access to abortion

Religion tends to limit access to contraception, resulting in an increased need for abortion.

In the USA, contraception is available at virtually every convenience store.

quote:

---

In the USA, contraception is available at virtually every convenience store.

---

Condoms? Aren't perfect by a long shot anyway but when your preaching, and I mean preaching, abstinence only and not educating kids on birth control all the condoms in the world won't help if they are afraid to buy them because it's "wrong".

And it isn’t poverty that tells them not to use birth control its religion, most especially in the US. I think we already have a thread discussing how kids that sign “Abstinence Pledges” end up engaging in riskier behaviours sexual than peers that don’t swear not to have sex till marriage. “Abstinence Pledges” are utterly religious in nature and right up there with purity balls in there creepy factor.

quote:

---

And if kids think using condoms are wrong, these are presumably the same kids who think pre-marital sex is wrong to begin with.

---

And yet they keep having it, and are generally so uninformed or mislead that they use no birth control - lots of STDs on the rise in the US, this probably goes right along with the rise of the religous right.

Dr.HIlarious, would you might posting links to any stats to back up your claim??

I knew many 'religious' kids when i was in high school and I can assure you that they had a bunch of partners, sometimes many more than the non-religious kids. Many of the religious may not be engaging in intercourse but they sure are engaging in oral and anal sex in record numbers. That way they can pretend to be virgins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Dr.HIlarious, would you might posting links to any stats to back up your claim??[/b]

---

In my perception, it won't happen, because there aren't any, in fact there are many that are quite the opposite of what is being said by Dr Hilarious. There are many stats that say quite the opposite on threads here in the feminist forum.

Though seeing as how, Dr Hilarious won't even read the links provided in this thread, I don't expect any perusal of other threads here by said person. It would seem said person only wants to keep their eyes blinkered and themselves in delusion.

For what it's worth: Dr. Hilarius is a character in Thomas Pynchon's [i]The Crying of Lot 49[/i] (1966). He is a fake psychiatrist who prescribes LSD to patients and is being hunted by Israeli special forces because during the holocaust he injected Jews with a serum designed to render them catatonic and certified insane.

It's actually a book not a movie. (unless someone amde a movie version of it later). I'm glad someone got the reference. The rest of you should definitely read the book. It's one of my favourites.

Oh it is a book, thank you. Anyhow, as STD's are not the topic of this thread, access to abortion is, though fascinating, further discussion should be in a thread about that.

[url=http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/]Center for Disease Controls data on STDs/HIV[/url]

Well, that did not take long to get reverxed, good job women across NA and Librarians!

quote:

---

Johns Hopkins officials restored full access yesterday to a reproductive health Web site funded by the government, after learning that searches containing the word "abortion" were being intentionally restricted and that thousands of studies were being hidden from easy view.

The change came after librarians and women's health advocates flooded the blogosphere - and e-mail boxes at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health - with complaints of censorship.

---

[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.popline05apr05,0,6737683..... Michael J. Klag, Bloomberg's dean, said he learned about the action yesterday morning and ordered administrators of POPLINE to restore "abortion" as a search term "immediately." He also said he would launch an inquiry into why the decision was made to limit searches.[/url]

h/t BnR

[ 05 April 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

There are NO abotion laws at all in Canada, it was just not decriminalized. And I believe access is guaranteed under the health act of Canada. Perhaps Joyce will make an appearance and clarify how this works and what can be done to assure access?

Not to preempt Joyce... look at what she has written [url=http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/healthact.shtml]here [/url] some years ago on the issue of provincial administrations refusing to fund clinic-based abortion services and the federal governement sitting on its hands about this violation of the Canada Health Act.

quote:

---

Abortion is possibly the only essential medical service that does not meet the basic principles of the Canada Health Act. The five principles are public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. Abortion services fail at least 4 out 5 of these tests. (...) The federal government must step in and compel the provinces to fund all abortion services equally, whether in a clinic or hospital, and must ensure that all provinces cover abortion under their reciprocal billing arrangements. Provincial governments must ensure that enough hospitals perform abortions in all areas of the province, and that fully funded clinics are opened wherever feasible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]There are NO abotion laws at all in Canada, it was just not decriminalized. And I believe access is guaranteed under the health act of Canada. Perhaps Joyce will make an appearance and clarify how this works and what can be done to assure access?[/b]

---

There was a law with strict measures regarding access to abortion that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional. After teh court decision, no other law about abortion was introduced to replace it so there are presently no laws in place at the federal level.

