Butterfly Cauldron
Saturday, June 23, 2007
But what about my moral beliefs?
Doctor's denying women medical care has finally made the mainstream media. (How long ago was the blog world covering this? Two years or something? I forget.) The article is fairly well done, for a MSM article. I'm just struck by how unfeeling some of these doctors come off. I get that you have your moral beliefs. I respect those. But what about mine? What about what my gods 'tell' me to do? What about those of us who don't believe in any gods at all? What about their moral beliefs? Who decided it was your right to make blanket judgements for all of us?
Rape victim goes to hospital. Has exam, asks for EC.
Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)
How does he have the right to do that? When she says to him, I'm in danger. When she wants to avoid having a baby due to rape. Where's the compassion? These people call themselves Christians? (This was at a Catholic hospital.) This is what they think Jesus would do? Really? Why would anyone want to follow a god that has so little regard for his followers suffering?
But, some say, EC is now available over the counter. Sure, if you can find a pharmacy that carries it and a pharmacist willing to give it to you. For some women, that's very hard to find.
Planned Parenthood M.D.s report patients coming to them because other gynecologists would not dole out birth control prescriptions or abortion referrals. Infertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother. In a survey published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere. And in a recent SELF.com poll, nearly 1 in 20 respondents said their doctors had refused to treat them for moral, ethical or religious reasons. "It's obscene," says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program who continues to work on projects with the Los Angeles advocacy group. "Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care. And too often, the victims of this practice are women."
I wonder if it would be possible to file some sort of gender discrimination suit against these doctors? Since their victims are, predominantly, women. I've never heard of a man being denied any medicine or treatment. (If you have, please email me the info. ) Is this one of those issues that will have to go to the Supreme Court? And gods help us, I hope if it does, we've got a few more liberal justices sitting than we do now.
Because, you'll notice that when doctor's are given the right to refuse, they're given the right to refuse treatment that seems to apply exclusively to women.
In 1973, following Roe v. Wade, Congress passed the so-called Church Amendment, allowing federally funded health care providers to refuse to do abortions. In the years since, 46 states have adopted their own abortion refusal clauses — or, as proponents call them, conscience clauses — allowing doctors to opt out. Now many states have gone further. Sixteen legislatures have given doctors the right to refuse to perform sterilizations; eight states say doctors don't have to prescribe contraception. "This is about the rights of the individual, about our constitutional right to freedom of religion," says Frank Manion, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group in Washington, D.C. Founded by minister Pat Robertson, the organization has represented health care providers and lobbied for laws that protect them.
Here's the thing: I believe strongly in a person's right to do as they please. I believe a doctor who does not want to perform abortions, she/he does not have to. But I also believe that they should be completely upfront about that fact. Their patients should not be surprised to find out that information. If a doctor won't prescribe birth control, they need to say so, up front. Post a sign somewhere in the lobby, at the sign-in desk. So, if you're there to see the doctor for the Pill, you know not to waste your time.
Because when we're talking about the rights of the individual, we can't forget the rights of the individual patient. Because she's got the right to know, before she spends her co-pay or the only gyno visit her insurance will pay for (One per year, ya know), if her doctor is going to cover all her medical needs or not.
If a pharmacy carries a drug, I don't believe a pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense it. The pharmacy itself has the right to decide not to carry something, but if it's in stock and someone comes in with a legitmate script for it, give it to them. If you can't do it, pass it on to someone who will. Period. No one should ever be turned away because someone else has decided to impose their morals upon them. Ever. Because while we do have freedom of religion in this country, that freedom is not allowed to impose itself on others. (I mean, I have the right to fervantly believe Kali will rip their balls off or give them festering boils on their dick, but that doesn't give ME the right to rip 'em off, ya know?)
I don't think emergency room docs should be allowed to deny EC either. Yes, it's over the counter, but if I'm a rape victim, I want the damn pill NOW. I don't want to have to find the nearest Walgreens and hope their pharmacist will let me buy it.
