Rape victim denied Morning After pill

After a sexual assault, a Tucson AZ woman spent three days frantically trying to obtain emergency contraception — the “morning after” pill — to no avail.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

“I was so shocked,” said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. “I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this.”

But of course it is legal, and under growing pressure from the religious right, many of the nation’s largest pharmacy chains are refusing to stock or dispense emergency contraception, under any circumstances.

Imagine this woman is your girlfriend your wife or your daughter… she was essentially assaulted twice: first by her assailant, and next by the right-wing religious extremists who would deny her access to safe, effective and legal contraception. These are the extremists who have hijacked the GOP… and those more moderate Republicans who nonetheless whore themselves to their party’s theocratic agenda must be held accountability.

Pharmacists have an ethical obligation to dispense legal medication, and they should have a legal obligation as well. We need laws now, guaranteeing access to contraception. All the more reason to vote Democratic.

Comments

  1. 1

    Libertarian spews:

    Man, that pill should be a non-prescription, over-the-counter medicine! Abstinence, birth control, abortion – whatever it takes to prevent unwanted kids.

  2. 2

    yearight spews:

    ‘Pharmacists have an ethical obligation to dispense legal medication, and they should have a legal obligation as well.’

    What about not legislating morality? Can you legislate ethics as well? Should all MDs be forced to perform abortions? Should MDs be selected at random and forced by law to administer lethal injections? Forced to assist in suicide?

    The “ethics” of these situations has nothing to do with the legality of the medication.

  3. 3

    prr spews:

    Goldy,

    I am surpised that the Simms Campaign office told you to publish this article today, or have you kept a minor editorial option?

    I mean I can see the Rosa Parks angle as well as the I-330, but what does Ron have to gain from the Morning after Pill?

  4. 4

    Belltowner, formerly Swift Boat Vets For Universal Healthcare spews:

    I think its ludicrous. The Morning After Pill is no more an abortion pill than aspirin. I’d link the science, but no one would read it. I am a pro-life Democrat, and I think reducing abortion through contraception is absolutely moral and appropriate.

  5. 5

    rwb spews:

    the trolls are at it again.
    If a pharmacist refuses to dispense a legally written prescription that pharmasist should have his or her license revoked. If they don’t like the fact that they may have to dispense contraceptives then they shouldn’t be in the pharmacy business.
    God damned religious bastards trying to tell everyone else how to live. Look to yourselves first: get priests to stop raping little boys, get the corruption and hypocrisy out of your religions. Until then just shut the hell up and leave the rest of us alone.
    Creeps

  6. 6

    NoWonder spews:

    Belltowner-3 ‘The Morning After Pill is no more an abortion pill than aspirin.’

    That is your opinion. There is debate over when a pregnancy begins, either when the egg is fertilized or when the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. The “aspirin” has multiple features, one of which is to keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, or killing the embryo.

    ‘I am a pro-life Democrat, and I think reducing abortion through contraception is absolutely moral and appropriate.’

    You and the Wabbit both – congrats. If you think abortion is wrong it must be tough in the current Democratic Party. It all depends on where you decide life and personhood begins. My issue is always that because there is no definite scientific way to nail that down, any erring should be to save the life, rather than the other way around. Here we have conflict over when a pregnancy begins – really the same old “when does life begin” issue.

    You cannot say, however, that science makes it a purely contraception issue.

  7. 7

    Poster Child spews:

    Morality and ethics are legislated all the time. people love to spout off about social engineering, but really all legislation is social engineering, that is to say: making decisions about how society is going to operate.

    one part of our society seems to think that blatocysts are babies and must not be murdered, and a subset of that part thinks sex that isn’t for the purpose of making a baby is a nasty sin. That’s right isn’t it? In the meantime pregnant, or in this case only potentially pregnant people don’t necesarily want to give birth.

    It would be one thing if we could have pro-choice pharmacies and anti-choice pharmacies (and doctors) coexisting, but the segment of our society which believes in the holy gamete theory of life creates a commerce-squelching stigma around the exercise of choice, goes beyond the social engineering of legislation, and even kills those who disagree with their pro-life position.

    Let us not confuse the personal relationship and professional judgement a doctor exercises in conjunction with the patient’s decision making with the technical expertise of a pharmacist. I’m not sure if unwilling pharmacists should have their licenses revoked (though probably) but I’m sure they should have a sign above their little window reading: Pro-Taliban prescriptions only.

  8. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Roger Rabbit is on vacation. This is an automated response. If Bush takes 3 vacations a month, why shouldn’t Roger Rabbit take 3 vacations a month too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations?

    If I’m driving down a lonely country road late at night and see an overturned vehicle and bleeding victims crying for help, and notice a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on the vehicle, I’ll just keep going and won’t use my cell phone to call anyone because I have moral and religious objections against the survival of Republicans. After all, they are for war, torture, not helping poor people, and stealing for taxpayers. They are EVIL!! So why should Republican accident victims survive? They should be abandoned and left to die in the ditch because the world is better off without them.

