Planned Parenthood and the Myth of the Sheepish, Dependent, Ethically Mono-chromed Woman

Planned Parenthood use the term “women” to demarcate a group they support, trust, and represent. Since not all women want to be supported, trusted or represented by Planned Parenthood, we must charitably assume that the organization is referring to an idea of women, and not to that actual, wonderful population — les personnes de sexe féminin. As such, Planned Parenthood are responsible for defining the boundaries of their idea, i.e. when they say “women want _____” they implicitly exclude women who “don’t want _____”  from their category of “women.” Our task is to answer the question: “How is Planned Parenthood’s category of “women” currently being defined?” 

Consider the current debates regarding the question of whether employers ethically opposed to acts of (non-medical) contraception ought to be required by the federal government to pay for their employees’ contraceptive devices via a health insurance plan. To convince the public that employers indeed ought to, Planned Parenthood have coined the slogan “Not my boss’ business” and encouraged women to subsume their thought under it.

The conceptual transubstantiation required to get the phrase “Not my boss’ business” out of the demand that my “boss” pay for my contraceptive devices makes me tickle. It is akin to saying “Because you have nothing to do with my sex life, provide for the contraceptive devices that make up a crucial part of my sex life,” or “Because it is not your business if I have an IUD, pay for my IUD.” It occasions such sublime despair over our human capacity to make any damn sense that I find myself wishing Planned Parenthood would rise victorious — if only that they could move on to a better slogan. Add “provide contraception” to the list of fundamental duties an employer has to employees, fine — just don’t do it on the basis that your employer has nothing to do with contraception. By the actions of the HHS Mandate we are obviously, blindingly obviously giving our bosses a direct relation to our sex lives, an economic interest previously non-existent, and a business in our bedroom I promise will get creepy.

But it makes sense in its own way. To give it crowd-appeal, to make it Facebook-worthy, to craft a narrative in which ideological propositions achieve their highest level of you’d-have-to-be-an-inhuman-ball-of-mysogonistic-fire-hate-to-diasagee-with-this, the debate — which, in the courts, is being held over the complex issue of religious freedom — needs to be reduced to something of godlike simplicity: “Women need birth control and their bosses are denying them it.”

But we are interested in the effects political decision on Planned Parenthood’s idea of women. Having determined that the political battle will rage between “sex-involving-your-boss” and “sex-without-your-boss,” an aesthetic was created to promote and defend this construction — via graphics, videos, press releases, slogans, bumper-stickers and the whole abysmal slew of American politics. Since Planned Parenthood are using representations of women to craft this aesthetic — and if what we said is true, that in representing an idea of women over the diverse and disagreeable particular women they are also defining who fits and who doesn’t fit into their idea — then this aesthetic becomes a valuable tool in determining how Planned Parenthood define their category.

The first noticeable decision is that all women are represented as employees — and all their employers are men. To use a few examples from the media shared on Planned Parenthood Action’s Facebook page…

Shared March 15th
Shared March 20th

Of course, bosses are not only always men, they are also Monopoly Men — caricatures of obese, greedy, for-profit CEOs.


Shared March 30th

It is no matter that the majority of the organizations suing the federal government are non-profit organizations, many of whose oppressive force over their employees amounts to giving them one scoop instead of two from the leftovers of the soup-kitchen line — The Little Sisters of the Poor and Catholic Charities, to name a few. What matters is that the narrative presented effectively inspires the support of a media-consuming public.

But this political success — for it is an immense success — is simultaneously an ideological failure in terms of Planned Parenthood’s idea of women, who are never represented as holding positions of power. Women are the weak. Never mind that many of the “bosses” suing the federal government for forcing them to violate their ethical principles are women, like Lilli Johnson of Johnson Welded Products, Inc., Catherine A. Hartenbower of Hart Electric, LLC, Karen A. Mersino of Mersino Management Company, or Mary Jo Feltl of Feltl and Company Inc. A female boss refusing to conform with a “pro-contraception” law does not fit the narrative which will most effectively convince the public — a narrative which, to judge the media produced, amounts to that riveting bedtime story — “Bad Male Boss Oppresses Good Female Worker.” By ignoring female leaders for the sake of their political goals, Planned Parenthood unintentionally reinforce the gender inequality they rightly stand against. In representing their idea of the “women” they support and defend through the exclusion of the female boss and the over-accentuation of the male boss, Planned Parenthood have implicitly tended their idea of women towards the rank of the employee, and more than that, towards the victimized employee.