I feel more lenient to doctors in private practice, who don't do the hospital thing. Provided they advertise upfront what they will not do. (Anyone ever heard of a man being denied a vasectomy because of religious issues? Or denied Viagra?)
Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights — much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. "It's written so broadly, there's virtually no protection for patients," says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for the Washington, D.C., office of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group. Sonfield notes that many refusal clauses do not require providers to warn women about restrictions on services or to refer them elsewhere. "You have to balance doctors' rights with their responsibilities to patients, employers and communities," he adds. "Doctors shouldn't be forced to provide services, but they can't just abandon patients."
There has to be a way to balance things. I mean, I'm worried I'll be denied care because I'm a woman, fat, bisexual, chronically ill. And some of these laws would allow the doctor to deny me for any of those reasons. How is that remotely far? How is that remotely moral? Whose morals are these? Because they're not mine, at all. I mean, would we stand for a doctor refusing treatment to a black man because he's black? Or Jewish? And yet, because we're women and want to not be pregnant, it's okay? WTF?
In theory, the laws aren't aimed solely at women's health — a bill in New Jersey lists eye doctors and prosthetics technicians as examples of providers who'd be allowed to refuse care based on their beliefs. But Morrison warns women not to be fooled. "I ask you, what belief would keep someone from fitting a patient with a prosthetic limb?" she asks. "What they're really after is limiting access to women's health care. Reproductive health is seen as something other than regular health care" — not a straightforward matter of treating and healing, but something laden with morality — "and if you treat it that way, it becomes something providers can say yes or no to." Men, for the most part, escape such scrutiny: It's pretty hard to imagine someone being made to feel he's going straight to hell for choosing to take Viagra or get a vasectomy. And if women come to fear their doctors' judgments, a new set of problems can develop. "Then you have women who don't communicate with their doctors or avoid getting care," Morrison warns. "Any way you look at it, it's dangerous for women."
Right. That about sums it up, no? Because why would you go back to someone who makes you feel so bad? That lump in your breast? Oh, that's just a cyst. Those headaches you're having? Too much stress and caffiene. The unexplained weight lose? Why complain, just be glad you're losing. None of those things could be serious.
If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's this: In an emergency, doctors need to put aside personal beliefs to do what's best for the patient. But in a world guided by religious directives, even this can be a slippery proposition.
Ob/gyn Wayne Goldner, M.D., learned this lesson a few years back when a patient named Kathleen Hutchins came to his office in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was only 14 weeks pregnant, but her water had broken. Dr. Goldner delivered the bad news: Because there wasn't enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive on its own, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would likely miscarry in a matter of weeks. But in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Dr. Goldner says his devastated patient chose to get an abortion at local Elliot Hospital. But there was a problem. Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center — and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions.
"I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." He tried admitting Hutchins elsewhere, only to discover that the nearest abortion provider was nearly 80 miles away in Lebanon, New Hampshire — and that she had no car. Ultimately, Dr. Goldner paid a taxi to drive her the hour and a half to the procedure. (The hospital merger has since dissolved, and Elliot is secular once again.)
How much more blatantly could it be framed? These laws endanger women's lives. Unless they're lucky enough to find a doctor who is willing to break the rules or go the extra mile to find them good care, they could die. Or they could lose their fertility. But this isn't about women. Oh, no. No no no. It's about the provider's rights!
Does a woman have to die to get these laws changed? Or rather, how many women have to die? Because one death certainly wouldn't be enough. It would take more than that.
Sometimes, I hate people.
Rape victim goes to hospital. Has exam, asks for EC.
Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)
How does he have the right to do that? When she says to him, I'm in danger. When she wants to avoid having a baby due to rape. Where's the compassion? These people call themselves Christians? (This was at a Catholic hospital.) This is what they think Jesus would do? Really? Why would anyone want to follow a god that has so little regard for his followers suffering?
But, some say, EC is now available over the counter. Sure, if you can find a pharmacy that carries it and a pharmacist willing to give it to you. For some women, that's very hard to find.
