1. wow. did you even read the article Roger? i'll admit, it's probably one of the worst written NYT articles i've seen in a while. it's hard to follow and is all over the place.

in the article, it quotes (and so does your post):
"The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”"

where does this apply to birth control? aside from "day-after pills" and/or emergency contraception, what kind of birth control, taken as intended, "results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth"?

the article says this line:
"Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it."

this is absolute trash. what concern does the proposal express? why not just tell the reader what the proposal says instead of letting imaginations run wild. here's an example thought process after reading this line:

'well...the bush administration must be against emergency contraception for rape victims. bad, bad bush administration.'

i'm no fan of the bush admin, but have people completely lost their ability for objective thought?

Posted at 2:42PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Mihir

2. Actually, what birth control does is make a fertilized egg (conception) unable to attach itself to the wall to then grow by thickening the walls of the female uterus. (Any doctor, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) So yes, the pill is included in this statement.

What I find interesting is that condoms would still be fine as it acts as a barrier preventing conception. So let me get this straight....they want every married couple to go back to using condoms and not the pill?

So the woman doesn't have to worry about taking a hormone (that sometimes causes her to have headaches and all kinds of other nuisances) and the guy has to wrap up so he feels less of the sexual encounter?

Less pleasure for men...possibly more for women...

I don't think these guys have thought this through, ey ladies?

Posted at 3:30PM on Jul 21st 2008 by sara

3. In response to Mirih's comment that the proposed definition of abortion doesn't include birth control pills- you are incorrect. The birth control pill affects all aspects of a woman's reproductive system. If a woman happens to ovulate, despite being on the pill, and that egg is fertilized, the pill can prevent implantation of that fertilized egg by altering the uterine lining. This is why I don't get why some people are so upset by the day after pill -more or less it's just a stronger dose of a regular birth control pilll. both prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Furthermore, the IUD prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. So, the author of the blog is correct - some birth control methods do indeed fall under this proposed definition of birth control.

Whether you agree or not with women having the choice to have an abortion, I would hope that all people agree that woman should have access to birth control. Even Catholics who claim they are anti-birth control will practice Natural Family Planning (no, not the rhythm method), which in my mind is just another form of birth control. All women should have access to whatever form of birth control suits them best.

Posted at 3:53PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Julie

4. well...consider me schooled on birth control.

and for the record, i am for full access to birth control.

my main concern was the skew of the article. the white house proposal was meant to protect doctors, nurses etc from discrimination if they had an objection to birth control. how it suddenly got slanted into redefining abortion is beyond me.

Posted at 3:54PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Mihir

5. KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BODY.

By the way, a few years ago Congress passed a law REQUIRING insurance companies to cover Viagra, Cialis, et al, but not birth control. I find that just sickening,

Posted at 1:36AM on Jul 22nd 2008 by TheRedhead

6. soon will be sex forbitten by low remember " Fortress 2 " movie!!

Posted at 3:57AM on Jul 22nd 2008 by Lupo

7. In response to Mirih's comment that the proposed definition ofabortion doesn't include birth control pills- you are incorrect. Thebirth control pill affects all aspects of a woman's reproductivesystem. If a woman happens to ovulate, despite being on the pill,and that egg is fertilized, the pill can prevent implantation of thatfertilized egg by altering the uterine lining. This is why I don'tget why some people are so upset by the day after pill -more or lessit's just a stronger dose of a regular birth control pilll. bothprevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Furthermore, the IUD prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. So,the author of the blog is correct - some birth control methods doindeed fall under this proposed definition of birth control.

Whether you agree or not with women having the choice to have anabortion, I would hope that all people agree that woman should haveaccess to birth control. Even Catholics who claim they areanti-birth control will practice Natural Family Planning (no, not therhythm method), which in my mind is just another form of birthcontrol. All women should have access to whatever form of birthcontrol suits them best.

Posted at 3:48PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Julie

8. And by the way Roger, you can't lump all forms of birth control together. You can be in favor of some forms of birth control and not be in favor of other forms. All women should be able to practice whatever form of birth control they wish UNLESS that infringes on the life of another.

I now favor birth control that prevents fertilization, but not forms of bc that cause a fertilized egg (LIFE) to be terminated.

Posted at 4:05PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Karen

9. Actually Sara, you are wrong. Traditional birth control prevents a women from ovulating at all, so there is no fertilization. The mini bill (a different birth control prescribed to and safe for nursing mothers) is a different form of contraception that blocks implantation. Under the new regulations, traditional birth control would not be affected as Mihir states.

