Equivalence between Viagra and abortions? Not really...

[ljm2002]

...because pregnancy is something that happens only to women, not to men. Also it does involve the beginning of another life. Even so, it may help if we use the Viagra example.

Let's say that there was a movement that was against erectile dysfunction drugs. Saw it as akin to sex toys. Created an atmosphere of outrage over the fact that such things exist. Then let's say someone in Congress introduced an amendment to the health care bill with these provisions, and it passed:

-- no direct public funding for Viagra, Cialis, etc.
-- anyone who gets any assistance for insurance, cannot buy a policy that includes any ED drug
-- anyone who gets any assistance for insurance, cannot buy their own policy, on their own nickel, to obtain any ED drug

Now, would you say that some people's access to these drugs was being inhibited? Or would you say "Well they can pay for the drugs out of pocket, so they still have access."?

And keep in mind, the ability to obtain an ED drug is not time-sensitive. Not in the way that it is to obtain an abortion. So if you have to scrounge for money to get your ED drug fix, well waiting a week or two won't be a big deal. When you're pregnant, on the other hand, and need an abortion, every day counts.

I sincerely hope this helps to clarify why the Stupak amendment is a big deal and is a real punch in the gut to women, and to poor women in particular.

[joeybee12]

1. So, are you women happy with being treated as second-class citizens?

I see far too many just willing to say this isn't a big deal.

[emulatorloo]

4. ljm2002, the original poster, indeed says it is a big deal. ABSOLUTELY.

It is horrible and it needs to go.

[ljm2002]

12. I guess you didn't read the whole post...

...which is usually a bad idea when choosing to reply.

But to answer your question: no, this woman is not at all happy about our status as second class citizens. I am livid about this amendment. I was trying to use a scenario that would apply only to men in order to at least get people thinking about the reality of the restrictions in this amendment. When people think about it in terms of abortion only, for some reason their judgment gets clouded, and they are very quick to say "Oh well women can still get abortions, they just have to pay for them, no big deal. Let them find some nonprofit somewhere to help out, let them have a bake sale, what's the fuss? I don't want to pay for their elective abortions anyway."

And as usual the women who are the most affected are the poor, the very ones who can least handle the results of being denied a safe and legal medical procedure. My point is that this amendment does deny access to the procedure, no matter how many people say otherwise.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. "deny access"

They have access today, no? What rights have been taken away because the house voted to keep the Hyde Amendment in play?

[ljm2002]

20. They have been denied the right...

...to purchase an auxiliary policy with their own money, based on what the policy covers. In fact, given that the procedure is legal, it cannot be Constitutional to deny people the right to spend their own money on something that is legal.

Furthermore, this is yet another way to make abortion less accessible. Who decides whether it is "elective" or not? Do we make men who get Rx's for Viagra answer a questionnaire:

- Are you planning a trip to a country that is known for sex tourism?
- Did you marry a trophy wife and now are finding you can't keep (it) up?
- Is this ED of yours a result of a health condition? If so, is the condition your fault? If it is a result of diabetes, can you prove you didn't bring it on yourself by eating too many Oreos every day?

This would never be tolerated by men, and yet Viagra is non-essential. Whereas reproductive choice is an absolutely essential aspect of women's health.

I mean, really, this is absurd. I wonder how people can feel justified in just blithely waving their hands and saying this is no big deal.

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. It is a $300 operation that is not covered by Federal money now. I ask again

What has been lost?

IMO, it is a reversal of Hyde that was defeated yet people are up in arms about "rights" being taken away?

Out of curiosity, what is the cost of an abortion rider on an insurance plan? Anyone know?

[ljm2002]

25. The point is...

...that a certain group of people(*) will not be allowed to buy insurance with an "abortion rider". Not even with their own money. So what the hell difference does it make how much it costs?

This amendment is a punch in the gut to women and those of us who have fought for reproductive rights, and it was intended as such. It is punitive and mean spirited, and targets poor women in particular.

And by the way, $300 may not seem like much to you, but for some people that is a lot of money. Furthermore, the whole idea of it only applying to "elective" abortions is a pile of horse manure. What that means, is that a woman who wants an abortion now has to justify it and jump through hoops to "prove" she "needs" it. She has to justify her decision first to doctors, and then to insurance adjusters who will do everything they can to deny the procedure, just as they do in general with covered medical procedures.

Well clearly I won't convince you. Carry on.

(*) Or should I say, a certain class of people: poor women.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. Medicaid doesn't cover abortions today

Where does that leave "poor women" given the house vote?

They have not lost rights. The house just confirmed Hyde.