Planned Parenthood M.D.s report patients coming to them because other gynecologists would not dole out birth control prescriptions or abortion referrals. Infertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother. In a survey published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere. And in a recent SELF.com poll, nearly 1 in 20 respondents said their doctors had refused to treat them for moral, ethical or religious reasons. "It's obscene," says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program who continues to work on projects with the Los Angeles advocacy group. "Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care. And too often, the victims of this practice are women."
I wonder if it would be possible to file some sort of gender discrimination suit against these doctors? Since their victims are, predominantly, women. I've never heard of a man being denied any medicine or treatment. (If you have, please email me the info. ) Is this one of those issues that will have to go to the Supreme Court? And gods help us, I hope if it does, we've got a few more liberal justices sitting than we do now.
Because, you'll notice that when doctor's are given the right to refuse, they're given the right to refuse treatment that seems to apply exclusively to women.
In 1973, following Roe v. Wade, Congress passed the so-called Church Amendment, allowing federally funded health care providers to refuse to do abortions. In the years since, 46 states have adopted their own abortion refusal clauses — or, as proponents call them, conscience clauses — allowing doctors to opt out. Now many states have gone further. Sixteen legislatures have given doctors the right to refuse to perform sterilizations; eight states say doctors don't have to prescribe contraception. "This is about the rights of the individual, about our constitutional right to freedom of religion," says Frank Manion, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group in Washington, D.C. Founded by minister Pat Robertson, the organization has represented health care providers and lobbied for laws that protect them.
Here's the thing: I believe strongly in a person's right to do as they please. I believe a doctor who does not want to perform abortions, she/he does not have to. But I also believe that they should be completely upfront about that fact. Their patients should not be surprised to find out that information. If a doctor won't prescribe birth control, they need to say so, up front. Post a sign somewhere in the lobby, at the sign-in desk. So, if you're there to see the doctor for the Pill, you know not to waste your time.
Because when we're talking about the rights of the individual, we can't forget the rights of the individual patient. Because she's got the right to know, before she spends her co-pay or the only gyno visit her insurance will pay for (One per year, ya know), if her doctor is going to cover all her medical needs or not.
If a pharmacy carries a drug, I don't believe a pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense it. The pharmacy itself has the right to decide not to carry something, but if it's in stock and someone comes in with a legitmate script for it, give it to them. If you can't do it, pass it on to someone who will. Period. No one should ever be turned away because someone else has decided to impose their morals upon them. Ever. Because while we do have freedom of religion in this country, that freedom is not allowed to impose itself on others. (I mean, I have the right to fervantly believe Kali will rip their balls off or give them festering boils on their dick, but that doesn't give ME the right to rip 'em off, ya know?)
I don't think emergency room docs should be allowed to deny EC either. Yes, it's over the counter, but if I'm a rape victim, I want the damn pill NOW. I don't want to have to find the nearest Walgreens and hope their pharmacist will let me buy it.
I feel more lenient to doctors in private practice, who don't do the hospital thing. Provided they advertise upfront what they will not do. (Anyone ever heard of a man being denied a vasectomy because of religious issues? Or denied Viagra?)
Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights — much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. "It's written so broadly, there's virtually no protection for patients," says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for the Washington, D.C., office of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group. Sonfield notes that many refusal clauses do not require providers to warn women about restrictions on services or to refer them elsewhere. "You have to balance doctors' rights with their responsibilities to patients, employers and communities," he adds. "Doctors shouldn't be forced to provide services, but they can't just abandon patients."
There has to be a way to balance things. I mean, I'm worried I'll be denied care because I'm a woman, fat, bisexual, chronically ill. And some of these laws would allow the doctor to deny me for any of those reasons. How is that remotely far? How is that remotely moral? Whose morals are these? Because they're not mine, at all. I mean, would we stand for a doctor refusing treatment to a black man because he's black? Or Jewish? And yet, because we're women and want to not be pregnant, it's okay? WTF?