Again, this reduction of women to the category of the employed works extremely well. Who could give anything but support to a timid, bewildered-looking female employee being denied her fundamental needs by a male employer who looks like he just stepped off the set of Mad Men to steal hot chocolate from orphans?

But an argument might be made that within Planned Parenthood’s picture of women as employees is not so much the implication that she cannot or will not be a boss, but rather that — if she were a boss — she would not be opposed to paying for contraception. Now that this is factually false is obvious. Again, many of the employers suing the United States government are women. Many of the plaintiffs in general are women, like Stacy Molai or Sister Mary Catherine. And even if this were not the case, the mere fact that there are woman on this planet who are ethically opposed to paying for your non-medical contraceptive devices — who assumedly would not ditch such a conviction upon becoming a boss — this is enough to question the idea implicit in Planned Parenthood’s aesthetic, that “women — if they were employers — would have no problem paying for their employees’ contraceptives.” But again, the question is not whether Planned Parenthood are being factually accurate, but how they are defining their idea of women in their representation of “women” over against the diversity and disagreement of actual, particular women.

Here, women are incredibly mono-chromed. They are denied an ethical existence in the realm of sexuality. The Planned Parenthood idea of a woman is someone who could not possibly have an conflict between the precepts of an ethical code and the demand of employees that she pay for their contraception. “Having the proper views regarding contraception” has become a border which contains Planned Parenthood’s idea of a woman, and particular women must conform to this if they are cross the border and be included in the category.

Here we see a similarity in Planned Parenthood’s claim to represent “women” in their promotion of abortion access — despite the majority of women opposing legal abortion in all or most cases (20%, 37% respectively). Against all factual evidence, “women” are made synonymous with “pro-choice women.” “Women,” as Planned Parenthood uses the term, are synonymous with “pro-HHS-Mandate women.” In short, “women” are defined as those type of creatures who, by their very nature, agree with Planned Parenthood.

This is the logical consequence of speaking for “women” as a general category. Either your idea of women will conform to the truth about the views and positions of actual women — which will require it to become as detailed, descriptive and complex as the subject matter demands — or your idea will conform particular women unto itself. Since Planned Parenthood are speaking for “women” over and against the actual positions of particular women, I can only assume that the latter is true, that their use of the word refers to a certain category, the shape of which comes to light in their inability to represent “women” as leaders ethically-convicted against the ideology of Planned Parenthood. Women are those types of creatures who agree with Planned Parenthood, and thus they can be “stood for” and “spoken for” by the institution without contradiction.

Now while understand Planned Parenthood’s need to categorize for the sake of rhetoric — something I am certainly guilty of, as are most organizations who operate in a rhetorical mode — allow me a minor-league, existential table-flip against this impossibly paternalistic “speaking for women” that plagues America’s political scene. Women speak for themselves. Admitting this — which involves admitting that women are often your self-proclaimed enemies — is one of the most pro-woman moves a “pro-woman” institution can make. It is not an act of female treason to oppose Planned Parenthood, no, it is precisely an act of assertion that affirms “women” as neither this nor that pre-defined thing, there to be stood for, spoken for, and blithely represented. Women belong to themselves, thinking, acting and feeling out of a locus of personal interiority that no other can grasp, and on which no institution can claim a privileged access point. This incommunicable interiority is revealed in disagreement, which asserts the person against the paradigm, the ideology and the zeitgeist. The recognition of female opposition is one of the highest honors anyone who dares make the general statement “we support women” can bestow. If you believe that women are free, they must be free to disagree, free, even, to be detested by you — precisely as women. Denying this is the proposal of a universal feminine sheepishness that would never assert itself contrarily.

