Pro-birth control Sarah Palin? Not if she's a member of "Feminists for Life"
Sarah Palin is a member of "Feminists for Life" which is a group that is not just anti-choice but anti-birth control. She's been promoted as a candidate who supports birth control. How can she be both?
If she subscribes to FFL beliefs, support of birth control means support for the rhythm method. It means opposition to birth control pills and IUDs, which the group considers forms of abortion.
To someone outside the anti-abortion movement, the code FFL and other such groups use in opposing the birth control pill and IUD won't appear threatening:
So, for a member of the group "Feminists for Life" to claim to be pro-birth control doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Such members, according to their website, would support "non-abortifacient contraception" -- which means that they oppose birth control pills and IUDs as, according to their beliefs, forms of abortion.
See also this from a site on "Pro-life training:"
Reporters needs to grill Palin on what she means when she claims to support for birth control. They cannot simply accept a pat "yes" to whether she supports it and assume she's moderate.
They need to ask whether she supports a woman's unfettered access to birth control pills and IUDs. I guarantee you, a deeper probing will bring an answer in line with the recent Bush administration ruling.
There's a reason that Palin has been so embraced by the anti-choice base of the Republican party. It's because, as a member of FFL, she's a good deal more radical in her beliefs than she's being sold as to the American people.
If she subscribes to FFL beliefs, support of birth control means support for the rhythm method. It means opposition to birth control pills and IUDs, which the group considers forms of abortion.
To someone outside the anti-abortion movement, the code FFL and other such groups use in opposing the birth control pill and IUD won't appear threatening:
"Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women."The Bush administration recently used the term, abortifacient contraception, when coming out with a new rule that allows healthcare workers to refuse to provide "abortifacient" birth control such as the IUD and birth control pill. The Bush administration claims that these are forms of abortion. From The New York Times:
The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”
So, for a member of the group "Feminists for Life" to claim to be pro-birth control doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Such members, according to their website, would support "non-abortifacient contraception" -- which means that they oppose birth control pills and IUDs as, according to their beliefs, forms of abortion.
See also this from a site on "Pro-life training:"
Pro-life advocates should, of course, distinguish between birth control that may be abortifacient in nature (that is, it may end the unborn’s life after conception) and that which is truly contraceptive (i.e. it prevents conception, but does not cause abortion). The IUD, for example, is morally problematic because it functions as an abortafacient in the event conception occurs. So do most forms of the birth control pill, though some pro-life physicians dispute this claim.[1] Hence, it is not unreasonable for those who oppose elective abortion to reject a birth control method that may in fact take the life of an embryonic human being.
Reporters needs to grill Palin on what she means when she claims to support for birth control. They cannot simply accept a pat "yes" to whether she supports it and assume she's moderate.
They need to ask whether she supports a woman's unfettered access to birth control pills and IUDs. I guarantee you, a deeper probing will bring an answer in line with the recent Bush administration ruling.
There's a reason that Palin has been so embraced by the anti-choice base of the Republican party. It's because, as a member of FFL, she's a good deal more radical in her beliefs than she's being sold as to the American people.
