Oral Contraceptives and the Struggle for Reproductive Freedom and Women's Rights

There is a sad and simple truth that more women need to realize. The fight for women's rights is NOT over! If you value your ability to plan the size of your family, then you must take a stand and protect women's ability to access oral contraception.

Women's liberation was made possible by, among other things, the invention of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP). As a reliable form of birth control, one that could largely be controlled by the woman, became available, more women were free to pursue an education and enter the work force. Unfortunately, there are those who believe that OCP is an abortifacient, that it aborts an unborn child and want to prevent women from gaining access to OCP. On July 15, Robert Pear of the New York Times reported that Secretary Leavitt of the Health and Human Services Agency and President Bush are planning to

require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

According to NARAL: Pro-Choice America:

• This regulation could undermine good state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors and ensure that pharmacies fill women’s prescriptions for birth control.
• The proposal could allow health-care corporations (hospitals, HMOs, and health plans) to refuse to provide services or make referrals for birth control.
• The proposed regulation could affect Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. For instance, staff at clinics or health-care plans that contract for Medicaid services could refuse to provide contraception.

In her blog on Reality Check, Christina notes that this legislation is "a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right."

We have already seen changes to policies in 2004 at the Center for Disease Control, where condoms are no longer advocated as the best defense against sexually transmitted disease. We have also recently witnessed various attempts to remove access to late term abortions on the state level in South Dakota, which resulted in a law requiring doctors to tell women seeking an abortion that they are terminating the "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

We can not continue to allow policy to be shaped by ideological beliefs over scientific fact as well as the pressing reality of overpopulation and the global benefits of women's ability to control reproduction.

Oral contraceptives suppress ovulation; increase the accumulation of mucus in the cervical tubes, which make it difficult for sperm to reach an egg; and impede the thickening of the endometrium, which is where a fertilized egg, or blastocyst, typically is implanted for development into an embryo.

In a recent issue of Ethics and Medicine Dr. J. Goodnough critiques a argument made by Dr. R. Alcorn that OCP is an abortifacient because, at times, ovulation does occur, eggs can be fertilized, and, therefore, embryos may die.

According to Dr. Alcorn, OCP is an abortifacent because some breakthrough ovulation can occur. If this happens, then there is the chance an egg will be fertilized but unable to implant due to the thinning of the endometrium. Dr. Goodnough argues that OCP has a .1% pregnancy rate, which means about 3% of users will become pregnant even while taking OCP. However, he believes this rate is mainly accounted for by missed pills. One should not assume that breakthrough ovulation is a common occurrence.

Dr. Goodnough also argues that there is no actual proof that the endometrium is made so hostile as to cause death for an embryo. Goodnough states:

he could just as easily assume that the embryo always implants and survives despite seemingly hostile changes in the endometrium. Or, more accurately stated, he could say that the embryo implants and survives as frequently in those on the OCP as happens in those not on the OCP, since embryo loss occurs in an estimated 70 % of fertilizations in women not taking the OCP. Fifteen percent of these embryos die immediately after fertilization, 15 % fail to implant, and 41 % are lost after implantation.

In other words, a sexually active woman using OCP is just as likely to experience the loss of an embryo as a sexually active woman not using OCP.

Oral contraception pills prevent ovulation and impede fertilization. It is not clear the extent that they inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg.

Do not be lured by ideological slants on research. OCP is not an abortifacient.

But, for arguments sake, let's say that OCP is an abortifacient, would that reality give health practitioners the right to refuse to prescribe or fill prescriptions for OCP? Do we really want to empower health practitioners with the right to make choices based on their religious values when they serve the public health? What if we were to allow teachers in public schools the same right? Would you be partial to allowing an educator to refuse to teach students who did not share his/her religious values? Perhaps an educator might refuse to teach a segment of history that did not meet his or her belief system? Maybe educators who do not believe the holocaust existed should not have to teach about it. Perhaps educators who believe democrat values are really a psychological illness can fail students who do not demonstrate republican beliefs and refer them to the nurse?

Those who serve the public do not get to make choices based on religious or partisan values. They must make choices that serve the common good and reflect the will of the people as demonstrated through democratic processes, and they must be conscious and respectful of reason and scientific evidence.

Thankfully, many members of Congress are speaking out on behalf of OCP and family planning. According to Matthew Jaffe of ABC news,

More than 100 members of Congress wrote President Bush today, urging him to "halt all action" on a proposal they argue would change the definition of abortion, and drastically limit women's access to birth control.

We should not take this proposed legislation lightly. Write your Senators and Congressmen to tell them where you stand on this issue.

Write Sec. Leavitt at secretary@hhs.gov and explain to him why you support a woman's right to control her fertility and to plan her family.

Get Active! Presidential Elections 2008

As you may have noticed, presidential candidates are starting to make a show. Some potential candidates have merely started their exploratory committees. Others have gone so far as to announce to a late night news audience that they were indeed running for office. Still others have set up the fan fare and announced with a large rally of supporters cheering them on!

Now is a good time to start chatting about the next President with your friends and neighbors.

Now is a good time to start letting people know where you stand on important issues and letting them know who you would support for President.

Before you start any conversation, you may want to prepare yourself with a few facts on candidates so you are ready to make the best case possible for your candidate. Luckily, there are many helpful resources to simplify your investigation!