In theory, the laws aren't aimed solely at women's health — a bill in New Jersey lists eye doctors and prosthetics technicians as examples of providers who'd be allowed to refuse care based on their beliefs. But Morrison warns women not to be fooled. "I ask you, what belief would keep someone from fitting a patient with a prosthetic limb?" she asks. "What they're really after is limiting access to women's health care. Reproductive health is seen as something other than regular health care" — not a straightforward matter of treating and healing, but something laden with morality — "and if you treat it that way, it becomes something providers can say yes or no to." Men, for the most part, escape such scrutiny: It's pretty hard to imagine someone being made to feel he's going straight to hell for choosing to take Viagra or get a vasectomy. And if women come to fear their doctors' judgments, a new set of problems can develop. "Then you have women who don't communicate with their doctors or avoid getting care," Morrison warns. "Any way you look at it, it's dangerous for women."
Right. That about sums it up, no? Because why would you go back to someone who makes you feel so bad? That lump in your breast? Oh, that's just a cyst. Those headaches you're having? Too much stress and caffiene. The unexplained weight lose? Why complain, just be glad you're losing. None of those things could be serious.
If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's this: In an emergency, doctors need to put aside personal beliefs to do what's best for the patient. But in a world guided by religious directives, even this can be a slippery proposition.
Ob/gyn Wayne Goldner, M.D., learned this lesson a few years back when a patient named Kathleen Hutchins came to his office in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was only 14 weeks pregnant, but her water had broken. Dr. Goldner delivered the bad news: Because there wasn't enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive on its own, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would likely miscarry in a matter of weeks. But in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Dr. Goldner says his devastated patient chose to get an abortion at local Elliot Hospital. But there was a problem. Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center — and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions.
"I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." He tried admitting Hutchins elsewhere, only to discover that the nearest abortion provider was nearly 80 miles away in Lebanon, New Hampshire — and that she had no car. Ultimately, Dr. Goldner paid a taxi to drive her the hour and a half to the procedure. (The hospital merger has since dissolved, and Elliot is secular once again.)
How much more blatantly could it be framed? These laws endanger women's lives. Unless they're lucky enough to find a doctor who is willing to break the rules or go the extra mile to find them good care, they could die. Or they could lose their fertility. But this isn't about women. Oh, no. No no no. It's about the provider's rights!
Does a woman have to die to get these laws changed? Or rather, how many women have to die? Because one death certainly wouldn't be enough. It would take more than that.
Sometimes, I hate people.
Labels: abortion, birth control, medical care, outrage
Monday, October 09, 2006
When does EC go over-the-counter again?
In January, I know. But it seems to me it can't come soon enough. In my endless ramblings around FemiBlogVille, I've been reading over at Biting Beaver. She's got a whole saga up about trying to get EC and, unfortunately, having it fail. She's now in the process of setting up an abortion, because she and her husband already have three children and cannot afford to have any more. A perfectly well-reasoned decision, one that she and her husband made together, and yet she's getting shit for it. Hell, she got shit for just taking the fucking EC and that's just birth control!
What gets to me is that her situation is not all that unique. Sure, there's the stereotype of slutty, single, teenagers having all the wild one-night-what's-your-name-again sex, but that's not the people who need EC the most. (Although, gods bless 'em, those people need it too.) Married women need it. Women who are already mothers need it. Women who have serious illnessess that could kill us if we got pregant need it. Your mother needs it. Your sister needs it. Your girlfriend needs it. Your best friend needs it. You need it. It's not an Us vs. Them situation, really.
And no one is saying that EC works everytime. It doesn't, unfortunately, but it's better than just rolling the dice and not trying anything after a condom break. It's a decent shot at avoiding an abortion. Everyone wants to lower the abortion rate, right? Even those of us who are radically pro-choice want to lower the abortion rate, if for no reason than why should a woman have to go through that when she doesn't have to? Why should a woman have to take time off work, spend several hundred dollars, wade through protestors who call her a whore and murder, when she could spend 40 bucks on a pill she takes in the privacy of her own home?
