Posted on 05/02/2002 8:52:50 AM PDT by RCW2001
Army to supply 'morning after' pill to female soldiers
The IDF is to issue the "morning after" pill Postinor 2 to female soldiers at a subsidized cost.
According to the IDF weekly Bamahane, the pill would be prescribed to soldiers at their unit clinic by IDF gynecological officers and gynecological specialist.
The article quoted the head of the women's health department of the Woman's Adviser to the Chief of General Staff Division Maj. Dr. Einat Elran as saying the pill was effective within the first 72 hours after having unprotected intercourse.
The Health Ministry has allowed the pill to be available over the counter since March. But until now, female soldiers were given permission to purchase the pill from civilian pharmacies with their own money.
The hormonal drug, levonorgestrel, prevents a fertilized ovum from implanting itself in the uterus by changing the lining (a chemical mechanism with the same function as the mechanical intrauterine device).
The IDF is examining the possibility of purchasing the pill in bulk to be distributed at regional command centers and other large units at a subsidized price, the weekly said.
Furthermore, the weekly said the IDF was examining the possibility of reducing the price of birth control pills available to all female soldiers. Today, any soldier wishing to get the pill needed to purchase it in a civilian pharmacy with a prescription issued by an IDF gynecologist.
The IDF's unspoken policy is to allow a female solider to undergo one abortion during her military service, but she is dismissed if she gets pregnant again.
Postinor 2 is considered safe and effective when taken according to instructions, but it can cause side effects such as stomach pain, headache, nausea, tiredness, and vomiting. Doctors warn that Postinor 2 should not be taken on a regular basis, as this can result in ovarian cysts and disruption of menstrual periods.
Thus the "morning after" pill is meant for cases in which an unwanted pregnancy could result from unprotected sex, including the failure of a condom
Four points of agreement 'twixt you & me.
My interest in Israel also is purely religious. As a Christian, I have a practical desire to see the Holy Places protected and free access to them preserved. Moreover, I have a moral desire to see peace and reconciliation in the world. As I've tried to make plain many times, I have no objection to the security and survival of Israel, but I question the moral claim to my support from a polity that seems hell-bent to sell its soul.
The Jews can save themselves from their enemies -- with a little help from their friends -- but who will save them from themselves? I can understand your reluctance to comment here, but especially as a religious Jew, presumably with some interest in Israel's remaining majority-Jew, you really should comment.
What I'm suggesting is that the well-publicised idealised Israel, supposed locus of Jewish self-renewal and high moral purpose that Americans (including me) were taught to embrace, is looking a little hollow just now. There's no American "race" that longed for a homeland to be safe from persecution (unless you count the indians, but seriously, who ever does?), nor any plausible divine mandate making the country over to the white man. America was never supposed to be about anything but a gold rush and land-grab. Surely Israel is about more than that. Anyway, the Christian Zionist yes-men say so.
I'm sure the U.S. military is next.
Sigh...
5.56mm
What a terrible education you have suffered through...
But lets not stop with foreign aid to Israel...ALL foreign aid except in the case of a humanitarian crisis caused solely by an "Act of God"!
"examining the possibility of purchasing the pill in bulk"
Obviously not...lol!
Technically it is the position of mainline Sects. Ethiopian Jews and Karites do not respect it as they have traditions outside of the Talmudic tradition. Likewise Samaritans do not respect this ruling.
Frankly, neither do I. The ruling was not based on the Bible but on 1700 year old science. As such it can and should be revised in light of facts.
I presented this position at a class on Jewish Law at Columbia and managed to offend everyone. The Orthodox considered this either extreme arrogance or apostacy. (Who am I to dispute teh Rabbis...) The Conservative Reform and Reconstructionist Jews were annoyed, not based on my logic, but on the pro-life stance.
I would note that faith science and law are not seperate in Judaism.
The Soviets supported the formation of Israel in the hope that it would become a communist country.
It's as a means of embroiling the US (particularly on "religious" grounds) and opening a conduit for compromise of intel, military and state department that is the "Israel First" groupthink that Israel has been most valuable to the former Soviets.
Given that the US was not a major benefactor of Israel until 1970, your theory is full of wholes. From 1947-1953, the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact states supported Israel and sold it weapons. (There is a running joke that the first fighter squadron of the IDF was made up of Czeck ME109's.)
From 1954-1967, the French supplied the Israelis with weapons.
I believe the objective intended (as was stated) was to radicalize an arc of militant Islam. Israel serves as an organizing point for both reuniting a disparate Arab world and energizing a heretofore sleeping militantism. .....