Look, I am pro-choice, but the argument that the house has "taken away a right" is a strawman. Argue your dissent on the merits (opposition to Hyde), not on supposed "rights" that were "taken away".

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Raises hand

:hi:

I am not willing to fight against a bill that kills pre-existing condition clauses over a $300 elective (not Hyde exceptions) abortion procedure.

So sue me.

[emulatorloo]

2. To me Viagra is more equivalent to something like Vagifem

Vagifem is a topical estrogen used by menopausal women to kept their vaginal tissue supple.

Vagifem Estradiol | Estrogen Therapy for Atrophic Vaginitis
http://www.vagifem.com/

ON STUPAK:

Senior Democrat is 'confident' that Stupak amendment will be stripped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6974605

[ljm2002]

6. Sure, whatever...

...miss the point much?

I already stated they are not equivalent, except in the sense that one is for men only and one is for women only. One could argue that ED drugs are frivolous and therefore should come under some restrictions. I mean, I don't want to pay for your hard-on! Would you make that argument? Just wondering...

[emulatorloo]

9. No I did not miss the point. See the link I added re House, see also my response to joeybee12

"One could argue that ED drugs are frivolous and therefore should come under some restrictions. I mean, I don't want to pay for your hard-on! Would you make that argument? Just wondering..."

No, no more than I would argue that treatments for Atrophic Vaginitis are frivolous. I cannot imagine you would make that argument either.

Nor am I "in favor" of Stupak, I hope you are not as mistaken about that as you were about me "missing the point"; I find it to be horrible, and it need to go.

[ljm2002]

14. Sorry...

...this issue just makes me livid.

But while you are right about the analogy, I did acknowledge that abortion and Viagra are not directly analogous. I was trying to shift the argument a bit so people would pay attention to the actual restrictions in the amendment, rather than having their analysis colored by emotions because of the abortion issue.

Sorry for being snippy, I usually try to avoid that.

[emulatorloo]

16. Oh, SERIOUSLY it is ok -- everybody's nerves are frayed. Stupak has got to go

[bikingaz]

30. Agree with the ED statement

ED drugs are frivolous & should be paid by users -not the rest of us

[Taverner]

3. Coverage for both. And Medical Marijuana

But you are talking to one of those folks with "San Francisco Values" so make of it as you would...

[ljm2002]

21. As someone who lived in the East Bay for many years...

...I share your "San Francisco values".

:hi:

[Taverner]

26. I always wanted to an ad...

On the screen there is "California Values"

Then fade to old folks being taken care of, gay people respected, minorities successful, and everyone generally getting along

Then "Any questions?"

[valerief]

5. Pregnancy only happens to women but erectile dysfunction happens to both men and women?

Anyway, according to the faith-basers, you're only supposed to have sex to procreate, so ED drugs are for the purpose of pregnancy anyway.

[joeybee12]

7. So if you use Viagra, get a woman pregnant, and that woman wants

an abortion, she can't use fed funds, so the fed funds you used to get that hard-on need to be paid back? I mean, let's make it really hard to keep women from choosing.

[frazzled]

8. There's a big glitch in that argument

Bob Dole, first of all, is not needing Viagra for reproductive purposes. I rest my case. I rest his, as well.

I could see getting our panties in a twist over Viagra. Frankly, sexual activity is not a necessary condition of life. If the plumbing doesn't work, I guess we can just tell those men to live with it. It's a hell of a lot easier to live with than having to care for a child for 18 or so years. And less disruptive to one's life. So, I guess I'm with the program: no Viagra; it's a frivolous sex toy.

(PS: You don't have to tell me tales of woe about erectile dysfunction; I'm being half sarcastic here. But only half.)

[valerief]

13. Hell, I'm all for govt funding for abortions AND ED drugs. I don't care.

I'm not for paying for ED drugs but not for abortions, however.

[ljm2002]

23. Agreed!

I'm fine with coverage of ED drugs. But not when an essential procedure like abortion is being denied to women. In fact, I cold argue that Viagra is a recreational drug and therefore should be illegal. I like that. Let's start a movement to outlaw Viagra, on the basis that it's a recreational drug.

[Skittles]

18. so you know who all Bob Dole is fucking

really?

[TicketyBoo]

24. No, but I'm guessing

whoever it is, it isn't for the purpose of procreation. :rofl:

[emulatorloo]

10. Fundies probably know men can ejaculate w/o erection if need be, so no need for Viagra to procreate

But I have no idea what goes on in their minds, really. Unfathomable.

