I usually hate entering in the abortion debate, since it's rather clear that we have two sets of people who will not budge from their positions. But, this particular aspect of the debate just fueled my fury.
By now, you probably have heard of the Colorado amendment to define a fertilized egg as a person. If you haven't, I highly suggest checking out Esuffern's blog on the topic. Of course, since I'm in Colorado (and I take birth control pills), this is of particular interest to me.
Now, I read that the Bush Administration wants to make some of the consequences of the Colorado law a federal law. He wants to push a bill through that will define many types of birth control as abortion.
Basically, the purpose of the law is to prevent discrimination against health care workers (including nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and even hospitals and insurance companies) for being against abortion. It says that a group cannot refuse to hire a worker because he or she does not support (nor will he or she participate in) any abortion. It also prevents the withholding of things like grant money to hospitals and insurance companies who have a policy against abortion.
While this all sounds fine and good, as discrimination in general is typically a bad thing, let's look a little more deeply at the consequences of such a law.
Health care workers are, in part, responsible for the health of our citizens and legal residents. While one can refuse to do a certain procedure based on his or her morals, the obligation is first towards the health of the patient. In other words, you cannot deny a treatment to someone just because you don't agree in the procedure without providing some alternative, in the form of a referral or some other treatment that will help the patient. Of course, this gets sketchy when you get into the financial aspect of something, since only ER workers are required to treat everyone, but the concept is the same.
As a result of this, people in low income areas could be completely without birth control, which will most certainly be less advantageous than allowing birth control in the first place. If there is only one hospital/pharmacist in the area you live, and you cannot afford to drive to the next closest one, you don't have a choice but to just accept things for how they are.
It also goes completely against science; the only reason people could possibly consider hormonal birth control as abortion is because in some cases, it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg. But even without the birth control, 1/3 to 1/2 of all fertilized eggs don't implant. So, there is no way to tell if the fertilized egg didn't implant because of the birth control, or because the woman's body wouldn't have let it implant (as some do implant, even when the woman is taking birth control).
Furthermore, it sets up a horrible precedence. Hormonal birth control and abortion are NOT the same thing at all, and if there were any laws down the line to ban abortion (at the rate we're going, that could possibly happen), then hormonal birth control would also be outlawed, despite the fact that some women DO use it for something other than birth control.
What's funny about all this is that this new law is supposed to ensure that federal money does not "support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law." But by forcing this law on everyone, they are being 'morally coercive' and 'discriminatory' towards people who don't have other options available to them.
Personally, I think birth control is a very useful device, and can help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (and, let's face it, not everyone who has sex does so irresponsibly; a married couple could not want children, and people taking certain medications could also not want children). Why should we start on the road to banning those as well? Wouldn't that essentially make the problem worse? And why take the power away from the woman in this situation. Hormonal birth control is one of the few options available that she can exclusively control.
Thoughts?
Yay! You wrote it! And I absolutely agree. It infuriates me that these sorts of things continue to come up. We battled something similar in Arkansas a few years ago. The GA wanted to pass a bill in which doctors could refuse to write these prescriptions and pharmacists could refuse to fill them and they did not have to transfer them to another doctor or pharmacist.
First and foremost, we have to remember that birth control serves many different purposes. It is often prescribed to help women with endometreosis and PCOS manage symptoms; it's used prior to IVF in many instances; women who have a history of ectopic pregnancy and can't risk getting pregnant and women with other medical concerns take it because of risks to the child or self.
When health care providers are given the option of not providing the medication because of a moral belief, they put the patient they agreed to serve at risk... that's just not acceptable to me. The morals of my doctor should not come before my health, particularly when there is already an OB/GYN shortage in many areas because of outrageous malpractice fees.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
Yes, I wrote it. Took me forever to write it too, so you best be happy :P
It has always been my understanding that you could refuse treatment only if you could provide an alternate treatment, or a referral to another doctor (or whatever). This all has me wondering if that was legally binding, or if it was merely professional ethics that demanded all that.
Of course, when it comes to abortion, I really don't understand why anyone would choose a practice that would incorporate it (beyond ER), knowing that they would not do it. I don't think I could personally perform an abortion (though I would have no problem prescribing birth control in any form), but I have absolutely no plans to go into a field that would demand it of me. I plan on working in a clinic for children, and maybe teenagers... nothing that would require surgery.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Of course, when it comes to abortion, I really don't understand why anyone would choose a practice that would incorporate it (beyond ER), knowing that they would not do it.
That's what I was wondering while reading this. It just seems like something that shouldn't even be an issue. I don't think I would be able to scrub in on an abortion, but I would have no problem giving pre- and post-op care, or providing education on any and all women's health issues.
I think professional ethics are what started the whole thing with only being able to refuse treatment if you can provide an alternative or a referral. Because some people harbor so much resentment for the client for wanting a procedure that goes against the provider's morals, that it interferes with any other care they could give. If you know you can't provide care because of your judgment, then you should find someone who can, but why would you put yourself in that position?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Don Williams, Jr.