But this is what Planned Parenthood do in their easy, reductive schema that drives a media-consuming public from position to position. They present women as a type of being impossibly passive to their own ideology — as equatable with their ideology. The religious convictions, ethical decisions, and moral concerns that daily call all others to assert themselves in freedom — even if it is against the opinion of the entire world — these are expected to be quashed upon entry into Planned Parenthood’s category of “women.” There is no place for an ethically-convicted, independent woman within their aesthetic, simply because their narrative must remain one in which “good, female employees need contraception, and their bad, male employers are denying them it.”

"Hi! My name is Christian and I am a Christian. I found your article interesting ..."

So You Still Think Homosexuality Is ..."
"What would it take to convert you to atheism?"

Towards a New Argument Against Pornography
"I remember my dad smoking a pipe in the house when I was young. It ..."

How (And Why) To Smoke a ..."
"Andy went to Church and Mass almost daily, prayed the rosary and kept a missal ..."

5 People It’s Easy to Forget ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Korou

    A rather bitter post, trying to use wordplay to poke loopholes. I usually expect better from Bad Catholic.

    • xuinkrbin

      I see no bitterness in this article. Where do You see bitterness?

    • Montague

      I think you trivialize the reasoning at hand. At any rate, one could accuse Socrates himself of “wordplay to poke loopholes” – if it be not presumptuous to make that connection to an internet blog.

      Rather than offer a vague assertion without any explication, would you be so kind (for our enlightenment as to your actual thoughts) as to explain in greater detail why you make this claim? It would be much appreciated by the curious (:

      • Korou

        Not really, old chap – I think it would dignify it too much.

        • Montague

          (I’m flattered but incorrectly characterized by “old” chap :P) Again, you assert, but how am I supposed to be convinced without reasons? What do we mean by trivialize and dignity? I propose a rubric – triviality is true if the brunt of an argument “misses the main issue.” Dignity is lacking if, in the same way, the main issue is forgotten, and the side-matter becomes elevated to the main – that is to say, the thing is frivolous.

          By saying the post was bitter, I assume you mean “overcome by so much bitterness as to be distracted from rational argument.” Simply being bitter can’t invalidate reasoning, or else most Satirists are incapable of logic…

  • Brian Formica

    Not bad, you’ve made some great insights – the likes of which make your blog my favorite. But, if I may offer critique, maybe it could have (should have?) been done in less words. Point out the pro-woman thing to do is let women speak for themselves. That was great. It seemed to me, though, that you were making some grand extrapolations after the graphics. Rather, don’t pull ideas from graphics but attack the philosophy at its roots and use the graphics as examples.

    • guest

      Let women speak for themselves? But surely there are women who are part of planned parenthood or who support it financially and so, when Planned Parenthood speaks, so do a lot of women.

      • wineinthewater

        Planned Parenthood does speak for some women. But that is the point, only *some*. Yet they create a definition of woman that excludes the rather large portion of women for whom they do not speak, and claim a legitimacy for their position as “the woman’s position” that is false.

    • ChevalierdeJohnstone

      Fewer words. Less is for amounts, fewer is for quantities.

      • Brian Formica

        Now I’m all red-in-the-cheeks. I guess I should be better at talking about numbers, seeing as I teach math. Thanks!

  • xuinkrbin

    I think this flows nicely from one point to the next.

  • JethroElfman

    Except that Hobby Lobby used to include birth control in their insurance. Why did they grow a conscience all of a sudden?

    • Sven2547

      When a Democrat told them to keep doing what they had done all along. It’s partisan hackery using religion as a smokescreen.

    • Tom

      They object to a few of the drugs that they believe to be abortifacients. It’s also entirely possible to believe that, while you would personally have no trouble covering these services, others shouldn’t be forced to violate their religious beliefs to do so.

      • Carolina

        Those drugs aren’t abortifacients. Those are lies.

