New Proposal: Contraception = Abortion?

[Arellia]

[Lord Borg]

This kind of worries me, because I can see this being abused, mistreated whatever you want to say, if not the original intentions behind this to already prevent certain...options from being available, or used. Sad, really.

[Birdy]

This is shocking. So even things that prohibit a conception are considered abortion, if I understand correctly? Wow.
And Bush wants to push this through just before he leaves, of course.
I think it's just ridiculous. I though America was a country to be free, to do what you want? It certainly won't be anymore if this implemented.

[Arellia]

^ Agreed. The most worrisome thing is that if the definition remains that abortion includes contraception, if McCain wins and picks people on the supreme court who will ban abortion, it might intentionally or unintentionally include birth control. I realize that *seems* like a stretch, but I have a problem when the government starts playing with the definition of abortion like this.

[calvin]

there's already a "conscience clause" passed in several states which allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a customer's prescription for emergency contraceptives like Plan B (commonly referred to as the "morning-after pill"). this type of religiously-motivated legislation has started us down a slippery-slope.

a few years ago i even read about a woman who was raped and went to the police for help. when she expressed desire to take the morning-after pill to prevent pregnancy a priest advised the police to hold her at the police station, and essentially put her in jail for being raped. they eventually released her, but by then the window of opportunity for maximum effectiveness of emergency contraceptives had already passed. and i'm pretty sure this happened in a southern state where abortion is illegal. so, yea... it was really *beep* up.

not to mention the Bush administration has also cut funding from U.N. agencies and international aid organizations which provide contraceptives or family planning services & education to developing nations. their policy of stamping out family planning and promoting abstinence-only programs has already had a hugely detrimental effect on public health (particularly of women) in 3rd world countries.

[Arellia]

The family planning overseas thing is very sad... along with the woman rape story. Though, I would note, no state can currently ban abortion, they can only restrict (requiring parental consent, consent of the father, counseling, mandatory wait times not to exceed 24 hours, etc.). I understand that religious people in medicine have their views, but to be honest, if you're an OB-GYN who refuses to offer contraceptives or information on abortions, you need a new profession. I've had OB's tell me that if contraception fails I "cannot" have an abortion because "the baby has to live." That's really not the place of a medical professional.

[Lord Borg]

[PrankishSmart]

[squiggy]

I am rather disturbed by this...
While I understand the Hipocratic oath requires them to "Do no harm", I can think of more than a few doctors who haven't taken this into consideration. ((I personally have been victimized by a few of them, as have a few people I've known...))
however, this, to me, is unconstitutional.
How can SOMEONE ELSE'S BELIEFS say what medication I am not allowed to take? How can SOMEONE ELSE'S BELIEFS say what surgeries I can and can not have?
What about my beliefs? What about my rights?
And this isn't strictly an American issue. In some Canadian Provinces, there is a likewise Labor board clause that states that no medical doctor, or pharmacist has to do any procedure, or prescribe/fill any prescription that they have a religious problem with.
((I actually had to travel to Quebec to get one of the surgeries for my leg, because the surgery stipulated a blood transfusion, which I needed, because of my anemia, however, as the procedure normally did not require a blood transfusion, the only doctor capable of the surgery without a long wait time refused to do it, because he was a Jehovah's Witness.))
So I had to wonder... can a Mormon pharmacist refuse to dispatch psychotropic drugs, pain killers such as Morphine, or Vicodin, or other such drugs that alter a person's mental state? Can they refuse to dispatch drugs which help treat mental illnesses?
Can a Jehovah's Witness doctor refuse to recommend any procedure that requires blood transfusions?
A rather disturbing answer has fallen to my ears. One that has me wondering exactly what my rights are, as their' patient.
Yes. They can. And frequently do.
((I've had to change nine different pharmacies over the past two years for exactly this reason.... and three different doctors, for similar reasons.))
So the question that I brought up with my local MP/MLA{Member of Parliament, or the Canadian equivelant to the US Congress/Member of the Legislative Assembly, or the Canadian equivelant to a US State governing body.} which was rather bluntly and simply worded, was where do these people step off? If they are unable, for religious reasons, to prescribe, or do a procedure, or drug, which may SAVE MY LIFE, or MAKE IT BETTER, by what right do they have the right to say no?
My response, from both members was worded, almost exactly the same. Translated from Bureaucratese to common English, essentially:
Because a Medical Doctor and Pharmacist have the same freedom to religion that the general public has, they may use whatever ethics they deem right, in the treatment of the patient.
So the question then comes to my mind, which I haven't been able to translate into bureaucretese just yet, is this:
So if my doctor is a Satanic worshiper, is it legal for them to 'assist my suicide'?
((By the way, if someone actually does find a way to put that into bureaucratese, send it to me, so I can send it to the local MLA, and see what kind of response it garners.))

[Arellia]

Um... Satanists would honor your wishes if you wanted a suicide... me being friends with a Satanist I have to wonder why and how you mean to target them. They don't go around killing people. In fact, they're pretty hyper about respect.

On the issue of harming a patient directly because of your ideals, that is an excellent point--if a religion required, say, that the woman die to save a fetus, that seems to be at conflict. Many religious people I know feel that way.

[squiggy]

You get my meaning, at least, if not the exact syntax I phrased certain parts of it. Indeed, I also have friends who are satanists, and I didn't intentionally single them out, it's just that it's the first one that came to mind.
However, I also agree with the woman dying to save a fetus. What if the fetus then dies somewhere down the line? Who has to apolagize to the family of the woman who died because they made a bad choice?
And what if that woman also was the mother of two other children? Or a researcher studying a cure for cancer? Or a street person? Would there be a double standard? Would the first two be allowed to get abortions, while the third would not? Who would ultimately be able to make that choice? And by what right would they have to make it?
Because of their' belief system? What about the rights and beliefs of those three patients?

[Lord Borg]

What bothers me, is how this is a law that allows some rights to be violated, I spoke to my father about this (I don't think he quite caught the drift behind the true intentions of this...whatever), is how medical professionals are allowed to take a job like this, and then use their position to fight what they perceive as wrong. Not all of us live under the belief that sex is only for reproduction with your spouse, anyways to my point, how is it that this will allow them to deny treatment with no legal ramifications (Particularly if it included death, or ill heath as a result), yet if a parent/legal guardian/whatever were to make a decision on religious belief, depending on how the outcome of it was (Such as death), legal charges could potentially (and most likely would) be brought forth against said individual?

Personally, I think...well, I really don't know what I truly think, or how to say it if I do.

[calvin]

[Lord Borg]

Isn't it already illegal to teach evolution, or is that something else I am thinking of? Sorry to go off topic, here...

[calvin]

to quote the wikipedia page on the Kansas State Board of Education:

[squiggy]