Muftic: ‘Personhood’ measure could outlaw birth control
Does the personhood amendment ban certain kinds of birth control? That is becoming a key question in the Colorado Senate campaign. Buried in a recent factcheck.org meandering judgment call, it might be up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.
That is hardly comforting. Furthermore, scientific facts should trump political opinions, and the facts are supported by those most scientifically involved in the issue: The personhood amendments ban certain kinds of birth control and more. Found at the end of factcheck.org is this gem:
“The nonpartisan American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says that defining a fertilized egg as a person with legal rights ‘would have wide-reaching harmful implications … on women’s access to contraception.’”
Cory Gardner, the Republican challenging incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, on one hand opposes the state personhood amendment but supports the federal one. To blunt criticism he is against birth control, he then advocates over-the-counter sales of birth control while opposing Obamacare that covers the entire cost of birth control, wanting women to pay for birth control out of their own pockets. Not only is that a consumer-unfriendly approach, it is also dangerous and would leave little choice of birth control methods to women.
From the ACOG website, http://www.ACOG.org: “These “personhood” proposals, as acknowledged by proponents, would make condoms, natural family planning, and spermicides the only legally allowed forms of birth control. Thus, some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception, such as oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and other forms of FDA-approved hormonal contraceptives, could be banned in states that adopt “personhood” measures. Women’s very lives would be jeopardized if physicians were prohibited from terminating life-threatening ectopic and molar pregnancies. Women who experience pregnancy loss or other negative pregnancy outcomes could be prosecuted in some cases.
“So-called “personhood” measures would have a negative impact on fertility treatments, including in-vitro fertilization (IVF), that allow otherwise infertile couples to achieve pregnancy and create their families. Such proposals would also invariably ban embryonic stem cell research, depriving all society of potential lifesaving therapies.”
Not only is Gardner speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but what he is advocating is not in women’s interests. Mark Udall is correct in hitting Gardner for his stance on birth control and personhood in current advertising.
So why all of this focus on women’s choice issues anyway? There are many other pressing concerns that will face the Senate. The reason is that women’s rights are of great interest to a very important demographic — unmarried women — which has determined the outcome of elections in Colorado in the past. Women had thought the war had been won, but what the GOP and Cory Gardner are supporting is a rollback of those victories. However, Gardner has also not made a case for his position on other issues, attempting the soft approach of “my father sold tractors; Udall is a politician who supports Obama.” On those “other issues” he is still an unknown factor, a pig in a poke.
For more: visit http://www.mufticforumblog.blogspot.com
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.