The Human Life Amendment Would Outlaw More Than Abortion

Yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee voiced his support for the Colorado Human Life Amendment and a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Though there isn't any human life U.S. constitutional amendment currently being pursued, the Colorado amendment could be on the November ballot. But what would the Human Life Amendment do? If passed, it would grant personhood to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses -- and would therefore guarantee them the same constitutional rights and protections as all born human beings.

"This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human
being from the moment life begins at conception," Huckabee said in a statement."

With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value," Huckabee said. "Passing this amendment will mean the people of Colorado will protect the sanctity of life from conception until natural death occurs."

Burton's initiative, if approved by voters in November, would extend state constitutional protections to every fertilized egg, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

Approval would lay the foundation for making abortion illegal in the state.

Burton, said she spoke with Huckabee Friday when he was in Colorado Springs for a speech."

Having national pro-life leaders such as Huckabee taking notice is an amazing boost to our petition-gathering efforts," Burton said.

Burton and supporters must collect the signatures of about 76,000 registered Colorado voters to get the question on the ballot.

The measure is opposed by reproductive-rights groups such as Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado.

Opponents say the amendment would have sweeping consequences, not only for those seeking abortions, but for women using hormone-based contraception and couples using in-vitro fertilization to start families.

Both local Planned Parenthood and NARAL representatives are correct: though the bill is promoted under idea of outlawing all abortion, it would likely have even more extreme consequences.

Of course, the idea of re-criminalizing abortion is radical and dangerous enough. It would profoundly affect countless women and families on personal, emotional and financial levels, in addition to the potential deaths of women who would seek out illegal abortions. It has been established many times that criminalized abortion is dangerous and does nothing to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy. The best way to prevent abortion is not to make it illegal, but to increase access to prevention tools like education and birth control.

But the proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment would do more than just outlaw abortion. Anti-choicers often use the word "conception" to explain when they believe human life begins. But as we covered last week, the medical and legal definition of pregnancy is not from the point of conception -- it's from the point of implantation, when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus and the woman's body becomes able to support the pregnancy. In fact, it's estimated that 60 to 80 percent of naturally conceived embryos do not implant. The number of embryos that don't implant from IVF is even higher.

But in giving fertilized eggs rights, before a pregnancy is even established, could put the most common birth control methods at risk. Although hormonal methods almost always work by preventing an egg from releasing to become fertilized, there is a small possibility that they could also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. If fertilized eggs have personhood, their "right" to life could easily override a woman's legal right to use birth control.

98% of women use some form of birth control in their lifetime. And though all women who use birth control might not use hormonal methods, about 80% of women use birth control pills, the most popular form of hormonal contraception, at some point. That means the percentage of women who use birth control pills is larger than the percentage of people who think that abortion should be legal!

That even those who most oppose a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice still often approve of birth control shows just how out of touch the supporters of this amendment are with average Americans. This amendment is about as extreme as it gets -- and for the sake of every woman's health, it needs to be rejected.

Should pharmacists be able to deny EC to women?

The Missouri state legislature is considering a bill that would reclassify emergency contraception as an abortion-inducing medication. This is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, emergency contraception (EC) does not cause an abortion -- it prevents pregnancy. Secondly, if the bill were passed, the new classification would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense EC for reasons of "conscience."

Opponents attacked the proposal as an unconstitutional restraint on reproductive freedom and an unconscionable affront to sexual assault victims. They said the bill would enshrine an inaccurate medical description in Missouri law, lead to increased numbers of abortions and leave millions of rural Missouri women without access to a safe and reliable form of birth control.

Filling prescriptions “is an essential function of your job,” said Pamela Sumners, executive director of the Missouri affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. “If you become a pharmacist, you should do your job.”

The bill applies specifically to two drugs: RU486, the early name for mifepristone, the drug administered in a doctor’s office to perform a nonsurgical abortion; and emergency contraception, which is marketed as Plan B.

Mifepristone, which is used from five to seven weeks after conception, works by blocking a hormone needed to maintain the pregnancy.

Plan B, which is effective up to about 100 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse, works primarily by preventing ovulation, the FDA says. If an egg has already been released, the drug also can prevent fertilization. And if fertilization has occurred, it can prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

Susan Klein, a lobbyist for Missouri Right to Life, noted that the bill does not attempt to make emergency contraception illegal. It only seeks to prevent family planning activists from exerting legal pressure against pharmacies that refuse to dispense it.

