Plan B ... Let's Start Shouting

In my last post, I was upset that "progressive scientists" had tried to manipulate a debate about Plan B by changing the definition of conception. To make Plan B more palatable, they wanted to change the definition of conception to mean implantation.

I was sad to hear on NPR that social conservatives had block a vote on a Plan B bill. This bill would have required hospitals to give Plan B to rape victims.

IMHO, the truly controversial part of this bill is that you are requiring Doctors and a hospital to do something that they do not want to do.

If you listen to the report. Notice how Libby Lewis totally trips over herself as she tries to redefine terms. She says the pill works by preventing ovulation (which is true). She then says Catholics "believe" that it also stops implantation of fertilized eggs. It is not a matter of belief that Plan B stops the implantation of fertized eggs! It is a fact that Plan B stops the fertization of eggs.

Interestingly, the Catholic hospitals that do not want to give the medication blindly actually test to see where a woman is in ovulation. Essentially, the Catholics are trying to devise a Plan C that only stops ovulation, but does not stop implantion.

Is this logic clear? If the Catholics have a Plan C that stops ovulation. Then the difference between Plan B and Plan C is that Plan B stops implantation!

Assuming that the Catholic Hospitals really are using Plac C to stop ovulation, then Connecticutt law would be forcing the hospitals to be taking action to directly abort the development of a fertilized egg.

Personally, I favor Plan B. I think rape victims should take the pill. I think they should abort the embryo by blocking it at implantation.

The question of the Connecticutt law is if health care givers should be forced to give the pill to people. This is very close to demanding that health care workers violate the hippocratic oath. If a hospital worker is forced to use Plan B in lieue of a Plan C, then you have a law that requires health care workers abort an embryo after conception.

Although I favor Plan B. I have to concur that this sounds like a bad piece of legislation. Libby Lewis presented a very bad piece of journalism that intentionally masked the issues at debate in the law.

What I am trying to point out here is that the "progressive scientists" are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to manipulate the law by changing definitions.

I agree that Plan B is the best option. However, I have to concede that forcing a health care worker to administer Plan B is a very bad idea.

In the case where a health care worker does not want to administer or even sell the pill, we need to get the rape victim to someone who will administer it. Libby Lewis's report even indicates that the Catholic Hospitals were willing to do that.

Lewis presents this particular debate as one where the social conservatives were trying to force pregnancies on rape victims. In reality it was one where the state was trying to force health care workers to violate their personal code of ethics.

The problem with this modern dialectics that tries to manipulate debate by changing definitions is that we end up wasting ourselves on garbage legislation. This was a bad bill. Forcing a hospital to use Plan B instead of Plan C is equivalent to forcing the hospitals to violate their principles and it forces health care workers who see a fertilized egg as a viable entity to violate the Hippocratic Oath.

If we weren't trying to manipulate the debate by changing definitions, it would be clear as to why this was a bad law. We would be in a better position to go back and write a good law.

Unfortunately, the thing the progressive scientists are doing with their insistence on using underhanded methods to manipulate the debate is entrenching and strengthening their opposition.