  9. 9

    NoWonder spews:

    rwb @ 5

    ‘God damned religious bastards trying to tell everyone else how to live.’

    And you are doing what with this?

    ‘If a pharmacist refuses to dispense a legally written prescription that pharmasist should have his or her license revoked.’

    Answer – telling others how to live, or else!

  10. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 6

    Roger Rabbit has returned from vacation!!! Hey everybody I’m glad to be back!!! Although I may go on vacation again soon — hell, if Bush takes 36 vacations a year, why shouldn’t I take 36 vacations a year too? Why should Republicans get all the vacations? Because they’re greedy fuckers? That’s not a good reason!!!

    Anyway, I’ve turned off the automatic messaging device, which seems to have done a passable job of filling in for me during my recent absence.

    OK, what do we have on the agenda today? Let’s see, NoBrains @6 says, “because there is no definite scientific way to nail that down, any erring should be to save the life.” So explain to us, please, you asinine apologist for torturers and warmongers, how this concept applies to beating the shit out of Iraqi civilians in Abu Ghraib? As I understand the GOP program, if there’s no definite scientific way to nail down whether a given detainee is a terrorist, beat the shit out of all of them, and let God sort ‘em out! Isn’t there a bit of inconsistency in your positions, NoBrains? A reasonable conclusion here is that you’re nothing but another fucking right-wing hypocrite who cherry-picks which innocent lives he’s in favor of saving. Go screw yourself.

  11. 11

    Jimmy spews:

    Ok righties…. what is the difference between a fertilized egg and any other cell reproduction process? Is difference only because it involves the creation of another mammal? Is it because the “Godly Seed” has initiated the cell division process? You would think that at this point in the conception process the religious right were a bunch of Janeist. But we know that isn’t true. Especially in Texas’ execution mill.

    I read somewhere there was a genetic reason for “True Believers Syndrome”.

  12. 12

    headless lucy spews:

    It truly is a sad thing that we have to spend our lives trying to cajole and reason with these obstinate righty morons all our lives.
    I’m sick of it.

  13. 15

    Jimmy spews:

    Or go to texas and commit a crime. The state will even pay for it! Sweet huh prr. I highly recommend that route for you.

  14. 18

    prr spews:

    Ansd i guess there’s the difference between myself and you libs.

    I’ll be happy yo go to texas, although, as I am not a criminal, I don’t have to worry about this stuff.

    And yes, I do think if you are a hardened criminal, then excuting your sory ass is justice, as opposed to killing innocent kids beofre they even have a chance at life.

  15. 19

    NoWonder spews:

    Jimmy @ 8

    ‘I read somewhere there was a genetic reason for “True Believers Syndrome”.’

    Time will tell. Before long we should be able to cull babies based on tendency to be liberal or conservative, gay or straight, lawless or law abiding, etc.

  16. 20

    NoWonder spews:

    Jimmy @ 8

    ‘Is difference only because it involves the creation of another mammal?’

    Look up the pro-life stance on “personhood” to understand why it is a big deal.

  17. 21

    NoWonder spews:

    Jimmy @ 14

    ‘the reasoning is getting you folks to see the double standard you create.’

    A lot of the pro-lifers are against the death penalty. Is that the double standard you refer to?

  18. 22

    headless lucy spews:

    Why should I commit suicide when there are better options of shutting you down.

    Ask Rove. Wonder why he spells his first name with a “K”? Who vetted that guy?

  19. 23

    Mark spews:

    If a pharmacist does not want to dispense prescription drugs, s/he should not be a pharmacist. Imagine a Christian Scientist pharmacist who is unwilling to give out anything because all medicine is against his religion!

  20. 24

    Belltowner spews:

    @ 6

    Beg to differ. Implantation is often hindered naturally (the women could be in ahigh stress enviroment) and MAP doesn’t typically hinder implantation. The issue is mute for Catholics, who are dead set against contraceptive according to the Pope, but I find it amazing that non-Catholics seem to think that MAP is an abortion pill. The Morning After Pill is nother more than a high dose of birth control hormone, and is not always successful. (something like 83% within 24 hours, and down precipitively aftre that.

    Also, its not tough being against abortion in the Democratic Party, because Democrats tend to value human life MORE after birth.

  21. 26

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    by Goldy, 10/25/2005, 10:07 AM

    “Pharmacists have an ethical obligation to dispense legal medication, and they should have a legal obligation as well. We need laws now, guaranteeing access to contraception. All the more reason to vote Democratic. ”

    How do you know all the pharmacists that refused to dispense the morning after pill to this woman were Republican? Innuendo being used as a scare tactic. Sounds like propaganda to me. If this woman were in anyway related to me, I wouldn’t want her sexual assualt to be used by some blogger (right or left) to make political hay.

    Shame on you Goldy using this woman’s pain to promote your political cause.

  22. 29

    Puddybud spews:

    Belltowner, if abortion wasn’t the norm, you all could have had Al Gore as president. More than 4 Million loonies aborted since 1973. Thank goodness you lefty loony jack booters like abortions! God does have a plan even when man screws with it!