You may want to check out a few websites to see how different candidates are doing in the polls or what is being said about them in the news. I am partial to major news networks like CNN, but I also check out Fox and MSNBC as well as the Washington Post to try to get multiple perspectives. You may also want to search for your candidate using technorati, a blog search engine.

If you would like to be able to get a line on the what people are thinking without having it cherry picked by reporters, then you can also look into web sites dedicated to showing you the latest in polling data, such as the Gallup Poll, Zogby, or the PollingReport.com. Please keep in mind that the results of surveys are greatly influenced by the questions that are asked. Surveys can still be biased because people are biased. How the data is presented has still been hand selected, to an extent. Even though the surveys feel more honest without the trappings of analysis, you should still check multiple sources to have a sense of what it 'true.'

I have found web sites such as Politics1 and Politico.com to make inquiry into the 2008 Presidential race easy because they not only have a current list of who is running, as well as who is planning to run or being pressured to run, but also they provide links to biographical information for each candidate, so you can immediately get the goods on any candidate or hopeful.

Being a part of a political campaign is like watching history happen while you are making it happen. If you are fascinated by the history of elections and are interested in comparing the current campaign to last elections, for the sake of even more engaging conversations if not your own curiosity, please check out HistoryCentral.com

The November 2006 election showed us that a few votes can make a difference! Webb (VA-D) won his seat by a slim margin, and changed the balance of power in the Senate! People calling and going door to door to bring out the voters made the difference. We can do that again!

If you are ready to make change happen in America, please know that you can help make the change you hope for possible. Little by little, day by day, you can help make America the utopia we all what it to be! Get active in the coming political race. It may seem far away for you as a voter, but as a supporter and as a citizen, it started long ago.

Research the candidates. Talk about the candidates. Show your support!

Reflections on President Bush's State of the Union Address 2007

The obvious hub of the Presidential State of the Union address was his desperate plea to support his plan to send a surge of troops to Iraq. Madame Speaker Pelosi remained firmly in her seat while V.P. Cheney rose to give his predictable support to Bush's plan.

Freshman Senator Webb gave an excellent response, one worth reading if you did not hear it...or reading again if you did get to see it live. Senator Webb very smoothly pointed out that Americans' have no reason to trust President Bush's new plan to "win" in Iraq as he said:

"this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world."

When I heard the President address the nation from the library on January 10th, I felt that that there would be little resistance to his change in strategy, which can be summed up by his simple statement that:

"This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq."

His description of the dire consequences of leaving Iraq without first sending this surge were indeed frightening, and his recent change of commanders the week prior gave this address an air of confidence that it was all a done deal. That was how I felt even though the American public had seemed to vote overwhelmingly Democratic in the November election, a statement that also seemed to say that Americans wanted to see a big change in how Iraq was handled.

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush again emphasized that American would not want to leave Iraq without finishing the job. He said that the course of the war may not be the war that we planned, but it is the war that we have....and WHY is the war as it is?? From his poor planning, from his failure to take advice. Why did we not send in adequate troops and supplies earlier? Why did the war seem to be run on the cheap when it is so important?

Pres. Bush seems intent on increasing the military presence in Iraq. His concept of winning is military. I think that what it means to WIN and what it means to leave successfully should emphasize political and economic outcomes for Iraq and not military outcome.

After listening to Webb, I am more eager to hear plans of how we can begin to phase troops out of Iraq, while also stabilizing the safety of its citizens and its political economy.

I agree with Bush's assertion that America is a nation of great heroism and great people. We need to take seriously that we have been given much and so from us much is expected.

That members of Congress could come together to address educational issues in the first term of Bush's presidency was, hopefully, the beginning of a heroic effort to finally address educational inequalities. I hope that there will be serious revisions to No Child Left Behind. With the new Democratic leadership in the Senate and the House, I am certain there will continue to be bipartisan efforts to make each child's educational experience quality.

I am also hopeful that the United States will continue to make international aid a priority. President Bush has made many promises to meet the millennium goals by putting funds into the millennium challenge account, which he formed in 2002.


I was somewhat surprised that in his reference to PEPFAR and AIDS relief he did not also mention abstinence-only. Abstinence-only-until-marriage had been mentioned in every previous speech of his Presidency. Abstinence-only was also being included as a stipulation on how funds in African nations were being spent with the Global AIDS Funds. Abstinence-only was also a powerful rallying cry to his conservative supporters. I think people should all take note that it was missing from this Presidential address. Although the conservative war against sexual freedom and reproductive rights is far from over, it is very interesting that this key policy issues, which had been gaining momentum was absent.


There are many other topics from the address that are worth exploring. The issue of spending reform seemed to get solid, positive responses from the Republican side of the aisle. He has a very interesting tax proposal. I am intrigued the connection between lowering taxing to help more Americans' afford private health insurance. It is a powerful scheme that does everything Republicans like--privatize and cut taxes--and is destined to make them look good, if it works.

Everyone agrees we need to act wisely, spend wisely...develop alternative fuels and alternative plans to fight the war on terror. It is too bad that Bush promotes this ideas now, on his way out. This is probably why he has the worst approval rating for any president in the last 50 years, or so said Wolf Blitzer.

I am eager to see how well Congress responds to the President's call for troops. Let us all pray everyone begins to think wisely, and consider how the well being of America is connected to the well being of all the residents of this planet.