[KakistocracyHater]

11. but when THEY say "abortion" they REALLY MEAN BIRTH CONTROL

or haven't you heard?
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
"Birth Control" Pills cause early Abortions

By J.T. Finn (updated April 23, 2005)

Physicians across America -- and around the world -- are now confirming that the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant cause early abortions.

First, a look at the Pill. Research shows that in many cases the Pill causes early abortions -- abortions the mother may not even know she's having. You may find this shocking, but the facts are clear after reading Randy Alcorn's book, titled;

"Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"

Here's what 11 physicians and medical professionals are saying about the book Randy Alcorn published in 1998:

1. "From medical textbooks and pharmacy references, to statements from the Pill-manufacturers themselves, this book proves, beyond any doubt, the abortion-causing action of birth control pills. This book should be read by everyone interested in knowing the truth."

~ Paul L. Hayes, M.D., Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists

2. "Does the birth control pill cause abortions? Using research results from medical literature, Randy Alcorn has convincingly shown that the answer is `yes.' He has, with care and compassion, given us the truth. The question for us as Christians is how we will respond now that we know."

~ Linda Martin, M.D., Pediatrician

3. "By carefully detailing the available medical information concerning the abortifacient effects of oral contraceptives, Randy Alcorn has developed a logical and thoughtful challenge to every prolife person. The conclusions of this study are scientifically accurate. Birth control pills usually prevent pregnancy, but sometimes they cause an abortion. Questions? Objections? Randy has addressed them in a gentle but firm way. This is the manner in which the often fiery debate over prolife subjects should be carried out- unemotionally, intelligently and quietly. The evidence is before us . . . `How should we then live?'"

~ Patrick D. Walker, M.D., Professor of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

4. "In this challenging book Randy Alcorn has the honesty to face a tough and uncomfortable question. This compelling evidence will make you rethink the question of birth control pills."

~ John Brose, M.D., Surgeon

5. "In this impeccably researched book, Randy Alcorn takes an unblinking look at what medical experts know about how birth control pills work. I painfully agree that birth control pills do in fact cause abortions. Our individual and collective Christian response to this heretofore varnished-over information will have profound consequences for time and eternity. This is a disturbing must-read for all who profess to be prolife."

~ Beverly A. McMillan, M.D., Ob/Gyn

6. "Randy Alcorn has done exceptional work. The facts in this book parallel much of my own research. I am delighted he would undertake such a work when others seek to avoid the subject. This book is a must for Christians, particularly those in medicine and Christian ministries."

~ Karen D. Garnett, R.N.

7. "No prolife physician can rightly prescribe BCPs after reviewing this data. I have started circulating this information."

~ Randall Martin, M.D., Chairman, Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia Willamette Valley Medical Center

8. "Scientific papers suggest that escape ovulation occurs 4-15% of all cycles in patients taking birth control pills. Thus, as this booklet points out, early chemical abortions are a real and significant concern."

~ Paddy Jim Baggot, M.D., Ob/Gyn, Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics

9. "Randy Alcorn has thoroughly studied and written on an area where little published scientific information exists. His responses to this issue, and his outstanding appendices, are must reading."

~ William M. Petty, M.D., Surgeon, Gynecologic Oncology

10. "Randy Alcorn has once again demonstrated his tenacity and integrity in pursuing the truth. He has exposed the abortifacient properties of so-called birth control agents. This booklet should be required reading for all discerning Christians who wish to fully live out their faith."

~ William L. Toffler, M.D., Professor of Family Medicine,
Oregon Health Sciences University

11. "I endorse Randy Alcorn's book with gusto. He has answered the title question with the care and compassion of a pastor, having searched out the facts with the diligence of an experienced researcher. He has provided all women in their reproductive years with an invaluable resource which will allow them to be fully informed about the birth control pill."

~ William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
George Washington University Medical Center

You may go to Randy Alcorn's web site and read a summary of this 88-page book by clicking here. You may also order the inexpensive book from his site.

More facts about the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant:

Again, if you're reading about CHEMICAL ABORTIONS for the first time, this may surprise, or even shock you. Most Americans are not aware that the Pill and other chemical "contraceptives" cause millions of "non-surgical" abortions each year in the early weeks of pregnancy. If you are using the Pill, Depo-Provera or Norplant, you need to know the truth about how these products work.

Most women take these "contraceptives" because they don't want to have a baby. But how many women know they can have BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS and become pregnant while using these "contraceptives?" Very few! And how many of these women know that if they become pregnant after a BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION, these "contraceptives" will almost always kill any son or daughter they've conceived?