        • Tom

          Whether they technically are or aren’t is immaterial. If we assume they’re just another kind of contraceptive, they could easily state that they oppose those kinds of contraceptives but not others, and their case would be no less valid for it.

          • Carolina

            So they can oppose to cover any kind of medication if they feel like it? That’s disturbing.

          • Tom

            The plaintiffs are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states that “the government ‘shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion’ unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest” (from SCOTUSblog). More important medical procedures than contraceptives (and possible abortifacients) such as blood transfusions and vaccinations and whatnot may still be necessary for a compelling governmental interest. Of course, by granting exemptions to certain religious groups such as churches, the Obama administration has already admitted that the coverage of these drugs is less important than vaccinations, blood transfusions, and so on.

          • Carolina

            The birth control that a female employer choses or needs to take is not infringing on the employer’s religious freedom. Health care insurance is part of the compensation for work.

          • Tom

            Indeed, it isn’t. For exactly that reason, you can go out and get any contraceptive you so desire. You even can get a hysterectomy if the mood strikes you. But being forced to pay for it as part of a health insurance package is an infringement, and that is exactly why Hobby Lobby and many others are seeking a religious exemption to the mandate.

          • Carolina

            I really don’t see how is an infringement. I would love some clarification.

          • Tom

            Making me pay for something that I find objectionable because of my religious beliefs violates my ability to freely exercise my religion. To use a stock example, it would be a violation of religious liberty for the government to force a Jewish company to buy food containing pork or shellfish or meat and dairy for their employees. While the employees can certainly go elsewhere for their bacon cheeseburgers or lobsters, their employers cannot be made to pay for them.

          • Carolina

            I thoght that the Church’s prohibition to Artificial Birth Control was: a couple taking artificial means to prevent pregnancy and disrupting what yo have said is the purpose of sex.
            Extending that to not putting birth control on the health insurance for your employees that might not be catholic, sounds like playing fast and loose with the concept of religious liberty. No employer is being forced to take birth control themselves.

          • Tom

            The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, that is, it is always and everywhere wrong to frustrate the natural end of intercourse (medical need for these devices as a side effect of which intercourse is rendered infertile is not evil, per the doctrine of double effect).

            Because it is intrinsically evil, and not just a church law (like, say, abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent), Catholics cannot support others in using contraception. Paying for it, as part of a health care plan, would support it. Therefore, Catholics are being asked to violate their right to free exercise of their religion.

          • Carolina

            Even with your explanation, it seems like overstretching the concept of religious freedom.

          • Tom

            Why is that?

          • Carolina

            This is not about the beliefs of the person. The person is not the same as the enterprise or corporation that person founded or directs. Corporations are not people, and are bound to a different set of rules. Unless you can establish that corporations are people, this seems like overstretching a right given to people to corporations

          • Tom

            Corporations, in US law, are legal entities having some of the rights of persons. For example, they have the right to free speech, to form contracts, to equal protection, and so on. At least for privately held firms, they (and by extension their owners) should not be compelled to violate their beliefs in this manner.

            Public corporations are a somewhat thornier matter, but there does not seem to be a reason why their board of directors couldn’t include this as a company policy. But this is a separate issue.

          • Ron Turner

            You need some brains.

          • Carolina

            Completely uncalled for insult. I have been very civil and respectful even when I disagree with the majority of people here. I tend to expect the same treatment.

          • ChevalierdeJohnstone

            Yet Carolina had been neither civil nor respectful. Instead this person pretended to engage in honest debate while refusing to ever attempt to understand or consider the opposing argument. In an honest debate each participant must posit the possibility that they will be convinced by the other side’s argument. Carolina has confused being civil and respectful with the use of civil and respectful language. It doesn’t matter what kind of words you use honey, when you lie about and misrepresent your intentions, that is neither civil nor respectful, it’s lying.

