creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Connie Schultz icon
Connie Schultz
23 Apr 2014
Grandma President

Six years ago, I laid eyes on my brand-new grandson, and a wave of compassion washed over me, sweeping all of … Read More.

9 Apr 2014
Life Elsewhere, One Reader at a Time

A few years ago, a columnist who works for one of the largest newspapers in the country told me over … Read More.

2 Apr 2014
Money Won; Now What?

There's no way we didn't see this coming. This week's 5-4 Supreme Court decision, split along partisan lines, … Read More.

A Woman's Womb: America's New Sports Arena

Comment

In advance, I apologize to my grown kids for what might be, for them, an embarrassing discussion about their mother's sex life and contraception.

However, dear children, I do want to point out that in the battleground state of Ohio — where you were born and raised — your mother has been hearing far more lately from Rick Santorum than you. This may be contributing to my mood.

It seems that recent polls have inspired Santorum to ramp up his efforts to alienate every thinking woman in America.

Consider, for example, Santorum's stand on free prenatal testing: "It saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

As it has for millions of mothers, prenatal testing saved my life — and my yet-to-be-born daughter's life, too. The only time I've had high blood pressure was during my pregnancy. I spent most of my third trimester lying on my left side to keep myself and my baby alive. My only outings were for regular ultrasound exams to make sure she was not in distress. I'm as pro-choice as they come. In 1987, I chose to become Caitlin's mommy.

Here's Santorum on contraception: "It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage; they're supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal but also (inaudible) but also procreative. And that's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. (If) we take any part of that out, we diminish the act."

I think that during the inaudible part, he was saying "really, really fun." Just a guess, of course.

When I was a freshman in college, I went to Planned Parenthood to go on the pill. I was 19. In retrospect, I wish I'd waited longer to become sexually active, but that regret doesn't take up much room in my head. I'm grateful that Planned Parenthood made it possible for me to make mature decisions about my health even as I made immature choices in men.

Ten years later, I was the mother of a newborn and regularly in the emergency room with full-blown asthma attacks.

Imagine trying to breathe through a straw. Now imagine you're responsible for an infant, and you understand why I was terrified.

My doctor put me on the pill, and the attacks evaporated. I stayed on the pill for more than 20 years, which studies show may dramatically reduce my risk for ovarian cancer.

I always have thought my birth control was a whole lot of nobody's business. However, Santorum and that all-male panel of pontificates at the recent congressional hearing make clear that silence is not an option. Not if I — not if we — want subsequent generations of women to live long, healthy lives.

Outrage works. The Virginia Legislature was about to pass a bill that required women seeking an abortion to undergo a vaginal ultrasound probe. Those of us paying attention in Ohio will remember legislators chuckling over that gadget during a hearing on the so-called heartbeat bill. Thanks in large part to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow's reporting, the bill became the object of national ridicule. Now Virginia's governor is balking.

I wonder whether there's an easier way to snip in the bud this manly urge to control women's bodies. What if — and I'm just brainstorming here — we required every man seeking that little pill for erectile dysfunction to watch a Viagra video.

Have you seen that list of that drug's potential side effects? Yowsa. Headache, face flushes, upset stomach. Maybe blurred vision, too. That's not even the whammo list of rare side effects: heart attack, stroke, irregular heartbeats and death.

I can't help but think we could deter a lot of this unnecessary sex with a mandatory Viagra video. Red-faced guys grabbing their chests in a swirl of Vera Wang sheets. Guys dangling their heads over the side of the bed to hurl. At the end, the camera slowly zooms in on the way-too-young girlfriend, her long tresses blowing in the wind as she sobs at graveside.

Surely, this additional information would inspire men across America to swear off sex and take up mah-jongg.

