We Know What's Best For The Little Woman

[filkertom]

By way of vixyish: Read, and read. And then, after you're done throwing up and gnashing your teeth and cursing these fucking evil moron Puritan babysitter wannabes to the skies, act, and act.

ETA: Honestly, gang, while I appreciate you asking if you can copy a link, you can pretty much assume that if I put the links up here and tell you to go do something about them, [a] they're reasonably safe, at least on a browser/system security basis, and [b] it's okay to copy 'em to your own LJ or wherever. Dang, but I've got a polite buncha friends. :)

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Drill mode first. Will waste time and karma on cursing the dark after we've lit a few fireworks candles.

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

This blind-sided me so I won't have money to contribute to PP for a couple of weeks but then I should be able to work something out.

I already filled out the form on prochoiceamerica.org and mailed the original AP article and a link to the actual bill pdf.

*sigh* I can only hope some of this improves with the change in presidency but I fear too much damage has been done to this country already.

This country is like a ripe fruit that has been bruised. We can slow it down by refrigeration or be replaced by another fruit but if left in the same state we are now the decay will consume us all. B-(

The government is stealing
Our rights one by one
Living in these United States
The stealin's never done

I got the blues...

We had a free country
The day we raised the flag
But now it's so corrupted
It really is a drag!

I got the blues...those broken constitution blues...

[allandaros.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the feed, Tom. Is it OK if I copy this verbatim to my LJ to spread the word?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Uv cuss.

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I have very little sympathy on this one. I'm functionally pro-life while legally pro-choice. I've had the opportunity to demontstrate this at least three times. None of my pregnancies were planned, and I chose to carry each time even though it would have been far, far more convenient for me not to do so.

On the legal front, I agree with Bill Clinton- "Safe, legal, and rare." It's stupid and selfish for women to use abortion as retroactive birth control.

As a Registered Nurse, I don't think a physician or nurse should be forced to participate or perform an abortion procedure any more than I think they should be forced to participate in an execution. That being said, the nurse or physician also has a responsibility to know who they're working for and not work for a clinic/hospital/organization that provides what they don't agree with. An individual practitioner should not be forced to perform a procedure that he/she doesn't agree with. To some extent, that's easy enough. You don't have to be trained in abortion procedures in medical school, IIRC. If you're not trained, you can't do it. To force people to provide procedures to which they are absolutely opposed is no better, and in some cases worse, than forbidding people to engage in behavior that someone else not involved in the behavior is against- like homosexual acts. It's the moral equivalent of forcing a mental health practitioner to participate actively in sexual surrogacy therapy when they don't want to. Or to force someone who DOES provide it to participate in it with someone who is plumbed differently from the people that they are willing to provide it to.

I will not take a life except in self-defense or defense of my family, period. If there's a law that protects me from being required to do that in the workplace, I'm all for it.

But as a potential patient

[capplor.livejournal.com]

don't you think a woman seeking a safe, legal abortion has a right to get information on where it can be obtained? THAT is conspicuously absent from the present law.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

Honestly you've come the closest to vocalizing how I feel about the whole abortion issue. I've been pro-life for years, I can't be anything but given my own beliefs and the way life's taken me so far.

I do agree that a person has the right to be childless, however with that right comes certain responsibilities. This is where I tend to, unintentionally, upset people because I think that if you don't want kids then you should A) Use a condom or other form of birth control, B) Get your tubes tied, or C) keep it in your bloody pants. Whenever I've mentioned these before, to others I've talked to, they've acted like those weren't even options. Abortion and abortion alone is the only option and that's a rather disturbing position to take. At least from my perspective.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I've never met anyone who advocates abortion as the sole method of birth control. If I had, I'd probably have slapped them; it's as irresponsible a policy as any other I can think of.

I have no doubt they're out there, though. And I also have no doubt that the same group that opposes abortion, which also opposes birth control, contributes to their existence. (Not fully responsible for them, but a serious contributor.)

[janne.livejournal.com]

It's stupid and selfish for women to use abortion as retroactive birth control.

I've known women who have had abortions. Not a single one was stupid, not a single one was selfish, and even the ones who had not been raped did not use it as contraception. One of the women I know would have *died* if somebody like you prevented her from having an abortion. Who would have been the murderer, then?

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

That's all fine for you but suppose you get a rape victim that lives in an area the has nothing but "faith based" healthcare facilities who refuse to perform the procedure or give her RU486 on moral grounds? (Hint: This already happens.)

Are you seriously going to argue that a rape victim or a victim of incest should be forced to bear the child?

Let's stretch this further - supposed a lady wants to be on contraceptives just in case. Their choice right? Bzzzt! Living in an area with nothing but "faith based" organizations she has no way to get the prescription filled even if she managed to find a doctor to prescribe them.

(This also brings up the interesting point of if she were raped and had the contraceptive in her system then the abortion or RU486 would not be as necessary in the first place. Moral Objectionism creating its own problem.)

And what happens when "moral objection" doctors move into the teaching cycle and refuse to teach how to do an abortion?

I'm sorry but there are plenty of existing laws to keep this stuff in place and workable. We definitely don't need one more.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

I wish this were only about abortion. Ironically, it would be so much simpler. But it's not.

This law would allow anyone employed by a medical institution (from the doctors down to the janitors) to refuse any or all actions and treatments for any reason, and would forbid them from suffering any consequences for their actions.

This includes:
A woman has Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, a condition in which her ovarian cysts could erupt. Her condition requires a prescription hormone drug that also happens to be a contraceptive. The only pharmacist in town refuses to prescribe it, and her state expressly forbids crossing state lines for medical treatment. Despite the fact that he is endangering her health, the pharmacy may not fire him.

A man is diabetic. The only pharmacist in town is a vegan, and she refuses to prescribe insulin because it is made with animal products. Despite the fact that she is endangering his health, the pharmacy may not fire her.

A woman has been in a car accident and requires emergency care. A doctor who is of a fundamentalist Middle Eastern faith refuses to treat her because his religion dictates he must not touch a woman not his wife. Despite the fact that he is endangering her health, the hospital may not terminate him.

A pharmacist has recently converted to the Christian Scientist faith. She refuses to dispense any and all prescriptions, and instead advises her patients on the value of prayer. The pharmacy may not terminate her.

In any other profession, especially other professions of life-and-death, we would not stand for this. We would not allow a Jewish policeman to refuse help to a crime victim who happened to be an Arab or a Christian. We would not allow a female firefighter to refuse to put out a fire in a building that housed a men's club, or a firefighter who was a member of PETA to refuse to put out a fire in a medical research lab. Such failures to act, though based on conscience, would be investigated, and almost certainly disciplined, because they endangered lives. But this rule would expressly forbid any consequences or discipline toward anyone in the medical industry who endangered lives in a similar manner.

If a doctor doesn't agree with contraception or abortion, they should have gone into podiatry, or dermatology, or proctology, or cardiology, or neurology, or pretty much ANY specialization other than OB/GYN.

Even so, this isn't a law that would protect you from being required to take a life. This is a law that would say, you personally, as a nurse, are allowed to refuse to give a blood transfusion because you believe they are sinful, or refuse care to a Muslim because you dislike how his religion treats women, or refuse emergency care to a gunshot wound victim because he's a criminal, or refuse ANY care to pretty much anyone on the basis of your conscience, and the hospital or clinic that employs you is not allowed to fire you for that.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

The problem is that this rule defines birth control and sterilization as abortion as well. I'd rather have a 16 year old daughter on the pill than a pregnant 16 year old.

It also opens the door to all kinds of abuses, including refusal to treat people of certain races/religions/orientations.

"Oh, my conscience says gay people deserve AIDS, so no retrovirals for you."

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

the nurse or physician also has a responsibility to know who they're working for and not work for a clinic/hospital/organization that provides what they don't agree with.

This is a mature attitude, and I salute it. Still: What about people who live in areas where all the available facilities have policies precluding those exceptions? Not everyone has the sort of choice available in urban areas, even smallish ones. Should they take employment there, knowing in advance that they might have to violate a policy they've acknowledged and agreed to follow?

As an RN, I see that you've had to think about this directly, while I (not a licensed professional) am coming at this from outside. Still, it seems to me that if I were to take a license, I would have to abide by its terms, including providing my services without prejudice.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I don't think a physician or nurse should be forced to participate or perform an abortion procedure any more than I think they should be forced to participate in an execution.

Okay, but what about the patient? All of these "I mustn't be forced to" arguments leave the patient's rights and wishes completely out of it - I did a search on the DHHS regulation and nowhere found the words "woman" or "baby" or "fetus." They don't even exist in this world of what the Doctor wants.

This isn't about what a doctor or nurse wants, it's about what a patient needs, and absolutely nowhere is that addressed... except in the regulation, where it is stated that said doctor or nurse is not obligated to even refer the patient to someone who will treat her in the manner that she wants.