            Those who responded in depth to Carolina consistently re-stated points of the pro-abortion argument, which Carolina might have corrected, if their characterization were at all incorrect. In response, Carolina consistently attempted to reframe the debate so as to avoid responding to any of the arguments offered. See for example the exchange between Carolina and Tom. Carolina first mischaracterized the Church’s reasons for opposing contraception. Tom responded to point out the mischaracterization. Instead of revising the pro-abortion argument, Carolina completely changes tack and introduces an entirely new concept, that persons who work for a corporation may be forced to violate their religious principles by the means of their employment. (Of course Carolina doesn’t have the honesty to come out and make this claim directly.)

            This is a standard secular-liberal tactic of (false) argumentation. Carolina refuses to engage in honest debate and instead deliberately maintains an air of obtuseness regarding the opposing point of view. In mushy world of secular liberalism, failure to understand the opposing argument and respond with an appropriate counter-argument is evidence of argumentative applomb. But in reality it is simply evidence of stupidity.

            There is nothing wrong with being stupid. Willful maintenance of that stupidity indicates, however, a misrepresentation of intent. Either Carolina is not really that stupid and does understand the opposing argument, and is simply not willing to engage in any real exchange of dialogue. Or Carolina doesn’t care what the opposing argument says and has no intention of trying to learn about it, in which case rather waste others’ time engaging in a back-and-forth pretence of dialectical exchange, Carolina ought to have done what I am going to do, which is to post this and never check it again, since there is absolutely nothing I would care to learn from a stupid liar.

            Lest I be convicted of being uncivil, I will remind everyone that telling the truth is not defamation, and furthermore that observing a relative lack of intellect and a relative dearth of veracity are objective qualities, not personal insults.

          • Ron Turner

            What disease does the “medication” cure?

          • GoodCatholicGirl

            Well, a few gynecological ailments may not be cured by taking the pill but symptoms are certainly alleviated – reduction of crippling pain, heavy or unpredictable periods, to name a few. And please, unless you’ve gone to medical college, do not tell women that the BCP is not ever the answer, as some have done in these posts. They seem to insinuate that there are other, more natural ways to treat gynecological problems that are just as good.
            And Viagra and it’s ilk? Is it OK to allow those medications to be covered?

        • Lily

          Well now, that depends on how you define “abortion”, doesn’t it? Or are you proposing, as I have seen some do, that the morning after pill prevents pregnancy exclusively in a manner that could only work if the sex had taken place (and the pill was take) before ovulation?

          If you admit that one of the mechanisms by which the morning after pill “prevents” pregnancy is by preventing implantation of the fertilised embryo, and that the pill taken as a regular contraceptive can have the same effect, then it is not a matter of “lies”: it is a matter of people who have made it clear that they consider life to begin at contraception, versus people who will loudly and repeatedly claim that the morning after pill does not cause abortions, without clarifying that it does actually prevent implantation which is what is being objected to.

          But since I doubt you consider the implanted embryo, or the fetus, to be a living human person with a right to life anyway, it actually doesn’t matter to you whether the pill causes the bundle of humanity to die before or after implantation.

          • Lily

            (Sorry, technical issues)

            Just as, to people who consider the embryo and fetus to be a living human person from the moment of conception, the distinction of whether something prevents implantion or causes detachment of an already implanted person is irrelevant.

          • Carolina

            Personhood is not really the issue here. Abortion has its definition, embryos that don’t implant are not covered by it. However, the main and only proven mechanism for those drugs is the one that prevents ovulation.
            Embryos that don’t implant are a common enough occurrence (around 50% of embryos), with or without hormonal contraception.
            For the drugs to be abortifacients you would have to prove that those embryos didn’t implant because the woman was using contraception. Then you would have to provide the mechanism responsible for that non implantation that was caused by the drugs. It’s a tricky subject.

          • Ron Turner

            You lie again!

          • Dagnabbit_42

            Ah, I see what you’re doing there: Grabbing a dictionary definition which specifically defines “abortion” as “causing the death of the child AFTER implantation” and saying, “Well, if it’s PRIOR to implantation, it isn’t abortion, QED.”