Klein said her group considers emergency contraception a form of abortion because her members believe that pregnancy begins the moment an egg is fertilized. Plan B, therefore, can lead to the death of “an already-created human being” by blocking implantation in the uterus, she said.

By the time of implantation, “the human is long past the stage of being a so-called fertilized egg,” Klein said in written testimony. “If denied the ability to implant, then the human cannot form a placenta and continue to live. This means that a drug that prevents implantation causes an abortion.”

Sumners said emergency contraception does not induce an abortion. As the FDA notes, it won’t work if the fertilized egg has already implanted in the uterus and pregnancy has begun. Under Klein’s definition of pregnancy, many standard forms of contraception, such as intrauterine devices, would be defined as abortion-inducing, Sumners said.

Sumners is absolutely right: Klein's definition of pregnancy is absolutely false and is not accepted by any reputable medical organization or by the U.S. government. In fact, the idea that EC could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting is nothing more than speculation and the drug has never been scientifically proven to act in this way. The suggestion that EC causes an abortion is entirely mistaken and misleading, though it is a claim regularly made by anti-choice groups.

Of course, everyone has a right to their personal and religious beliefs, including those that are not scientifically sound. But while they are privately employed, pharmacists do provide a necessary public service. Women have the right to receive prompt, safe and non-judgmental medical care, and being denied that right can cause very serious consequences -- including the possibility of an actual abortion at a later date.

EC, more than most drugs, requires a high level of accessibility. The drug has some level of effectiveness for up to 120 hours (five days) after unprotected intercourse, but is most effective when taken within 72 hours. The sooner a woman takes EC, the better her chances for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. The last thing any state government should be doing is making an FDA-approved and time-sensitive form of birth control less accessible to women who need it.

As Sumners and a Planned Parenthood lobbyist argue, the impact that this bill could have on women is rather dire:

Michelle Trupiano, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, said the bill is an effort to limit the availability of Plan B. The references to mifepristone are disingenuous, she said, because pharmacists are not allowed to dispense mifepristone, which must be administered by a doctor.

Plan B is so safe that it is available without a prescription to women 18 years and older, she said. However, one pharmacy that refuses to carry Plan B can leave thousands of Missouri women without a backup method of birth control, Trupiano said.

Sumners said a study found that 26 percent of women in Missouri do not live within 30 miles of a pharmacy that sells Plan B. She acknowledged that no pharmacy could be required to keep emergency contraception in stock. But if it is in stock, pharmacists should not be allowed to refuse to dispense it, she said.

Those are some pretty shocking numbers. Thousands of women without access to EC due to the personal beliefs of one pharmacist! But it's not only reproductive rights advocates that are up in arms over the bill. Other groups that care about women's rights are also very concerned:

Colleen Coble, who heads a Columbia victims’ rights group, urged the panel to consider the bill’s effect on sexual assault victims. She emphasized that emergency contraception was not a form of abortion. The use of emergency contraception is standard care for rape victims, she said, even in Catholic hospitals.

“In a case where your body has become a crime scene, where you have undergone an incredibly invasive examination to gather evidence, (this bill) would make you travel four counties away to avoid becoming pregnant by the person who violently attacked you,” Coble said. “This is an issue of health care. It’s an issue of decency.”

No woman should be denied EC, regardless of why she needs it, but Coble is right to suggest that the situation is most urgent for those who are the victims of sexual assault. No pharmacist is capable of knowing a woman's reason for requesting EC. And even though the reason shouldn't matter, pharmacists who refuse to dispense the drug are always taking the risk of revictimizing a woman who has been raped.

If you're close to a Planned Parenthood center, you'll always have access to EC -- even if you're under the age of 18. Because you never know when you might need it, it's a good idea to keep some on hand.

Of course, not all women are lucky enough to be close to one of our health centers, and not every medicine cabinet is stocked with EC. That's precisely why potential laws like these are so dangerous, and why they ought to be rejected.

What do men think of birth control?

The British reproductive health organization Family Planning Association has just released a survey on men's attitudes towards birth control, and they came back with some pretty interesting results.

