O.k., so an entire article was devoted to comparing OCPs with exercise, breastfeeding, and caffeine - all that does is tell us that for one class of potential abortificiants there are other things that may act similarly. What does that have to do with the initial question of: SHOULD the government allow employees / providers to "just say no" to providing (loosely speaking) abortion services in the first place? The article doesn't say much about that, unfortunately. So what then is the point of the article? Who knows, other than to say it's an attempt at satire, irony, or something.

It's a mighty long bridge the author is trying to cross, and like a sad reflection of our country's current woes, he seems to have run out of gas before reaching the other side.

I'd say Saletan's point lies in your use of the term "loosely speaking" to describe the "abortion" services that pharmacists, etc., may be asked to provide in the form of the morning after pill.

In other words, abortion is a very serious procedure that present profound moral dilemmas that reasonable people can disagree about. By comparing the morning after pill to everyday occurrences that could theoretically prevent implantation, Saletan is making the point that prevention of implantation is distinguishable from abortion.

zbird:

I'd say Saletan's point lies in your use of the term "loosely speaking" to describe the "abortion" services that pharmacists, etc., may be asked to provide in the form of the morning after pill.

In other words, abortion is a very serious procedure that present profound moral dilemmas that reasonable people can disagree about. By comparing the morning after pill to everyday occurrences that could theoretically prevent implantation, Saletan is making the point that prevention of implantation is distinguishable from abortion.

I'll grant you that. Fine, one can distinguish between the two.

That still doesn't address whether or not to allow health care workers to deny services for abortions though, does it?

He is not "Saletan is making the point that prevention of implantation is distinguishable from abortion."

He is making the point that the anti-abortion folks are pushing to force society to believe that such prevention equals abortion. He obviously does not believe this, no sane person would. He is using satire to make the point that prevention of implantation is NOT an abortion.

Well, indirectly yes. Mainly he is pointing out the arbitrary nature of the proposed law to begin with, and the absurdity that would result if people began to object to all supposed abortifacients.

b0nnylass:

Well, indirectly yes. Mainly he is pointing out the arbitrary nature of the proposed law to begin with, and the absurdity that would result if people began to object to all supposed abortifacients.

Again, it's the *intent* that causes distress, not the end effect. More people die in traffic accidents than are murdered each year, why don't we lock up drivers in traffic accidents, and let the murderers go free? Intent.

Bondsman: no, it doesn't address whether or not to allow health care workers to deny services for abortions. As far as I know that's not an issue: no one can be forced to work for Planned Parenthood. But Saletan is saying that forcing health care workers to distribute the morning after pill is not the same thing.

Bondsman, I don't really understand your 'intent' post above. I was summarizing Saletan's piece; he doesn't really discuss 'intent'. I'm confused.

Again, it's the *intent* that causes distress, not the end effect

Causes distress to whom? The conscientiously-objecting health care worker? Or are we talking about breast feeding and exercising? Regardless, I don't see how you can sort out intent anyway. How do you know a pregnant woman isn't exercising like mad and drinking a 12 pack of coke a day in order to encourage a miscarriage? How do you know a woman seeking a oral contraceptive prescription from a pharmacy isn't using it for ovarian cyst treatment? To deny treatment to all women just in case their 'intent' is not acceptable to you is insane and irresponsible.

More people die in traffic accidents than are murdered each year, why don't we lock up drivers in traffic accidents, and let the murderers go free? Intent

I just have to point out that we do lock up drivers in accidents, all the time in fact. Ever heard of a DUI? A drunk person probably didn't intend to get into an accident. So again, to me this argument is muddled at best. Actually, this hypothetical of yours makes me wonder about bar workers. What if a bartender morally objected to serving alcohol to anyone who drove to the bar? That customer clearly has an 'intention' of driving after drinking. Should we pass a law protecting his right to keep working as a bar tender? Or would you suggest the bartender find a more suitable line of work?

Well technically service can already be refused to anybody, so, technically a store, resturaunt could refuse to give a pregnant woman drinks. In a sociology project for my class, girls went to olive garden and made themselves look prego, and then asked for drinks, and were refused. I know its not something anybody wants to think about, nobody wants to be told what they can and can't do, but its already possible for individual companies to decline to sell a product to a woman if they choose to. By the way, even though the article was satire, I have to point out that more research needs to be done to prove that most of those may increase the risk of miscarriage....

Bonny, intent matters, this is why we have hate crime statutes, and varying degrees of murder, manslaughter, and assault charges. If you are drunk and crash into a car, you may be charged with manslaughter, however if you are sober, and driving reasonably and crash into somebody, you will not be charged, again. If it can be proved that the chemicals were used toward a specific purpose the woman could be charged, however accidental abortion would still be safe. However, I don find this proposed law disturbing anyway, because it would put all woman who lose a baby under a cloud of suspicion, and the amount of miscarriages in this country, means that women would be harrassed in large numbers if this law was to be enforced equally. A huge % of women have miscarriages many more than one, it isn't a good law enact, especially when abortion is legal anyway... Kind of a pointless discussion.

patron, I don't think you understand the bill being proposed. The government would protect those who conscientiously object to dispensing of oral contraceptives (or other 'abortifacients'). The government would be meddling in businesses, forcing employers to keep employees who refuse to do parts of their job. That's what we're arguing here. I realize intent is used in many ways within the law. You seem to think Saletan's satirical piece is the actual law being proposed--it's not. Nobody is saying we should throw pregnant women in jail for drinking cappuccinos.