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

[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.)

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

See my comment below. This isn't just about abortion. This law would allow medical professionals to refuse both A) and B) (and pretty much any other treatment) to patients of both genders, including refusing to provide any information about them, even in cases where the primary reason for the treatment is not birth control but some other medical condition, and the pharmacy/hospital/etc. is not allowed to do anything about it.

No longer pro-life

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

A) Birth control fails. I know a lady who ended up having an abortion because her birth control failed and her recently-coned cervix was incompetent to finish a pregnancy. This is not a reason NOT to use it. It's the first line of defense.

B) Most doctors will not do tubals or vasectomies on people who don't have at least 3 kids. Most childfree people fight very hard to get one. Beside, we're talking surgery with up to 6 month of pain (in my experience)

C) Abstaining is not an option for a lot of people. My husband would be very disappointed.

I am pro-choice because I believe women are competent to make the right decision for themselves and their families, both current and future. I'm a birth control militant, but cognizant that it does fail.

Re: No longer pro-life

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

B) Most doctors will not do tubals or vasectomies on people who don't have at least 3 kids. Most childfree people fight very hard to get one. Beside, we're talking surgery with up to 6 month of pain (in my experience)

How very odd. When Beth and I were married we discussed a number of things. For various medical reasons it would have been a Bad Idea for her to become pregnant. I called my doctor, got a referral and got a vasectomy.

Re: No longer pro-life

[ladysoapmaker.livejournal.com]

And notice you, the guy, didn't have trouble. How old were you when you did this? Whereas if it had been your wife I bet you dollar to donuts she would have had people right and left trying to talk her out of her decision.

I have a friend who tried to get her tubes tied when she was under age 25, for medical reasons. She never did find a doctor who would do it because "she was too young and what would happen if she changed her mind". Her insurance also limited the doctor she could afford also.

[ladysoapmaker.livejournal.com]

But what happens when the 20 year old who doesn't want kids goes to the doctor to get her tubes tied and the doctor says you're too young to make this decision sorry. Most doctors won't even consider tying a women's tube if she hasn't had any children or if they are under the age of 35. Other then abstinence nothing else is 100% effective and I doubt many marriages where both do not want children like not having sex.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

B) Get your tubes tied

Good luck finding a doctor who will do this to a childless female, or any female under the age of 35.

[trifleresplende.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but what if a woman does any of those options, and gets raped? Are you implying that female rape victims were being irresponsible by not "Avoiding rape"? Not necessarily of the "She was wearin' a skirt!" variety, but pretty close.

And what if birth control doesn't work?

Furthermore, it may be that abortion seems to be the only option from your perspective because in any discussion of abortion, a pro-choicer will declare that women have the right to have an abortion. Just because one has the RIGHT to have one, that also includes the right to choose not to have an abortion. There really are only two options. Allow women to have abortions, or restrict their ability to choose.

[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.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

This is what I've been saying.

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

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.

Insulin from animal sources is not and has not been available for quite some time. Human insulin (made by genetic engineering, which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms) has been available since 1982.

OT:curiosity point...

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

I can't help but wonder why they can't take a batch of E. coli engineered to produce insulin from blood glucose and place them inside the chamber of an electronic implant that monitors the glucose levels then "feeds" the E. coli when the number reaches a certain level and releases the resulting insulin. There'd be a minimum "always on" state for the E. coli but if the pancreas in question has failed that would be needed anyway.

I don't know, maybe the technology just isn't there yet, but it seems like something like this should be repairable. Instead it's drugs or a transplant. :-(

Re: OT:curiosity point...

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

The process of turning on the gene you've implanted in these E. coli, and then when they're done making enough of your desired protein, lysing them, and purifying your protein away from the DNA, the E. coli's other proteins, and other and sundry cell debris, takes me several weeks of 16-hour workdays in the laboratory. (I'm harvesting and purifying histone proteins in vitro.)

As a matter of fact, I presented a PowerPoint presentation of all this at the local Mensa "con" last month, and next month I'll be reprising it at ConText.

[catnip13.livejournal.com]

Good point, but Vixy's example still works - there are still lots of other animal derived drugs (ie: premarin), other animal derived ingredients (lactose, gelatin) and pretty much all drugs are tested on animals, and as such, are objectionable to some vegans.

(Personally, I'm a dietary vegan who does take pharmaceuticals when I need to. But there are others who take a firmer stand than I do).

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Remember when some Muslim cab drivers refused to admit people with seeing-eye dogs or booze? Where was Bush and his "not have to act against their conscious" idea then? Everyone in every job has had to do something they were morally opposed to doing. I'm a computer programmer and I had to write an application to email everyone in our database. It wasn't technically spam but it was close enough for me. Guess what, I still did it. I'm also an Atheist and I was told to do some work on a religious college website. I did that too with my usual effort. I didn't do a half-ass job either.

This isn't on a scale of medical procedures, I bring it up to point out this law can be used by anyone and can grind the economy to a halt.

[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."

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Yes! Exactly!

[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!