Posted at 4:00PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Alison

10. I have wrestled with this myself. Anything that TERMINATES a life AFTER CONCEPTION is indeed abortion. Even if that life is only a few days old...I don't draw a distinction between a few days and a few weeks. Once it is fertilized that is it.

While I'm not in favor of banning the BC pill at this moment, I do think it is irresponsible to pretend that there is a difference between a regular bc pill, a morning after pill or any other abortion. If you believe in life at conception, then to be consistent, you should oppose this form of contraception or at least acknowledge the definition.

We ought to at least call it what it is. If the majority of people continue to express support for these items, then so be it, but refusing to call it what it is, in an effort to make it more palatable is wrong.

Posted at 4:00PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Karen

11. Karen - I find it hard to believe any reasonable person doesn't acknowledge the difference between taking a BC pill to inhibit implantation of a POSSIBLY viable fertilized egg, vs.abortion of fetus. I hardly think people are altering their view of BC just to make it more "palatable". There is, quite simply, a HUGE difference between the two, at least from a logical, scientific/medical standpoint, and from an ethical standpoint as well.

Posted at 4:50PM on Jul 21st 2008 by jen

12. I don't see the HUGE difference. I am not opposed to birth control and used the pill for many years myself. But once I realized that it could prevent a fertilized eggs from implanting, I had to stop using that particular method. I moved on to something else. No big deal...just consistent with my beliefs.

And yes, if people refuse to acknowledge that it is the same, they ARE altering their pov to fit their own conscience. What I really think is that most people haven't sat down and thought about it at all.

You cannot claim LIFE AT CONCEPTION and then draw a line anywhere other than at conception. People can draw whatever lines they want, but if they say they believe that life begins at conception, but then say that they are ok if the pill prevents an FERTILIZED egg from implanting and therefore terminates the pregnancy at 2 days old...then they are inconsistent.

If you don't believe life begins at conception, then there would be no reason to oppose this form of birth control.

Posted at 4:59PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Karen

13. So if "anything that TERMINATES a life AFTER CONCEPTION is is indeed abortion", then a miscarriage (also termed spontaneous abortion) is an abortion - should there be government-enacted-and-enforced laws around those, too?

Posted at 5:33PM on Jul 21st 2008 by ikate

14. I didn't say the government should do or not do anything.

Yes, spontaneous abortion - is an abortion. It ABORTS the fetus at whatever stage.

I just said call it what it is and ask that people are consistent. I've expressed my opinion on birth control, but haven't said what anyone should believe, just if they believe life begins at conception, that any act to prevent life AFTER conception is also an abortion.

And even though I personally believe life begins at conception, I don't think the federal government should be involved in any way.

Posted at 6:12PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Karen

15. For the life of me, I'll never understand why people get so much more worked up over a fertilized egg then the fate of a full-grown woman?! I'm willing to go with the life-begins-at-conception argument, but to me that's irrelevant. Sure it's life, a very rudimentary form of life, and, call me crazy, I'm just a lot more concerned with the fully-formed women out there with fully-formed lives and dreams and hopes.

Posted at 4:58PM on Jul 21st 2008 by cassandra

16. Can't you be equally concerned about the fate of the mother and the child (fetus)?

Posted at 10:05PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Karen

17. I personally don't feel that way, no.

Posted at 11:38PM on Jul 21st 2008 by cassandra

18. What will they blame the Bush
administraion on next?

This is ricidulous!!

Posted at 8:54PM on Jul 21st 2008 by ruth

19. Once again Big Brother on a rampage against civil rights. But would we expect less from the current administration, considering they've done more to destroy the constitution than any other ever before.

Posted at 9:16PM on Jul 21st 2008 by j8kesn8ke

20. Again, the government will not think through what they are proposing and women that depend on birth control for a variety of health issues will be at risk of no access.

The Pill has been the great equalizer and that freedom will be taken away with misunderstandings and years of unnecessary lawsuits to interpret another poorly written proposal. Is this suppose to be the grand stimulus program, having unwanted children and burdening the welfare programs?

Since many hospitals and pharmacies are incorporated, why can't the corporations develop statements to be added to the Offer Letter signed by the new medical employee and leave the local, state, and federal government out of it.

Posted at 11:24PM on Jul 21st 2008 by Summer