The day you can Constitutionally reconcile putting your rights over the patient's rights is when I'll listen to conscience arguments. Until then, health care providers have the same choice everyone else does - to either not take employment where the standards conflict with their beliefs, or to put their client's needs first.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

On the legal front, I agree with Bill Clinton- "Safe, legal, and rare." It's stupid and selfish for women to use abortion as retroactive birth control.

I agree. Using abortion as a contraceptive is a horrible course of action, and those who would do such a thing deserve to be reminded so.

Conversely, those who take the cautionary steps necessary to ensure that they never find themselves in such a situation deserve to be lauded at every given opportunity.

And that's why I say... God Bless the Homosexuals!

[peachtales.livejournal.com]

Abortion needs to be legal and freely accessible.
That said, it should not be used as birth control, but if some women continue to use it that way that is their choice.
I'm not certain if I could have the procedure done on myself, if I ever were in that situation, but to me that does not change the fact that I, and every woman, needs to have the choice available.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

Three guesses exactly how fiercely these "conscience"-filled "faith-based" medical people will refuse to dispense Viagra or condoms to the human beings with penises who come to them for medical aid.

If women reacted to rights violations or miscarriages of justice by killing a few random people and/or setting things on fire (instead of tears and prayers and candlelit vigils), we might actually have a fighting chance.

And no, I'm NOT over-reacting. Gays reacted to Harvey Milk's assassination with tears and candles and prayers for justice. But when Dan White got only 7 years (5 years, in reality) -- and angry gays burned police cars and shouted in the streets -- only then did the laws start changing.

[awfulhorrid.livejournal.com]

Although we need both peaceful representatives and angry militants to change the world for the better, no one every got their rights by standing there politely with their hats in their hands and meekly asking to be respected.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

I've acted.
I can't donate.

I am a birth control militant.
I've become pro-choice over the years, just as I've become more liberal as I've banged my face against sexism/homophobia/etc.

I may have had my tubes tied--an abortion, by these new definitions!--but I have a sexually active daughter and one about to hit puberty. I want them to have the same assurances that their bodies are their own, not property of a theo-fascist breeder state, that I did.

Conscience clauses are always invoked to harm women and minorities. Says a lot about the state of the invokers' "consciences."

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

This is just the latest assault on reproductive freedom by the Shrub administration. They've been trying to get oral contraceptives redefined as "abortion" by various means. This is but the latest attempt, which is bolder the the previously ones, probably because they know their time is running out.

A + 3 = Blue

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

[facepalm] Oh, good. Dorothy, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion were lonely.

How about writing sensible bills, and presenting them one at a time, with reasonable time for debate, to be voted on for their own merits or not? Is that good for you? Oh, I'm sorry, apparently not.

The only reason anybody wants or feels they need a line-item veto is exactly because of that kind of bad law writing.

Moreover, it doesn't apply in this case, according to our own legal system. This is a new set of department directives. No Congresscritters anywhere in sight. Who's gonna veto it?

Sorry, but, man, this has nothing to do with line-item legislation. You just need to be philosophically contrary, in much the same way I often need to be -- The Other Side doesn't like it, therefore it must be good. Problem is, real people get hurt with this stuff. And they're being hurt to placate someone else's imaginary friend.

[erinwrites.livejournal.com]

Because (of course) the whole "partial birth" abortion thing has come up, I wanted to share this link.

No, there's no sweeping statistical evidence--just one woman's story of her heartache and anguish that came as a result of someone else's personal beliefs. I read this story and I cried and cried, feeling this woman's pain.

Her child was *dying*. Slowly, painfully dying inside her. She was forced to carry that child to term, and deliver a baby that had zero chance of survival. Zero.

Just...read. That's all I can say.

http://www.fabulouslyjinxed.com/2007/05/10/um-excuse-me-pti/

Rare? Perhaps...but that's not the point. No one should have to go through this.

[tony-goldmark.livejournal.com]

Sorry this took so long, I needed a couple days to get my thoughts together. But here goes:

I don’t understand pro-lifers. AT ALL. I’m so pro-choice it borders on anti-life.

I hate pro-lifers for the same reason I hate homophobes: they live in denial. They say their opinions are based on morality, when a true moralist would value human freedom above all else. In reality, they just think gays and abortions are icky. That’s all. Icky. Many of the same people will flinch when they hear the word “fuck.” These arrogant, pesky mosquitoes, who senselessly murder their own mosquito brethren with their hands each summer, never stop sucking precious blood from the semen-filled chest cavity of middle America, constantly trying to inflict their own personal taste upon the rest of the world, and never admit it’s not working. I can’t wait to see them all killed by stray bullets in church.

