Why are Republicans against contraception, which would prevent abortions?
“The issue surfaced this week after Carly Fiorina, a high-profile McCain campaigner and possible running mate, wondered whether here isn't a bit of sexism underlying health coverage determinations.
"Let me give you a existing, live example, which I've been hearing closely about from women," the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said Monday, while discussing women's health issues surrounded by Washington. "There are many health-insurance plans that will cover Viagra, but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice."
But the comments don't mesh next to McCain's record on the issue. Twice in the concluding decade -- in 2003 and 2005 -- the Arizona senator has voted against legislation requiring insurance plans that cover prescription drugs to also cover birth control. Confronted next to Fiorina's sentiments, McCain was stuck: If he replied that it is, indeed, unfair that contraceptives are not covered, after he flip-flops on his earlier votes; if he answered no, then he risks alienating women voters. Instead, he punted.
"I don't take back the vote," McCain said. "I've cast thousands of votes in the Senate."
Congress passed legislation requiring that prescription birth control be covered for federal force. The mandate, however, didn't include the private sector.”
“Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he have "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who lead campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/mc...
http://www.dyreportents.com/2007/08/repu...
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25906611/
Answers: I must concede, I have been baffled by that myself. Since birth control methods prevent conception, no fetus is created. Preventing a pregnancy from occurring could not surrounded by any way be considered abortion. Not only does contraception lower the number of abortions, it also help with overpopulation and, in the armour of condoms, helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. All of these benefits with no wound to anyone can only be a good article.
.
While I agree that contraception and other services need to be available to everyone, I really feel that this is more so on the political side and wants to be in another section.
.
McSame is dance over the issues. Its been proven that contraceptives do prevent pregnancies which thereby reduces the number of abortions. I have also read that HMO's would pay for Viagra (originally made for men) but not birth control pills. How stupid can ya get. Lets carry men ready to have sex but not wage for birth control for a woman! Doesn't make a bit of sense but then again. if the shoe fits!
I return with a lot of emails from my republican friends who love to spread rumors. Why do they believe everything they receive in an email lacking checking it out first? They send me the stupidest stuff cause they are prepared to believe everything they read. Guess they've never heard of snopes.com? Doesn't make a bit of sense but later again. if the shoe fits!.
I can't speak to what they might have wrong with condoms, but some relations in the pro-life movement think that birth control pills themselves are a form of abortion. I'm pro-life and have to do some research myself. I don't think there is ample medical research to know for certain so I disagree that birth control is a form of abortion.
The logic goes something approaching this. Birth control pills work primarily by stopping ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus to stop sperm from entering the uterus. A third effect is that it thins the endometrial wall. So if the first two parts fail and a sperm make it through and you have ovulated, then birth control prevents that fertilized egg from mortal able to implant since its thinned your endometrial wall.
Now, I don't infer that's really the case, I think if you ovulate after your endometrium will be thick enough to sustain a child, but that's some of the logic behind it.