            But, you see, pro-life participants in these debates use the term “abortion” for these things as a courtesy to the other side. It is a medical-sounding term, offering a degree of clinical detachment. If you really **desire** that the pro-life side start saying, “willful child-murder, either pre-implantation or post-implantation” I’m sure that they can accommodate you. But I thought the tone of the debate was better-served by using the more detached term.

            As for “tricky subject”: I agree that it’s a tricky subject if one is attempting to determine whether God is morally liable for the deaths of embryos which don’t implant when this occurs apart from the mother’s intention: You get into theodicy and how the world would have worked apart from the Fall and all of that.

            But in the case of abortifacient drugs — I am returning to the courtesy definition, you see — it isn’t particularly complex. For they cause a thinning of the lining of the uterine wall compared to its normal state in that part of the cycle, making unavailable the blood supply and soft-tissue points which allow embryos to implant. Implantation requires a number of things to succeed; having one’s uterine tissue not be in this state is one of them.

            When one yanks out from underneath another person some aspect of the status quo which is required for them to stay alive, it **may** be that some other factor killed them, but you remain morally responsible for willfully inducing a situation which put them in danger of death. I believe the term in American law is “depraved indifference” (but I defer to the expertise of others on that).

        • Ron Turner

          You lie!

          • Lamont Cranston

            Do you rape the children yourself, or just hold them down for priests?

        • Dagnabbit_42

          Um, yes they are.

        • Aman

          Carolina, you are absolutely wrong. Oral contraceptives also act as abortifacients by disrupting implantation. This is undeniable and for a quick reference ad to what I am asserting simply check the drug information sheet that comes with BCPs. You couldn’t be more wrong on this.

  • Carolina

    Birth control is not only used for contraception… Denying its coverage harms women with endometriosis, PCOS, dysmenorrhoea and dysphoric PMS. That’s a completely private matter between doctor and patient: deciding the best treatment option for her.

    • If hormonal medications are used to treat endometriosis, etc., they are by definition not “birth control,” but treatment for those conditions. Nobody that I know of is recommending a substance-ban on hormonal medications. That would be considering them like controlled substances, like THC or opiates.

      Even with those drugs, there is a significant difference between medical use (diamorphine) and recreational use (heroin). Likewise, there is a significant difference between using a hormonal medication to treat a medical condition and using the same chemicals to prevent fertilization or implantation of a zygote.

      It is the latter use which many object to as not truly medical, as optional, and as at least potentially immoral.

      • Carolina

        I don’t think that such distinction is being made, some employers just don’t want to cover contraceptives in the health insurance for the employees.
        But I find baffling that an employer thinks that he or she has any say over the morality of medication for any employee.
        Hormonal birth control doesn’t interfere with implantation, it prevents ovulation. I would like to know who was the person that said otherwise.
        The other thing is: there is no difference between hormonal therapy for any pathology that I listed and contraception. They are the same. This is not hormonal replacement therapy.

        • These employers find it baffling that contraceptives (that is, hormonal medications prescribed for the purpose of birth control) – particularly those that are possibly abortifacient – are considered “medication”, and “preventive medication” at that.

          Let’s say that heroin/diamorphine was prescribed, not for control of physical pain, but for recreational use. That would be, I think, morally controversial.

          Now, let’s say that this morally controversial “treatment” was placed in a privileged category of treatments, subsidizing it so that it would be free-to-the-patient. This is done exactly to incentivize use of this treatment. On top of this, every health plan is required to include heroin in this privileged category of treatment.

          Finally, as an employer, you are no longer given the option of not providing a health plan for your employees.

          If you find the requirement to subsidize heroin for your employees morally objectionable, what are your options? Especially if you are eager to provide your employees with all the non-controversial benefits of medical coverage?

          Perhaps this “what if” example will give a sense of why employers are objecting to the HHS mandate. You may disagree over whether contraceptives are essential or optional, but this is exactly where the moral debate lies. These people have logical reasons for believing that contraceptives – at least some of them – are in fact harmful rather than medicinal. They consider themselves complicit in both crime and sin if they comply with this mandate.

