Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Bush’s New Abortion Regulation
I have spent a lot of time talking about freedom of speech when it comes to private citizens and their expressions of homophobia. But this morning I read an article about a kind of speech regulation that I find deeply troubling.
This week, Bush intends to finalize a “right of conscience” regulation permitting all kinds of medical staff to refuse to participate in practices that they find morally objectionable. It sounds benign, but it is clearly aimed at permitting medical staff to object to providing information about abortions.
The problem is not that doctors can walk out of the room when an abortion is being performed (this is permitted in a separate regulation). Forcing doctors to perform actual procedures is not in anyone’s interest. This “right of conscience” regulation permits doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc. to refuse to give out referrals to abortion clinics, information about abortions and even, potentially, refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill and other birth control.
My problem with this regulation is that it encourages health care workers to be purposely dishonest to patients in an attempt to influence the legal and free choices that patient intends to make. A woman could ask her trusted doctor whether there are abortion clinics in the area, and the doctor can simply not answer, dodge the question or launch into a lecture about his or her beliefs about conception.
Health care workers have a particular duty to their patients because of their immense access to knowledge and the trust their position intrinsically holds. What they say and the information they provide to patients has considerably more weight than that of the average citizen.
Couple this influence with the vulnerability of individuals potentially seeking abortions. These women may be traumatized (as in the case of a post-rape abortion), particularly young (see the story today about high teen pregnancy rates especially amongst teens), or emotionally stressed.
The “right of conscience” bill will directly curtail access for many women to abortions. Even those who disagree with the abortion law as it exists should object to a back door attempt at reducing a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Certain professionals must be objective, fair and honest because of the position they hold. This regulation pretends that medical professionals are regular people, with no particular power or responsibility, who can deal with patients’ lives as if they are pawns in some larger campaign to make a legal practice illegal.
“why don’t we allow parents to kills their children up to say the age of 18? You know people are just a bunch of cells that have come out of a uterus.”
After birth, an infant no longer has to rely solely on the woman carrying it for survival. It is no longer part of her once it leaves the uterus. That is when it has it’s own right to freedom, including the freedom not to be killed. Yes, yes, I know you think fetuses are deserving of this “right to life” too, and that is where we disagree. As long as a fetus is inside a woman, she has the right to do to it what she wants. Her rights supersede those of a clump of forming cells (that essentially need to leech off of her body to survive for every second for 9 months).
“when sex works as designed between a man and a woman it results in a pregnancy. When you drive a vehicle and it results in death, it is not as designed.”
Ha ha ha, “design”. That is where you go wrong. Just because heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy, that doesn’t mean one has to accept pregnancy just by engaging in sex. That may be nature’s intent, but that doesn’t mean one has to submit to that result. That is what modern medicine is for. Saying sex is “supposed” to lead to pregnancy and therefore one should just accept it, is like saying cancer is “supposed” to lead to death and one should just accept it. With modern medicine, humans no longer are required to submit to every whim of nature. If you agree that one can have surgery/treatment to avoid the natural effect (death) of cancer, then you would be hypocritical in saying one must accept the natural effect of sex when there are options available to avert the consequence.
Now that it’s established that sex CAN lead to pregnancy, as opposed to SHOULD lead to pregnancy, we can compare it to someone’s choice to drive a car.
Choosing to have sex may lead to pregnancy, as choosing to drive a car may lead to death.
Let’s say in both cases, precautions are taken to prevent the possible end, i.e., contraception and wearing a seat belt.
Say the precautions fail, and someone becomes pregnant, en route to an unwanted child, while the driver of the car becomes critically injured, en route to death.
If there are options available to avert the ends (unwanted child/death), why should they not be utilized?
Saying a pregnancy should not be terminated because the woman chose to have sex and therefore agreed to have a child, is like saying someone who needs an organ transplant after a car crash should not get one because they chose to drive a car, giving their consent to die.
Why should a woman have an abortion when she CHOSE to have sex, knowing she could become pregnant?
Why should a much in-demand organ be given to someone who CHOSE to drive a car knowing the possible outcomes, when the organ could be given to young child who did not make such a choice?
Answer: Because modern medicine seeks to alleviate suffering and improve the lives of people, no matter what “choices” they make.