  23. 33

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @15

    Hey prr, what do you think of killing innocent Iraqis in U.S.-run torture chambers before they even have a chance at democracy?

  24. 34

    AmazedByRightWingHate spews:

    -Shame on you Goldy using this woman’s pain to promote your political cause. –

    Too funny, WorstConservative. This woman went to the newspaper to tell her story, and you think she’s being exploited? Think she’s exploiting herself? Whatever happened to conservatives who actually believed in being responsible for one’s own actions.

    Don’t get me wrong: I think ALL the right wing Talibangelists should take this issue to it’s logical conclusion. Make rape and abuse victims give birth to their abusers’ children! Talk about political suicide!

  25. 35

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Belltowner— 10/25/05 @ 12:24 pm

    “His political cause is hers as well.”

    How do you know this? The person is unnamed. Do you have some secret channel so you’ve talked to this woman and know that she’d want someone to use her to promote a political cause?
    Goldy hasn’t shown any reason that voting Democratic would make morning after pills more available to those who want them.

    From the link:

    “The two also attempted to obtain the drug at a Planned Parenthood clinic, but could not afford the $70 cost and apparently were not informed that Planned Parenthood will work out payment on a sliding scale fee.”

    While I empathize with the woman’s plight, it appears that it wasn’t only the pharmacist that prevented her from getting the medication, but Planned Parenthood (hardly a Republican leaning group), as well.

    From the link:

    “But the biggest roadblock to obtaining emergency contraception was that most pharmacies simply do not stock it, Fladness said. She said she called nearly 50, before finding two that had it and agreed to dispense it.”

    This seems like a supply and demand issue, not a political one.

  26. 36

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Goldy—
    I kind of figured you would change to topics like this….with Sims in a freefall, you are probably wise to try and deflect from any discussion about KingCo having nearly 2000 illegally registered voters using PO Boxes and Mailing Service Addresses as their residence.
    I’ll bet there is more to come on KingCo Elections too.
    Tell me Goldy, where does the buck stop for KingCo Elections???
    OHHHH SHIIIIT….it’s Ron Sims!!!
    Ron Sims appointed Logan.
    Ron Sims has been in office how long???
    The buck stops with Ron Sims!
    Elect David Irons====Logan is FIRED!!!

    By the way, I understand other County Auditors may be asking Logan to step aside during this election since clearly Logan’s job depends upon the outcome. HUGE appearance of fairness and possible conflict of interest situation, don’t you think???
    You LEFTIST PINHEADS all need good doctors. Unfortunately all we have for you is New Age healers like http://www.shantimai.com

    No shortage of fools like her!

  27. 37

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Roger Rabbit— 10/25/05 @ 12:37 pm

    “If you voted for Bush, you’re automatically a criminal.”

    Do you really believe this? Sounds like something a fascist would say. I thought only “Rethugs” were fascists.

  28. 38

    prr spews:

    Rabbit @ 29…

    I don’t know, what did you think about killing all those innocent Viatnamese women and children?

  29. 39

    Belltowner spews:

    @ 30

    I don’t know her, haven’t talked to her, but considering she was raped, and was looking for the pill, I find it likely she would be supportive of Goldy’s view on the issue. If she’s guilty of not being assertive at Planned Parenthood, so be it. The lack of availibility of the pill makes it all the more necessary that pharmacies stocking it not give young women the run-around in their hour of need. (and, no, I don’t want poeple to be forced to perform abortions, but if you work at a pharmacy, its reasonable for someone to believe that you should dispense meds, even if the meds make you uncomfortable)

  30. 41

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I think pharmacists who refuse to dispense legal medications because of their personal beliefs should have their licenses revoked.

  31. 42

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Pisson Roger Rabbit @38

    Do you enjoy spitting on Vietnam vets, prr? Is that how you get your kicks? Do us all a favor, shoot yourself.

  32. 43

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Belltowner— 10/25/05 @ 1:12 pm

    “I find it likely she would be supportive of Goldy’s view on the issue.”

    I agree that it’s likely she’d agree with Goldy’s statement that pharmacists be legally obligated to dispense legal medication (with a valid prescription of course). What’s not clear is that this person would want anyone (right or left) using her personal tragedy as a tool to gain a political advantage.

    “The lack of availibility of the pill makes it all the more necessary that pharmacies stocking it not give young women the run-around in their hour of need.”

    I think the lack of availability shows that there isn’t a huge demand for this medication.

    From the link:
    “At the same time, officials at Planned Parenthood say they have seen a dramatic rise in demand for emergency contraception in recent years – filling more than 5,000 prescriptions for it this year, compared with 3,000 last year.”

    It’s unclear if these numbers are for Arizona only or the whole U.S. In either case it seems like a pretty low number.

    “If she’s guilty of not being assertive at Planned Parenthood, so be it.”

    I think Planned Parenthood fell down on the job of helping this woman. They had this medication in stock. I’ve known people who have used them for contraceptives, and in each case Planned Parenthood were very upfront about providing information on their financial assistance.