Most people don't know the real facts about how "contraceptives" work. And because of this lack of knowledge, most women are not aware that they may be having BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS, and conceiving children that are killed very early in the pregnancy. Women using these "contraceptives" almost never perceive that they have become pregnant, or that chemicals have killed their tiny baby.



What is Breakthrough Ovulation?

While using the Pill and other chemical "birth control" products, many women's ovaries continue to release eggs. This is called "Breakthrough Ovulation" and it occurs in millions of women each year. Once an egg has been released via ovulation, a woman can become pregnant.



You can still conceive a child . . .

If you're using "birth control" products and you have a breakthrough ovulation that releases an egg, sperm can then reach and fertilize your egg. At that moment -- you would be pregnant! Fertilization means conception has taken place and you now have a brand new son or daughter who is as complete genetically as he or she will ever be throughout life.

When Does Human Life Begin?

Internationally-known geneticists and biologists have testified that human life begins at conception. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the question: When does human life begin? The following doctors testified:

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, The Father of Modern Genetics, testified that, "Each of us has a very precise starting moment which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilized egg, and this is the moment of fertilization. There is not the slightest doubt about that and we know that this information is written on a kind of ribbon we call the DNA."

The late Dr. Lejeune of Paris, France, discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome. He received the Kennedy Prize for this discovery, as well as the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.

How does the Pill work?

The Pill has three mechanisms of action which can easily be looked up in the Physician's Desk Reference.

1) Sometimes, the Pill suppresses ovulation. When this happens, an egg is not released and conception cannot occur. (It's important to read on and find out about the high rates of breakthrough ovulation. When ovulation is not suppressed, pregnancy can occur.)

2) The Pill also works to thicken the woman's cervical mucus which can "restrict" sperm from moving up the reproductive tract toward the egg.

3) One way the Pill causes early abortions is that it interfers with the flexing motions and the cilia movement of the fallopian tubes. These changes slow the transportation of newly conceived child from the fallopian tubes to the womb. Unfortunately, many small babies starve to death in the fallopian tubes because chemicals caused changes that prevented them from reaching the womb in time to be nourished.

4) Another way the Pill causes early abortions: If your tiny baby survives the ride down the fallopian tube to your womb, the Pill will almost always cause the endometrium (the lining of your uterus) to reject your child. Chemical reactions often cause the lining of your womb to become thin, shriveled and unable to support implantation of your newly conceived child.

This means that in almost every case, your new child will not be able to attach to the wall of your womb where he or she would normally live, grow and receive nourishment for 9 months. This means your tiny baby will starve to death and his or her remains will be passed along in your next bleeding cycle. (The "Study of Abortion Deaths Commission" estimates that this happens in women in America who use the Pill approximately 1 to 4 million times each year.)

The chemicals that cause these early abortions are called abortifacients which is the medical term for any chemical agent that causes an abortion.

Depo-Provera, Norplant and IUDs

Depo-Provera and Norplant both use chemicals that work in very simlar ways on a woman's body and womb. Depo-Provera and Norplant are also considered chemical abortifacients.

IUDs or Intra-Uterine Devices, are small plastic devices that are inserted into the womb. Some IUDs contain copper or a time released hormone. It is believed that the IUD causes a low grade inflammation in the lining of the womb. As a result, the lining of the womb is imperfect and the fertilized egg will not implant. (Source: This paragraph on IUDs is quoted directly from the Calgary Regional Health Authority's web site.)

Because of the chemical effect an IUD has on a woman's womb, tiny babies are aborted. Therefore, IUDs are also considered abortifacients.

Breakthrough ovulation proved long ago . . .

Birth control advocates and manufacturers of the Pill have known these facts for years. Have they done a very good job of informing women about how the Pill really works? (Please email us and let us know if you were aware of how the Pill worked before you read this.)

When chemists devised the Pill that debuted in 1960, they gave it a huge dose of a chemical that caused most women's ovaries to stop secreting eggs (i.e., to stop ovulation). The theory was "no egg, no pregnancy."

However, some women continued to release eggs and get pregnant while on the original Pill. (Studies have shown that an even higher percentage of women release eggs while using today's newer, re-formulated Pills. More about today's Pills in a moment.)

In her award winning study of women taking the earlier high dose Pills, Dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine Van der Vange showed "proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4.7% of the cycles studied." (Source: Sterns, Dr. David, "How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life," American Life League, PO Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555)

And the "Textbook of Contraceptive Practice" states that, "Among women who have been followed over a considerable number of cycles, breakthrough ovulations occur in 2 to 10 percent of cycles." (Source: Dr. J. Peel & Dr. Malcolm Potts, Textbook of Contraceptive Practice, 1969, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)

Please note that these references are to the lower breakthrough ovulation rates of the Pills of the 1960's. The new Pills of the 1990's work differently and have much higher breakthrough ovulation rates. This will be explained as you read on.



