/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Abortion called Birth Control

--posted by Tony Garcia on 10/19/2005

People who know me well know that my view on abortion is somewhat undecided...and I am not getting into that here. (Any comments trying to persuade me one way or another will be deleted at my discretion.)

That means I am speaking with a little bit more objectivity than the typical Republican or the typical Democrat

One thing I will say is my position relies on the actual definition of life and viability while balanced with the interests of the mother. (I know all of the arguments...keep them to yourself please. Both sides engage in specious rhetoric more than anything else and I do not want that here now.)

But one thing I do NOT accept is the notion that abortion is birth control. So when I read years ago that Madonna had one of her many abortions while on tour because it would interfere with her tour it disgusted me and made me decide that I could not support her music career (her music career being the direct cause of her abortion).

To my equal disgust was a post by Moderate Left where he bitches about Target because "Target refuses to fill a woman's birth control prescription."

It Ain't Birth Control you rube.

As it turns out the link that Moderate Left give is to Planned Parenthood lapdog America Blog. They quote as if it were from a news source the following:
A 26-year-old Missouri woman was refused EC when she handed her prescription to a pharmacist at a Target store in Fenton, MO, on September 30. The woman was told by the pharmacist, “I won’t fill it. It’s my right not to fill it.” She was told that she could go to a local Walgreens instead. The woman said, “When the pharmacist told me she wouldn't [fill the prescription], I went from disbelief to shock to anger. I guess I'm still pretty angry. It seems unbelievable to me that a medical professional could/would deny access to a federally approved drug and impose their personal beliefs in a professional setting. I am also grateful that I did not need it filled at that time. I don't know how it would be if I had just been raped or if the condom broke and I was a feeling confusion and panic anyway -- and then was denied access and told to go across the street.”

The national headquarters of Target has not responded to three PPFA attempts to clarify its policy on pharmacist refusals.
Sadly I have searched and can find no reference to this alleged story except from the biased party (Planned Parenthood).

Target's response, by the way:
You may have heard about an alleged incident at a Target store in Missouri. Please know that we have thoroughly researched the situation and determined that the organization has inaccurately portrayed the events that occurred. We are extremely disappointed by yesterday's Planned Parenthood protest at the Missouri store and the misinformation that is being perpetuated.
(provided by the liberal rag, City Pages).

So all of this time and space to point out that Moderate Left is being the useful idiot for Planned Parenthood/SaveRoe since Moderate is spewing an unconfirmed story around as if it is news.

6 Comments:

Blogger lloydletta said...

Emergency contraception is not abortion.

October 19, 2005  
Blogger A.D. Gettis said...

In that it can cause a zygote that might otherwise implant and develop to instead be destroyed, it can be an abortifacient.

But that isn't the issue of this post; why would the affairs of a pharmacist and her patient be the business of anybody but the two involved as well as the pharmacist's employer? Planned Parenthood and the patient herself have a lot of gall trying to dictate how Target and their employees conduct themselves. Obtaining a service from any private business is not a right!

October 19, 2005  
Blogger Tony said...

1) Whether EC is an "abortion" would depend on a person's definition of life, correct? While you do not agree with the definition that life begins at conception it is still a technically unanswered question. Therefore you must (to be intellectually honest...which is hard for you, I know) acknowledge the concept. EC is just another way of the anti-life crowd trying to marginalize the impacts of their views.

2) Andrew brings out a very interesting hypocrisy of Planned Parenthood. THEIR "clients" get privacy and PP's position is that not even the parents should know. Yet these assholes at PP have the audacity to insert themselves in the patient-doctor relationship at pharmacies.

It is stuff like PP's hypocrisy that makes me support the pro-lifers even with my own views still being undecided. Where do I throw my support depends on which side makes the most intellectually honest positions. Neither side is close to being perfect but the pro-lifers are a little further ahead. Their nutjobs are fringe while the anti-lifers nutjobs are the mainstream of their position.

October 20, 2005  
Blogger Jeff Fecke said...

If EC is an abortifacient, then the Pill is an abortifacient--as both function in precisely the same way. The Pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. If you're gonna ban one, you've gotta ban both.

That said, I agree that obtaining a service from a private business is not a right--but private businesses have an obligation to place their customers' needs above their employees, or they won't remain in business long.

As for this:

Yet these assholes at PP have the audacity to insert themselves in the patient-doctor relationship at pharmacies.

That's precisely backward. The doctor-patient relationship was initially violated by the pharmacist who refused to fill a valid prescription; the patient was the one who alerted Planned Parenthood. The privacy rights of a patient are designed to protect the patient, not the provider; when she alerted PP, she waived her right.

No hypocrisy--PP didn't publicize this without the patient's consent.

October 20, 2005  
Blogger Tony said...

I guess I was wrong...I thought birth control basically prevented the egg from even being released.

The prescription, once handed to the pharmacist, becomes a relationship between the pharmacist and the patient. So, PP broadcasting this relationship was acceptable? Yet PP feels that parent notification is a violation of the doctor-patient. PP is full of hypocrisy in their broadcast of this "story".

Do you support or oppose PP issuing this story?

Do you support or oppose parental notification?

October 20, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, PP broadcasting this relationship was acceptable? Yet PP feels that parent notification is a violation of the doctor-patient. PP is full of hypocrisy in their broadcast of this "story"."

Are you serious? Because someone makes the choice of divulging the incident that occurred at the pharmacy, this somehow means that doctors should be required to notify parents of minors receiving abortions? Please illustrate this supposed hypocrisy.

With regards to EC, it is exactly the same as regular birth control, just a higher dose. The hormones present prevent release of an egg from the ovaries and also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. A much bigger issue that you should investigate is that nearly 80% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus and are flushed out with a woman's menstrual cycle. This is a much larger number of destroyed lives, if life begins at conception, than the number of lives wiped out by contraception, emergency or otherwise.

October 24, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home