"Freedom of conscience"

[sashayaki]

So. There is a proposed law by the Bush administration that would allow doctors to refuse to give abortions or sterilizations (just female, as far as I can tell) based on moral or religious objections. Hereis the proposed rule. Not the draft, mind - the actual rule

Comments

[beckielric]

Very well said! I'm sick of the Bush administration forcing their control-freak-ish right-wing religious agenda down everybody's throats. =_= Women should have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies; the government shouldn't be deciding for them! >_>

[sashayaki]

Agreed.

My parents were just trying to tell me yesterday that nothing like this was going to happen; it's just noise from the extremists. They're conservatives, and were unhappy when I said I am probably not voting for McCain - partly for this reason, as it's the one solid political item that I have strong feelings and knowledge about.

[dsendros]

I'm not as sure it's noise. The thing I think you missed was that this isn't legislation. That would require approval by Congress and would never pass in the current environment. What this is is a notice of proposed rulemaking, which means the executive branch (Bush) has decided to read legislation as giving them the power to interpret the law in this way. The specifics are unimportant, but the end result is that the administration can put this into effect regardless of anything that goes on. They don't need approval from Congress and they're not just making noise.

You got one thing on the money: one way to stop this is to change the party in control of the executive branch. McCain would probably support the regulation; Obama for sure would oppose it.

[zamiel]

Or you could … pick another doctor, just as if it were a free market. Which it is.

There is nothing so broken that government intervention can’t fuck it up worse, and that includes (maybe primordially) medical care. Your objection to government interfering with a doctor choosing what services to render is just as harmful, if not moreso, than banning the procedures. Why? Because if women truly care about the control of their own bodies, if it’s really an issue they give a shit about, then they can and will choose OBGYN’s that provide that service. And the ones that don’t provide that service will suffer a loss of profit. If it’s sufficient enough, they’ll go out of business and the market, actively, will have chosen without question what services they’re willing to support.

On the other hand, if enough women do care enough about such things but differently than you, those doctors who publically state they won’t perform those procedures will do just fine, as will the doctors that do them. And then everyone will have a choice.

Not

[sashayaki]

The problem is that there aren't always other doctors in reasonable distance. Especially in small rural areas, like where I'm from. What if it's a teen who wants it, especially one who doesn't want their parents to know? Their choices are limited. It's expensive to travel, these procedures often require several trips - it can be difficult enough without the added difficulty of finding a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

I don't consider myself the left or the right, either - much to my parents' dismay tonight as they tried talking politics with me (they're republicans).

[zamiel]

If a teen wants it without their parents to know, they’ve got a whole different set of laws and rules to go by, not the least being whether or not the doctor has a legal responsibility to inform the legal caretakers and thus those both responsible for their care and ongoing support. That’s wholly unrelated to your point and is really more an issue for supporting more doctors in rural areas, or evacuating people from absolute shiteholes. But neither of them are the business of the State.

I think Eric the Half-Bee’s settled on describing me as an anarcho-fascist, but what he really means is a Pure Objectivist, philosophically.

If there are enough women in an area wanting a service, there’s economic and social pressure to provide that to them. It’s not instant and it’s not magic. What you seem to want is for the medical profession to be ready to do whatever you want them to at whatever point and under whatever rules you deem just. And cheaply. No market in the world works that way, least one where the State’s already got their little

[dsendros]

Again, it is actually Sasha - and not you - protesting the coercion of the state by objecting to this rule. The timestamp on this post is earlier than on the one where you respond to me, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you hadn't realized that you and she were on the same side yet. But if I'm wrong, I'm not really sure what you're arguing about here.

[februaryfifteen]

that is totally fucked

[sashayaki]

It's ridiculous. They're denying legal health care that we have a right to. Ugh.

[shellypants]

Worst case scenario: Even if they did ban these things (including female sterilization), its an easier process for men to get sterilized, anyway. ;)

[sashayaki]

Well, for sterilization, yes - it is hard enough to get sterilized as a woman because many doctors won't do it if you're under a certain age or don't have a certain number of kids in case you change your mind. (They make that argument for iuds as well, which is stupid; they're temporary) Men aren't always willing to get snip-snipped though, from what I've heard. =p

[shellypants]

Getting sterilized as a woman is a retarded process, for all the reasons you mentioned. I mean, COME ON, this world does NOT need more people. If women get nesty, adopt. That's just me, though.

Men aren't always willing to get snip-snipped though, from what I've heard. =p

Yeeeeeeeeeah, that's the problem. X)

[sashayaki]

Definitely agreed! There are enough kids who need to be adopted as it is. That's why it pisses me off when pro-life people say, "Oh, but you can just put the kid up for adoption!" yeah, maybe once all the kids in the system are adopted MAYBE they can bring that argument up again. >(

Of course, the adoption process is a pain in the ass and incredibly expensive too... That could use some work. =/

Haha yeah, men don't like sharp things near their important bits...

[fire_in_me]

i think a lot of this could be eliminated if people were just responsible enough to protect themselves from an outcome they don't want.
if you don't want a kid, don't have unprotected sex, be on birth control and you have very low odds of ending up with a baby...and if you do end up with pregnant, wow, you had sex, you shouldn't be shocked.
i think people need to decide if it's worth the risk for them.

but i firmly believe that it is enough for me to say i wouldn't have an abortion..if other people want to i suppose that is their decision. doesn't mean i have to respect them though.

[sashayaki]

Accidents happen, even with precautions. And regardless, someone being stupid about sex does not mean a child should be forced to be raised by someone who doesn't want them and likely would not make a good parent in the first place. I don't think just putting the child up for adoption is a viable argument, either: maybe once all the kids already in the system have found homes, but as it is, there are more than enough kids who need to be adopted

[fire_in_me]

whether it's fair or not isn't the issue...the reality is sex results in a baby. although we like doing it for other reasons, a baby is the final product.

[sashayaki]

Yes, it does. But in these modern times we do not exactly need countless more people - especially when they are not wanted and will likely have terrible lives *because* they are unwanted. Life is very different now. Infant mortality is very low so we don't need people to have every possible baby. Nor are babies a focus of life for all people. But sex is still an incredibly strong urge/instinct, not to mention enjoyable, so people will continue to engage in it whether or not they want or can afford to have babies.