Just as surely, I would become Queen Constancia, empress ruler of Freedonia.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including "...and His Lovely Wife," which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate. To find out more about Connie Schultz (con.schultz@yahoo.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

22 Comments | Post Comment
Thank you so much for sharing your deeply personal thoughts with us, Connie. So many are educated when we share our personal stories, it opens minds and hearts to new understandings of what we thought were truths...but were indeed only partial or incomplete thoughts, or total misunderstanding. I especially loved your term "pontificates ", for that is what they are and do. I am outraged at their determination to return the rights of women, including being pro-choice and equal healthcare to the pre-Civil War era.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Ruth Angle
Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:19 PM
Rick Santorum and his like (and I use the term losely) minded friends need to get their religious views out of OUR government and back in church wehre they belong. My religion does not subscribe to his beliefs and practices so why should his religious convictions (if indeed that is what this is about) dictate the entire country's public policy? What is truly sastounding is the Rupblican contention that they are against Big Government. How is regulating women's reproductive funtions an example of smaller government? I'd love to hear the explanation WITHOUT the invocation of G-d's law, word of commandment.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mitzi F. Kotler
Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:47 PM

If you want to take birth control why don't you pay for it yourself. If you want to abort your baby why don't you pay for it yourself. It is wrong to expect people to pay for your lack of self control at any age.

Nobody is telling you what to do they just expect you to be responsible for your own actions.
What is wrong with that?

What is wrong is to expect those who do not believe in abortion to pay for abortion!!!

