Illinois Ruling on Emergency Contraception Is A Modern-Day Monkey Scopes
Yesterday, an Illinois Judge turned over a state rule requiring pharmacists to sell emergency contraception, asserting that it violates a state "right-of-conscience" law and the First Amendment.
How "free speech" has come to be interpreted as a right to deny a safe and legal prescription and directly control the inner workings of another person's body is an inexplicable overreach, and judicial activism of the worst kind. It is also sexism, as it is directed only toward women.
This ruling represents a triumph of superstition over science. Like the "Monkey Scopes" trial less than 100 years ago, in which religious fundamentalism scored a temporary triumph over a large body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution, the entire premise of this "conscience" has no basis in science.
Some people who don't support abortion rights also don't support the right to emergency contraception, and to justify their second belief they claim that emergency contraception is abortion. However, the facts don't back that up.
Implantation is the first step of a pregnancy, as recognized by the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association and other respected medical institutions. Emergency contraception prevents implantation before it occurs -- that is why it's called emergency contraception. It's a contraceptive. It's not an abortifacient. The American Medical Association debated the issue, and after a period of review, rejected the idea that emergency contraceptives are abortifacients.
It's really bizarre for "pro-life" pharmacists to try to stop women from accessing emergency contraception, because emergency contraception makes it less likely that women who are currently not pregnant and do not want to be pregnant will seek abortions in the near future.
Yesterday's ruling is a horrific moment for reason, and more important, the health, lives and well-being of women and their families in the state of Illinois. The Attorney General has announced an appeal is planned, and that's a good thing.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2011/04/military-clearances-sexual-assault-040111w/
Military sexual assault victims applying for or renewing security clearances must report any counseling received for sexual trauma, revealing intimate details to background investigators — and risking their clearance status as a result of their answers.
Thanks for bringing up your point because I have noticed a parallel problem regarding sexual assault victims applying for national security clearance.
Applicants are exempt from reporting counseling received regarding trauma related to combat. No such protection is extended to victims of violent crime who have sought counseling.
The newly revised "leniency" toward combat veterans is an appropriately lauded development intended to encourage military PTSD sufferers to seek the help they need. Taking into account that only men are acknowledged as taking part in military combat and that non-combat PTSD incidence is higher in women than in men, this partial leniency clearly favors men for the prestigious, well-paying jobs requiring a national security clearance.
I do see large steps being taken within the DoD for military sexual assault victims. Any thoughts on the shortcomings of the newly-minted "Sexual Assault Prevention And Response Office" (http://www.sapr.mil/) ?
Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.