“And and with the resulting auto death there is often a price to pay. Luckily the pregnancy will last only 9 months before putting the child up for adoption.”
Well, I know plenty of people who would rather die than let the government force them to do something with their body against their will. Again, your opinion of pregnancy being a small price to pay is just that- an opinion.
“Radical, I know you’re a Lefty but I can’t believe that you’re so selfish.”
Selfish? Nah. I just care about women who are established adults with ties to people in their lives, and think their right to make their own reproductive choices trumps the supposed right of a clump of sperm and egg to control her body for 9 months.
What I find funny about you Trace, is that you as a Libertarian oppose any kind of government infringement on your life in the form of taxes, regulations, and even anti-discrimination laws. Yet, when it comes to womens’ actual bodies, not their money, or their business, but their physical bodies, you are eager to have that government invasion legislate its morality on one of the most personal aspects of a person’s life–reproduction.
The irony is simply hilarious.
By the way, Tom N-V raises some very good points.
Ms. Radical, so why don’t we allow parents to kills their children up to say the age of 18? You know people are just a bunch of cells that have come out of a uterus.
By the way, when sex works as designed between a man and a woman it results in a pregnancy. When you drive a vehicle and it results in death, it is not as designed. And and with the resulting auto death there is often a price to pay. Luckily the pregnancy will last only 9 months before putting the child up for adoption.
Radical, I know you’re a Lefty but I can’t believe that you’re so selfish.
Why, oh why, do the “pro-lifers” not care about human suffering? Most of these people do not support the social programs that forcing someone who cannot afford to have a child needs. In our way overpopulated world we need MORE birth control not less.
Tom in Long Beach
Trace, again, that’s your opinion. So what if you think 9 months is a small thing to ask? There are people who think differently. It’s their own beliefs to consider, their own choice to make.
In my opinion, scraping a cluster of cells out of your uterus is nothing in the grand scheme of things. There’s no reason I shouldn’t be as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours.
“Actions have consequences and if a woman chooses to have unprotected sex…”
Oh yay, I was wondering when you’d pull that out of the anti-choice bag of tricks.
Newsflash: Many, many, many women DO use contraceptives and still become pregnant. Contraception is not perfect. Why should a woman be forced to have an unwanted child just because the contraception failed?
Just because a woman chooses to have sex (with a man) doesn’t mean she agrees to have a child. That would be like saying someone who gets in a car agrees to die. If precautions fail, that doesn’t mean a person has to accept pregnancy/childbirth, or motor vehicle death, if you will.
I’m not trying to change your opinion or beliefs, but I ask that you respect others’ beliefs and opinions regarding pregnancy and abortion.
Ms. Radical, in the grand scheme of things 9 months is nothing. I support a woman’s right to practice safe sex if she chooses to not become pregnant. Actions have consequences and if a woman chooses to have unprotected sex, then I think 9 months to give live is a very very very small thing to ask.
Trace said “I come to this view as a human being.”
Yet, you don’t have the humanity to care about what the woman wants to do with her body for 9 months. Nice one.
“I have a half sister that was adopted by my father and step-mother. Thank Gawd that her biological mother did not decide to abort her as an “inconvenience.””
So what? This anecdote is supposed to justify denying other women from making their own choices? If a woman believes an embryo or a fetus is “life”, then that’s her CHOICE to keep it. No one ever forces women to abort (even in life-threatening cases, I might add), so why should someone force a woman to keep a fetus?
Whether or not an embryo/fetus is “alive” IS NOT a scientific or objective question. It is a question much like, “What is the purpose of life?”. Different people have different opinions on the issue, and they should be able to choose based on their opinions accordingly.
It’s great that you’re glad your half sister wasn’t aborted, but you know who else was almost aborted but was not?
Adolf Hitler.
How’s that for an anecdote?
“So when children are aborted because the parent does not want a gay child, are we going to have the gay community support this? After all, it is a woman’s right?”
NO ONE is trying to have the gay community support anything. I am stating what I support. Since when was an opinion on abortion a tenet of the gay rights movement?
The possibility that women may abort because of a “gay gene” has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with society and tolerance of gay people. Your reference to a “gay gene” is a red herring. If we don’t want people to abort a fetus with a “gay gene”, we need to stop that kind of mentality in general, the intolerance of gays. The same way if a person thinks women should not abort fetuses with Down’s syndrome, they should work to get their message across and promote tolerance of children with Down’s syndrome. Forcing a woman to carry a gay fetus or a fetus with Down’s syndrome against her will IS NOT the answer.
