Irresponsible Abortion/Contraception Proposal

The U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services is moving to redefine "abortion" in such a broad manner that it could include oral contraceptives and emergency contraception, and to require any program that receives funding through HHS to certify that they will not refuse to hire employees who are morally opposed to abortion/birth control, since that would be employment discrimination. Ultimately, all this will do is make it harder for women to control their own bodies, since they may have to fight to find someone who will prescribe or dispense birth control or perform an abortion.

Why This is Stupid:

1) We already have more people than we can take care of. All this talk about fixing health care, welfare, and social security would be moot if the population—especially the lower-income segments who would ultimately be most affected by this policy change—weren’t already overwhelming the system. I’m not saying we should enforce mandatory breeding laws, but it makes no sense to take away means of reducing births when this country, not to mention the planet at large, has so much trouble taking care of the people who are already here.

2) It is more expensive to care for a child in the welfare or foster care system than it is to provide a woman with contraception and educate her as to its proper use. Anyone who is unhappy about the amount of money the federal government takes from their paycheck should be opposed to this policy.

3) Preventing women from accessing birth control will only increase the incidence of abortions. There will be more unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and women who might not have become pregnant in the first place will abort.

4) Restricting legal access to abortions will only increase the incidence of illegal, unsafe ones, and cause greater harm to women. If a woman is determined to abort, she’s going to find a way to do it, and unfortunately, not everybody has easy access to a Planned Parenthood clinic or a sympathetic doctor.

5) Contraception cannot be abortion, no matter which (established) definition of pregnancy you use! The whole point of contraception is that it works against conception—preventing pregnancy by its very definition! It is irresponsible and totalitarian for politicians to attempt to redefine medical terms in order to further a moralistic agenda.

6) From the job discrimination perspective, rather than the reproductive health one: If you are morally opposed to any aspect of a given job, you should not take that job. I’m not going to go work for Focus on the Family, for instance, or for Liberty University, no matter how good the pay is or how much it might be able to further my career goals. If you are morally opposed to abortion, you shouldn’t work in an abortion clinic. If you are morally opposed to providing any kind of legal medication, you should not work in a pharmacy! It’s just that simple. It’s not discrimination if an employer refuses to hire someone who won’t do their job. Furthermore, it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to discriminate against other groups in organizations that receive federal funding—Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, anyone?

( read the New York Times article about this proposed change )