That said, it's still a horrible bill.
Is there a different bill on contraception? I can't make out the references on the mailer.
1. § 1. That life begins at the moment of fertilization and the right to enjoyment of life guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization.
The bill is poorly worded -- these guys are not very bright. That said, one interpretation would be that rights are granted not only to born human beings but "preborn." WTF? Yeah, they define life beginning at fertilization, but they're granting rights beyond that. So, one could argue that potential human beings are protected, i.e., no birth control.
Is it a stretch? Remember, Marshall and his ilk distort things all the time. If the bill ever passed, some CWA type might argue that contraception is banned. (Now, there's a little old case called Griswold v. CT which I'm sure the god squad would like overturned.) http://en.wikipedia....
Medically, as I understand it (and anyone who knows something in depth please correct me), this bill would directly affect IUD use, BECAUSE:
although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.http://www.ncbi.nlm....
This seems like a really excellent article. There in fact may be a post-fertilization effect even for the pill. However, breast feeding (your one year old) may have the same effect. This is a long and complicated subject, but it sounds like the Marshall of the world want to be able to argue that
-- the Marshalls of the world may want to argue that birth control methods in common use have a post-fertilization effect, and are therefore unlawful.
Important point -- breastfeeding may have the same effect:
What's more, [leading contraception expert] Dr. Trussell added: "There is evidence that there is a contraceptive effect of breast feeding after fertilization. While a woman is breast feeding, the first ovulation is characterized by a short luteal phase, or second half of the cycle. It's thought that because of that, implantation does not occur." In other words, if the emergency contraception pill causes abortions by blocking implantation, then by the same definition breast feeding may as well. Besides that, the intrauterine device, or IUD, can alter the lining of the uterus and, in theory, prevent implantation.
This article traces a lot of different threads in the anti-abortion movement and is well worth reading. Here's the cite again in case you didn't read the previous post:
http://www.nytimes.c...
But for what my opinion is worth, Marshall's bill defining life at fertilization was an attempt to enact a back door ban against contraception generally.
No matter that 98% of American women have used contraception.
I'm crossing my fingers on this one. It's not my district, but it's close enough. The Potomac News, which has endorsed every Republican candidate so far, refused to endorse either one, citing Marshall's "antagonistic approach to governance and his stubborn devotion to his own pet ideas", and calling Roemmelt's main political position as "that of the anti-Marshall". Personally, that sounds pretty good to me.
The American Life League and Judie Brown are the biggest supporters of zero contraception! Crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!