In any case, I do support a woman’s right to choose, for any reason, and at any time during a pregnancy.
By the way, it’s “Ms. Radical”.
Mr. Radical, it is not through my “Christian Glasses” that I come to this view. I come to this view as a human being. I have a half sister that was adopted by my father and step-mother. Thank Gawd that her biological mother did not decide to abort her as an “inconvenience.”
I fully suspect that a “gay gene” will some day be found. That will likely be able to be determined invetro. So when children are aborted because the parent does not want a gay child, are we going to have the gay community support this? After all, it is a woman’s right?
This regulation’s impact on women’s choice and contraception CANNOT be understated.
However, anyone who thinks this regulation change will not directly effect them may be in for a rude surprise.
There are no limitations on what services may be denied.
Abortion as a form of birth control is something that would be best to try and dimish as much as possible. However, spontaneous abortion exists in nature. It is a biological component that exists in some species to allow the stronger offspring to survive. Late-term abortions, the ones most often used by the anti-choice movement are very, very rare. The vast majority of abortions that are done very early on and in no way resemble an infant. Regardless of how you feel on the issue, it isn’t the governments role to decide for people what they can and cannot do with their own body. Those concerned about abortion would be well advised to vent their anger at the institutions that do not support birth control.
Trace, lay off the “killing unborn babies” bullshit.
Abortion has already been illegal in the past, and it did NOTHING to stop abortion. It only killed and injured many, many women who could not support a child at that time in their life.
History will look back and wonder why they forced women to become baby machines and denied them control over their own bodies.
If you took off your delusional christian “life starts at conception” glasses for one second, you would see how backwards you are on this issue.
There is a larger issue here.
The Dominionist – Reconstructionist kristianist extremists want to replace the US legal code with the Old Testament Code of Leviticus.
Yes, they want to stone adulterers AND LGBTQA people to death. One of Rushdooney’s disciples, Howard Ahmanson Jr. of Newport Beach, Orange County, CA along with Richard Mellon Scaife of Pittsburgh, PA are the money behind the reich-wing assault on the mainline churches. In particular, they are funding the renegade North American “anglican” “province.”
Central to their claim is the belief that the “laws of God” (THEIR interpretation, at any rate) SUPERSEDE the Constitution and US law in general.
Shortsighted gay men say that a woman’s right to choose isn’t our fight. All I can say to that is,
“WE’RE NEXT!”
Bud Burgoon-Clark
San Diego CA USA
who remembers when telling a DOCTOR you were gay could get you sent to PRISON in parts of the US.
This will also impact Lesbian couples who seek insemination.
Maybe not the best of regulations but probably an important one. It’s horrible that we still believe it’s ok to kill unborn babies.
Some day folk will look back on the abortion issue and limiting of gay rights and say, “what were they thinking?”
The implications of this regulation change is significant for women seeking abortion.
Also significant, and for the most part overlooked, is the impact this change may have on all LGBT persons seeking health care.
This regulation declares anyone who assists in the delivery of, or provides directly, any health service, may deny services for any reason that contradicts their moral or religious views.
Cases like Supreme Court of California’s North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court, in which a medical provider was sued for denial of services to an LGBT patient based on the provider’s religious objection. This regulation change protects just this kind of discrimination
Employees such as 911 operators, ambulance drivers, and hospital admittance staff who have religious or moral objections to LGBT people may significantly impact health care for LGBT people.
Any insurance company, or individual insurance company employee, may also refuse financial coverage based on moral objections.
There are limits as to who can be denied service; those limits are based on federal nondiscrimination laws.
LGBT people are not covered by those laws.
Disgusting stuff. But we shouldn’t be surprised, given that the shrub administration has repeatedly shown it doesn’t give a damn about a)human rights, b) women, and c)separation of cult and state.
Add in all the retarded, delusional anti-choice fascists running around this ridiculous country and it’s a goddamn recipe for disaster.
Why does the USA have a higher infant mortality rate and a higher teen pregnancy rate than any other 1st world country?
Because of “faith-based” crap like this.