And still, there's going to be the problem of finding a drug store what will fill your script when it goes OTC. Gods know, some people are just gonna wanna be kings of their little pharmacy and deny women their pills anyway. So how do you get around that? Well, I know how I plan on doing it. Drugstore.com. That's where I will be ordering my pack, soon as it's legal to do so OTC. They've already announced they plan on selling EC online (they already do, actually. Script only, of course.) I don't know how they'll get around the age limits, but they'll probably require you to use a credit card since you can't have those until you're 18. File that address away -- Drugstore.com. Fuck the bastards. Go around them and get your pills.
Birth control is your friend. Don't let anyone tell you different. The ability to plan your family, to determine with who and how many children you're going to have is vital to being a free human being.
What gets to me is that her situation is not all that unique. Sure, there's the stereotype of slutty, single, teenagers having all the wild one-night-what's-your-name-again sex, but that's not the people who need EC the most. (Although, gods bless 'em, those people need it too.) Married women need it. Women who are already mothers need it. Women who have serious illnessess that could kill us if we got pregant need it. Your mother needs it. Your sister needs it. Your girlfriend needs it. Your best friend needs it. You need it. It's not an Us vs. Them situation, really.
And no one is saying that EC works everytime. It doesn't, unfortunately, but it's better than just rolling the dice and not trying anything after a condom break. It's a decent shot at avoiding an abortion. Everyone wants to lower the abortion rate, right? Even those of us who are radically pro-choice want to lower the abortion rate, if for no reason than why should a woman have to go through that when she doesn't have to? Why should a woman have to take time off work, spend several hundred dollars, wade through protestors who call her a whore and murder, when she could spend 40 bucks on a pill she takes in the privacy of her own home?
And still, there's going to be the problem of finding a drug store what will fill your script when it goes OTC. Gods know, some people are just gonna wanna be kings of their little pharmacy and deny women their pills anyway. So how do you get around that? Well, I know how I plan on doing it. Drugstore.com. That's where I will be ordering my pack, soon as it's legal to do so OTC. They've already announced they plan on selling EC online (they already do, actually. Script only, of course.) I don't know how they'll get around the age limits, but they'll probably require you to use a credit card since you can't have those until you're 18. File that address away -- Drugstore.com. Fuck the bastards. Go around them and get your pills.
Birth control is your friend. Don't let anyone tell you different. The ability to plan your family, to determine with who and how many children you're going to have is vital to being a free human being.
Labels: birth control, feminism
Friday, August 18, 2006
Do what we say or else!
You make a deal with the devil, and the devil wants his due. The fundies who put those Monkies in the White House are upset that Plan B may soon be available over the counter. Of course they are. Because women being able to control their fertility through any method but abstinance pisses them off.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Anti-abortion groups are urging President Bush to withdraw his nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration, angry that the agency may allow nonprescription sales of the morning-after pill.
Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach already is facing a roadblock from the other side of that issue. Democrats are upset that the FDA has long delayed settling the three-year debate over whether at least some women could buy the emergency contraceptive without a doctor’s note.
Amid the political accusations, the FDA is contacting both the anti-abortion groups and their main opponent, Planned Parenthood, to hear their last-minute arguments over the fate of the drug, called Plan B.
“I gave them an earful,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which has led opposition to nonprescription sales of the emergency contraceptive. She believes that her earlier input, during an official public comment period, was ignored.
“It is very late in the game and that adds to our fury over this,” Wright said.
Her earlier input was ignored? I'm sorry, didn't she get what she wanted? Hasn't the FDA stalled and stalled and stalled some more in letting women purchase a research-tested, perfectly legal medication? Didn't she get what she wanted in all those pregnancies that could have been avoided but ended in abortion were concieved anyway? Didn't she get what she wanted in the fears and panic of all those women who had to endure those pregnancies and/or abortions? I mean, that is what she wants, isn't it? Oh sure, maybe not in a blatant, pre-thoughtout way, but that's what her policies will allow to happen. The truth is, condoms break. People get stupid and have sex without protection. It's dumb, it's arguably irresponsible, but it's no reason to force them into parenthood when they're not ready. Nor is it a reason to force them to undergo an abortion when they're not ready. And yes, I realize no one is literally putting a gun to women's heads, but come on. If you don't have the economic or emotional resources to carry, deliver and raise a child, that's force too.
