Romney: Unclear on the concept or a stealth abortion extremist?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On his TV show earlier this month, former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee asked current GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, "Would you have supported a Constitutional Amendment that would have established the definition of life (as beginning at) conception?"

It wasn't a random query. So-called "personhood" amendments decreeing that the moment a human sperm fertilizes a human egg the cellular entity acquires the full legal protections afforded to every individual-- are an increasingly popular tactic of those who oppose abortion rights.

Such a measure in on the ballot in Mississippi next month and Personhood USA claims to have petition drives going to advance the idea in the other 49 states.

"Absolutely," answered Romney.

Critics point out that one problem with this idea is that it would hamper the ability of physicians to help women with ectopic pregnancies -- potentially life-threatening situations in which the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, generally in the fallopian tubes.

Another is that several common forms of birth control -- intra-uterine devices and hormone-regulating pills -- prevent pregnancy by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

So a "personhood" law, if enacted, would have to outlaw popular birth control methods, a result that many could fairly call extreme.

At a Sioux City, Iowa campaign event Thursday, a voter stood to ask Romney about his position:

"That would essentially mean banning most forms of birth control. Ninety eight percent of American women, including me, use birth control. So can you help me understand why you oppose the use of birth control?"

"I don't," Romney said. Then added a ironic dollop of condescension, "I'm sorry, life begins at conception, birth control prevents conception."

I'm sorry, too, Mitt, but not only does your answer display basic ignorance about birth control, it's in conflict with your public statement earlier this year that "abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother."

Yes, you'd think this country and this campaign would have more important things to dwell upon right now than the old warhorse social issue of abortion. But it looks as though it will keep popping up in the GOP primary race as the candidates seek to define themselves as more anti-abortion than thou.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/10/nopill.html

[sandinista! 1,816]

Not exactly. The primary mechanism and first line  of defense against pregnancy occurring in those contraceptive methods is to prevent ovulation. And they are very, very good at doing so. Secondly they act on cervical mucus to make it inhospitable for sperm cells to navigate through. Lastly would be hormonally altering the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. But it's not even a given that this even happens. Not all researchers agree that it even happens at all. It requires a pretty big leap of faith- your hormonal birth control fails to prevent ovulation, so an egg is present. Fail. Then that same bc fails to affect the cervical mucus, enabling those sperm cells to just come on in and find that amazing egg. Fail. And so then finally, miracle of miracles, after letting the very unlikely 1st and 2nd fails to occur, suddenly that birth control gets all back on track and stops failing to become successful at something- preventing implantation of the fertilized egg-an egg that shouldn't exist, fertilized by sperm who should never have made it past cervical mucus that should have been more difficult to travel through than the sahara desert. It's quite a stretch to say that's how contraceptive pills and iuds work.  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10561657/