Comment: #3
Posted by: Angel
Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:03 PM
Re: Mitzi F. Kotler If you want contraception pay for it yourself. Do require other people to pay for the indiscretion of others. If you want to act like an adult, they you should be responsible enough to take care of yourself. Don't require those that don't believe in it to pay for it. Why don't you keep the government out of your bedroom and reproductive system.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Angel
Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:08 PM
Re: Angel...I have absolutely no problem paying for anything myself. The problem seems to be that these conservative politicians think that their religion has a place in someone else's life. In the first place, anyone who does not possess a uterus needs to stay out of the conversation entirely. No man should be able to force a woman (any woman) to be an unwilling incubator. Contraception is often used to solve a number of medical problems completely unrelated to having children...everything from ppmd to ovarian cysts. And like it or not, abortions can save lives. In the case of a woman have multiple births, abortion (referred to as selective reduction in this instance) can save the lives of the mother and other fetus's. For a mother of 3, having gestational difficulties, it can allow her to live to raise the other children she's already brought into this world. For a mother who gets the worst news possible, that the child she's been praying for is going to be born to live a life no one should be forced to endure, it can be a humane gesture. This decision should be left to the woman who's going to be forced to live with the consequences, for better or worse.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Johanna Spisak
Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:43 AM
Angel, your logic is flawed. If, as you seem to argue, procreative decisions are a "lifestyle choice", then why should insurance (and all the people who pay into the pool) be expected to fund the prenatal care, childbirth, and healthcare of the new person who is born, when a member of the insurance pool makes the decision to procreate, but not be expected to fund the (much less costly) contraceptive services when a member of the insurace pool makes the decision not to procreate or to limit the number of children they wish to have.
This is not to say I oppose prenatal care, insurance coverage for childbirth, or insurance coverage of the child once born. I absolutely support all of those things. I simply say that if one so-called "lifestyle choice" should be funded, then all should be funded.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Sarah
Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:27 AM
What about the other form of popular male birth control - the vasectomy. Perhaps Rick Santorum should add vasectomies to his list of horrors. I wonder how male legislators would feel about the pill if their vasectomies or any follow up care associated with complications of their elective contraceptive surgery weren't covered by insurance? What if vasectomies were in included in Santorum's complete abolition of reproductive rights and they were deemed illegal? Would there be a rise in penis amputation due to botched back alley vasectomies? I think if vasectomies were prominently on the table in this discussion - it would stop dead in its tracks.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Crosby
Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:51 AM
It's nice Rick earns enough so he and his wife can afford to support all their kids and his wife can stay home. Rare, but nice. It's great he has good insurance, good contacts, and can afford the best care and help. It's great his wife is a nurse and is able to call on her medical training as needed. It's great the kids are older so they can all give her a break when she needs one. But................................
Who's paying to raise, support, provide medical/dental care, and educate all the unwanted children whose mothers did not use birth control? You know, the throwaway kids in foster homes and orphanages, juvey, and jail.
Who's paying for and caring for the life-long medical and nursing needs of babies born with severe neurological, physiological, and anatomical defects/impairment(s)?
What about the pharmacy bill, who pays that?
What about the medical equipment, the ventilator, oxygen equipment, suction machine, nebulizer, Hoyer lift, wheelchair; the physical and occupational therapist; the doctor visits and trips to the ER; the visiting nurse. Who's paying for that?
Who can afford financially and otherwise to stay at home for the lifetime of their child?
It's evident to me neither Rick nor his wife understand the self-sacrifice or the strain an unplanned pregnancy/child or a special needs infant/child places on the average family from birth till whenever. Your tax $$ and mine support these unfortunate children and families. Most collect Disability and Medicaid payments. It's easy to say give birth to your special needs baby when all her/his special needs are being met by others. Try going it alone. Better yet, use contraceptives and get good pre-natal care so you can make informed choices.
Comment: #8
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:12 PM
I have never responded to any public editorial before. Connie, your words ground me with every
reading. I feel as though I've stepped through Alice's Looking Glass - thank you for your sanity and
clear thinking. My question is how on earth have we evolved to crazy...
Comment: #9
Posted by: Deb Morawski
Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:43 AM
I admire your honesty, Connie, but after that we differ. I believe it is a good idea for a woman to "see" her unborn fetus, and to know on a gut level that if she aborts, she is ending the life of a living being. What is the rush? Women in these situations need time to process...and soooooo many couple out there want to adopt.
I had a very extensive ultrasound with my second pregnancy in 1989, when Kaiser found that I had an unusual result from my alfa fetal protein test. I was extremely upset-it meant that my child could have spina bifada or other major abnormalities. They assigned me a "genetic counselor" to be at my side, just in case. This was a 22-23 year old woman who had never had a child and actually asked me why I was crying! She was sweet but so clueless. As soon as the ultrasound started, I knew they were not finding anything abnormal. I cried even more. My son was born by c-section, and is and always was "normal." whatever that means.
Abortion is a matter of life and death. How can women not acknowledge this?
Comment: #10
Posted by: Gwen Tough
Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:00 AM
Thank you Connie for your candaded sharing. I would be willing to bet that many insurance plans pay for Vigra and other ME and do not pay for birthcontol pills. Using birthcontrol and abortion is the perfect knee jerk issues and using them you don't have to talk about the real issues, a 10 billion a month war, corrupt banking, super pacs with ropes attached, not strings, education and umemployment. Why talk about real issues that face everyone, when you can take women's rights back to the dark ages. I love the way men think they know what is best for everyone, look at the mess we are in with them in charge. Maybe it is time to take to the streets like we did in the 60s and 70 to keep what rights we have. Maybe a "Women's Spring" it worked in the middle east this year. Becacuse we have been so passive, and believed our rights could not be taken away, we are now facing loosing what so many worked so hard to gain for us. If you put all the current Republicans in a sack and shook it up, you still couldn't get a real person with standards and morals and we want one of them to be in charge??
