Once again Bush and his administration have proven to fail women in their rights and their reproductive choices, yesterday was another sign of the damage Bush has done to women these past 8 years and what he is continuing to do.A political friend of mine, Lauren Guy McAlpin, wrote this facebook note about what Bush has done and I feel it gets to the point of why Bush has been so dangerous to women here (and also abroad) with his absurd policies.
New proposal repackages discrimination as "personal conviction"
The Bush Administration has launched a new offensive on women's rights. This week, the Department of Health and Human Services moved to make new strides in limiting reproductive options. The proposal includes three major strikes:
- Strike 1: Some methods of birth control (such as oral contraception and EC) can be defined as abortion, because they can prevent implantation after conception. Since some people believe life begins at conception, these methods can be defined as abortificants.
- Strike 2: Doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals are allowed to refuse to prescribe, fill, or provide legitimate information about birth control if they're "morally opposed" to it. Any clinic receiving federal funding cannot refuse to hire or take disciplinary action against these individuals.
- Strike 3: Deceptive "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" -- centers that pose as medical clinics but really just dole out false information to prevent women from making educated decisions -- get even more social service money.
Why stop there? Why not pretend sperm are sentient beings and redefine condoms as abortificants as well? Then doctors and clinicians wouldn’t have to deal with handing out all those pesky free condoms if they didn’t want to. Why not let doctors be “morally opposed” to women having more children than she appears to be able to support. Let them sterilize women at will! Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But the truth is, these new “rules” could open the flood gates for all sorts of new, outlandish redefinitions of reproductive options, from limiting access to birth control to creating a new culture of eugenics.
The thing is, this idea of "choice" gets all mangled up in this conversation. And no I'm not talking about the choice of the patient; I'm talking about those who swore an oath to do their jobs but think they can “choose” when to put their medical duties on the backburner. They say prescribing or even talking about birth control is against their personal convictions. Well guess what? You're a doctor, and your job is to assess situations from a medical standpoint, not a moral one. If a doctor is obligated to let living patients die because they requested a DNR order, they should also be obligated to provide a measly little birth control prescription with legitimate medical information if requested to do so.
The same goes for pharmacists. Let's say I was a pharmacist and, for some bizarre reason, was opposed to the elderly treating their high blood pressure, and therefore refused to fill Beta blocker prescriptions for clients over 65 years of age. You, the patient, have made the decision to take these Beta blockers, but I have made the decision not to give them to you. Discrimination? No. “Personal conviction.”
“Fine,” you might say. “That's your decision; I'll go to another pharmacist.” Whoops! I'm the only pharmacist in town, and the pharmacists in the next town over are all against the use of Beta blockers by the senior citizens as well. You, my friend, are shit outta luck.
Why does it sound so crazy when discussing something as trivial as blood pressure medication but not when considering reproductive medicine? It’s outright misogyny, another facet of a culture of control over human lives that the Bush Administration has asserted time and time again, and it has not slowed in its last few months of existence. Discrimination is being repackaged as “personal conviction,” and with this new proposal, there are zero consequences.
- Strike 1: Some methods of birth control (such as oral contraception and EC) can be defined as abortion, because they can prevent implantation after conception. Since some people believe life begins at conception, these methods can be defined as abortificants.
- Strike 2: Doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals are allowed to refuse to prescribe, fill, or provide legitimate information about birth control if they're "morally opposed" to it. Any clinic receiving federal funding cannot refuse to hire or take disciplinary action against these individuals.
- Strike 3: Deceptive "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" -- centers that pose as medical clinics but really just dole out false information to prevent women from making educated decisions -- get even more social service money.
Why stop there? Why not pretend sperm are sentient beings and redefine condoms as abortificants as well? Then doctors and clinicians wouldn’t have to deal with handing out all those pesky free condoms if they didn’t want to. Why not let doctors be “morally opposed” to women having more children than she appears to be able to support. Let them sterilize women at will! Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But the truth is, these new “rules” could open the flood gates for all sorts of new, outlandish redefinitions of reproductive options, from limiting access to birth control to creating a new culture of eugenics.
The thing is, this idea of "choice" gets all mangled up in this conversation. And no I'm not talking about the choice of the patient; I'm talking about those who swore an oath to do their jobs but think they can “choose” when to put their medical duties on the backburner. They say prescribing or even talking about birth control is against their personal convictions. Well guess what? You're a doctor, and your job is to assess situations from a medical standpoint, not a moral one. If a doctor is obligated to let living patients die because they requested a DNR order, they should also be obligated to provide a measly little birth control prescription with legitimate medical information if requested to do so.
The same goes for pharmacists. Let's say I was a pharmacist and, for some bizarre reason, was opposed to the elderly treating their high blood pressure, and therefore refused to fill Beta blocker prescriptions for clients over 65 years of age. You, the patient, have made the decision to take these Beta blockers, but I have made the decision not to give them to you. Discrimination? No. “Personal conviction.”
“Fine,” you might say. “That's your decision; I'll go to another pharmacist.” Whoops! I'm the only pharmacist in town, and the pharmacists in the next town over are all against the use of Beta blockers by the senior citizens as well. You, my friend, are shit outta luck.
Why does it sound so crazy when discussing something as trivial as blood pressure medication but not when considering reproductive medicine? It’s outright misogyny, another facet of a culture of control over human lives that the Bush Administration has asserted time and time again, and it has not slowed in its last few months of existence. Discrimination is being repackaged as “personal conviction,” and with this new proposal, there are zero consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment