Posted on 08/21/2006 1:50:58 PM PDT by Pyro7480
President Bush Approves Over the Counter Early Abortion Pill, Pro-Life Base Decries Move
By John-Henry Westen
WASHINGTON, August 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For his pro-life supporter base, President George W. Bush stepped into one of the biggest political landmines of his Presidential career today with his approval of over the counter status for the abortion-causing morning after pill Plan B.
A press release by Human Life International underscored the seriousness of the move as it was titled, "President Bush Files for Divorce with Catholic Base." Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International commented, "President Bush's implied support for the abortion-causing drug Plan B is completely inconsistent with his recent veto of the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) funding bill. What the president apparently fails to realize is that Plan B kills the same innocent unborn children that the ESCR process does."
At a White House press conference this morning, the President was asked by Bill Sammon a reporter from the Washington Examiner about Plan B and his new FDA commissioner who supports its over the counter status. "Mr. President, some pro-life groups are worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause early-term abortions," said the reporter. "Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel about Plan B in general?"
The President replied, "I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe. And I support Andy's decision."
Andy, as the President referred to him, is the new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach. Pro-life groups last week called for von Eschenbach's resignation over his deal with a drug company to make a high-dose of a drug (Plan B, a morning-after pill) available without a prescription to women 18 year of age and older.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) blasted the decision noting that it is ludicrous to allow Plan B without medical supervision when a low-dose of the same drug (birth control pills) requires medical oversight to protect women from serious health complications.
"It is deplorable that the head of the FDA would put his career ambitions and a drug company's interests above women's health," said Wendy Wright, CWA's President. "CWA provided legal and regulatory evidence that the FDA does not have the authority to do what it is proposing and medical evidence that any dose of the drug requires medical oversight to protect women's health. The drug is known to cause serious complications such as blood clots and stroke."
Rev. Euteneuer added, "The president must demonstrate a consistent respect for the sanctity of all human life or he risks provoking a great divorce with the conservative Catholics that compromise a large part of his support base. Human beings in the embryonic stage of development deserve equal protection under the law and the president's position falls far short of that mark."
Baptist Ping
And neither one are "commerce among the several states".
I have read up on it more than a "little." I happen to be in a very strong pro-life movement within the Catholic Church.
I have read studies that say that in cases where this pill fails to prevent fertilization, it prevents implantation. If it prevents implantation, that is destroying life.
And young girls who are raped, which happens every day in this country, should what? Be forced to have the baby? I don't think so.
"[A]rguing that killing the victim's child is an appropriate course of action" does not constitute an "extravagant exaggeration" of the above. I simply restated the expressed position in exact terms. The unborn is the child of the rape victim, chosing to abort that child would kill it, and the obvious abhorrence at the possible lack of a choice asserts that exercising such a choice is acceptable. So, the expressed opinion is no more, nor any less than advocating that "killing the child of the victim is...appropriate". And do please note that I did NOT say "mandatory" because that was not the position being communicated. Give me SOME credit, here.
Factually, if the girl who is raped becomes pregnant and ISN'T "forced to have the baby" -- if she can chose to have it or not -- then we are arguing implicitly that her choice NOT to have it -- that is, to kill it -- "is an appropriate course of action." So, to protest against the girl being "forced to have the baby" is a de facto argument in favor of killing the unborn child of the rape victim. Also, to argue that she MUST have a choice and MUST always chose to bear the child makes little sense. IF a choice is allowed, then the death of the unborn is, necessarily, being implicitly considered as an allowable outcome. NOT mandated, but allowable.
Please also note that I am NOT saying, in my previous post, "You believe all of these horrible things, you vile person, you." I put the questions as questions because I intended that they be considered as questions, not rhetoric, but deeply probing moral questions. Very strong questions, no doubt, but we're dealing with human life, here, the most precious of all limited resources. In this I am not condemning Peach out-of-hand; rather I am restating the stated position in barenaked form and offering it back for serious reexamination asking, "does this really, accurately reflect your beliefs? Seriously?"
What you may have perceived as a prosecutorial tone is, in fact, incredulty. That is, unfortunately, a difference that carries well only where tone-of-voice can be heard and differentiated, which is to say, not in print.
Now, what do I offer as an alternative? I offer a new life. Repudiate the perpetuation of the cycle of evil upon evil and give life to the innocent. It is a fallacy to believe that perpetrating an even greater evil is the best path to a good end. No. Out of tragedy, let there be the healing that comes from the irrepressible love of a mother for the child of her womb. Let that which began in violence and wounding, be turned into peace and healing; that, instead of death and destruction, life istelf and joy may be brought forth. Let the wounded heart truly be given "beauty for ashes"; the innocent and delicate beauty of an infant child in place of the ashes of horrible personal violation.