Comment: #11
Posted by: Gwen
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:16 AM
Connie:
I do not believe the prenatal testing Rick Santorum was referring to was that of taking a blood pressure. He never said he does not support pre-natal care. He does not support testing done in order to be selective about the unborn child, i.e. physical defects, sex, etc.
The birth control pill, according to many studies, does increase a woman's chance of getting breast cancer and stroke, among other maladies. In a recent newspaper article it was recommended that women on contraceptives wear special support stockings during prolonged air flights as they were deemed to be at greater risk of developing DVT's . I am sure the male "pontificates" have great interest in keeping women alive as we are generally their caretakers in later life as women tend to live longer!
Rick Santorum does not propose denying women the right to use the birth control pill as a means of contraception. He advises against it, according to his own beliefs. He is opposed to the medications used to promote abortion, the so-called morning after pill.The abortion issue is a right to life issue.
I think the Viagra comments were a bit irrelevant.The resentment and hostility displayed in these paragraphs harken back to the 60's. Read Peggy Noonan's article in the WSJ...Declarations, in the opinion section, 2/25/2012.This is an intelligent article which may clarify some of the muddied issues.
Mary White
Comment: #12
Posted by: Mary White
Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:18 AM
Oh, dear Connie. Why must you maintain this posture of vilifying men? (I know, I know; what you're insinuating is that us Catholic, pro-life men vilify women who exercise "choice".) I mean, seriously, do you really believe that Rick Santorum, along with other male "pontificates" (I guess I'd fit into your category as a man faithful to the Church's teaching), seek to control the lives of women? Do you expect my generation (I was born in '81) to continue to buy this conspiratorial line of thinking that Truth, instead of setting you free, in actuality puts in you chains?
Just consider this: if Rick Santorum, and all of us Catholic men, really fits the mold of men-with-a-piquant-for-power-over-women, then why in the world would we oppose contraception or pre-natal testing or abortion? Women who contracept, or who would willingly consider "terminating" a pregnancy, make the man's part in all-things-pregnancy-related easier. If I wanted to be a slime ball and use women for my own selfish desires (probably the most pervasive threat to truly valuing women today), then there's no better partner to enlist than this contraceptive mindset. By that motive, go ahead and champion it as your right to privacy or choice all you want; all I know is, it gets me off the hook for having to be a real man. If my women loathe their fertility, then I can "do it" whenever I want, with whomever I want, with no consequences, no implied responsibility.
Can't you see that your caricature of Santorum as a woman-hater doesn't fit? What's in it for him to oppose pre-natal screening? A life of sacrificial fatherhood to a physically challenged child? What's in it for him (or me) to oppose contraception? Having to abstain from sex during certain times of the month, or having to provide for 7 children instead of 2? What's in it for him to fight against abortion? Hoards of angry pro-choicers calling him names and doing everything they can to stymie his success?
As appealing as all those advantages to his positions may sound, it doesn't seem to do him a whole lot of good (in the slime ball way of thinking) to stand by those positions, does it? Could it be that, just maybe, Santorum and the pontificates say these unpopular things because they, in fact, love and care about women? Or can't you conceive the possibility that being against contraception and loving women aren't mutually exclusive stances? That there are men out there who would, not because they want power over women, but because they, out of love, want what's best for them, say what needs to be said about these issues?
Comment: #13
Posted by: Chad
Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:26 AM
Chad,
This has nothing to do with misandry, it has to do with control of ones own destiny. It is no small coincidence that the advent of reliable birth control for women coincided with the women's movement. If women are kept pregnant, they cannot have lives of their own.
The reality Chad, is that even now women are the primary caregivers of children. They are the ones that are typically up at 3 AM with a sick child, they are the ones who primarily give up careers and independent lives to care for offspring. They are also the ones that sacrifice their bodies and put their lives on the line to give birth.
You seem to fail to understand that there are different types of power. You view the power to have casual sex as the only power in question. What about the power to ensure that women cannot be independent? Cannot earn their own living? Cannot have lives outside of their children and husband? That is the power on the table.
In addition, we never see good Catholic men picketing outside urology clinics to keep men from getting vasectomies, do we? Or picketing outside the Walgreen's trying to keep men from buying condoms? No, it is only women's choices in birth control that are the subject of debate. Why is that? It is a matter of power and control. If men can control how and when women are pregnant, then they can control most other aspects of a woman's life. When a woman gets pregnant, the worst she can do is force a man by court of law to pay a portion of his income for the support of that child.
What bothers me most is the paternalism. Why is it that you, a good Catholic man that is many years my junior, feels that he is able to tell me what to do about my own fertility? You think you are looking out for women's best interests, but what that tells me is that you think women are not capable of making those decisions for themselves. What gives Santorum or you the right to make these decisions for other adults?
I will defend to the death your right to make decisions about your own body and how and when you want to be a father. I will defend your right to be a practicing Catholic that completely submits his fertility to his diety. Why is it that you cannot understand that my morality and religion can be different than yours, and that I should be allowed to do the same? If you and your sexual partner decide to not use birth control and handle the consequences on your own, that is fine by me. However, that doesn't mean that everyone else should carry the yoke of your religion because you find their behavior distasteful. Restricting access to safe and effective birth control for women isn't about loving them, it is about thinking that women are incapable of making these decisions on their own. And it is about forcing women to manage their bodies only in ways that you feel are moral. What's next, the burka?
Comment: #14
Posted by: Julie
Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:36 AM
Is any one arguing that birth control should be illegal? The argument I hear about is who should pay for it? And if people are convinced that abortion is right then planned parenthood would have no problem geeting financed by private donations and not subsidized by the people. Because nothings ever FREE. Somebody is paying for it. In regards to abortion it seems that either side of the debate go to the extreme. The "morning after pill" does not seem like kiling babies to anyone that i know. However,at 36 weeks I dont see how anyone could argue thats not killing a baby? If the child could live outside the womb should the infant not have some protection outside the law? Also, should this issue not be at the state issue? Normally, laws about what is deemed a homicide are legislated at the state level in accordance with the constitution.
