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.

[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?

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

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.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

This is what I've been saying.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Yes! Exactly!

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.