What’s in a Name? Well, Everything.

The Wall Street Journal has an article this week on a regulation being drafted by the Bush Administration regarding pregnancy, stating that the

proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.

A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying ‘the life of a human being.’

Presidents may issue regulations as part of their power to give executive orders. Executive orders may be overturned by courts and later presidents, or foiled by Congress (if they pass legislation in conflict with the order or fail to provide it with necessary funds), however in the resulting legal curfuffle many women would be deprived of their access to birth control pills.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “What’s in a Name? Well, Everything.

  1. The article at the link below may seem unrelated to this post, however, I searched the entire archives and could not find anything on AIDS. Upon reflection, I came to think that, since the title of this post is “What’s in a Name? Well, everything,” this might actually be the most appropriate place to put the link after all. For those of us who have been doing work on disability (either activism and/or theory and/or something else) for some time know that, because of homophobia and sexism, getting the mainstream disabled people’s movement to recognize people with AIDS as “disabled people” has at times been an arduous task. In the past, moreover, ableism and other factors have made it difficult to organize and build alliances with AIDS activists, workers and scholars. Nevertheless, I hope we will read more about AIDS work and activism here in the future.

    The link below is to an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail yesterday. While some of the language used in the article is unfortunate (e.g., many of us regard the phrase “people with disabilities” as an outmoded legacy of the medical model, and regard the term “the disabled” as objectifying and essentializing), the article makes some important connections and discusses a new project by Stephen Lewis.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080807.wlpicard07/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

  2. You bring up an interesting point, thanks for the link! Of course, not everyone reads the back comments, so if you’d like to make a post to on the subject that would be great.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s