This radical arc of Islam serves to sap the United States (who still does indeed seek to play both ends against the middle for its own geo-political and national interest purposes). It helps to buffer both the Chinese (with their additional hunk of Hindu flesh) and the Russians (whose President Putin made an intersting slip of the tongue last year in London when referring to "Russia's Caucasus regions") both of whom enjoy tidy relations with the "Axis of Evil" sorts for whom the build nuclear reactors, supply with missiles, tinker in bio-weapons, etc. etc.
Perhaps you have forgotton the danger Islam posed to the Soviets. Most Soviet Republics were populated by Islamic peoples. The risk to the Soviets was clear. Could you imagine half the USSR turning into Afghanistans?
The truth is that for 40 years, the Soviets supported communists in Muslim countries.
The same goes for the Chinese who occupy Uighurs and Mongols who are Muslim.
The current relations of Russia with the Axis of Evil is financial and a way of blocking Us hegemony.
Ron
PS. Nice picture of United Front propganda.
The help Israel received from behind the Iron Curtain in Czechoslovakia is also worth a mention. I understand many of the essential similarities and I think they're certainly worth examining. I was strictly speaking to appearances, I suppose. No way could Israel (or many of the Muslim nations clearly co-opted by a "radicalized" Islam) be overtly "communist".
Even though we can thank the Republicans and their China policy for legitimizing interaction beyond "co-existence" with communists and had no problem teaming up with the intel and military of the "former Communists" before the dust of the Wall even settled, the fact remains (as most recently evidenced by Milosevic and in some Latin American countries) that "communist" still raises red flags and is used to demonize folks at will.
Much like sex is used to demonize Republicans but not liberals as the the need arises. Since we have legitimized in advance the Chinese communist system, we need not expect so much from them. Because we've pretended to buy the whole perestroika thing, a holdover "commie" like Milosevic can be used to predicate our "moral war".
I would have loved to have been in your classroom that day. Thanks for the information on the other sects. That's helpful for me.
I'm not so sure about the Soviets really being afraid. You'll have to convince me some more. I could see them being very afraid that they'd lose what controls they did have were the Arabs to swing their loyalties freely our way and engage in genuine "democratic" reforms.
But the way any and all genuine Arab leaders seemed to get popped to easily belies that there has not been a concerted control of the region. Even a Bathists (sp?) like Saddam doesn't impress me as actually powerful. I mean, we're talking about a guy whose first act was to call out his closest comrades for torture and death. Is that a powerful man?
It's like the folks demonize that sock puppet of a man Clinton. How could a man so enslaved to his passions -- sex, drugs, anger and maudlin sentiment -- not be totally controlled by his handlers? All of his closest buds ended up dead or destroyed. Likely because Clinton was so haphazard and such a loose cannon that the Professionals had to clean up after him and just axe everyone who might have proven a thread.
I'm totally off-topic by now. Thanks for the posts, though. I appreciate the schooling.
An interesting and challenging article. Thanks for posting.
Thanks again.
You haven't met Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, or my relatives on Kibbutzim. (I'm talking the real hard-core commies, the ones that raised their kids communally and refuse to marry.)
Even though we can thank the Republicans and their China policy for legitimizing interaction beyond "co-existence" with communists and had no problem teaming up with the intel and military of the "former Communists" before the dust of the Wall even settled, the fact remains (as most recently evidenced by Milosevic and in some Latin American countries) that "communist" still raises red flags and is used to demonize folks at will.
When was the last time teh mainstreme media condemned Castro, Kim, or Chavez?
I'm not so sure about the Soviets really being afraid. You'll have to convince me some more. I could see them being very afraid that they'd lose what controls they did have were the Arabs to swing their loyalties freely our way and engage in genuine "democratic" reforms.
1/3 Soviets in 1990 were descended from Muslims. If Catholocism could be used to undermine Soviet occupation in Europe, Islam could be used in Asia. Trust me, the Muslims working in oil refineries or conscripted against their will to figh Afghans were not going to go on strike.
But the way any and all genuine Arab leaders seemed to get popped to easily belies that there has not been a concerted control of the region. Even a Bathists (sp?) like Saddam doesn't impress me as actually powerful. I mean, we're talking about a guy whose first act was to call out his closest comrades for torture and death. Is that a powerful man?
He has been in power for over 30 years in an unforgiving area. Assad died in office.
Nasser was not popped. He lost power because of his defeats by the Israelis.
I most certainly agree with your main point: the responsibility for abortion, as well as conception itself, is a shared responsibility of the couple. in ocnsequence, I belive that men should: (i) bare the same responsibility, as you pointed out, and (ii) be given more freedom to choose whether the female partner aborts an unwanted pregnancy.
Thank you for making this important point, as well as for yur kind words.
Thought you might find this thread interesting, DBtoo.
Regards for now.
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.