    “(and, no, I don’t want poeple to be forced to perform abortions, but if you work at a pharmacy, its reasonable for someone to believe that you should dispense meds, even if the meds make you uncomfortable)”

    I think this situation actually makes the case for keeping abortion available to sexual assault victims, rather than force pharmacies to stock and distribute a medication that may not be profitable because of low demand.

    I think that for the pharmacist it’s not an issue of being comfortable but the ability to practice their religious beliefs as protected by the 1st Amendment.

  33. 44

    commander ogg spews:

    So called “conscience clause” laws are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, assuming a test case ever reaches the Supremes (Also assuming they don’t ignore the constitution. Remember Plessey vs. Ferguson). Since it is women who are affected by the refusal to sell the morning after pill, this could also constitute sex discrimination.

    The Supremes have judged that laws that prohibit the sale of contraceptives are unconstitutional in Griswold vs. Connecticut. If it is a public accommodation and if it is legal to sell an item, you can not refuse service based on a person’s sex. While a Pharmacy can not be compelled to stock a particular drug (that is Capitalism), a pharmacist who argues that his religion prevents him from selling any available item to customers who are almost all members of a protected class could be sued under federal civil rights laws.

    Attempting to get around a law because you have a case of the clevers is also illegal. The racist Republican bastards of the Georgia Free State are discovering this.

  34. 46

    prr spews:

    rabbit @ 42…

    I think it’s laughable to hear you bleat about the injustice of Iraq, or the “torture” of iraqi’ds when you have done far worse and have not been brought to justice

  35. 47

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder @ 6 “My issue is always that because there is no definite scientific way to nail that down, any erring should be to save the life, rather than the other way around.”

    If the science is not nailed down, then it is up to the woman to make the choice. Plain and simple. You cannot force a woman to carry any bit of protoplasm in HER body that she doesn’t want to.

    After NoWonder, the science is not nailed down on wether that the inflammed appendix in your abdomen is not “life”.

    Have a good time when it bursts!

  36. 48

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Belltowner— 10/25/05 @ 1:12 pm

    Responded to your post, but it appears stuck in the filter.

  37. 49

    NoWonder spews:

    Roger Rabbit @ 10

    ‘Isn’t there a bit of inconsistency in your positions’..

    No.

    ‘..who cherry-picks which innocent lives he’s in favor of saving.’

    Although I have a bit of trouble equating the relative innocence of an unborn child and someone carrying a yet-to-be-detonated roadside bomb or firing an AK-47 at US soldiers, what are you proposing?

  38. 50

    NoWonder spews:

    Poster Child @ 7

    ‘..Pro-Taliban prescriptions only.’

    As there would obviously be two lines the other could read “Final Solution” or “Abortions without the waiting period”.

  39. 51

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon @ 45

    ‘If the science is not nailed down, then it is up to the woman to make the choice.’

    If the science has not nailed down whether a two year-old child is a person does your argument still hold? There are cultures where the personhood is not allowed until the second birthday. Can mommy or the neighbors kill the kid before that time, as a choice? Actually, if “it” is not a person then anyone can kill it.

    ‘..the science is not nailed down on wether that the inflammed appendix in your abdomen is not “life”.’

    If you think an appendix may be a person then collect them to start your own army.

  40. 53

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder @ 48

    “If the science has not nailed down whether a two year-old child is a person does your argument still hold?”

    If it is still living inside the woman’s body, YES! There is a serisous medical issue here!

    “If you think an appendix may be a person then collect them to start your own army. ”

    And I will fight your Army of Zygotes!

    What a battle it will be!

  41. 54

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon @ 53

    ‘If it is still living inside the woman’s body, YES!’

    How does being in the woman’s body affect the personhood of the baby? That is even more radical than Roe v. Wade.

    Is the moving target of “viability” outside the womb still not the point of personhood on the left?

  42. 55

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder, yoou really should do some reading. If nothing else read the posts. The whole argument I make, and the Roe vs. Wade is that it is a woman’s right to privacy of her own body.

    No moving target here except the one you invent in your mind.

  43. 56

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon @ 55

    ‘No moving target here except the one you invent in your mind.’

    The Roe moving target is the point of viability. At the time the third trimester was chosen, after which the goverment is allowed to regulate abortion.

    Of course the real fundamental argument punted in Roe was when does the fetus become a person due full equal protection. Your definition is after birth, which is more radical than Roe.

    Your arguments were used to support slavery, even by those who chose not to own slaves themselves. That is, that blacks were not a full person and the Supreme Court made it legal. If some people are not known to be a full “person”, would it be better to err on the side of life or in the case of slaves, freedom? According to you the answer is no. You would have fit right in back then.

  44. 57

    NoWonder spews:

    commander ogg @ 44

    ‘If it is a public accommodation and if it is legal to sell an item, you can not refuse service based on a person’s sex.’

    This should apply to surgeons and abortion as well, no?

  45. 58

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder @ 56 Please refrain from attributing statements or views that I have not expressed. It just makes you look damn silly.

    “The Roe moving target is the point of viability. At the time the third trimester was chosen, after which the goverment is allowed to regulate abortion.”

    Agreed.