Provinces, however, have jurisdictional responsibility for the delivery of health care services and can determine which medical services are funded or not. So in Ontario, several years back, there was controversy when the government de-listed certain services such as eye exams, physio therapy and chiropracter services from the health plan. I believe New Brunswick is the only province that does not provide public funding of abortion but I think that technically, any province could choose to de-list it.

Remind, with all respect, using that source is like quoting Focus on the Family for arguments in the marriage debate (now over and only used as an example).

New Brunswick does fund abortions, just not abortions in clinics.

Not going to argue/discuss any of this with you 2. Read this by Joyce as it pretty much covers everything.

quote:

---

The Canada Health Act (CHA) is our nation's federal health insurance legislation[1]. It establishes criteria and conditions for insured healthcare services, which provinces must meet in order to receive full cash contributions from the federal government. The CHA defines five basic principles to ensure reasonable access to health services for all Canadians without financial or other barriers: comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration, and accessibility[2].

The CHA says that provinces must insure all “medically necessary” services in “hospitals.” ...It is up to the provinces to decide what is medically necessary under the Canada Health Act. They generally do this by putting together a package of insured services, which are then automatically deemed medically necessary. In practice, however, politicians alone cannot decide what is medically necessary; the package of insured services must be negotiated between physicians and government. So even if a province wanted to take abortion off the list of insured services (called "delisting"), they would have to get the cooperation of a medical organization, usually the College of Physicians and Surgeons or the provincial chapter of the Canadian Medical Association.

---

[url=http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/02spring.sht...

And fuck you, heywood, you do not get to come into the feminist forum and state that the ARCC-CDAC is a non-credible source of information!

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]Congrats on your promotion Remind. It's about time you were made moderator of the FF.[/b]

---

What do you not get about the feminist forum and it's mandate, heywood, that you feel you can attack and belittle me for taking exception to your non-feminist trash in it?

quote:

---

[b]Meanwhile, your source is still biased.[/b]

---

No, actually it isn't, as apparently you do NOT get pro-choice actions!

quote:

---

"Dr. Hilarius": ... many in Africa lack access to birth control and live in poverty and are hesitant to bring children into such conditions.

---

The opposite is true. Where there is poverty there is a higher birth rate. In fact, the highest fertility rates are found in those countries with the highest poverty.

Got any more lies? Using the moniker of a fake doctor seems like a perfect choice for you, Dr. H. And it's a useful warning to the rest of us. Thanks.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Monbiot's explanation looks good to me. Why do you ask?

Monbiot identifies, in more detail, the lack of access to birth control and points out that where there's more religious conservatism there are more abortions. The exception, he says, is the former Soviet Union where there was poor access to contraception. [One Russian who lived in that country at the time told me that there was a strong prejudice against the domestic condoms which were said to be of very poor quality.]

My disagreement was with what I understood as a claim that poverty would lead to a lower birth rate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]

The opposite is true. Where there is poverty there is a higher birth rate. In fact, the highest fertility rates are found in those countries with the highest poverty.

Got any more lies? Using the moniker of a fake doctor seems like a perfect choice for you, Dr. H. And it's a useful warning to the rest of us. Thanks.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ][/b]

---

OF COURSE where there is pvoerty, there is a higher birthrate. I think that's obvious to everyone. It's also true that where there's poverty and where tehre's lack of access to birth control, there's a higher demand for abortion. The two facts are not contradictory by any means. Everyone else seems to get that. And you go an personally attack me? Fuck you. I'm an MD with a masters in epidemiology, a practicing physician and a professor of medicine. I don't need to be patronzied by you cause you have trouble digesting logic.

[Okay, I guess that was kind of crude. I'll just delete that and close this for length. For those who were wondering what I wrote, think of the last line from A Christmas Carol, adapted to the previous post to this one.]

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]