Let’s cut the “grossness” yammering and talk about this clinically. For health reasons, a doctor won’t even abort a baby during the third trimester. This seems to me like a fine place to draw the line, because coincidentally, this is more-or-less precisely when the baby starts moving of its own power. Before that, it’s a parasitic wet mound of life. You’ll find more evolved shit in your garbage disposal. In fact, I don’t think abortion goes far enough. I think parents should be allowed to murder, as violently or non-violently as they wish, any of their children under the age of five.

Where you going? Come back here, Goddamn it, and hear me out: parents treat their children like commodities and investments anyway, so why not get the five-year warranty, just to be safe? If your child isn’t working out for you, just return it to the ether for store credit, no questions asked.

But I’m not a monster, and fuck you in an open wound for saying I am – I do have two important ground rules. First, this rule only applies if EVERY LIVING PARENT consents to it – no poisoning little Junior behind the wife’s back, Mac, he’s her property too. And second, this rule only works if it’s YOUR CHILD that YOU GAVE BIRTH to – you’re not allowed to adopt a few dozen crack babies just so you can murder them, eat them, and make your cock harder in the process. That’s why we invented the imagination.

Now, the big flaw with this rule is it will likely result in a lot of dead, talented four-year-olds. That’s the way rules work, I’m afraid – authorities don’t like to keep things like emotional maturity in mind, it causes too much confusion. That’s why they won’t let you drink when you’re ready, you have to wait until you’ve survived 21 meaningless trips around the sun. The rule SHOULD read, you’re not allowed to kill a child of yours once they’ve made an independent thought. Doesn’t matter what it’s about, but as soon as they make a single unique comment, or draw an original picture, or write an original poem, or hum an original tune they made up, killing the little bastard is officially murder, and off to prison you go. Trouble is, lots of people NEVER reach that “independent thought” point. They go their whole lives never thinking for themselves. You see a lot of these fuckers at Disneyland, and I should know because I have an ANNUAL PASS, motherfucker. Shit-for-brains tourists keep tripping me up with their strollers, staring at the fireworks like sheep, complaining about the long lines instead of getting a damn Fastpass, explaining every Goddamn joke on “Pirates Of The Caribbean” in a thick Southern drawl to their ironically-named grandson Mason as they SIT RIGHT THE FUCK BEHIND ME. What happens if a motherfucker never thinks independently, and their parents die? Is suicide legal then? Would it matter if it was?

[tony-goldmark.livejournal.com]

But I digress. Now some bullshit law threatens to let bullshit doctors DECIDE whether or not they want to do their fucking job (for which they would still be paid handsomely) and pull a stupid dead unmoving fetus out of a woman that never could have given it love. Talk about hypocrisy. What do you think would happen if an open-heart surgeon walked out in the middle of a triple bypass, explaining I’ve changed my mind, Jeebus doesn’t want us interfering with these matters, and besides I’m afraid of blood. That uncle-fucker would get stripped of his credentials and kicked into the street, where he’d die poor and lonely and then get punched in the crotch by a Jewish grandmother in the afterlife.

You don’t see these same “doctor” pricks turning down vasectomy jobs, do you? Fuck no, and I’ll tell you why: NOBODY doesn’t wanna open up some guy’s nuts. Women wanna do it (understandably) for the sake of vengeance, and guys wanna do it ‘cause they’re fucking CURIOUS. I don’t care who you are or where you’re from, no guy over the age of two hasn’t looked at his own nutsack and wondered what the fuck was going on in there. Where do you think these vaectomy doctors come from? The sky?

Let’s get down to brass tax. Every woman, even a few of the uglier ones on the pro-life side (Goddammit we miss you, George) has been hit on in public by horny males. And every woman has rejected these advances more than a few times. Know what happens then? Allow me to enlighten you: the horny male goes home and alleviates his horniness, and more than a few hundred billion potential human beings, without the aid of vaginal reception. These civilizations-not-to-be are then banished to the sewer with a single flush, never to be heard from again. This happens millions of times, EVERY FUCKING NIGHT.

So, is the woman “evil” and “wicked” for dooming mankind to ungodly extinction by turning down these jackasses’ advances?

Or is she exercising her FREE GODDAMN CHOICE?