Monday, February 11, 2008

Anti Choicers Defeat Bill to Make Contraceptives More Accessible

So, lemme see if I have this right...so called "pro life" legislators in South Dakota voted against and defeated a bill that would have protected access to contraceptives.

Some pharmacists believe that hormonal forms of birth control and the morning after pill (Plan B) cause abortions, and therefore refuse to dispense them. Currently, they legally allowed to do this by South Dakota state law. The bill would have drawn a clear line between contraceptives and abortifacients, which would have made it illegal for a South Dakota pharmacist to refuse to fill a birth control prescription.

That can't be right. Wait - they are against abortion, so doesn't it make sense that they would support laws that would help to decrease the abortion rate by making it easier for women to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Apparently not. According to them, a 16 year old girl needs parental permission to obtain birth control. Seriously. How realistic is that? And how many teenage girls have the type of relationship with their parents where they can realistically ask for a permission slip so she can get a prescription for birth control?

The article states:
Kimberly Martinez, executive director of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls, which provides services to women and men involved in unplanned pregnancies, opposed the bill and applauded the Senate for its majority decision Wednesday..."The key to reducing the number of unwed pregnancies and abortions in South Dakota is sexual integrity relationship education, which includes healthy decision making, healthy relationships and refusal skills," Martinez said.

Oh, so she just thinks that girls need to be taught to say no to sex unless they intend on making a baby. So if a 16 or 17 year old girl wants to have sex with her boyfriend, any pharmacist in the state of South Dakota can refuse to dispense her birth control prescription. And if a grown woman doesn't want to have children, weather or not she is married, then she is in the same situation - have sex at risk of pregnancy, because getting birth control will be a gamble.

A gynecologist who lives and practices in South Dakota disagreed. Maria Bell, who specializes in gynecologic oncology at Sanford Clinic Women's Health, said 95 percent of all women in South Dakota will use a method of birth control at some point in their lives. She added doctors prescribe birth control for reasons other than contraception, such as regulating menstrual cycles or treating ovarian cysts.

"I'm confused as to why more doctors, citizens ... aren't up in arms over this," Bell said of the bill's defeat. "To be denied birth control by the personal beliefs of pharmacists is really appalling."

Because issues like that are never covered on the evening news or on cnn.com or major newspapers. That's why looking at independent news sources is so important. Otherwise the important things like this slip by unnoticed, and you don't realize that you missed your chance to do something about it until you go to your local pharmacy and your pharmacist refuses to fill your prescription, like Karen Romano, the first woman featured in this video:


2 comments:

Rachel said...

A note to Kimberly Martinez, executive director of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls...

ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS DON'T WORK.

GET A CLUE.

InnerKeening said...

"...which provides services to women and men involved in unplanned pregnancies, opposed the bill and applauded the Senate for its majority decision Wednesday..."The key to reducing the number of unwed pregnancies and abortions in South Dakota is sexual integrity relationship education, which includes healthy decision making, healthy relationships and refusal skills,"

Ok, first of all, Bravo on the consultant-speak, I'm sure that melange of words got them a butt-load more money. Secondly, if they work with men and women who are involved in unplanned pregnancies... isn't it a bit too late to preach abstinence... oh wait, I'm sorry... refusal skills?