Read my Blog!
The Sex Change Blog
This is awful! I mean, I believe healthcare workers should have to follow the LAW, and since birth control is legal, they have to provide it for women who want it. If they don't want to perform abortions, there's an easy way to avoid having to do that, but other than that, a woman is free to make her own choices just like anyone else.
And what about those workers who would be willing to provide birth control to a rape victim? Does that rape victim have to provide a police statement or some proof that she was raped before they'll provide her with the morning-after pill? How far is this going to go (not that I don't think it's gone WAY over the line already)?
It's terrifying to think that we might be heading back to the times when illegal abortions were being performed with knitting needles, except this time, women might not even have access to prevention! What will women desparate for birth control try? The possibilities are terrifying.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Birth control cuts down on the number of abortions performed, so if you are pro-life, it makes sense to be pro-birth control. Fertilization is too soon to be consedered a person in my opinion.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I've been so surprised that no one else has written about this. People in my home state of Ohio seem to have no idea this kind of debate is occurring in Colorado. I find it hard to believe they'll succeed though. I mean it seems to me that most people are pro-birth control. But imagine, women filing false rape reports just to get a pill? I could see it happening.
I live in Colorado too. Sometimes I just disregard the hype of these truly outrageous laws some people want to pass. The laws won't pass. People, even Coloradans, are more realistic than to not understand the consequences of not having birth control. Colorado also wants to lay off oil workers for three months out of the year to give the environment a break. I would rather go put a pistol in my mouth right now than believe that we are that stupid. Its all political hype.
Read My Blog!
Doooooo it...
Well, I'm split on the oil field working right now, mostly because I know that welders out in those oil fields get paid four THOUSAND dollars a WEEK (on top of per diem so that they can live in a nearby hotel). My mom makes that in a MONTH, and we're pretty well off. I don't think being out of a job for 12 weeks of the year is going to kill them. Of course, I don't know what the rest of them make, and so I would hate to vote to cause a temporary unemployment every year, especially if it would cause a hardship for those workers.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I wouldnt go out and decide what they make until youve been the one applying for the job yourself. Sure, some people make bank. But my dad in desperation went looking in the oil patch (he is a systems analyst that has been laid off for about a year now) and he was offered the dirtiest, grueling job on the site for 10.95 an hour. So yeah. I dont think they can afford a 3 month vacation. Plus all the rehiring bull...its all such a stupid idea....the consequences
Read My Blog!
Doooooo it...
My sister's father is looking for a job out there as a welder, and his dad works out there as a welder, so I am fully aware of what the welders make. He even offered to take me out there as his assistant, and I would have gotten paid $18 an hour.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
My dad isn't a welder. So he wasn't offered a job with that high of pay....because, I guess, he's not a welder....
I am quite skeptical if you are suggesting anybody could go out and work for $18/hr.
Read My Blog!
Doooooo it...
I don't think she was suggesting that. I think she was just defending her knowledge of what welders make, and doesn't have any objections to people making that amount of money taking a 12-week vacation each year if it'll help out. She did suggest at some point of time that she didn't know how much other workers made and would "hate to vote to cause a temporary unemployment every year, especially if it would cause a hardship for those workers." So I'm guessing if it's actually going to hurt people, she's not going to support it.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Don Williams, Jr.
Read my Blog!
The Sex Change Blog
Yeah. She did say that and I didn't notice at first. The problem is, from a voters perspective when looking on the ballot, it isn't going to present the implications. It is going to present the proposition in such a manner that everybody would agree....the same mentality will go on: "Oh, this would give the environment a break and those guys can afford to lose their jobs for a couple months anyway. Check!"
Then what happens is oil companies decide Colorado is way overregulated, and they move a few miles away (Utah is right on the border of Grand Junction) to beat those regulations and avoid losing extravagant amounts over a not-so-well-thought-out proposal. So now Colorado loses its oil companies, and maybe the environment in Colorado has seen a few less spills. But the surrounding states haven't....so how much of a benefit has the law been to the environment as a whole anyway?
I know this isn't a drilling debate but I am basically just trying to say that its hard to just assume that a voter would make the right decision based on what has been presented on the ballot. The public probably wouldn't know whether or not it would hurt people or not, regardless of their true understanding of an oil workers wage.
Read My Blog!
Doooooo it...
Mike Leavitt wrote about this in his blog. The LA Times also wrote an article on it, if you haven't seen it already.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Don Williams, Jr.
Read my Blog!
The Sex Change Blog
Another stupid idea from the Bush administration..they just get better everyday. Many people don't understand that birthcontrol also has other properties which make the drug attractive to woman. I went on birthcontrol for better cycles and so that they would be regular and so my devilish moods would change. This is why I went on it. Although they are pointing more towards abortion and sex the other benefits I listed above would be set aside as well.
This would mean not only can woman prevent themselves from getting pregnant but also we will have alot of moody woman and probably eventually some deaths...resulting from lack of hormone therapy...
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!