Monday, February 6, 2012

Birth Control Is Abortion?

We heard the argument made during the personhood debates that any chemical which acts to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortifacient. If our medical understanding had not changed in the past 50 years, we might be forgiven for believing that. But we have learned, however, that fertilization doth not magically a person make. Fertilization is no guarantee of anything because most fertilized eggs will naturally not implant and will be flushed out of the body. So based on our updated understanding of the pregnancy cycle and because we realize how ludicrous it would be to mourn and document the "deaths" of millions of fertilized eggs per year, we now understand pregnancy to occur when the fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the uterus. Contraceptives then do not end a pregnancy. They cannot, by definition, be abortifacient.

But the AFA isn't interested in science, medicine, or anything that resembles a fact. They seem to be more interested in getting their base riled up so that they'll raise a ruckus and send in the bucks. Case in point is their latest Action Alert which reads:

Take Action: Obama mandates pro-abortion policy on faith-based organizations

The "pro-abortion" policy they are referring to is the one that says if you don't fall under the strict definition of a "religious employer," then you must provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization. I don't see anywhere that Obama is mandating insurance coverage for abortion. We can only reasonably conclude, therefore, that the AFA still believes that contraception is the same as abortion.

What's also rather dishonest is how the AFA fails to note that churches are exempt from this rule. Nobody is going to force the Catholic Church, for example, to provide birth control to its employees; but any of their organizations, universities, or charities that are generally open to non-Catholics will have to provide contraceptive coverage. 

An exemption provided for "religious employers" is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic, Baptist and Methodist hospitals, Christian and religious-based universities, and service organizations that help millions every year.

It's pretty simple really. If you want to be tax-exempt, retain control over your organization, and only bring in people who believe like you do, then you can. But if you want to bring in outsiders and get federal funding, then you must play by some federal rules and one of those rules is contraceptive coverage. You know how it is when a church gets threatened with having their tax exempt status revoked and they go screaming about how the government is trampling their freedom of speech? Same thing here - they refuse to play by the rules and then cry when they break the contract and receive the consequences of their actions.

I think that organizations who take our tax dollars and hire people of all faiths (or none) should be held to the same rules and standards as the rest of us so I don't have a problem with this law.  What I do have a problem with is the AFA portraying this law as a "pro-abortion" and "anti-religious" thing of Obama's making. I resent their attempt to paint the President as a murderous monster in this situation - they could make that case better and more honestly over NDAA, Guantanamo Bay, and other stuff - because they also paint us pro-choicers and pro-contraceptive folks in just as bad as a light. Did you ever think you'd see the day when the "godly" among us would call us murderers for using birth control? Now you've seen it. When you look in the mirror, do you see a murderer staring back? 

The AFA continues to lie about personhood and we plan to point it out every chance we get. Spread the word.