Until now the government, the American Medical Association and the American Collage of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has held that pregnancy begins at implantation of an embryo in the lining of the uterus. Some hold the belief that pregnancy occurs when sperm meets egg, whether or not the embryo implants. For those people, preventing implantation is tantamount to an abortion.
The new proposed rules reject accepted definitions of pregnancy and accept the claim that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable (and untestable) moment when an egg either has been or might have been fertilized. That means under these proposed guidelines there is no way for a woman to prove she is not pregnant. Those opposed to administering or providing or explaining birth control can deny women access to it or information at any time because she can't prove she's not pregnant and could thus be requesting an abortifacient.
According to opponents of birth control as abortion, it has not been proven that hormone-based contraception prevents implantation. That means that hormone-based contraception like the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, an IUD and “the morning after” pill can be considered abortion-causing agents and as such pharmacists, doctors, nurses and other medical personnel who are opposed to abortion can legally refuse to discuss, advise or dispense them -- with federal protection.
Make no mistake, as written, these proposed rules would allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own moral views and adopt their own definition of abortion, which could range from a birth control pill to a medical procedure. Rape victims could be legally refused access to the morning after pill, to cite just one possible outcome of these rules. Women's doctors could refuse to prescribe birth control pills or IUDs.
Given that the “pro-life” movement's stated goal is to prevent abortions, surely the irony of making it harder to get contraception is not lost on them?
{loadnavigation}
