sturg33
I
So what birth control does then? Since that was your original point?
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
So what birth control does then? Since that was your original point?
57Brave
Well-known member
Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As 'Abortion-Inducing Drugs' At Confirmation Hearing
https://www.google.com/search?q=kav...”+drugs.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
not Julio - not I
..................
speaking for myself - I don't find birth control "abortion inducing"
and think it misogynistic a Supreme Court nominee would use those terms .
https://www.google.com/search?q=kav...”+drugs.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
not Julio - not I
..................
speaking for myself - I don't find birth control "abortion inducing"
and think it misogynistic a Supreme Court nominee would use those terms .
Last edited:
sturg33
I
Goodness do you ever ready anything?
He's very clearly talking about drugs like Plan B.
57Brave
Well-known member
Science Does Not Support Claims That Contraceptives Are ‘Abortion-Inducing’
By Pam Belluck
Sept. 7, 2018
During his Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Thursday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh referred to some forms of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” The phrase is a characterization that some anti-abortion religious groups use, but it is not supported by scientific evidence.
Judge Kavanaugh used the phrase while answering questions by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, about a 2015 dissent he wrote in a case brought by a Catholic organization over a requirement in the federal health care law that employers include contraception coverage in employee health plans. The group, Priests for Life, argued that the provision violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, despite an exception allowing employers with religious objections to arrange for a separate insurance company to provide contraceptive coverage.
“They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to,” Judge Kavanaugh testified, describing the group’s position.
It was not clear exactly which methods Judge Kavanaugh was referring to when he used the phrase “abortion-inducing drugs.”
Most common types of contraception — birth control pills, condoms, hormonal intrauterine devices and implants — prevent conception by keeping eggs from becoming fertilized.
The description “abortion-inducing” is most often used by anti-abortion religious groups to characterize methods they believe can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. These groups typically say that such methods are morning-after pills and copper intrauterine devices.
There are two main reasons this belief does not comport with scientific evidence. First, the medical definition of pregnancy is that it begins after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, not before. That is because many, probably most, fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus on their own.
Second, a growing body of research strongly indicates that morning-after pills, such as Plan B and Ella, do not prevent implantation. Instead, the pills, if taken up to five days after unprotected sex, work to stop fertilization from occurring. They do this by delaying ovulation, the release of eggs from the ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, or by thickening cervical mucus so that sperm have trouble swimming and reaching the egg to fertilize it.
A New York Times investigation of the science behind morning-after pills in 2012 prompted the National Institutes of Health website to delete passages suggesting emergency contraceptive pills could disrupt implantation. A spokeswoman for the Food and Drug Administration said at the time that “emerging data” suggested that morning-after pills do not inhibit implantation
The other method of emergency contraception, the copper IUD, does appear to be able to block implantation of a fertilized egg, scientists say. (It is different from the more popular hormonal IUDs, such as the common brand Mirena, which are extremely effective at preventing fertilization in the first place and have no effect on implantation.)
The copper IUD is also highly effective at preventing fertilization and, unlike hormonal IUDs, can do so even if inserted within five days after unprotected sex. In the small number of cases where the copper IUD does not prevent fertilization, scientists say it might be able to disrupt the process by which the fertilized egg would implant in the uterus.
Because it has to be inserted by a health provider within a few days after unprotected sex, however, the copper IUD is a much less common method of emergency contraception than morning-after pills
By Pam Belluck
Sept. 7, 2018
During his Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Thursday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh referred to some forms of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” The phrase is a characterization that some anti-abortion religious groups use, but it is not supported by scientific evidence.
Judge Kavanaugh used the phrase while answering questions by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, about a 2015 dissent he wrote in a case brought by a Catholic organization over a requirement in the federal health care law that employers include contraception coverage in employee health plans. The group, Priests for Life, argued that the provision violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, despite an exception allowing employers with religious objections to arrange for a separate insurance company to provide contraceptive coverage.
“They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to,” Judge Kavanaugh testified, describing the group’s position.
It was not clear exactly which methods Judge Kavanaugh was referring to when he used the phrase “abortion-inducing drugs.”
Most common types of contraception — birth control pills, condoms, hormonal intrauterine devices and implants — prevent conception by keeping eggs from becoming fertilized.
The description “abortion-inducing” is most often used by anti-abortion religious groups to characterize methods they believe can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. These groups typically say that such methods are morning-after pills and copper intrauterine devices.
There are two main reasons this belief does not comport with scientific evidence. First, the medical definition of pregnancy is that it begins after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, not before. That is because many, probably most, fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus on their own.
Second, a growing body of research strongly indicates that morning-after pills, such as Plan B and Ella, do not prevent implantation. Instead, the pills, if taken up to five days after unprotected sex, work to stop fertilization from occurring. They do this by delaying ovulation, the release of eggs from the ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, or by thickening cervical mucus so that sperm have trouble swimming and reaching the egg to fertilize it.
