Category: Contraception

Categories
Contraception Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Promote Health

Quick, how many children does each of the presidential and vice presidential candidates have?

I knew that Michelle and Barack Obama have two daughters, but I had to search to find out about the other candidates. Joe and Jill Biden had four; two sons and two daughters, but tragically one daughter was killed in an accident. Ann and Mitt Romney have five sons, and Paul and Janna Ryan have two sons and one daughter.

Demographers have found that normal, healthy couples who don’t use any birth control will have an average at least eight children during their fertile years. In the past many of those children would have died, causing human populations to be stable. With modern health care (like all the candidates’ families have) fortunately almost all children will live to adulthood. Because of the small family size of all candidates, we can assume that they all have used contraception.

Yet some of these candidates wish to limit access to contraception. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan cosponsored H.R. 212, the “Sanctity of Human Life Act”, which is at variance with the medical definition of conception. This bill defines a human being’s life as starting at the unknowable instant sperm and egg unite. Courts could use this rule, if it were to become law, to prevent not only all abortions but also to outlaw the most effective methods of contraception. If it were to become law, H.R. 212 would be a public health disaster!

For centuries well-to-do people have had smaller families than the poor. Indeed, limiting family size has been a way that the rich have gained their wealth. Poor people currently have less access to birth control, unfortunately, and are less reliable in its use.

The United States of America was created on the premise of equal opportunity (“…all men are created equal….”) One way of increasing equality is to provide the means for all people to regulate their fertility. The Affordable Care Act is certainly one of the largest steps our country has ever taken toward equality.

We live in an outstanding nation. We have the richest economy in the world, but we are far from having the best health care in spite of spending more money per capita on health than any other nation.

Here are some health facts. Almost half (49 %) of pregnancies conceived in the USA are unplanned. This helps to explain why our abortion rate is so much higher than the rate in any other rich country. International statistics show that where abortion is illegal it is actually more common. Outlawing abortion, as some candidates promise, might increase its frequency, and women would suffer from illegal procedures.

The numbers are a bit out of date, but (according to the World Health Association) the USA is inferior to many poorer countries in the quality of its health care. We ranked number 37, behind Greece, Costa Rica and Dominica. Why is this? All of the world’s 25 richest countries have universal health coverage—except for the USA. Even our neighbor to the south, Mexico, recently instituted universal health coverage.

The rich can afford insurance and access to excellent health care in the USA. Unfortunately, our lack of universal health coverage leaves more than 48 million people in our great country without health insurance. Many of these poor people wait until too late to access care, and others inappropriately seek routine treatment through emergency rooms. It is no wonder that our health statistics are so bad.

Throwing more money at health cannot solve this public health tragedy. This point is proven by the fact that many countries with poorer economies have better health statistics. We need a new system of health care insurance with universal coverage.

One of our two presidential candidates has designed a health insurance system that will provide coverage to most people in our country. It will provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions, for young people before they have insurance through work and it will protect people with terrible illnesses from bankruptcy. The other candidate has promised to tear down universal coverage. If Mitt Romney is elected I expect that our health statistics will get even worse.

Please vote in this election. Please think about what will happen if women lose the reproductive rights that we have fought for. And please consider the state of our health care system when you are considering which candidates to choose for president and vice president. Our present lack of universal healthcare coverage is a national (and international) disgrace.

© Richard Grossman MD, 2012

Categories
Action Contraception Population Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Smash Amendment 62

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

Imagine this scenario. Anne, a young mother of three small children, recently noted low abdominal discomfort and bloating. She is horrified to learn that she may have ovarian cancer—but even more horrified to learn that the necessary surgery cannot be performed in Colorado.
If Amendment 62 passes it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: “Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of “persons”.
A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible. A lawyer—or even a physician—could have done better!
This proposed amendment is laughable. It is unclear, it is unsupportable, it is misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.
Let’s look at the problem of implementation. The word “person” appears in over 20,000 laws in our state. One current legal definition of “person” is “an autonomous being”. This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado’s lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.
You will remember that just two years ago a similar amendment was put forward. Proposed amendment 48 was a real loser! It lost in all Colorado counties. It lost by a huge margin—73 percent of voters were against it. Why did the Colorado Right to Life people do this again? Apparently they have received a message from God that this is their calling. This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person’s religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The proposed amendment would establish one set of religious beliefs as the law of the state. Doesn’t our Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibit this?
The supporters of this proposed amendment don’t stop with facts. View their incredible misrepresentation of truth at: youtube.com/user/PersonhoodUSA.
Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even “the pill” work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado. Furthermore, miscarriages would have to be investigated (to be sure that the woman hadn’t caused the pregnancy loss intentionally), adding to the parents’ emotional pain.
Oh, what about abortion? There is no provision for cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal—including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. This would not be possible under Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62. Aborting a pregnancy for a woman who had been a victim of rape or of incest would also be punished as first-degree murder.
Proposed Amendment 62 is stupid. It is poorly written and therefore would tie up lawyers and the court system. If passed, 62 would endanger women’s health care. It would make it difficult for couples to plan their families, and the already high undesired pregnancy rate would skyrocket.
Please vote in this midterm election. And please vote NO on proposed Amendment 62. To do anything else would be irresponsible!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.