          • Carolina

            Birth control is not heroin. Period.
            I know several women that have been advised against getting pregnant for health reasons. For them pregnancy is life threatening and birth control helps them prevent serious hazards to their health, even death.
            Birth control is also prescribed alongside potentially teratogenic medication, I was prescribed Jazmin when I had to take accutane (some medication for mental health diseases also comes to mind). In this case I fail to see how is birth control harmful or in any way similar to heroin. Is better to delay pregnancy until you’re off that medication.
            And lastly, from a completely utilitarian point of view, covering birth control is cheaper than pregnancy. Covering it just makes sense. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but sn unwanted pregnancy can be quite shattering for a person.

          • I understand, and agree with everything you said, except for your statement that birth control is cheaper than pregnancy, and obviously that “covering it just makes sense.” Perhaps that’s because I’m not a utilitarian. That philosophy tends to treat people like things, and I can’t abide that.

            The question is, do you understand where those who oppose the HHS mandate are coming from?

            I don’t care if you disagree. I simply want you to understand the reasoning behind their position, just as I’ve taken pains to understand the reasoning behind your position.

          • Carolina

            I understand, and think is misguided borderline religious imposition.
            I am really not an utilitarian myself, but is an argument I’ve heard before.

          • Dagnabbit_42


            Synthetic hormones are not heroin; nor are oranges grapefruit; but you do your side of the debate no credit by willfully making yourself too dim to perceive the other side’s argument.

            When a substance is used as a pain-killer, it is a pain-killer; but when it is used to serve an addiction and to get high, the common usage is “narcotic” or simply “drug.”

            Likewise, when a substance is used to help the human body function correctly one can plausibly assign it a name with therapeutic overtones. But when one is using the very same substance to thwart the healthy function of the body, it is disingenuous to call it by its therapeutic label. The analogy to morphine is perfectly sound.

            So you see that protecting the conscience rights of employers who are unwilling to offend God or their own consciences by participating in the sins of another does NOT, in fact, mean that said employers would never be paying for their employees to use estriadol or synthetic progestin in a therapeutic fashion. It means solely that the employers would never be paying for their employees to use these substances to render themselves temporarily incapable of carrying a baby to term.

            This allows the employers in question to avoid immoral action while allowing employees access to therapeutic drugs when they would be using the drugs for therapeutic purposes: “First, do no harm.”

        • Aman

          Oral contraceptives absolutely do interfere with implantation. It is designed to be that way because they do not always prohibit contraception.

    • Aman

      Birth control pills only treat the symptoms of endometriosis and PCOS. It is not a cure in the least. While using BCPs to treat the symptoms, the disease progresses. This is lazy medicine. Check out Naprotechnology website.

  • Guest

    How come they keep showing the boss as a guy? How sexist is that?

  • Maree

    Bravo! Part of my experience as an adult woman has been a creeping sensation that I am viewed as some sort of outsider, or even a simpleton, because I am anti-abortion and don’t much care for PP as an organization. I guess I may as well be a man.

    One thing you didn’t delve into–although I suspect you were hinting that this will follow in your next post–is that PP is a business, first and foremost. Their market is 99.99% (give or take) women; it is in their best interest to advertise in such a way that they solidify their market through ego-stroking. Despite the upsetting deceptions of working women you pointed out, they are trying their darnest to convince women that being successful, modern and stylish includes being “enlightened” about the necessity of birth control. They know they can’t sell their products to women who disagree. They know they need to do everything in their power to marginalize those women–at least, that’s how I feel I’m personally being treated. They also know that a good ad campaign creates buyers.

    (They also seem to believe that women of particular ethnic backgrounds should be given special attention, but as I said, suspect you’re going to get into that with your next post. I’ve already gone on longer than a comment ought. Long-time reader, first-time leaving a comment. o,

  • Jennifer Elizabeth

    The world become changed and human changed his/her life style, But at this moment they for-gate how gain better sex with better love