“If the president pushes for this nominee, he is only going to undercut the support his own party needs in the elections,” said Paul Chaim Schenck, director of the National Pro-Life Action Center.
If we don't get what we want, we won't vote for you again! Then see how you like it when those evil Democrats take over and women get to have sex, sex, sex all the time and don't have to pop out babies!
Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth control pills that, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If a woman already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.
The pills prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg. They also may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus, considered the medical definition of pregnancy, although recent research suggests that’s not likely. However, if true, pill opponents argue that would be tantamount to abortion.
A year ago, the FDA indefinitely postponed a decision on Plan B, saying it needed to determine how to enforce age restrictions on the drug’s sales, a process that would require the writing of new regulations.
On July 31, von Eschenbach told Plan B manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. that step was no longer necessary. He said the FDA would consider allowing nonprescription sales of Plan B, but only for adult women. It would remain prescription-only for those 17 and younger.
Dear, Gods! Did a news report actually get the details of Plan B correct? No proof it prevents implantation? No effect on already existing pregnancies? Perish the thought of truth!
And it's annoying that young girls need to have 'scripts, but it's also fairly simple to get around. I'd happily buy pills for any of my young cousins that need them, and they know that already. Still, it's not a complete win. And it's still not a done deal. So who knows? Maybe the forced-pregnancy forces will win anyway.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Anti-abortion groups are urging President Bush to withdraw his nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration, angry that the agency may allow nonprescription sales of the morning-after pill.
Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach already is facing a roadblock from the other side of that issue. Democrats are upset that the FDA has long delayed settling the three-year debate over whether at least some women could buy the emergency contraceptive without a doctor’s note.
Amid the political accusations, the FDA is contacting both the anti-abortion groups and their main opponent, Planned Parenthood, to hear their last-minute arguments over the fate of the drug, called Plan B.
“I gave them an earful,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which has led opposition to nonprescription sales of the emergency contraceptive. She believes that her earlier input, during an official public comment period, was ignored.
“It is very late in the game and that adds to our fury over this,” Wright said.
Her earlier input was ignored? I'm sorry, didn't she get what she wanted? Hasn't the FDA stalled and stalled and stalled some more in letting women purchase a research-tested, perfectly legal medication? Didn't she get what she wanted in all those pregnancies that could have been avoided but ended in abortion were concieved anyway? Didn't she get what she wanted in the fears and panic of all those women who had to endure those pregnancies and/or abortions? I mean, that is what she wants, isn't it? Oh sure, maybe not in a blatant, pre-thoughtout way, but that's what her policies will allow to happen. The truth is, condoms break. People get stupid and have sex without protection. It's dumb, it's arguably irresponsible, but it's no reason to force them into parenthood when they're not ready. Nor is it a reason to force them to undergo an abortion when they're not ready. And yes, I realize no one is literally putting a gun to women's heads, but come on. If you don't have the economic or emotional resources to carry, deliver and raise a child, that's force too.
“If the president pushes for this nominee, he is only going to undercut the support his own party needs in the elections,” said Paul Chaim Schenck, director of the National Pro-Life Action Center.
If we don't get what we want, we won't vote for you again! Then see how you like it when those evil Democrats take over and women get to have sex, sex, sex all the time and don't have to pop out babies!
Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth control pills that, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If a woman already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.
The pills prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg. They also may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus, considered the medical definition of pregnancy, although recent research suggests that’s not likely. However, if true, pill opponents argue that would be tantamount to abortion.
A year ago, the FDA indefinitely postponed a decision on Plan B, saying it needed to determine how to enforce age restrictions on the drug’s sales, a process that would require the writing of new regulations.