Oh brother...
"did I say, where did I say..."
Stoppimg ovulation is not the point of the drug. It BLOCKS fertilization. Of course ovulation has occurred hence the egg!!
I don't know. I haven't had to worry about birth control for a long time now. I know I hated diaphrams, so maybe I wasn't alone and they aren't used much anymore. "The pill" has always had some serious side effects. I think some of the opinions that are expressed by men against contraception and/or this pill, would probably change if THEY were the ones to get pregnant. ;)
The fact is that YOU will never know whether a woman prevented fertilization OR implantation. She probably will never know either. I think this is taking the argument to such extremes that it becomes....well, ridiculous.
Please consider the fallacy of your argument. You state that the fact IS I will never know whether a woman prevented fertilization or implantation. Well then, neither will you! The mere "fact" that it's unknown should give anyone that is pro-life more than a little concern. Are you seriously contending that just because a woman isn't aware if she prevents a fertilized egg from implantation that makes this okay?
This is why in 2008 it is so critical to get a 100%er. Bush was far from it. On Moral and Fiscal grounds. You can run a party, weakly if you lean towards one of those two factions more than the other... betray them both, and you will lose majority status for years to come. We've played this game before folks, and the results are ugly. No compromises in 2008 fiscally or morally.
"I think this is taking the argument to such extremes that it becomes....well, ridiculous."
I agree. It is a typical knee jerk reaction. Some say it prevents implantation, others say it prevents fertilization. Huge difference.
Knowing the facts would be helpful. As a nurse, this is how I have undertsood the drug works; by preventing fertilization in the first place. Not that different than spermacides, etc. Of course some people are opposed to all birth control measures so to them ,then, well...it would be irrelevant.
I think your confusion may be in that you do not realize that the drug does THREE things, not just one.
1. It suppresses ovulation so that, if it hasn't happened, it will be further delayed and a pregnancy may be averted.
2. It blocks fertilization IF it is taken soon enough.
3. It prevents implantation, which is abortive if an ovum was already present and the pill was not taken in time to prevent conception.
I don't think that any who accept contraception as a legitimate would express the least difficulty with the first two effects of Plan B, but the third action is a mortal threat to a newly-formed embreyo. I know a few women who can tell when they are ovulating and MIGHT be able to use Plan B with appropriate discretion and avoid destroying a viable embreyo. By and large, however, this is not the case and this drug does, and will continue to, result in the death of unborn human lives.
THAT is the crux of the issue.
Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.
The pro-life movement defines prenancy as conception. Non pro-lifers like to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation.
If you believe human life begins at the moment of conception then Plan B may result in the killing of that life. It's as simple as that.
Hey, thanks, garv, for doing the legwork (finger-work?) and posting that. There's been pelnty of confusion about the specifics of how Plan B works, so the added clarity, right from the manufacturer, is warranted and appreciated.
"Is using a spermacide "murder" to you guys too?"
Well... since you asked. In a word. Yes.
"It prevents implantation, which is abortive if..."
And out of those ways in which it works, that is a big if.
Well that point of view goes way beyond the abortion issue into birth control. I doubt the majority of women are opposed to all measures of birth control.
I was responding to Peach's post:
Some information:
According to Barr Pharmaceuticals, Plan B works like other birth control pills, primarily by preventing ovulation. By stopping the egg from being released, the drug prevents pregnancy.
Do you see where it says "by preventing ovulation." I was disputing that this pill could prevent ovulation. Which apparently you agree with me on that point.
Get a grip on yourself.
Time out.
I guess I'm one pro-lifer who's not a member of "you guys". Spermicide does not destroy an embreyo, it helps prevent conception. Bluntly it reduces the chance of a live sperm reaching any fertile egg that may be present. It's not fail-safe, does not destroy the egg, and does not harm an embreyo that is already implanted.
So, explain how reducing the chance of conception is destroying an already-existing life; a.k.a. murder?
"A big IF..."
It might or might not be. If conception happened at 30minutes, say, and the pill was taken 36 hours later; there's not "IF" about it, you've got an abortion.
If conception is delayed 36 hours and the pill is taken 24hours after, then, yeah, conception gets prevented and there's no "IF".
My main problem is the fact that we're all flippantly bantering about "IF" with human lives in the balance. That's downright macabre.
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.