Catholic News Agency Alleges Prevention First Act Would Fund Abortions
February 4, 2009 - 6:13pm (Print)
Would the Prevention First Act provide public funding for abortion services? Only if you consider emergency contraception abortion. And the Catholic News Agency must.
CNA characterized Prevention First thus:
The PFA provides more taxpayer funding for contraception and abortion and contains coercive elements which could deny federal funding to some pro-life hospitals...PFA would mandate that health insurance programs that cover prescriptions must cover abortifacient contraceptives.
I wish that Prevention First would overturn the ban on federal funding for abortion care, but, truth is, it won't. Where is the taxpayer funding for abortion in this bill? What are the "coercive elements that could deny federal funding" to hospitals? And what are the so-called "abortifacient contraceptives" (now there's a contradiction in terms!)?
CNA must consider emergency contraception and hormonal contraception abortion. The bill would restore access to birth control to low-income and college-aged women and fully fund Title X. The only way Prevention First could provide federal funding for abortion is if the Pill is considered abortion.
Prevention First would also require hospitals receiving federal money to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors who wanted it. Hospitals are required to explain to women that EC does not cause abortion. Is that coercive to medical institutions, or is it coercive to a recently-assaulted patient not to inform her of an effective way to prevent pregnancy? I thought so.
Catholic News Agency and anti-choicers around the nation are ringing alarm bells on Prevention First, calling it "FOCA's evil twin" and trumping up fears over its impact. Perhaps they've realized FOCA isn't going anywhere and are setting their sights on a more likely adversary. Their all-out mischaracterization of the bill suggests that they know that if the public knew what Prevention First is really about -- helping women prevent unintended pregnancies -- it would be a shoo-in.
Great post, Emily.
I just wanted to add that people can get accurate information on emergency contraception from the EC website.
The site is operated by the Office of Population Research at Princeton University and by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and has no connection with any pharmaceutical company or for-profit organization. This website is peer reviewed by a panel of independent experts.
Jodi
I think it's interesting that a bill whose stated purpose is "to reduce unintended pregnancy" and "reduce abortions" fails to provide definitions for the terms "pregnancy" and "abortion" as they are used in the bill.
But the following statements from the bill provide some clues:
(1) Emergency contraception "prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, preventing fertilization of an egg, or preventing implantation of an egg in a uterus," and
(2) hospitals are required to explain to women that "emergency contraception does not cause an abortion."
So pregnancy (in the language of the bill) begins with the implantation of the embryo (it's just bad science to call it an egg at this stage), and abortion (in the language of the bill) occurs only after this implantation.
But Catholics and others you call "anti-choicers" do not accept these definitions. Abortion is not in the first place the termination of the mother's pregnancy (however one chooses to define that), but rather the termination of the life of the human being any time from the first moment of his or her existence (fertilzation of the ovum) until his or her birth.
Since according to this definition abortion can occur either pre-implantation or post-implantation, and since the bill admits that EC prevents implantation in at least some instances, it follows (again, according to this definition of abortion) that EC (at least in some of its forms) acts as an abortifacient.
It all depends how you define your terms.
But Catholics and others you call "anti-choicers" do not accept these definitions ... It all depends how you define your terms.
Very true. It's a good thing that no particular religious sect gets to define medical terms in our society!
Why would your particular political-interest group get to define medical terms for the rest of our society?
All of the laws set by our founding fathers had religious bearing
evidence to back this statement up?
Your grievance shall be avenged.
Perhaps you'd like to provide evidence for your definition being somehow the only one that accords with scientific and medical facts. You'll note that the broader, and I'd argue original, definition of abortion is just as scientifically grounded (no mention of soul, God, creation, eternal life, etc.).