    “Of course the real fundamental argument punted in Roe was when does the fetus become a person due full equal protection.”

    And the SCOTUS decided that as far as federal laws that designation as “a person due full equal protection.” begins at birth. Ar else they would not allow states to allow 3rd trimester pregnancy terminations.

    “Your definition is after birth, which is more radical than Roe.”

    No, I never stated anything about “after birth” pregnancy terminations because that is an oxymoron.

  46. 59

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder @ 56 continued

    “Your arguments were used to support slavery, even by those who chose not to own slaves themselves.”

    No, because they are not my arguments. They are inventions of your own mind. Again, if you are going to attribute to me views I do not hold and arguments I have not made, you will loose credability very quickly.

  47. 60

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 46

    What have I done, pissant? Fight Nixon’s war in Vietnam? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR AHR AHRA

  48. 61

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @49

    “Although I have a bit of trouble equating the relative innocence of an unborn child and someone carrying a yet-to-be-detonated roadside bomb or firing an AK-47 at US soldiers, what are you proposing?”

    I have a little bit of trouble figuring out how you manage to be so ignorant and ill-informed that you actually think the people our troops tortured in Abu Ghraib were terrorists or insurgents. Most of them were innocent civilians scooped up by the fucking incompetents working for our side, dolt!

  49. 62

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Probably the reason why so many innocent Iraqi civilians were beaten, raped, and murdered is because their American torturers were stupid fucks like NoWonder.

  50. 63

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Hey everybody, I have an idea — let’s ban abortion, then listen to these Republican assholes squeal like stuck pigs when they have to pay child support!!!

    HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

  51. 64

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    BUSH ADMINISTRATION RAISES COLLEGE TUITION $450 PER STUDENT

    The Bush Administration is seeking to raise college tuitions across America by at least $450 per student in order to spy on anyone using colleges’ internet access.

    That’s the estimated cost of an unfunded mandate to re-engineer colleges’ internet systems to make it easier for federal gumshoes to eavesdrop on American citizens.

    “Technology experts retained by the schools estimated that it could cost universities at least $7 billion just to buy the Internet switches and routers necessary for compliance. That figure does not include installation or the costs of hiring and training staff to oversee the sophisticated circuitry around the clock, as the law requires, the experts said.

    “‘Even the lowest estimates of compliance costs would, on average, increase annual tuition at most American universities by some $450, at a time when rising education costs are already a sore point with parents and members of Congress,’ Mr. Hartle said.

    For the complete story, see http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102305G.shtml

    “At New York University, for instance, the order would require the installation of thousands of new devices in more than 100 buildings around Manhattan, be they small switches in a wiring closet or large aggregation routers that pull data together from many sites and send it over the Internet, said Doug Carlson, the university’s executive director of communications and computing services.”

  52. 65

    NoWonder spews:

    Roger Rabbit @ 61

    ‘I have a little bit of trouble figuring out..’

    I noticed that. I’ll ask again, are you suggesting a proposal related to both abortion and torture in Iraq? Or just flapping your ears.

    ‘Most of them were innocent civilians scooped up by the fucking incompetents working for our side.’

    You just can’t help but trash the troops, even after rightously saying you support the troops but hate the war.

  53. 66

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon @ 58

    ‘And the SCOTUS decided that as far as federal laws that designation as “a person due full equal protection.’

    Which gets back to the slavery issue. Are you comfortable having nine justices deciding when life begins or what constitutes a full person?

    ‘No, I never stated anything about “after birth”.

    Yes you did. By saying the child is not a person as long as she is still in the mother’s body. Is there another way other than after birth that you care to use?

    I think the personhood issue will become the defining solution for ending legal abortions. Even using philosophy, as opposed to any religion, if the unborn child is not a person it can legally be killed by anyone. Even the pro-abortion lobby supports that via opposition to any criminal charges due to harm to a fetus. Science will actually show that a woman’s womb is not the only thing that defines personhood, especially as we move towards growing people in test tubes.

  54. 67

    spews:

    Imagine this woman is your girlfriend your wife or your daughter… she was essentially assaulted twice: first by her assailant, and next by the right-wing religious extremists who would deny her access to safe, effective and legal contraception

    Now if this woman worked in the Clinton adminstrations would that still count? Uh er I wonder.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  55. 68

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder @ 65 “Which gets back to the slavery issue. Are you comfortable having nine justices deciding when life begins or what constitutes a full person?”

    That is the way it works, NoWonder. In the good ol’ USA. After that is the choice of the pregnant woman. S for the slavery issue, you have yet to make a rational comment regarding that. I am beginning to suspect the pamphlet you are reading doesn’t cover it.

    “‘No, I never stated anything about �after birth�.

    Yes you did. By saying the child is not a person as long as she is still in the mother’s body. Is there another way other than after birth that you care to use?”

    I would comment on that, NoWonder, but it makes absolutely no sense. I have a feeling the pamphlet you are consulting does not cover talking to an actual pro-choice person. Maybe try to actually think on your own.

    It works for me!

    “if the unborn child is not a person it can legally be killed by anyone. Even the pro-abortion lobby supports that via opposition to any criminal charges due to harm to a fetus.”

    That not only makes no sense, it is a straw man. I do not know anyone that is “pro-abortion”. You must be reading propaganda again.

    “Science will actually show that a woman’s womb is not the only thing that defines personhood, especially as we move towards growing people in test tubes.”

    Finally a rational comment AND an interesting one! Yes, when fetuses are grown in test tubes, I can assure you there will be no need for pregnancy termination. Why? Because pregnancy will no longer exist.

    Until that day, I am pro-choice, and against abortion.

    You may think that is an oxymoron. It isn’t, but then I am also sure you will never understand why.

  56. 70

    spews:

    69

    Ah donkaggendon. I cant help it if Clinton was a rapist. I wont rub it in. Well just one more laugh

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  57. 71

    Donnageddon spews:

    HA Ha, RUFUS. That was a real knee slapper.

    Now, fill the ketchup jars! And clean that grease pit. Damn, Boy! I am gonna put you on the night shift you don’t get your sorry ass moving! And I get one more complaint about cold fries, I am gonna send you back to the Millionairs Club where I found you!

    Move!

  58. 72

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon @ 67

    ‘S for the slavery issue, you have yet to make a rational comment regarding that.’

    Personhood. The SCOTUS determined that blacks were less than a full person, and therefore not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Was it right or moral? No. Was it legal to own slaves? Yes. The point is that SCOTUS decided what constitutes a person, and I will assume that you think it was bad law. The abortion issue is directly related by the status of the unborn child.

    ‘I would comment on that, NoWonder, but it makes absolutely no sense.’

    I said if science (or SCOTUS) determined that a child less than two years old was not a person, therefore allowing anyone to kill her, would you still defend the mother’s right to kill her? You said as long as the child was still in her body. I then said you must then be defining personhood only at birth. then you started in circles. From your other answers regarding personhood I now assume that whomever SCOTUS decides is not a person or a full person can be killed by anyone. How about handicapped or Down’s babies, non-productive citizens. With what I have seen you say about the neocons I would assume you also think that Bush getting 2-3 more SCOTUS justices could lead to what I speculate about. Any problem with that?

    ‘Yes, when fetuses are grown in test tubes, I can assure you there will be no need for pregnancy termination..’

    Will it still be OK to kill the babies, and if so, would there be any age point beyond which killing it would be murder?

    ‘It isn’t, but then I am also sure you will never understand why.’

    I may understand why. What is hard to understand is why you are against abortion. If it is OK and a person is not being killed, why should it be “rare”. Why would you be against it?

  59. 73

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder, I have no desire to withdrawl from our conversation. But I am extremely worried about your desire to put words in my mouth.

    You said “If it is OK and a person is not being killed, why should it be “rare”.”

    I never said the word “rare” in any of my posts. You are still reading from a script,

  60. 74

    Donnageddon spews:

    Continued

    and I have never even said the word “rare”

    You need to approach me with “your feelings and words” and respond to “my words”

    I am really sorry that you cannot speak to what I have postes here. You keep posting to things I have NEVER said.

    Put down the pamphlet and talk to me from your intellect and heart!

  61. 75

    Donnageddon spews:

    I will continue with out your “responding to what I said”

    “‘Yes, when fetuses are grown in test tubes, I can assure you there will be no need for pregnancy termination..’

    Will it still be OK to kill the babies, and if so, would there be any age point beyond which killing it would be murder?”

    It is NEVER ok to kill babies in my opinion. Why would you think I thought it was OK to kill Babies?

    “I may understand why. What is hard to understand is why you are against abortion.”

    I do not know anyone who is in favor of abortion. It is not a very pretty procedure. But it is not my choice or yours. It is the woman that is pregnants choice.

    Is that so hard to understand?

  62. 77

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon

    ‘I never said the word “rare” in any of my posts.’

    No, I took that from the DNC script, which Clinton made famous. It just points out how ridiculous it is when you say you are against abortion. If it is OK, why be “against” it? Not a pretty procedure? That is not a reason. No surgery is a pretty prodecure. Are you against all surgery? Do you have any real reason to be against abortion?

    ‘It is NEVER ok to kill babies in my opinion.’

    The test tube baby – up until what age is it OK to kill it?

    The point is that without the mother in the equation there is no clear line at which point it should be illegal to kill the baby. My point is that if that baby is a person sans mother’s womb, why would there be any difference in the personhood if in the mother’s womb? Or, is nine months still a good age to use for personhood?

    C’mon, at what age is a baby who is grown in a test tube entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

  63. 78

    spews:

    “I may understand why. What is hard to understand is why you are against abortion.”

    Too bad you dont have the same attitude toward killing terrorists.

  64. 79

    NoWonder spews:

    RUFUS @ 77

    I think we should kill the terrorists. I was trying to find out why Donnageddon is against abortion.

  65. 80

    Donnageddon spews:

    Man, this is geting counterproductive. I mistook you for a person wanting to debate, Nowonder.

    “Donnageddon

    ‘I never said the word “rare” in any of my posts.’

    No, I took that from the DNC script, which Clinton made famous.”

    I do not subscribe to the DNC script, so you might want to reply to mu posts, and not the “DNC” script. Really, it would make this more like “me talking to you” and less “You talking to the DNC Script”.

    Is that unreasonable?

    “Are you against all surgery? ”

    No, based on what I have actually stated (other than the DNC script you have memorized) why would you ask me that question?

    “The test tube baby – up until what age is it OK to kill it?”

    NoWonder… Where did I EVER SAY IT WAS OK TO KILL THE THEORETICAL TEST TUBE BABY!!!

    Sorry for the caps, but you, again, seem to be putting words in my mouth I never said. Why do you make up things?

    Are you unsure of your position? To answer your absurd question, I can’t think of a single reason to kill the “theoretical” test tube baby. Do you have a reason? Why? Is that in your pamphlet?

    …much bullshit from you follows, and then…

    “is nine months still a good age to use for personhood?”

    I am not really interested in that question. The SCOTUS has already answered it. A person has (Your words) “due full equal protection” at birth.

    If you have a problem with that take it up with the SCOTUS.

    Good luck!

    And… best wishes.

  66. 81

    Donnageddon spews:

    But, really, NoWonder… uh stick to what I say, not what you imagine.

    It is more fun that way.

    Trust me.

  67. 82

    Chimp Patrol spews:

    Danno @ 52. You are absolutely correct Danny Boy. Goldy’s shoe smells like shit from kicking ‘culture of corruption’ ass’ all around the blogosphere. (like yours, prrissy, mr incredibly irrelevant, etc)

  68. 83

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon

    My premise is that one’s personhood cannot be set in an arbitrary manner. The status of personhood is required before constitutional protections for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can be applied. If the unborn child is in fact a person, the mother’s right to liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot be given priority over the unborn child’s right to life. The actual birth event is quite arbitrary in terms of a point in the human life cycle where a child becomes a person. Even Roe apportions at least some personhood to the unborn child in allowing that there can be some State interest generally in the second and third trimester, and specifically at the point of “viability”. The vague nature of viability in terms of the point in the human life cycle provides the “moving target”. There must be a solid, verifiable point of entry into personhood when the law allows killing or enslavement of partial or non-persons. Otherwise a court can change the entry into personhood, as well as the possible stripping of personhood status later in life. This application of status is relevant to abortion, slavery, the death penalty, as well as euthanasia.

    There is no logical, moral or ethical argument to justify allowing personhood for a “test tube” baby at, for example three months after egg fertilization, and deny it to the unborn child in the womb at the same point in life. (Equal Protection) And using “birth” as the point where personhood is enshrined does not even allow the test tube baby to ever attain it. And if birth ends up not being the arbitrary “personhood” point, there is no other point other than conception that cannot be changed at the whim of a court. The fact that man can move the criteria for personhood endangers everyone, and effectively only protects those in the court’s favor. Again, the legalization of slavery is a direct result of this flaw, and there is no logical distinction between the personhood status of a potential slave, death row inmate, Down’s baby, or the unborn child.

    The most important point that the pro-life movement offers is not that life begins at or near conception, although that is certainly a prominent issue. The important point is that if when life begins is unknown, any erring should be to the higher right. (Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.) That is, if we do not know if something is a person, the moral and philosophically consistent action is to NOT kill it. Furthermore, if there is a conflict of rights to mitigate the higher right should prevail. (Life being higher than liberty, which is higher than pursuit of happiness.)

    Your responses actually do appear to come from abortion lobby pamphlets, where being wishy-washy on the personhood issue is the key to continued success in the political arena. No personhood until actual birth, (full birth, as opposed to “partial birth”), and that SCOTUS could change the definition at the whim of a few new neocon justices. No reason to kill a test tube baby? Perhaps the discovery of genetic defects or physical abnormalities is sufficient reason. Perhaps she is the wrong color, sexual orientation, or projected to be too liberal or conservative. (Assuming that genes will be identified to assist.)

    You are correct that this has been a difficult debate. It has clearly not sunk in that who can be a person in the US is currently an arbitrary “moving target” set by the SCOTUS. (NARAL on the other hand seems to recognize this, if only for selfish reasons.) That moving target is exactly why slavery was legal in the past and that other forms of slavery or State-sanctioned killing could be legal in the future.

  69. 84

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon (con’t)

    On your stance against abortion – you have not said why you, or anyone should be against it. If it is OK, (morally, ethically, etc.), legal and relatively safe, (minors should not need parental consent), why should it not be encouraged? Not forced, but encouraged so that it still ends up being a matter of “choice”. If the unborn child is not a person and anyone can legally kill it in the womb, what reasonable person could fault abortion as a means of birth control? Your previous answer was less than convincing. (“It is not a very pretty procedure.”) Note that in WA a minor needs parental consent to get an ear pierced and cannot legally get a tatoo. Abortion must be safer as a 13 year-old can get one upon request.