On July 31, von Eschenbach told Plan B manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. that step was no longer necessary. He said the FDA would consider allowing nonprescription sales of Plan B, but only for adult women. It would remain prescription-only for those 17 and younger.
Dear, Gods! Did a news report actually get the details of Plan B correct? No proof it prevents implantation? No effect on already existing pregnancies? Perish the thought of truth!
And it's annoying that young girls need to have 'scripts, but it's also fairly simple to get around. I'd happily buy pills for any of my young cousins that need them, and they know that already. Still, it's not a complete win. And it's still not a done deal. So who knows? Maybe the forced-pregnancy forces will win anyway.
Labels: birth control, feminism, fundies, politics, religion
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Score one for the good guys
Although, I am loathe to include Wal-Mart in the category "Good Guys"
Judge dismisses suit by pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a Roman Catholic pharmacist's claim that he was fired by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions and that the dismissal violated his religious freedom.
The ruling Thursday said Wal-Mart had accommodated Neil Noesen's religious opposition to birth control by having other pharmacists fill prescriptions.
But U.S. District Judge John Shabaz said Noesen went too far by putting customers who called about birth control on hold indefinitely and by refusing to get service for those who showed up in person.
Noesen, 32, could not be located for comment Friday.
An attorney who represented Medical Staffing Network, the agency that placed him at the Wal-Mart store, said the ruling was among the first in the country to deal with religious accommodations for pharmacists.
"It demonstrates there has to be a balance between accommodating someone's religious beliefs while at the same time providing a service and allowing people access to medical care," attorney Stephanie Adler said.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said the company was pleased with the ruling.
"These cases are rare, but when they do happen, we are careful to make accommodations. We also have a responsibility to customers to ensure that their prescriptions are filled," he said.
According to the judge's ruling, Noesen refused to leave the Wal-Mart store and eventually was dragged out in a wheelchair by police. He was convicted last month of resisting arrest but was acquitted on a disorderly conduct charge stemming from that incident.
Noesen also was sanctioned by the state Pharmacy Examining Board for refusing to fill a contraceptive prescription or transfer it while working at another store in 2002. The board reprimanded him and forced him to attend ethics classes.
You'd think, given my particular religious views, I'd be a bit torn about this issue. But I'm not. In the slightest. Someone brings in a prescription, you fill it. Period. Unless you see the medication will cause problems due to another med the patient is on or something legitmate like that. Then, you get on the phone to the doctor and find a substitute. You don't ignore patients who come in in-person, you don't put them on hold forever, you don't refuse to leave and have to be taken out in a frigging wheelchair. Gods bless, people, have a little dignity.
Personally, I'd be much more hardcore than some of these stores. If it was my store, everyone would fill the 'scripts as brought in. However, I understand and appreciate the accomodation for religious belief. So long as there is actually someone around who can and will fill a 'script, the patient gets what he/she needs and everyone can go home happy. It's not how I'd run the universe, but it's a fairly reasonable compromise. But the thing is, here in Rural America, there are times when there is only one phramacy within an hour's drive. And they have exactly one pharmacist. What do you do if that pharmacist decides you don't need your birth control? Or you pain meds? Or the pills to control your herpes? Who gets to make the decision as to what's a 'morally' accepted medication or not?
Here's my problem with these fundy's screaming about Jesus not wanting them to fill birth control prescrpitions -- they've never read their Bible or had a real experience with Christ. They follow church doctrine and dogma instead, which is a very different thing. My first religious experience was in a Southern Baptist church with Jesus. (What? A pagan who believes in and respects Jesus? Is it a sign of the end of the world? Yeah. Anyway.) And Jesus is nothing like these people want him to be. Take care of the sick and afflicted. Befriend the wounded and lonely. And don't ask for anything in return. There are so few true Christians in this world because it's damn hard to do. It's not about getting and controlling and telling people how to live their lives. It's about letting people be who they are, as flawed and fucked up as that may be, and loving them anyway, without asking them to become like you. You love them, you show them you love them and you live. It is the most powerful, transformative experience possible to realize you are acceptable to the Divine exactly like you are, no changes necessary, and that that will never change and that there will never be a list of rules for you to follow or be punished. But these people don't get that. They started trying to steal that experience away from me as soon as it happened and I don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive them for that. (Hey, Jesus is all about the forgiving. My personal guides are a bit...less so. Though I try. Usually.)