A New York Times investigation of the science behind morning-after pills in 2012 prompted the National Institutes of Health website to delete passages suggesting emergency contraceptive pills could disrupt implantation. A spokeswoman for the Food and Drug Administration said at the time that “emerging data” suggested that morning-after pills do not inhibit implantation
The other method of emergency contraception, the copper IUD, does appear to be able to block implantation of a fertilized egg, scientists say. (It is different from the more popular hormonal IUDs, such as the common brand Mirena, which are extremely effective at preventing fertilization in the first place and have no effect on implantation.)
The copper IUD is also highly effective at preventing fertilization and, unlike hormonal IUDs, can do so even if inserted within five days after unprotected sex. In the small number of cases where the copper IUD does not prevent fertilization, scientists say it might be able to disrupt the process by which the fertilized egg would implant in the uterus.
Because it has to be inserted by a health provider within a few days after unprotected sex, however, the copper IUD is a much less common method of emergency contraception than morning-after pills
sturg33
I
You are unhinged.
You have decided that the guy believes all birth control is abortion due to a comment he made about religious folks asking for an exemption from certain abortion inducing drugs. Clearly - CLEARLY - he is referring to drugs like Plan B.
But you are unhinged so you are going to run with your narrative. Somehow Ron Paul is considered a crackpot but the mainstream left is considered sane.
As always, there are legitimate things to criticize but y'all latch on to the stupidest and craziest things you can find to make your point.
You have decided that the guy believes all birth control is abortion due to a comment he made about religious folks asking for an exemption from certain abortion inducing drugs. Clearly - CLEARLY - he is referring to drugs like Plan B.
But you are unhinged so you are going to run with your narrative. Somehow Ron Paul is considered a crackpot but the mainstream left is considered sane.
As always, there are legitimate things to criticize but y'all latch on to the stupidest and craziest things you can find to make your point.
57Brave
Well-known member
There are two main reasons this belief does not comport with scientific evidence.
First, the medical definition of pregnancy is that it begins after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, not before.
That is because many, probably most, fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus on their own.
Second, a growing body of research strongly indicates that morning-after pills,
such as Plan B and Ella, do not prevent implantation. Instead, the pills, if taken
up to five days after unprotected sex, work to stop fertilization from occurring.
They do this by delaying ovulation, the release of eggs from the ovaries that occurs
before eggs are fertilized, or by thickening cervical mucus so that sperm have trouble
swimming and reaching the egg to fertilize it.
...............
from the Gray Lady.
excuse me,
the Failing Gray Lady
Last edited:
sturg33
I
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Huh?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Let’s try to break this down honestly. You suggested that the claim that Kavanaugh equated birth control to abortion was outlandish. So, yeah, while the construction could be more precise—Kavanaugh equated one form of birth control with abortion—you went double-or-nothing with “Plan B is abortion.” It is not. Can we agree on that?
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I just wanted to point out that Kavanaugh was quoting the plaintiff's position in that case. His dissent include quotation marks for that particular phrasing. There's no evidence that he was personally equating certain types of birth control with abortion. The edited clip going around the internet today does not include the words "They said" before kavanaugh goes onto use the words he quoted from the plaintiffs in his dissent.
This is a pretty damn intentionally dishonest edited clip released by Harris here. Much worse than anything we know Kavanaugh ever did.
Last edited:
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I think these issues would be fairly resolved if there weren't so many automatic no votes based strictly on party affiliation. There's ample evidence to suggest that Kavanaugh deserves better than an automatic no vote.
57Brave
Well-known member
Merrick Garland ?
57Brave
Well-known member
Supposing you the benefit of the doubt
why did he lie and withhold emails ?.
Isn't this the tactic used by , as we see playing out in real time , people trying to hide something ?
which takes us to, what is/was he trying to hide ?
Last edited:
57Brave
Well-known member
then there is this:
“He could have said they disagreed with providing contraception because they are morally opposed to that, and that would have been accurate. But instead he chose to refer to it as ‘abortion-inducing drugs,’” Sackin continued. “That is a coded phrase anti-abortion groups use all the time and it signals more about his worldview, which is why we are concerned.”
“It’s incredulous to pretend that this is someone who does not have some sort of philosophy on reproductive health,” Sackin said.
“He could have said they disagreed with providing contraception because they are morally opposed to that, and that would have been accurate. But instead he chose to refer to it as ‘abortion-inducing drugs,’” Sackin continued. “That is a coded phrase anti-abortion groups use all the time and it signals more about his worldview, which is why we are concerned.”
“It’s incredulous to pretend that this is someone who does not have some sort of philosophy on reproductive health,” Sackin said.
sturg33
I
goodness man. As detailed here in the Washington Post at the time, Hobby Lobby's objections were specifically aimed at "morning after" drugs that prevented the pregnancy from continuing after contraception. Kavanaugh's words were accurate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-hobby-lobby-case/?utm_term=.b69a5e8b0861
And the issue is whether employers have to be forced to pay for them... not whether they should be illegal.