Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia's Latest Threat to Reproductive Rights
Capitalism Magazine ^ | May 21, 2003 | Jim Woods

Posted on 05/21/2003 7:23:24 AM PDT by 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?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: abortion; ecp; jerrykilgore; jmu; robertmarshall; ru486; vageneralassembly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: Servant of the Nine
Didn't the Declaration of Independence settle this in 1776....AMONG THESE ARE THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY........
21 posted on 05/22/2003 6:20:21 AM PDT by Gopher Broke (Boycott France and French Products)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke
Didn't the Declaration of Independence settle this in 1776....AMONG THESE ARE THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY........

The Declaration of Independance is not a binding document on The United States. It is simply a declaration of intent of the British Colonies of North America.

The Constitution historically took a very narrow view of what was a person, ie blacks. I doubt they intended to consider a non viable fetus, something normally dumped in the trash if miscarried as unworthy of Christian burial to be a person.

So9

22 posted on 05/22/2003 7:25:44 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine (We are the Hegemon. We can Do anything we damned well please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
So, I guess you would rather have government funded mercy killings of orphans, rather than having the children placed as wards of the state, right? How is this any differnt?

Should we look into concentration camps for welfare recipients?
23 posted on 05/22/2003 8:22:55 AM PDT by presidio9 (Homophobic and Proud!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
every taxpayer dollar spent on abortions saves hundreds if no thousands of tax dollars spent on supporting the children and their demonstrably irresponsible parents.

Why should we pay to kill them? Just let them die on the street, it doesn't cost anything.

By the way, you are just really sick.

24 posted on 05/22/2003 1:16:39 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
What about the freedom of the unborn?
25 posted on 05/22/2003 1:17:57 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Why not let them be born and then kill any that use those services?

26 posted on 05/22/2003 1:19:17 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Servant of the Nine
What about it? - Well, do you still think that unborn child is nothing more than a leech?
29 posted on 05/22/2003 2:17:52 PM PDT by candeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: candeee
What about it? - Well, do you still think that unborn child is nothing more than a leech?

A non viable fetus is no more than a benign growth that may be excised at will.
A viable fetus has enough potential rights to require that labor be induced if the host wants to be done with it.

So9

30 posted on 05/22/2003 2:57:00 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Your position saddens me. I will pray for your salvation.
31 posted on 05/22/2003 3:08:56 PM PDT by patton (I wish we could all look at the evil of abortion with the pure, honest heart of a child.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson