In light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hobby Lobby contraception-mandate case, it seems that the far-right's defense to liberals' commentary about women's rights being limited is, "They (Hobby Lobby) still cover(s) 16 of 20 contraceptives. They just don't cover the abortion ones."
First off, to me, that reads, "They still cover 80% of contraceptive options. That's 20% less than most such companies, but still, it's better than nothing. That'd be a solid B- in a college course. So, they'd carry with them a 3.00 or a 2.67 GPA, depending on the school they attended. So, yeah - far out, right on, and stuff."
Secondly, they'd be scientifically inaccurate with the latter portion of the statement. The four contraceptives in question (Plan B, ella, and IUDs) do not cause abortions. Even leading medical authorities, such as the National Institute of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say as much. With regard to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made the following statement:
"Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking pills."
Susan Wood, professor of health policy at George Washington University and former assistant commissioner for women's health at the FDA, had this to say about the far-right's egregious claims:
"It is not only factually incorrect, it is downright misleading. These products are not abortifacients. And their only connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one."
To back Professor Wood's claims, there's now definitive research which shows that the only way for Plan B (the morning-after pill) to work is by "preventing ovulation, and therefore, fertilization."
Diana Blithe, biochemist and contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, made similar comments with regard to ella, citing studies which showcase that the drug doesn't prevent pregnancy if a woman has already ovulated. She also noted that, "Women who took the drug after ovulation got pregnant at the same rate as those who took nothing at all." In other words, like with Plan B, ella has no effect on blocking implantation.
With regard to IUDs, Irving Smith - senior associate in the council's Center for Biomedical Research - wrote the following in a Population Council publication:
"Prevalent social myth holds that IUDs are abortifacients. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent from the majority opinion in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, subscribed to this belief. Scientists, including developers of IUDs, have believed it. The key element underlying this myth is that IUDs act only at the uterine level, either to prevent implantation or to destroy developing embryos in the uterus before implantation. Today, however, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization, diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and incapacitating them."
Lastly, it appears that these Hobby Lobby supporters are missing the big picture on a number of levels. This isn't about Hobby Lobby offering 16 out of 20 contraceptives for women. This isn't about one store. This isn't even about Hobby Lobby. It's about the potential precedent this decision sets for companies and their female employees in the future. It's about the loophole companies may now have in limiting women's reproductive rights on religious grounds. It's about the other routes such companies may be able to travel in limiting people's rights due to religious beliefs - perhaps members of the LGBT community. It's about women still playing catch-up with men in terms of equality, continually fighting for equal rights and respect, getting pushed down a notch or two by men, and then being determined to fight again. The ultimate sad irony about Hobby Lobby's policy (and possibly other such stores in the future) is that if a male employee of theirs happened to be on Viagra and raped a female employee, while the Viagra would have been covered by the company's plan, the morning-after pill would not have been, and the woman would have to worry about pregnancy and need to purchase the drug herself. The owners of Hobby Lobby, and other such stores, are free to believe as they so choose, but that doesn't give them the right to force those beliefs on their employees, and hinder them in the process. It's really a wonder what these Hobby Lobby supporters would say if the Supreme Court made a similar ruling in support of a Muslim-owned company...
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
First off, to me, that reads, "They still cover 80% of contraceptive options. That's 20% less than most such companies, but still, it's better than nothing. That'd be a solid B- in a college course. So, they'd carry with them a 3.00 or a 2.67 GPA, depending on the school they attended. So, yeah - far out, right on, and stuff."
Secondly, they'd be scientifically inaccurate with the latter portion of the statement. The four contraceptives in question (Plan B, ella, and IUDs) do not cause abortions. Even leading medical authorities, such as the National Institute of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say as much. With regard to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made the following statement:
"Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking pills."
Susan Wood, professor of health policy at George Washington University and former assistant commissioner for women's health at the FDA, had this to say about the far-right's egregious claims:
"It is not only factually incorrect, it is downright misleading. These products are not abortifacients. And their only connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one."
To back Professor Wood's claims, there's now definitive research which shows that the only way for Plan B (the morning-after pill) to work is by "preventing ovulation, and therefore, fertilization."
Diana Blithe, biochemist and contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, made similar comments with regard to ella, citing studies which showcase that the drug doesn't prevent pregnancy if a woman has already ovulated. She also noted that, "Women who took the drug after ovulation got pregnant at the same rate as those who took nothing at all." In other words, like with Plan B, ella has no effect on blocking implantation.
With regard to IUDs, Irving Smith - senior associate in the council's Center for Biomedical Research - wrote the following in a Population Council publication:
"Prevalent social myth holds that IUDs are abortifacients. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent from the majority opinion in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, subscribed to this belief. Scientists, including developers of IUDs, have believed it. The key element underlying this myth is that IUDs act only at the uterine level, either to prevent implantation or to destroy developing embryos in the uterus before implantation. Today, however, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization, diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and incapacitating them."
Lastly, it appears that these Hobby Lobby supporters are missing the big picture on a number of levels. This isn't about Hobby Lobby offering 16 out of 20 contraceptives for women. This isn't about one store. This isn't even about Hobby Lobby. It's about the potential precedent this decision sets for companies and their female employees in the future. It's about the loophole companies may now have in limiting women's reproductive rights on religious grounds. It's about the other routes such companies may be able to travel in limiting people's rights due to religious beliefs - perhaps members of the LGBT community. It's about women still playing catch-up with men in terms of equality, continually fighting for equal rights and respect, getting pushed down a notch or two by men, and then being determined to fight again. The ultimate sad irony about Hobby Lobby's policy (and possibly other such stores in the future) is that if a male employee of theirs happened to be on Viagra and raped a female employee, while the Viagra would have been covered by the company's plan, the morning-after pill would not have been, and the woman would have to worry about pregnancy and need to purchase the drug herself. The owners of Hobby Lobby, and other such stores, are free to believe as they so choose, but that doesn't give them the right to force those beliefs on their employees, and hinder them in the process. It's really a wonder what these Hobby Lobby supporters would say if the Supreme Court made a similar ruling in support of a Muslim-owned company...
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
Comments
Post a Comment