GOP Rep on the definition of abortifacient: it's up to religious belief, not science

[muriel_volestrangler]

Via Fred Clark ('Slacktivist'): - too many of the GOP, and the religious right, really claim that basic definitions are not connected with fact and science, but whatever their personal religious beliefs are. And this one is calling Kathleen Sibelius a liar for going with the scientific definition:

Just moments after Senators defeated the so-called Blunt Amendment, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) accused Sebelius of lying about the administration’s rule requiring employers to provide birth control coverage in their health insurance plans and falsely insisted that religious organizations would be required to provide “abortifacient” drugs:

SEBELIUS: There also is no abortifacient drug that is part of the FDA approved contraception. What the rule for preventive care…

MURPHY: Ma’m that is not true…Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug?

SEBELIUS: It is a contraceptive drug, not an abortifacient… It does not interfere with a pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition of abortifation.

MURPHY: Ma’m that is your interpretation, and I appreciate that’s your interpretation.

SEBELIUS: That’s what the scientists and doctors…

MURPHY: We’re not talking about scientists. Ma’m we’re not talking about scientists here, we’re talking about religious belief. Ma’m, I’m asking you about a religious belief. In a religious belief, that is a violation of a religious belief.

When Sebelius went on to explain that the administration’s contraception rule “upholds religious liberty” by exempting houses of worship, religious nonprofits that primarily serve people of the same faith, and even religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges from providing birth control, Murphy exclaimed, “Ma’m, ma’m, NO! NO! You’re Wrong!” “You’re setting up a rule that not even Jesus and his apostles could adhere too.” Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/01/435719/gop-rep-on-birth-control-were-not-talking-about-scientists-im-asking-about-religious-belief/

As Fred Clark points out, this extends to their attitude about global warming. And it's purposeful ignorance:

But, again, it’s not a matter of innate stupidity. It’s the same willful, voluntary, pretense of stupidity that permits them to pretend to believe in a vast conspiracy of scientists, insurance companies, wildlife and glaciers promoting the “myth” of climate change. The same deliberate stupidity that enables them to look at the night sky without questioning that the universe is 6,000 years old. It’s a defiant ignorance that chooses to cling to ignorance and to vigilantly guard against any alternative.

If you choose not to know how hormonal birth control works, then you can pretend to believe lots of other things. You can pretend to believe that contraception is an “abortifacient,” thus enabling you to pretend you’re morally superior to those evil, evil people using it. And then you can lecture those people without having to feel guilty about lying to them, because you can pretend that it’s not really lying if you’re also willing to deceive yourself.

In other words — for those keeping score in the neverending game of “Stupid or Evil?” — I’m putting this one solidly in the “Evil” column.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. So some dude from PA, without a degree in religion, can declare for

every human being in the world, what is a 'religious belief', but scientists and doctors can't define an abortifacient!

[Angry Dragon]

2. another idiot exposed

[Newest Reality]

3. One obvious

violation of religious belief that is overlooked by those promulgating their own beliefs is to insist that their belief or beliefs are facts concerning the behaviors and concerns of others.

Another violation of the understanding of the nature and value of beliefs is to turn unsubstantiated, (metaphysical) beliefs into laws a an attempt to legislate morality.

Well, it is obvious that we are in wedge-issue land right now. The Theocratic gnomes have been let out of the cage to push hot buttons and provide various means of distraction, (though rights are always important and legitimate) from very critical and impacting issues.

The tools utilized to engineer the social and political landscape become more obvious as tactics. We must look over here or over there. Judging by the headlines, it still seems to work well.

[Odin2005]

4. "I reject your reality and substitute my own"

[Motown_Johnny]

5. My devil's advocate post.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html

^snip^

Oral Contraceptive (estrogen/progestin)

Taken daily by women to suppress ovulation and change the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg





It seems to me that Sec. Sebelius is working with the first half of this, suppressing ovulation. That way fertilization never occurs and there is no pregnancy to abort.

Congressman Murphy, on the other hand, is working with the second half of this and arguing that doing anything to end the viability of the fertilized egg is the same as having an abortion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. The normal definition is that pregnancy does not start until implantation

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology states that implantation is a necessary step in the establishment of a pregnancy and that abortifacient refers to the disruption of an implanted pregnancy.1 According to this definition, which is shared by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the majority of the gynecologic literature, EC is not an abortifacient. We acknowledge that some providers may have alternate definitions and therefore may contest the correct answer to one of our survey questions.

Regarding mechanism, the exact actions of EC on the fertilized oocyte are still being studied. Most current research suggests that the
majority of the time, EC acts before fertilization.2,3 However, under certain circumstances, particularly when there is delay in initiating EC, a postfertilization but preimplantation mechanism may occur. The relevance of this possibility to our female patients who are considering use of EC is uncertain and could be a question worthy of future research.

http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2004/November/Walter690.pdf

After all, pregnancy is something that happens to the woman. Until the zygote is implanted, there is no change in the woman's body.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. that is the problem

He, and those like him, believe life begins at conception and that is the religious belief he keeps yelling about. To him anything postfertilization is an abortion.

Regarding mechanism, the exact actions of EC on the fertilized oocyte are still being studied. Most current research suggests that the
majority of the time, EC acts before fertilization.2,3 However, under certain circumstances, particularly when there is delay in initiating EC, a postfertilization but preimplantation mechanism may occur. The relevance of this possibility to our female patients who are considering use of EC is uncertain and could be a question worthy of future research.


I was trying to keep my previous post as even handed as possible. I don't really buy that argument.

[Dawson Leery]

8. Mr. Murphy: Religious doctrine is inferior to logic and reason.

Religious doctrine is inferior to the secular constitution of the United States.