Comment: #15
Posted by: SCOTT
Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:33 PM
Julie,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have to take issue with a number of your premises, though. For starters, I'm not sure how defending my position on contraception so easily translates, in your mind, into me subjecting you to the dictates of my conscience. There's a gulf of difference between proposing a truth and imposing a truth. If I were a teetotaler (which I am most certainly not) and I were talking to a drinker about her drinking habits, the most I could do is make my case for refraining from drink. Naturally, since there's a disagreement, our defenses would be up. But at the end of the day, I wouldn't be within my rights to yank the drink out of her hands; nor would I even want to do so. Just like there aren't any ballot initiatives clamoring for prohibition, there aren't any threats to a woman's access to birth control. And neither does my judgment about birth control being immoral, in any way, assume that you're not capable of making your own decisions (I also believe pornography is immoral, but based on the industry's yearly sales, it would seem that a fair number of folks decide just fine for themselves). Isn't it ironic, though, that the only threat or imposition here is on the side of the mandate, where I, a conscientious objector, would be forced (by the power of law) to assist women with something I find morally objectionable?
To your point about the sexes. For you to say Ms. Schultz's point of view, and the point of view of what you call the women's movement, doesn't having anything to do with making men the enemy is falsified by your own words. Almost every line you write is latent with distrust for men. You mention power so often but seem to forget that power must be wielded by something or someone (it's not a blind, arbitrary force). That someone, in your eyes, is clearly male. Look back at your insinuations about women not being controllers of their destiny. Who, other than men, are you saying hold women back? By whom might women be “kept pregnant”? Who is it that is shirking their parental obligations if the mother is “giving up [her] independent life” while raising her child? And from whom would she need to be independent to begin with? Surely you're talking about men in all these cases. You make no bones about it with this line: “If men can control how and when women are pregnant…” It's that kind of defacto mindset (birthed by your generation) that's led to sharp declines in empirically measurable indicators of family health (divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and single-parent homes to name a few.)
And just for the record, I don't discriminate on who hears my opinion on contraception (or abortion). My wife and I regularly share with friends and family (both men and women) the dangers of contraception and the blessing we've discovered with Natural Family Planning. In fact, it's an oft-discussed topic among the majority of my closest guy friends, many of whom disagree with me. I don't condemn them, or ridicule them, or try to wield power over them. But I do talk about it with them. I do bring it up. Primarily because I care about them (maybe, secondarily, because I like to debate!). I'm not picketing at Walgreens, or trying to keep men from buying condoms, either; nor am I doing so to prevent you or other women from picking up your pill prescription. Then again, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing to pray for—a change of heart?
Comment: #16
Posted by: Chad
Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:44 PM
@Chad
Perhaps some clarification is in order on my part. I define misandry as the wholesale hate and discrimination against all men. And for the record, I do not agree with the idea of a single payer health system, so the debate on who pays for birth control is mute in my framework.
I do not believe that ALL men are attempting to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I do, however, believe that some are and that anyone who believes that feminism has been all bad doesn't know history. Previous to feminism, women could not vote, could not own property, could not get an education, and were not allowed to be self sufficient in any way. If a woman became a widow, all of her husband's property was taken by the state and she and her children went to the poor house. At best women went from their father's house to their husband's house to God's house with only an infantalized ownership of the decisions made in their names. Do I believe that all women make the best decisions these days in regards to their own lives? No I don't, just like neither you or I have made great decisions about everything. However, now women are able to make those decisions for themselves, just as all adult humans should be able to. That is a wonderful thing.
I think that you have been misled by your open-mindedness about the true state of birth control in this country. The misinformation is astounding. Pharmacists in my home state regularly attempt to decide who they will allow to get prescription birth control based upon an impromptu quiz at the pharmacy counter. I, as a young ( and virginal) teen, was forced on birth control due to health issues. You should have seen the resistance I got from doctor subordinate staff about filling a prescription for medication to keep me from bleeding to death. I have had surgical procedures that eliminated my fertility, but still end up on 'the pill' to regulate things at times. I still get harassed as a middle aged women with a wedding ring. The idea that access to reliable birth control has not been restricted, even if you want to pay for it yourself is absurd. I worked in rape crisis for a time. Women who have been raped are often prescribed Plan B to ensure that they do not ovulate and become pregnant from their attack (it is not an abortiofacient). The regular harassment that these women received is nothing short of morally repugnant. If some men aren't attempting to control the bodies of women, why the concentrated efforts to keep women from getting access to medication that was prescribed by their doctors?
The problem with the moral objection clause is that the variety of problems associated with the level fundamentalism of the religious organization. In Reductio ad absurdum, if a devout Muslim organization wanted to restrict women from seeing any but female doctors, could they? Where is the line between protection of religious freedom and protection of the rights of those that do not hold those same beliefs? Like I said, my view is that forcing the health insurance issue is beyond the scope of what I believe to be government, and that I would not work for an organization that held greatly divergent beliefs from my own. However, whether we discuss the insurance issues or not, access to birth control for women is still under attack...and that is an attack on freedom for everyone.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Julie
Fri Mar 2, 2012 12:36 PM
@Scott...Actually there is a great deal of debate and resistance against birth control in general. I frankly think that you and I are on the same side in regards to the health care bill...nothing is ever free, someone is paying for it somewhere. Why not have us each pay for our own and allow charities cover the holes....I have an idea about a charity pharmacy that is birth control friendly. I may have to fire it up...
Comment: #18
Posted by: Julie
Fri Mar 2, 2012 1:08 PM
Julie,

