Blog for Choice: Pataki and Romney play games with women's lives

« NARAL Pres. responds to USA Today | Main | How They Could Destroy Roe Without Overturning It »

August 1, 2005

Pataki and Romney play games with women's lives

Did you know that Governor Pataki of New York is planning to run for president in 2008? Or that Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has similar plans? What else do these to Governors have in common? They are both Republicans and they are both willing to play games with women's health and lives for political gain.

For such games have a great reward for them: the support of right-wing fundamentalists. In this case the issue is whether the so-called morning-after pill should be available without prescription. Pataki and Romney, together with most of the wingnuts, think that this contraceptive should not be available over the counter. Why? Well, Pataki mumbles something about possible side-effects among young women, but here is the real answer:

The pill, which has been shown to be effective at preventing pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, has been at the center of a national debate. It is classified as a contraceptive and acts in most cases by preventing ovulation or fertilization. Because it may also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, it has also become a flashpoint in the debate over abortion.

Never mind that proponents of the pill think its availability over-the-counter could prevent 80,000 abortions per year in New York state. Never mind that there are no actual studies which would measure how likely it is that the fertilized egg can't implant in the uterus when the pill is taken. Never mind that trying to avoid such extremely unlikely "abortions" will result in many more real ones. Never mind any of this, it's only women's issues, and as we all know real politics is about something quite different.

But it is still about women's lives.

Posted by at August 1, 2005 11:15 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogforchoice.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2718

Comments

I thought that the "protecting minors" claim was a truly bizarre one. The bottom line is that if a young woman needs the morning after pill, something already has gone wrong. Aside from the weird paternalistic creepiness of the "protecting young women from themselves" set of ideas, you've already obviously failed to do that if the young woman in question is in a situation where she needs to prevent a pregnancy at the last minute. Not to mention, I'm sure the health risks of the morning after pill are far less serious than the risks to a young woman of carrying a pregnancy to term--and those are just the health risks, not the social and economic and even psychological risks of being forced to carry a child she doesn't want and isn't prepared for.

Posted by: thistle at August 1, 2005 4:36 PM

It really irritates me that Pataki wants to keep calling himself pro-choice despite the fact that he just vetoed EC legislation. Even more irritating is the fact that he signed legislation requiring EC in the ER a couple of years ago. How is this different??

Don't even get me started on Romney, Mr. I've been pretended to be pro-choice the whole time I was in office.

These guys should get awards for pandering to the conservatives. Do they really think that the anti-choice movement is going to forget and not hold against them any action that could be considered "pro-abortion" while they were in office??

Posted by: frooms21 at August 1, 2005 4:36 PM

Did Romney pretend to be pro-choice? I just recall him pledging not to change the status quo in MA by making it either easier or harder to get an abortion. Granted, I haven't followed him that closely, so I may have missed it. Anyway--if Pataki signed legislation requiring EC in emergency rooms that puts him a step ahead of Romney. The MA bill would have required ER doctors to offer rape victims EC, and he vetoed it.

Posted by: thistle at August 1, 2005 6:15 PM