UPDATE: The Denver Post's John Frank has a new story up as the Beauprez's IUD controversy grows:
Beauprez drew a rebuke from experts in the medical community who called his assertion false, while Democrats and like-minded women's rights organizations suggested it showed the candidate is out of touch.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 10 other physician organizations, as well as the Federal Drug Administration, define IUDs as contraceptives that prevent a pregnancy. An abortifacient ends a pregnancy after it has occurred.
Dr. Daniel Grossman, obstetrician and gynecologist who does reproductive research and practices in San Francisco, said the definition of a pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg is an established scientific standard. He said IUDs are not abortifacient.
"I would say in mainstream medicine this is really not a debate," Grossman said. [Pols emphasis]
UPDATE: The Yes on 67 campaign–wow:
Great to see a candidate for governor come out against abortion-causing IUDs. Thanks, @bobbeauprez #copolitics
— Yes on 67 (@Yeson67CO) October 1, 2014
No ambiguity here, folks.
Coverage of last night's debate between Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and GOP challenger Bob Beauprez at the Denver Post auditorium has zeroed in on a pivotal exchange, in which Hickenlooper presses Beauprez on his record of support for banning abortions even in cases of rape or incest–as well as measures like Personhood which could affect access to certain forms birth control. Beauprez initially seemed prepared to avoid this question, making it clear that he does not support the current Personhood measure Amendment 67–but was quickly lured into exactly the discussion he did not want to have. As John Frank and Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post reported from the scene:
When it was time for the candidates to ask each other questions, Hickenlooper pressed Beauprez about personhood, abortion and birth control. He asked whether Beauprez would support using public money to reduce abortions and teen pregnancies.
"I have no problem with people using contraception," Beauprez said.
"I have a big problem publicly funding contraceptives that are actually abortifacient."
He said he considered intrauterine devices, a common form of birth control known as IUDs, the equivalent to a drug that causes an abortion. [Pols emphasis]
Hickenlooper touted a state program that helped lower teen birth rates drop by 40 percent in five years after more than 30,000 IUDs and other implants were provided to low-income women at 68 family-planning clinics across Colorado since 2009. The cost was covered by a private anonymous donor.
Hickenlooper also asked why Beauprez was pro-life but opposed to this year’s so-called “personhood” amendment that would change the criminal code to apply to unborn children.
“You have switched on personhood in this election,” the governor said.
“I am opposed to the personhood amendment,” Beauprez countered.
“I said that,” Hickenlooper interjected.
“You said personhood. There’s a big difference,” Beauprez retorted. [Pols emphasis]
As to the question of whether or not the IUD is in fact an "abortifacient" form of birth control, meaning a type that supporters of Personhood and other "moment of fertilization" abortion bans want to outlaw, there appears to be some debate–certain types of IUDs may be able to stop a pregnancy if inserted within a few days of fertilization, but in their normal use, IUDs are intended to prevent fertilization for very long periods of time.
But folks, that doesn't really matter. Because the conversation we are having is a disaster for Colorado Republicans.
Not only does Bob Beauprez not, whether he realizes it or not, want to get into the messy details of which kinds of birth control women ought to be using, we assure you that Cory Gardner is absolutely horrified that we are talking about so-called "abortifacient" forms of birth control. The last thing Cory Gardner wants is to start interjecting qualifications about which kinds of birth control are morally okay into his Senate race. After all, he just told the world last weekend that he would "never" support legislation to ban birth control.
Well, as it turns out, it's not so crazy! The critical point to understand here: prior to Republicans realizing with Ken Buck in 2010 that this whole banning birth control thing was politically disastrous, banning "abortifacient" forms of birth control was an explicit goal of the Personhood movement. Opponents didn't just make up banning birth control as a possible "unintended consequence." It's part of the plan. Or at least it was, until Republicans were compelled to run away from the idea after women voters spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Colorado GOP in their greatest wave election since 1948.
And by taking Hickenlooper's bait, willfully ripping the scab off an issue Republicans are desperate to keep out of the headlines, Beauprez has done more to validate the Democratic "war on women" theme than any Democrat ever could. Beauprez just legitimized the very issue Gardner, and every other Republican interested in career preservation this election season, wants you to disregard.
What a way to kick off October.
He said it was crazy. He never said that wasn't their position.
Yep, Beauprez opposes the Personhood Amendment but fully supports Personhood, so there!
So let's ban abortion, ban IUDs etc. sustaining the 40% reduction in teen pregnancies because teenagers will simply stop having sex and rapists will realize that if abortion is off the table, they'll stop raping, realizing they aren't ready for fatherhood!
I look forward to hearing Gardner and Coffman explain how their anti-personhood position differ from Beauprez.
As expected the Post article was short on his confused answers, describing him as smooth and polished, while zeroing in on Hick''s defensiveness and every stutter. Never mentioned anything about BWB's support for taking public lands from the federal system which was discussed during the debate. No questions were asked about any of his many tin foil hat theories. Surprise surprise. On the bright side, few people read the rag anymore.
This is why the post has filed for bankruptcy – sad because it used to be a decent paper.
In reality, and unfortunately, the Post has more readers than this site. 🙁
But that's just for their sports coverage. And the coupons.
Don't forget the comics and Hints from Heloise.
True but not enough to trump a strong finishing ad campaign and strong GOTV.
That's good. Newspapers should have more readers than attack blogs.
And yet you are here Moddy. Do you ever think before you type ?
And factual, reality-tethered news organizations (not including the Post) should have more viewers than Fox News.
