewhere, in the United States, the sale of these pills requires a prescription. Over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception already exists in Britain and several European countries, while Canada and Australia are considering relaxing their prescription requirement.

Still, the free exercise of women's individual rights is subject to cumbersome regulation. And as the FDA may not render its decision until February 2004, the abortion issue will continue to be an important factor in the politics of the presidential campaign season and the upcoming congressional elections.

Fundamentally, the abortion disputes are about individual rights—a woman's right to make decisions about her life, her body, her future, and her reproduction. Andrew Dudik, a James Madison University student who has advocated for a ban on emergency contraception, framed the opponent's position when he said, "The university isn't here to solve the mistakes of the students. If students are going to be sexually active, they're going to have to take the consequences."

Although human reason has created emergency contraception, which empowers women to make choices about their lives, Dudik and his allies advocate political force to block a women's ability to act on her choices. Further, the consequences advocated anti-abortion supporters are nothing more than needless suffering and sacrifice for the sin of enjoying sex, or the sin of being raped.

The question is just who invited Dudik, Marshall, and all the other sundry opponents of emergency contraception to enforce their opinion upon a woman seeking to control the process of her body? Anyone who advocates that the state has an interest in shackling a woman's reproductive choices in the name of a zygote.

Legitimately, government exists only to protect individual rights from violation by other individuals. Who will protect the individual rights of women from the political power of rogue legislators like Robert Marshall?

[Thane_Banquo]

Fundamentally, the abortion disputes are about individual rights—a woman's right to make decisions about her life, her body, her future, and her reproduction.

What about the child's right to make decisions about his body, his future, and his reproduction?

[trebb]

Even if they decide that some abortions are OK, they should not spend 1 penny of our taxes on the procedure.

[RJCogburn]

I am in favor of making the 'morning after pill' available without prescription, but the author's careless phrase

denied their right to medical care

is incorrect. He might have said something like 'their entitlement to health care' which is more accurate and more odious.

[The Old Hoosier]

What kind of stupid magazine is this? "Captalism" mag is for state-funded contraception. What, do they carry a few pages of RU-486 ads or something?

[presidio9]

A more honest name for this magazine would be "Libertarianism."

[LiteKeeper]

Pro-life bump for later

[Servant of the Nine]

What about the child's right to make decisions about his body, his future, and his reproduction?

A fetus gets rights when it becomes capable of surviving outside the womb, or should. Until then it is just one more parasite living inside someones body.

Only liberal democrats could expect something with the lifestyle of a leach to recieve equal rights if they thought about it.

What happened to "individual responsibility"?

So9

[John Beresford Tipton]

Perhaps it is called Capitalism because capitalism is about freedom, a concept that is alien to theocrats such as the Taliban (among others).

[The Old Hoosier]

Since when do libertarians favor state-funded contraception/abortion?

[Ligeia]

Perhaps it is called Capitalism because capitalism is about freedom, a concept that is alien to theocrats such as the Taliban (among others).

This capitalist author seems to have forgotten that in a capitalistic society, citizens have their prescriptions filled at the corner capitalistic drug store instead of at the state-supported, taxpayer-subsidized arm of the government called a state university.

[jimt]

Since when do libertarians favor state-funded contraception/abortion?

They don't, but that doesn't stop folks who just like to get in a gratuitous insult.

[vt_crosscut]

Speaking of careless wording. How can the morning after pill be called "emergency contraception"? The definition of contraception is the prevention of conception. By definition, contraception must happen BEFORE conception. The morning after pill is not contraception, it is an abortion.

[presidio9]

Click on the thread. The editorial policies of "The Conservative" on the subject of abortion jibe nicely with the apologies endorsed by Libertarians. Be sure to pay these linked earlier articles a visit. Note the Democrat policy on abortion is easily distinguishable from that of Libertarians. These are clearly of the latter flavor.

The Religious Right's Descent into the Anti-Abortion Swamp Will Send Americans Reeling to the Far Left
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=259

Abortion: When do rights begin?
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=273

President Bush's Contradictory Stance on Abortion
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=169

[borntodiefree]

Since some are the abortion discussion...again....I thought this would be an interesting read ....

---

Christianity, Libertarianism, and Abortion
Are Christianity and Libertarianism at war over abortion?


To answer the question we must first define the terms:

Libertarianism: The acceptance that all mankind is free to do as he pleases as long as he does not violate the rights of another individual (this does not mean there are no personal consequences, just no government intervention), if the person does violate the rights of another person then it is a crime.

Christianity: The acceptance of Jesus the Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross for the forgiveness of mankind’s sin and the following of the precepts of the Bible.

Abortion: The destruction of an embryo.

Before we address the issue of the embryo, it should be conceded that the man’s sperm and woman’s egg have no perpetual life and are designed to die. It is therefore true of these cells that the man or woman are clear to do with them as they please; however though not all things that can be done should be done from a moral perspective.

The question now is what happens when these two cells (sperm and egg) merge into an embryo. The embryo unlike its components is no longer destined to be ejected from the body, but now maintains its own self-perpetuation. Though the embryo is reliant upon the nurturing from the mother, it is still self-replicating and requires no additional external support or design to continue its growth (except nourishment).

What then distinguished the embryo at any stage in the womb to the moment just before birth to the moment just after birth and beyond? There is increased cell division, however, the design of the embryo at any stage has not changed. Therefore the human embryo immediately at conception or fifty years out of the womb has not changed except for increased cell division. The intelligence factor is a non-issue as we are referencing the physical human embryo and we cannot determine who has a right to life based on mental development at a particular stage of existence.

Therefore with true conviction as a Christian first and a Libertarian second, I can unequivocally state that the purposeful destruction of this self-replicating human embryo whether at the moment after conception, just before birth, or any time after birth should be considered murder.

What of women who are raped or were incestually fertilized? Is this the fault of the self-perpetuating human embryo? The answer is of course no. This is not to be insensitive to women who have been treated so terribly, but this is not about the rights of the woman, but of the self-perpetuating human embryo.

The determination of abortion being a crime or not is not within the purview of the powers granted to the Federal government. I will therefore continue to fight to remove ALL unconstitutional “Federal” laws, but do support a law making abortion illegal at the State level.

by Mark Andrew Johnson
Candidate - U.S. House of Representatives – District 8 – 2002
8518 Piccadilly Lane – Harrisburg, NC (28075)
http://www.markforusrep.com - mjohnson@markforusrep.com

[GovernmentShrinker]

If they don't spend tax dollars on abortion they'll spend many times more tax dollars on various forms of welfare and public schooling for the resulting children and their mothers. No point prohibiting taxpayer funded abotions without prohibiting taxpayer funded welfare and social engineering schemes at the same time.

[candeee]

What about the unborn children that have saved their mothers' lives by allowing the mother to temporarily share the unborn child's properly working kidney?

[candeee]

Since when do Libertarians advocate the initiation of force?

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm a libertarian, and under the current scheme of things I certainly favor taxpayer funded abortions. Until the welfare state and public school systems are dismantled, every taxpayer dollar spent on abortions saves hundreds if no thousands of tax dollars spent on supporting the children and their demonstrably irresponsible parents. I'm in favor of anything that shrinks government, and taxpayer funded abortions definitely shrink the bloated welfare and public education portions of government, and also tend to shift the political balance (trust me, people who grow up on government checks tend to vote for big socialist government).

[Servant of the Nine]

What about the unborn children that have saved their mothers' lives by allowing the mother to temporarily share the unborn child's properly working kidney?

What about it?
Rights and obligations are individual.
No person or fetus gains any status or owes any obligation based upon what happened in any other case.

So9