    I apologize for the “rare” remark. It is just that your being against abortion seemd like an extreme version of the “rare” mantra. There is no logical reason for a legal procedure that does not harm anyone should be rare, as long as the mother is the one with choice. And if it should be “rare” or in your words – ‘I do not know anyone who is in favor of abortion”, why not advocate against abortion as is done with smoking, drugs or alcohol?

  70. 85

    Donnageddon spews:

    NoWonder.

    I am against abortion as I am against appendix operations. I would rather no one had to make the choice of having one. But I understand that it is their body, their choice and absolutely no one elses business. I do not know anyone who is in favor of appendix operations either.

    Plain and simple and only took three sentences.

    “My premise is that one?s personhood cannot be set in an arbitrary manner.”

    Unfortunately, that is the way it work with laws. And I am damn glad it is not you who makes that arbitrary decision.

  71. 86

    NoWonder spews:

    Donnageddon:

    I give. Your being “against” or “opposed” looks to be pretty relative and semantic. Maybe there are different levels of opposition between being opposed to something for yourself, (as in I would never have an abortion but would not stand in the way for others), and other items where you are opposed based on strong moral or other grounds. If I were to speculate I would guess that you would do more to oppose George Bush than abortion.

    ‘Unfortunately, that is the way it work with laws.’

    You punted on the philosophical dilemna related to personhood and whether the law should err on the side of life or the “higher right”. Is that the wording you would use if you were alive when the SCOTUS legalized slavery? Can I assume you would then be “opposed” to slavery, yet resigned to be OK with it for others to chose because it was legal? Would I be too far out on a limb to assume you would not?

    I am guessing based on comments that your position is easy today only because you have no deep disagreement about the staus quo. To be truly consistent you should be relatively indifferent about Bush putting a few neocons on the SCOTUS. If another court changed critical definitions about when life begins or who can legally be killed by others, perhaps then you would feel differently.

    The erring to the higher right can and has been a fundamental part of our legal system. If not there would be no appeals for criminal convictions, and no especially extra layers of appeals for the death penalty. We do not allow people to commit others to mental institutions without steps to protect the rights of the commitee. The politics of abortion and euthanaisa, however, have created flaws in legal reasoning by not erring to the higher right when the exact status of personhood in not known.

    Enough said, and thanks for the chat.

  72. 87

    Mr. X spews:

    I would be hard pressed not to beat the living shit out of some self-righteous fucktard who did this to my girlfriend (or any other woman I know, for that matter).

  73. 88

    PAC spews:

    Interesting. You would beat the heck out of a right wing pharmacist, but can’t spend a moment towards the jerk who actually attacked and raped her? Very interesting.

    I have no doubt that this girl was able to get her hands on the pill, but there simply is no follow up to point that out. The fact that the people of a community lean toward one side of this argument (or the other) and make it difficult to use that particular medication as a lazy birth control seems to me to just be the will and desires of the community. You don’t like it then move to liberal-ville and stay away from Arizona.

    I’m sure that the vast majority of people (including pharmacists) would want this girl to be able to get this medication. But women like this (rape victims) are a small percentage of the total number of users if this medication were available over the counter.

    Personally I’m very pro-abortion (no spin here, I won’t even call it pro-choice), but I do understand the views of the other side (and how strongly they feel) and feel we should try to find a equitable middle ground and do our best to let prevailing communities decide the specific details and keep the lawyers, damn the lawyers, the heck out of it.

    This story is less of a tregedy than it is just a poor womans horrible experience topped by a nuisance after the fact. The sad part is the girl is being used by one side of this issue as a battle cry for their cause.

  74. 89

    Sabrina spews:

    In response to: “This story is less of a tregedy than it is just a poor womans horrible experience topped by a nuisance after the fact. The sad part is the girl is being used by one side of this issue as a battle cry for their cause.”
    I have to say you bring up many good points, but the fact of the matter is the girl went to the media to expose a flaw that needs to be addressed, and the only way it can properly be addressed is through politics. So, they are not “using” this poor girl, she stepped up to turn a degrading and traumatizing experience into something that she hopes will have a positive effect on society; she hopes no other woman will have to go through what she went through in not being able to protect her body after she was raped.

    How do I know this??? I am one of her family members. She is brave for going to the media with this. She is the one clammoring the battle cry. It is HER cause.

  75. 90

    nlb spews:

    At first I thought you were speaking about a South American town(I’m no native speaker, I didn’t know what tucsian meant). After reading the newspaper article I found out it happened in US Arizona. My thoughts were along the lines of “What the f***?!”.
    Excuse me, but isn’t it the current US government that thinks it is on a higher morale ground than the rest of the world? And then a rape victim is legally denied the morning-after pill?
    What kind of jerks were working in those pharmacies?! Imagine how very humiliating it must have been for her to tell them her reason for needing the pill. I bet you none the pharmacists were female.
    And now, she can’t even sue them. Though I think it would be a kind of justice if they had to pay for the child’s upbringing…
    That kind of sh** happens when you mix law with religion. It has never been a goos idea in the past and will never be a good idea in the future. Religious idealogists are dangerous, not because of their god, but because they believe they know his or her will, which often coincides with their own twisted wish for power.