Redefining abortion and the stupid people who think the Bushie's latest proposal is a good idea.....
If you have no clue what my subject line refers to, you should probably go take a look at this, or what I'm saying here isn't going to make much sense.
I've been meaning to post about this for a while now, and am just now finding the time. If I offend anyone with what I have to say, feel free to defriend me. Every day is de-friending Amnesty Day on my LJ.
This whole issue pisses me the fuck off for so many reasons. A few examples include the fact that I resent the hell out of being told that I spent years having monthly abortions just because I took birth control pills and later used an IUD; the fact that I am a sexual assault crisis advocate in a state that requires that all sexual assault survivors be offered emergency contraception; the fact that I firmly believe in the separation of church and state and as such take serious issue with the government making a law that states that a medical professional's right to deny compassionate care for reasons of religious belief should ever override the need of a patient to receive compassionate care. You name it, and it's likely one of the many reasons that I take issue with this whole mess.
There is also the issue of allowing the dictates of conscience to authorize murder. No, I am not speaking of the "murder" of an unborn child. I'm talking about the fact that under this legislation, performing necessary surgery to save the life of a woman with a tubal pregnancy becomes an abortion. So, if the doctor on call in the ER has a protected moral objection to performing an abortion, then he can legally allow a woman to die because she has a tubal pregnancy? WTF?!
My mom has been a nurse for as long as I can remember. She and I were discussing this recently, and she made a very valid point that I haven't seen anyone else bring up in all of the debates about the issue. And as it may very well be the most important point that could be brought up, I wanted to put it out there.
She told me that the one time in her career she truly felt that doing her job meant violating her own conscience happened when she had a patient who was a Jehovah's Witness. In that case, in order to respect the patient's religious beliefs, she literally had to watch him die knowing that all she needed to do to save his life was to give him a simple blood transfusion. It absolutely violated her own conscience not to save his life. But if she had violated his religious beliefs in favor of her own conscience, not only could she have been fired, but she likely would have lost her nursing license and could even have been brought up on assault charges for forcing the transfusion on him against his will. Not to mention that it would have been morally wrong for her to do so. And as he was the patient, his beliefs trumped her own.
So, I would say to the Bushie and David Christensen and Richard S. Meyers and all of the others who are so in favor of this proposal that they should keep in mind that the sword cuts both ways. If a medical professional can cite a religious or moral objection in order to avoid participating "in an act that they find abhorrent", then that must also include a right to use their personal beliefs to violate the religious freedom of patients and force the patient to participate in acts that he/she may find abhorrent as well.
If someone could get that through these people's heads, then maybe we could go back to focusing on the patient's rights instead of the rights of the professionals who made a choice to go into a field that they knew could present situations requiring that they put their own beliefs aside and focus on another human being and his/her needs.
No one in this country is forced to go into the medical profession. If I am a pacifist, I know better than to accept a job making bombs. If I strongly believe that television is evil, then I'm not likely to accept a job at NBC. And if I believe that using contraception is a sin, then it's my own damn fault if I choose to go to work in a family planning clinic. And if we as human beings find something in our professional lives that violates our conscience, then it should be our own responsibility to decide whether our conscience outweighs our need/desire to remain employed in that field.
By attempting to pass this legislation, the Bushie is effectively saying that some people in this country are entitled to have the dictates of their consciences protected by the federal government, even at the expense of forcing their employers to violate their own belief systems by not being able to fire or refuse to employ the privileged few. And I want to know what right the joke that is our current president thinks he has to pick and choose whose moral objections are being protected and whose aren't.
And I would seriously hope that the group of people who are in favor of passing this into law think long and hard about the fact that if the government is given this right, a right which is currently in their favor, that the next time that same government chooses to exercise that same right, the outcome may very well be to their detriment.
Honestly, whether you are opposed to abortion and contraception or are in favor of it, I would strongly encourage you to write to your Congressional representation to discourage them from allowing this to happen. It sets bad precedents for all sides of this particular debate and could come with consequences that go far beyond its original intent.
