.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

I Hate Linux

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Deceits in the Referred Law 6 debate: Part 2

After a bit of delay, at last part two in my 'epic' blog series on the different sides involved in the South Dakota abortion ban debate and just full of crap they all are. (See part one here)

This week... the anti-abortionists.

While the pro-abortionists point out the need for exceptions for victims of rape and incest, the anti-abortionists are quick to point out the laws specifically allows the use of emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill in order to prevent pregnancy not long after unprotected sex as the answer, or at least the only one that they would accept.

There are a few issues with this argument however, three big things in fact.

First... Effectiveness.

Like all contraceptives (short of a hysterectomy, castration or abstinence), the morning after pill is not perfect nor does it prevent pregnancy 100% of the time when taken as directed.

The unfortunate fact is that the anti-abortionists have been selling the morning after pill as a fix all solution... it is not. While the rate of pregnancy from rape is thankfully very low, there exists the chance of a woman who took the morning after pill after a rape could still end up pregnant.

While statistically this is very unlikely, it is still very possible and a fact that the anti-abortionists do not quite own up to.

Second... Reporting.

The sad fact is that not all victims of rape report the incident which to an extent is understandable as it can be one of the most traumatizing incidents in a person's life and when dealing with the immediate aftereffects of one, seeking immediate medical or legal help may not always be on the top of ones to do list.

One point that must be made in this issue is that while not all women report a rape immediately (if ever), despite the emotional or physical trauma suffered, they must. The sad fact is that victimizers such as rapists virtually never strike once and by not reporting the incident, the woman is in effect aiding and abetting the rapist by enabling him to strike another innocent woman.

Before I get any hate mail on the subject I need to make clear... I am not blaming the victim. I am saying that despite the trauma she must act in order to help cause the perpetrator to be severely punished in the hopes that no one else has to suffer as she has.

Third... Availability.

Have you ever tried to get the morning after pill? I haven't, but in some basic inquiries around different pharmacies in Sioux Falls and Madison, SD I've found that it is quite difficult to find except for the obvious place... the Planned Parenthood office in Sioux Falls, SD.

Now ideally, every doctor's office, hospital, police station and sheriff's office would have a few on hand just in case, hell, if I were the parent of any kids who could potentially be sexually active... I'd have a whole box.

Sadly though, this isn't the case.

Despite the fact that they can legally be used, the ability to use them is severely limited and while a woman in Sioux Falls would have little problem getting them... someone further away would.

Perhaps if the anti-abortionist side wants to put so much faith into the morning after pill... they should help facilitate its wide spread availability and give the anti-abortionist side one less thing to gripe about. This however is not likely given that South Dakota law permits a pharmacist to refuse the dispense of medication if they believe amongst other things that the medication may destroy an unborn child which the state defines as (see 50A): "individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth."

From fertilization you say?

The drafters of the law say that they recognize that "life begins at the time of conception" (section 1), and their permitting of emergency contraceptives at all creates a contradiction as there is a several day window between when conception may occur and when an emergency contraceptive becomes illegal or ineffective.

Of course... this isn't that big of a surprise given that without a microscope mounted in the abdomen of a woman; there is no way to reliably determine exactly if and when the egg and sperm meet and fertilization occurs... today at least.

I am forced to wonder if the drafters of this legislation pondered future advances in technology to a time when a pregnancy could 'be determined through conventional medical testing' (section 3) just as soon as fertilization occurs... thus outlawing any kind of after the fact pregnancy prevention/termination that would result in embryonic death.

I suppose... we'll find out in a decade or three if and when such medical technology is available... if this law were to go into effect (which it won't (but more on that in a future post)).

One important aspect of the morning after pill needs to be considered... how it works, which is simple, it functions just like the birth control pill in three important ways.

#1 - It (can) prevent(s) the release of an egg and making fertilization impossible.

#2 - Increases the viscosity of the cervical mucus which causes the sperm to have a more difficult time in reaching their target thus making fertilization less likely should #1 fail.

#3 - Makes it harder for a fertilized embryo to attach to the uterine wall due to weakening of the endometrium and resulting in embryonic death should implantation fail.

While those first two aren't so bad... doesn't the third one pretty much fly in the face of the 'all life is sacred' argument where a bit of life is caused to die through what... starvation?

Of course for this and other reasons some on the ant-abortionist side are against most forms of non-behavioral birth control, but more often there is more opposition to an emergency contraceptive than there is to a before the fact birth control method like 'the pill', despite the fact that they function identically.

That's it for now on the lies and deceits from the anti-abortionists.

Next up will be some added thoughts on a few questions about life under such a law or similar one with an exception or two more.

Before closing though I will point out that I did not discuss the nutcases out west-river who have seen fit to protest while showing graphic pictures of aborted Foos as such actions and images pretty much speak for themselves and are not worthy of discussion or links to.


Post a Comment

<< Home