Sorry, no. You're wrong on this one. Or maybe you've used a very poor grammatical construction using the word "implanted" which a developing embryo does to the uterine wall, as opposed to "inserted", which is what a healthcare provider does with an IUD for a patient. When used as a post coital (emergency) contraceptive, which is the extreme minority of cases for which women choose this method, IUDs could conceivably prevent implantation, though this hypothetical mechanism is unprovable. There is no evidence or argument for claiming that IUD insertion will work post-implantation as a form of abortion.
You have embraced the anti-choice language and moral construct that preventing implantation is abortion or termination of pregnancy. Pregnancy is a condition in which implantation has occurred, and the hormonal and physiological changes to a woman's body have started, all of which can be observed via objective standards such as blood or urine pregnancy tests which measure these hormones. 30-70% of fertilized eggs never become a pregnancy. To define pregnancy as the presence of a fertilized egg in one's body, whether or not physiologic pregnancy has actually occurred, shifts the debate in favor of the construct that anything toxic to the developing embryo is an abortion.
This says the IUD can be used within five days as EC, like Pols says.
I don't think Pols is trying to validate Beauprez, just be technically accurate. I also don't think it matters much; Beauprez opposes a common form of birth control. Full stop. He's done.
We were indeed referring to the "insertion" of the IUD, not the "implantation" of the embryo. We'll correct that, and thanks for the clarification. We'll also defer to your definition of pregnancy–though whether the definition is fertilization or implantation of the embryo seems most relevant to those who would outlaw a women's right to choose at either stage. Neither would be an acceptable time for a majority of Colorado voters to ban reproductive choice.
It's cool, I got what you meant.
But DP is also right, the loonies are very good at forcing us into their frame. We have to be very careful to say everything the right way or they'll fly off into stupidland and take voters with them.
You are BOTH WRONG. IUDs are indeed abortifacient contraceptives.
I don't know where you got that claptrap, Moddy, since you didn't provide a link. But it's not true.
Yikes! That didn't format right at all…
Fixed it for you. In the future, use the little blue eraser button to remove formatting from copied text.
It's a little more complex than that.
While copper IUDs do not appear to have a mechanism of operation beyond interference with the sperm/egg interaction, hormonal IUDs, for example, Mirena, are believed to also thin the endometrial lining, which would make the uterus less hospitable to implantation. At the link I provided, the manufacturer of Mirena lists thinning of the uterine lining as one of its possible methods of operation (even they don't know).
What this means is that hormonal IUDs generally (probably at least almost always) operate by preventing the formation of a zygote. They may also, however, provide a "clean-up" action that prevents the rare blastocyst that manages to form from implanting. If life began at the formation of the zygote, then this mechanism would prevent that life from being realized, if it operates at all.
Here's where Modster got that claptrap: The "Life Issues Institute" (very easy to do a verbatim text search, Mods – I've had plenty of practice by tracking plagiarizing students)
They claim to have a "calm, factual approach" in educating the public about life issues. However, a cursory glance at their propaganda shows that there really are no forms of contraception of which they approve – Every single brand of IUD is poisonous to women, according to "lifeissues.org". Same with the morning after pill, and just about any contraception dispensed by Planned Parenthood.
It appears to also be a site propagating horrendous misinformation, such as "abortion causes cancer", and "Girl Scouts are spreading Planned Parenthood information".
Shhhhhhhhh . . .
Don't let Moddy's mommy hear you. No doubt all his home school papers were cribbed from that site
This from someone who thinks the rhythm method is cutting-edge science, and keeps "knee aspirin" around the house at all times.
Grab your eye bleach. You're welcome..
Let's see If you are wrong in your calling others wrong, where does that leave us? When I went to a Jeffco HS, it was taught that the final sex of fetus isn't determined until weeks into pregnancy. We were ALL Girls until then. And had gills, not separate bathrooms. Your cut & paste mentions IUDs inserted from the bottom, Do you know a short cut you're not telling us? the cervix is just before the Douglas cul de sac other wise known as Doug's dead end, a popular make out spot. I think you merged right before the tunnel of love, south bound to Anus cave. Speaking of jokes (Johnny Carson) "take the Schloussen cut off" "& once there get out of your car and …"
Pretty sure it's determined by whether the father's sperm contributes an X or a Y chromosome which seems like the ultimate gender would be determined from the get go regardless of the point at which the difference is manifested. Although, as with everything, unusual stuff sometimes happens resulting in ambiguous or superficially incorrect gender manifestation or syndromes involving an extra X . Life can be messy.
From Wiki (you made me do a search) The development of sexual differences begins with the XY sex-determination system that is present in humans, and complex mechanisms are responsible for the development of the phenotypic differences between male and female humans from an undifferentiated zygote. Atypical sexual development, and ambiguous genitalia, can be a result of genetic and hormonal factors. You said it, in a perfect world … So, in the absence of hormonal input from Y chromosome, develop into passive X zygotes (phenotype) regardless of 23rd gene pair contribution (genotype) I had the timing about right , differential is around 12th week. Was interested in debunking the boy girl shedding before implantation, and only brought the gill thing in as a background for the separate bathrooms
Yeah, modster. Why no linkie?
Thus spake, er cut and pasted, Moderatus Welby, OBGyn . . .
Moddy, this is the perfect example of why no thinking person can take you seriously in the slightest. Your willingness to spew claptrap from anywhere on the web, and then portray it as fact in support of your miscontentions about which you know absolutely nothing is, really, beyond astounding — it's GOPtastic . . .
Sounds like Beauprez disapproves of free markets and privatization.