An overwhelming 94% of men aged 18–45 years old in the UK agree that using contraception is the joint responsibility of men and women. Encouragingly, only a tiny fraction of men believe contraception is a woman’s issue and that they have no control over pregnancy. But, says fpa, many men still aren’t putting their own contraceptive needs first. This is according to a new survey investigating men’s attitudes towards contraception, published today for fpa’s annual Contraceptive Awareness Week (11–17 February 2008).

[. . .]

Asked to choose which statement about contraception they most agreed with, 60% of men said ‘men and women should always discuss using contraception together’ while 22% of men most agreed ‘if a man doesn’t want to get a woman pregnant he should use condoms every time he has sex.’

fpa’s Chief Executive Julie Bentley said: “By thinking about using a condom first, this group of men are taking power and control of their own body to prevent pregnancy, completely independently of what women are doing. But these men are in the minority.

[. . .]

“The only real opportunity men have to exercise choice about what they want is at the contraception stage. Although talking about contraception with your partner is essential, it isn’t the first step. fpa would like to see more men following the lead of this empowered group, who are thinking very positively about themselves and putting their own reproductive needs first.”

The research also shows men would use hormonal contraceptive options in development like the male pill, with 36% of men saying they would use it, and 26% saying they didn’t know if they would use it or not. Being married or single also doesn’t affect whether men want to take the pill or not.

“We should be more confident about encouraging new contraceptive choices for men” said Julie. “Clearly they want to be involved. But almost half of men either told us they didn’t have enough information (35%) about the 14 different types of contraception available or didn’t know (9%). [Note: these are the available contraceptive methods, as defined by PPRSR.]

Though we don't know if these results represent the attitudes of American men as well as British men, they are worth taking a look at. And there's both good and bad news. The good news is that more and more men are realizing that birth control is an issue they should care about and are responsible for. It's also great to see that so many men would consider taking a birth control pill, and we look forward to the day when one exists! But it also turns out that men are not getting as much information about birth control as they need, and that many men don't realize the importance of taking control of their sexual health.

Of course, it's not necessary for heterosexual men to use condoms to prevent pregnancy if their partner is on a hormonal method of contraception. The pill, for example, is highly effective when taken properly. But pills can be forgotten, and even with perfect use, no method is full-proof. For that reason alone, having a back-up method is a great idea for those who are very adamant about avoiding pregnancy. Of course, condoms are also vital to preventing STD transmission.

But Bentley makes a good point: prevention can be a man's only say when it comes to unintended pregnancy. Because women are the ones whose bodies are affected, they are the ones with the right to make pregnancy decisions. Most women do consult their partners on the issue, but the choice is ultimately hers. This is how it should be, but it does given men an extra reason to be cautious. Men who use condoms are protecting their partners, and that's a great reason, which we should applaud. But it seems that many forget they're also protecting themselves!

One commenter thinks that the results of the survey don't tell the whole story:

Daily Record Sex Columnist Alex Hooper-Hodson disagreed with the findings and said men may talk about social responsibility but wouldn't practice what they preach.

"Some 94 per cent of men might say it's their joint responsibility but the same amount of men will also think it is the woman's job to remind them of that responsibility," he said.

"If you look at men's attitude towards sex, it's always going to be different to women.

"They might say that it's a joint responsibility but if it comes down to having sex, what's on their minds is not the social awareness but actually having sex."

And he doubts men would take the male pill, if available.

"Our biological imperative is to have sex, rather than to have babies, so no matter what we might think about this, we're never going to be in the same place as woman are with regard to contraception," he said.

It seems that Hooper-Hodson is selling men short. Most of us know from talking to the men in our own lives that many do care, and claiming that they don't is only going to shut them out of the conversation. Saying that men and women's attitudes towards sex will always be different is also pretty simplistic. Does that include the attitudes of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people? Since when do all men and all women think alike on anything, and why would we assume that views won't change? Even if he were right, "biological imperative" hardly gives men an excuse to be irresponsible. There are a lot of valid if unfortunate reasons why people don't use contraception, including cost and access -- "biological imperative" isn't one of them!

Can't we give men a bit more credit than that? If this survey is an accurate guide, it seems like we should.

Oral Cancer Rates for Men Linked to HPV

Frightening news: HPV is causing more oral cancer in men. HPV is a sexually transmitted infection more commonly known as genital warts. Not all kinds of HPV cause warts -- in fact, some cause no symptoms at all. HPV is so common that about three in four sexually active people will have it at some point in their lives, but most never know that they're infected. And though most HPV is harmless or only mildly irritating, it can sometimes cause cervical cancer -- which is why it's so important for women to get regular pap smears!

HPV has been in the news recently because of a debate over a new vaccine that could help to prevent most types of cervical cancer. The controversy is largely based on a claim that the vaccine would cause teenage girls to engage in more sexual activity, which simply isn't true. We also know that many teens are going to have sex no matter what, and safety should be our biggest concern for people of all ages.

It has been known for some time that HPV can cause cancer in men -- such as penile or anal cancer -- but these have mostly been quite rare. The fact that HPV is linked to growing rates of oral cancer, though, brings a new dimension to the debate:

The HPV virus now causes as many cancers of the upper throat as tobacco and alcohol, probably due both to an increase in oral sex and the decline in smoking, researchers say.

The only available vaccine against HPV, made by Merck & Co. Inc., is currently given only to girls and young women. But Merck plans this year to ask government permission to offer the shot to boys.

Experts say a primary reason for male vaccinations would be to prevent men from spreading the virus and help reduce the nearly 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in U.S. women each year. But the new study should add to the argument that there may be a direct benefit for men, too.

"We need to start having a discussion about those cancers other than cervical cancer that may be affected in a positive way by the vaccine," said study co-author Dr. Maura Gillison of Johns Hopkins University.

[. . .]

Merck has been testing the vaccine in an international study, but it is focused on anal and penile cancer and genital warts, not oral cancers, said Kelley Dougherty, a Merck spokeswoman.

"We are continuing to consider additional areas of study that focus on both female and male HPV diseases and cancers," Dougherty said. Merck officials did not comment of Gillison's study.

Government officials and the American Cancer Society say they don't know yet whether the vaccine will be successful at preventing disease in men. No data from Merck's study are available yet.

Though the obvious assumption is that the cancer rate is caused by oral sex, oral cancer caused by HPV has gone down significantly in women. And even if it were determined that oral sex is causing the cancer increase, the solution isn't quite as simple as using condoms and dental dams. These methods will significantly lower the risk of contracting HPV, but the virus can still be present in skin surrounding the genitals. That means HPV is easier to contract than most other STDs, even with protection.

This is one of many reasons why it's incredibly important to get tested regularly for STDs. Women who are eligible for the cervical cancer vaccine should strongly consider getting it and also remember to have regular pap smears.

The next step is to develop a HPV vaccine that will prevent cancer in men. Though increased cancer rates are clearly bad news from any angle, we now know the cause. And it's good to have any information that will give researchers and lawmakers more reasons to take HPV seriously.

Escape From Fear: A Planned Parenthood Comic

Comics With Problems is an online magazine that reproduces old comic books that had a "message." Comics have long been used as a way to spread awareness about social and political issues through a narrative -- more or less After School Specials or political commercials in print. Some comics come from as early as the 1940s and some as late as the 1990s. Some are corny, some are offensive, and some are just plain weird. Often, they also give us an insight into the times in which they were written.

Recently, Comics With Problems managed to dig up an old Planned Parenthood comic that was distributed in the 1950s and 60s. It was called Escape From Fear and followed the story of a couple whose marriage was on the rocks because they were afraid of unplanned pregnancy.



Reading the comic today, it looks pretty silly. Over the top dialogue and melodrama fuel the story. But in terms of the history of Planned Parenthood and family planning, it's also pretty interesting.

Despite the fact that it was taboo in the day, the comic discusses the reality that couples have sex for pleasure and may want to prevent pregnancy even as a married couple. It shows us a time when birth control was not widely available or known about, but still desperately needed -- the very reason that Margaret Sanger opened her first birth control clinics in the 1910s. It even allows women to shamelessly express sexual feelings Joan talks about her sexual desire and frustration early on in the comic, and then later alludes to her concern with sexual pleasure by asking the doctor if birth control would make sex "unpleasant." The doctor herself even openly admits to using birth control, no embarrassment involved!

Lastly, we see that even from the early days, Planned Parenthood was about more than just preventing pregnancy -- Planned Parenthood recognized that allowing couples to plan their families also helped to keep families healthy.

Sure, it's corny. And certain aspects, like the traditional gender roles, wouldn't make it through the editing process today. But it also provides a window into life before knowledge about birth control was common and sex could be talked about openly -- and shows that Planned Parenthood was on front lines promoting change.

And hey, it's kind of funny, too. What's your take?

Via Pandagon