Why the big secret?

Why aren't most women aware that the Pill causes early abortions? Let's look at the large pharmaceutical companies who advertise, market and sell the Pill. They make huge profits from the Pill -- and they'll continue to make mega-profits -- if women are convinced they're not getting pregnant and they keep buying and taking the Pill everyday. But are they being honest with you? Have they clearly explained that their products cause millions of early chemical abortions each year?

The New Pills: Much Higher Rates of Breakthrough Ovulation . . .

The original Pill of the 1960's had to be modified due to harmful side effects that women were experiencing because of the powerful chemicals. All versions of today's "Combination Pill" have a reduced hormonal content. When compared to the Pills of the 1960's and 1970's, this reduces the chance of harmful side effects for women, but it also increases their chances of ovulating and conceiving a son or daughter.

Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), publicly stated that the new Pills of today, with their lower estrogen dose, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time! (Source: Sterns, David, M.D., Sterns, Gina, R.N., B.S.N., Yaksich, Pamela, "Gambling with Life, How the I.U.D. and 'The Pill' Work" (www.top.net/vitalsigns).

With these newer Pills, simply missing one tablet, or failing to take the Pill at the same time each day increases the chances of breakthrough ovulation. Reactions with other drugs increases the chances of breakthrough ovulation, especially with caffeine and nicotine, or some prescription medicine (Source: "Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust" by Dr. Rudolf Ehmann, Human Life Intl., 1993, p.15).

Makers of the new "mini-pill" claim it does not have the side effects of the combination pill. However, they don't tell you that scientific research shows the mini-pill does not stop ovulation at all in 67-81% of the women who use it, so the probability of conception is much higher. (Source: Tonti-Fillippini, Nicholas, Linacre Quarterly, 1995)



Breakthrough Ovulation Estimates for other "Birth Control" Methods:

1) Norplant has breakthrough ovulation 50-65% of the time.

2) Depo-Provera has breakthrough ovulation 40-60% of the time.

3) The IUD has breakthrough ovulation 100% of the time.

4) With over 17 million American women using the Pill and other chemical abortifacients, it is estimated that breakthough ovulation and pregnany occurs so often . . . that between 7 to 12 million newly conceived children are killed by chemical abortions in the womb each year. And most of these women never even knew they were pregnant.

(Sources for the four points listed under Breakthrough Ovulation Estimates above are as follows: 1) Hilgers, Dr. Thomas, "Norplant" Linacre Quarterly, 1993, p.64-69. 2) "Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives," 1994 by the Study of Abortion Deaths Ad Hoc Commission - Bardstown, KY. Ph: 502-348-3963. 3) ibid. 4) ibid.)".... Oops, I forgot to add: HOW is this different again?:dem:

[ljm2002]

19. Well of course...

...given the "progress" they have made in making abortions less accessible, they will definitely target birth control next. And they will use many of the same arguments: basically, it's "Well why should I pay for your birth control? Just be moral and abstain, no problem."

And the end result is more, not fewer abortions. And who will bear the burden of these misguided policies? Women, and poor women in particular.

We're going backwards. We've got a Democratic president, we've got solid majorities in both houses of Congress, and yet at atrocity like the Stupak amendment passed in the House.

Well, I'm getting to the point of saying, "What you mean 'we', white man?" It seems like "we" don't have much representation at all.

[madrchsod]

27. i feel your comparison is flawed....

there`s several of over the counter products that can be used for e-d. this would be a better comparison...penile implants. these are used to artificially achieve erection and reduce pain . the implant is used because of prostrate cancer,heart disease, injury to the penis,and other medical conditions. injuries to the penis is a good example. injuries result in extreme pain in erection and urination and implants are the only treatment. implants are covered by medicare and all insurance companies. now if someone decided that penile implants are not to be covered we would hear the wailing and crying from the men in the house and senate. i think this is a better example.

i understand why it is a big deal because over the years i dealt with this issue a number of times. i find that guys like stupak have no understanding of what this issue means to women and those who are their friends and loved ones. i fear to many women and men forgot or never knew what women went through before abortion was legal.we can not return to the days of coat hangers and darning needles.

[Ruby the Liberal]

29. Another one claiming "rights" are being taken away

Where in the bill/amendment do you see a challenge to legality?

Jeez Louise people.