~Lisa
I've been meaning to post about this for a while now, and am just now finding the time. If I offend anyone with what I have to say, feel free to defriend me. Every day is de-friending Amnesty Day on my LJ.
This whole issue pisses me the fuck off for so many reasons. A few examples include the fact that I resent the hell out of being told that I spent years having monthly abortions just because I took birth control pills and later used an IUD; the fact that I am a sexual assault crisis advocate in a state that requires that all sexual assault survivors be offered emergency contraception; the fact that I firmly believe in the separation of church and state and as such take serious issue with the government making a law that states that a medical professional's right to deny compassionate care for reasons of religious belief should ever override the need of a patient to receive compassionate care. You name it, and it's likely one of the many reasons that I take issue with this whole mess.
There is also the issue of allowing the dictates of conscience to authorize murder. No, I am not speaking of the "murder" of an unborn child. I'm talking about the fact that under this legislation, performing necessary surgery to save the life of a woman with a tubal pregnancy becomes an abortion. So, if the doctor on call in the ER has a protected moral objection to performing an abortion, then he can legally allow a woman to die because she has a tubal pregnancy? WTF?!
My mom has been a nurse for as long as I can remember. She and I were discussing this recently, and she made a very valid point that I haven't seen anyone else bring up in all of the debates about the issue. And as it may very well be the most important point that could be brought up, I wanted to put it out there.
She told me that the one time in her career she truly felt that doing her job meant violating her own conscience happened when she had a patient who was a Jehovah's Witness. In that case, in order to respect the patient's religious beliefs, she literally had to watch him die knowing that all she needed to do to save his life was to give him a simple blood transfusion. It absolutely violated her own conscience not to save his life. But if she had violated his religious beliefs in favor of her own conscience, not only could she have been fired, but she likely would have lost her nursing license and could even have been brought up on assault charges for forcing the transfusion on him against his will. Not to mention that it would have been morally wrong for her to do so. And as he was the patient, his beliefs trumped her own.
So, I would say to the Bushie and David Christensen and Richard S. Meyers and all of the others who are so in favor of this proposal that they should keep in mind that the sword cuts both ways. If a medical professional can cite a religious or moral objection in order to avoid participating "in an act that they find abhorrent", then that must also include a right to use their personal beliefs to violate the religious freedom of patients and force the patient to participate in acts that he/she may find abhorrent as well.
If someone could get that through these people's heads, then maybe we could go back to focusing on the patient's rights instead of the rights of the professionals who made a choice to go into a field that they knew could present situations requiring that they put their own beliefs aside and focus on another human being and his/her needs.
No one in this country is forced to go into the medical profession. If I am a pacifist, I know better than to accept a job making bombs. If I strongly believe that television is evil, then I'm not likely to accept a job at NBC. And if I believe that using contraception is a sin, then it's my own damn fault if I choose to go to work in a family planning clinic. And if we as human beings find something in our professional lives that violates our conscience, then it should be our own responsibility to decide whether our conscience outweighs our need/desire to remain employed in that field.
By attempting to pass this legislation, the Bushie is effectively saying that some people in this country are entitled to have the dictates of their consciences protected by the federal government, even at the expense of forcing their employers to violate their own belief systems by not being able to fire or refuse to employ the privileged few. And I want to know what right the joke that is our current president thinks he has to pick and choose whose moral objections are being protected and whose aren't.
And I would seriously hope that the group of people who are in favor of passing this into law think long and hard about the fact that if the government is given this right, a right which is currently in their favor, that the next time that same government chooses to exercise that same right, the outcome may very well be to their detriment.
Honestly, whether you are opposed to abortion and contraception or are in favor of it, I would strongly encourage you to write to your Congressional representation to discourage them from allowing this to happen. It sets bad precedents for all sides of this particular debate and could come with consequences that go far beyond its original intent.
~Lisa