Your a charity pharmacy sounds like a great idea. People helping people. When many people perseve a problem their reaction is "the goverment should do something about that". And when most people think of the government doing something they usually think the federal government. Not the state or local governments which should be doing most of what the federal government is doing. We as Americans should get back to think instead "I should do something about that".
Comment: #19
Posted by: SCOTT
Fri Mar 2, 2012 6:54 PM
Re: Mary White. The morning after pill is not an "abortion" pill. It simply does not allow the fertilized egg to attach itself to the uterus. That isn't "abortion!"
Comment: #20
Posted by: Terrie
Thu Mar 8, 2012 9:21 AM
@Terrie. Actually the morning after pill keeps the woman from ovulating and increases the viscosity of the vaginal mucus to create a barrier for semen. It doesn't typically inhibit implantation of the Zygote.

Julie
Comment: #21
Posted by: Julie
Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:29 AM
Re: Mary White-you wrote:
"Rick Santorum does not propose denying women the right to use the birth control pill as a means of contraception. He advises against it, according to his own beliefs. He is opposed to the medications used to promote abortion, the so-called morning after pill.The abortion issue is a right to life issue."
While I realize it's probably far past the time you might read this, you do not understand the issues here. Rick Santorum, and all the other Republican candidates, support the "personhood" bills that are making the rounds of state legislatures. These bills would define life as starting at the moment of fertilization: because the birth control pill works to prevent implantation of an egg in the uterine wall (not to prevent the fertilization), they define the pill as an abortifactant and would make the pill and IUD's illegal. The morning after pill IS NOT the abortion pill: the morning after pill is a highly concentrated dose of the same hormones used in regular birth control pills and while it may prevent pregnancy, it will not harm an existing but unknown pregnancy. Too many people do not know about the hidden agenda in terms of these "personhood" bills...fortunately, the voters in Mississippi educated themselves and voted down their "personhood" bill by large numbers. And btw, there is more involved in diagnosing Toxemia than taking the blood pressure...high blood pressure is just the first symptom.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Deb Brockhurst
Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:34 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Connie Schultz
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 24 Apr 2014
Timothy Spangler
Timothy SpanglerUpdated 24 Apr 2014
Jill Lawrence
Jill LawrenceUpdated 24 Apr 2014

7 May 2008 There's No Equal Footing in Sex With the Boss

23 May 2012 Catholic Leaders Must Dial Down the Rhetoric

21 Aug 2007 Sweet 16 and Never Heard No