It is an action by the executive branch to change a definition within certain regulations. The outcome, as roro90 says, is to prevent contraception from being covered by insurance. In other words, the ideological war of the administration against the right to choose is getting carried onto another front via the executive branch's regulatory powers.

It probably WON'T stand. It's just a further sign of the lengths to which they'll go to restrict women's control over their privacy. HRC is right to call them out NOW.

As you say, Runasim, DLS's argument is not in fact the law. I see no reason why this issue which goes fundamentally to a woman's right to control her body—which I'd call a 'liberty interest' or part of that penumbral 'right to be left alone' by the state–should be a matter for the state to decide.

From a moral standpoint, I might well argue that abortion is wrong. This is because of my religious beliefs.

But I do not think, DLS, that a state consisting of a majority of persons who might agree with my beliefs about the nature of the soul, or when life begins, or the rest of it, should be able to impose this view by legislative fiat on people who do not share it.

The logical next step is to make it a sin, er, sorry, crime to THINK about contraception.

Again, IF true, I cannot see how this stands up in court. It would indeed be window dressing, designed to be overturned and to generate press.

It's also a first step, I imagine, to other restrictions as well. If abortion does end up going to states to decide, will this new definition of abortion mean that birth control is also outlawed in those states that vote against abortion? Will residents of South Dakota need to be told that what they're asking for causes suicidal ideation (one of the things they're now required to say for an abortion) when asking to refill their pill prescription?

Let now all the women in the room count how many “abortions” they've had in their lives, under this new, fact-free definition. Thousands maybe?

On the other hand, late term abortions on demand do provide a lot of opportunity for cirticism. Since the dawn of sonograms, even many women who are pro-choice are squeemish about it. Pro-choicers have to adjust to a few current realities, even when those don't fit neatly into their ideals. .

The pro-choice lawyers made an error the last time an abortion case reached SCOTUS, IMO.They failed to object to the governement having any right at all to intervene in this area. One day there will need to be a show-down about Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.

Think SCOTUS when you vote.

Personally I'm against abortion, but it's not my place to tell anyone else what decisions they should and should not make, so I”m staunchly pro-choice. Though I'm against abortion, I can see that there would be exceptions… It's a complicated and very personal (and in many cases gut-wrenching) decision. I think if there's any law it should be a law which guarantees the right to have an abortion. Perhaps we should have a law which prohibits healthcare providers and pharmacists from forcing their beliefs on others.

This is a prime reason why I'm not a Republican. I thought Republicans were for limited government interference (and states rights) and yet time and again the Republicans will force their hypocritical moral views on everyone else for their own political gain. That's one reason why I like Ron Paul- he has a libertarian ideology (which I like) and you could clearly see those in the foundations of his policies. His policies were not based on political convenience.

A mother who is going to give birth to a child with such severe birth defects that it cannot survive the birth probably should be allowed to avoid this experience on a 'severe mental distress' test. It doesn't make sense to make 'diagnosed mental illness' to be the test. Mentally ill people may give birth to a normal child, etc. etc.

Obama's position wasn't principled; I think he misunderstood what the law is. I'm not getting at him—but it made him look as if he's not that bothered about women's issues.

The wealthy lady will just travel to another state or even to Europe to take care of her problem, but the poor young girl will be stuck listening to complaints about the tax money she'll need to raise her baby.

Women get it from every angle, and this country is going back to the middle ages
when it omes to how they are treated.

You persist in interpreting the Constitution according to your own ideology, and you're welcome to do so , if it amuses you

You should just keep in mind that you are not convincing those who have read the FF ragarding the Bill of Rights and will not be swayed by your convictions.

You realize, I hope, that when the Constitution was written, there were NO state laws regarding abortion. The original activist judges were religious zealots who allowed abortion restriction laws to stand without Constitutuional foundation.

.

It's a sop to the Religious Right (whom the GOP exploits at election time) probably timed to help these people vote for McCain this November.

Overreaction is unmerited. There is no absolute “right” to abortion (much less being described in evasive weasel words in place of “abortion”), and it is properly and legitimately a matter of states and localities to legislate on as they see fit, which includes a complete prohibition if that's what a government wants. Get the law changed (the intention of this law was obvious, which is why I presented it as a new issue on this site in the first place; for those who are curious, I disfavor this obvious R.R. sop), or vote with your feet against it if you cannot get it changed.

Contraception (birth control) is not abortion, obviously, if it's used before conception. (RU-486 use for early abortion, the most logical and least harmful time as well as least controversial time to engage in abortion, is a target of this law.)

Don't overreact to this yet. Wait to see what Obama or Clinton have to say about extending federal health care to girls and women of childbearing age and if the federal government would provide abortion services to them and under what set of guidelines or limitations.

Speaking about this particular issue, though, gave me an idea. I think Hillary should take over as head of the Dept of Health & Human Resources. Obama the pres, and Hillary in charge of health. it's a win-win.