So, here's the thing -- even these compromises may not work in every town. Like I said, in rural areas with only one pharmacy and one pharmacist....there are lots of women going to be without their pills. Which pisses me the hell off. I'm waiting to see when men start getting denied their ED drugs or their cholesterol drugs or whatever. But, oddly enough, I haven't seen that yet. Wonder why? Hmp.
Judge dismisses suit by pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a Roman Catholic pharmacist's claim that he was fired by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions and that the dismissal violated his religious freedom.
The ruling Thursday said Wal-Mart had accommodated Neil Noesen's religious opposition to birth control by having other pharmacists fill prescriptions.
But U.S. District Judge John Shabaz said Noesen went too far by putting customers who called about birth control on hold indefinitely and by refusing to get service for those who showed up in person.
Noesen, 32, could not be located for comment Friday.
An attorney who represented Medical Staffing Network, the agency that placed him at the Wal-Mart store, said the ruling was among the first in the country to deal with religious accommodations for pharmacists.
"It demonstrates there has to be a balance between accommodating someone's religious beliefs while at the same time providing a service and allowing people access to medical care," attorney Stephanie Adler said.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said the company was pleased with the ruling.
"These cases are rare, but when they do happen, we are careful to make accommodations. We also have a responsibility to customers to ensure that their prescriptions are filled," he said.
According to the judge's ruling, Noesen refused to leave the Wal-Mart store and eventually was dragged out in a wheelchair by police. He was convicted last month of resisting arrest but was acquitted on a disorderly conduct charge stemming from that incident.
Noesen also was sanctioned by the state Pharmacy Examining Board for refusing to fill a contraceptive prescription or transfer it while working at another store in 2002. The board reprimanded him and forced him to attend ethics classes.
You'd think, given my particular religious views, I'd be a bit torn about this issue. But I'm not. In the slightest. Someone brings in a prescription, you fill it. Period. Unless you see the medication will cause problems due to another med the patient is on or something legitmate like that. Then, you get on the phone to the doctor and find a substitute. You don't ignore patients who come in in-person, you don't put them on hold forever, you don't refuse to leave and have to be taken out in a frigging wheelchair. Gods bless, people, have a little dignity.
Personally, I'd be much more hardcore than some of these stores. If it was my store, everyone would fill the 'scripts as brought in. However, I understand and appreciate the accomodation for religious belief. So long as there is actually someone around who can and will fill a 'script, the patient gets what he/she needs and everyone can go home happy. It's not how I'd run the universe, but it's a fairly reasonable compromise. But the thing is, here in Rural America, there are times when there is only one phramacy within an hour's drive. And they have exactly one pharmacist. What do you do if that pharmacist decides you don't need your birth control? Or you pain meds? Or the pills to control your herpes? Who gets to make the decision as to what's a 'morally' accepted medication or not?
Here's my problem with these fundy's screaming about Jesus not wanting them to fill birth control prescrpitions -- they've never read their Bible or had a real experience with Christ. They follow church doctrine and dogma instead, which is a very different thing. My first religious experience was in a Southern Baptist church with Jesus. (What? A pagan who believes in and respects Jesus? Is it a sign of the end of the world? Yeah. Anyway.) And Jesus is nothing like these people want him to be. Take care of the sick and afflicted. Befriend the wounded and lonely. And don't ask for anything in return. There are so few true Christians in this world because it's damn hard to do. It's not about getting and controlling and telling people how to live their lives. It's about letting people be who they are, as flawed and fucked up as that may be, and loving them anyway, without asking them to become like you. You love them, you show them you love them and you live. It is the most powerful, transformative experience possible to realize you are acceptable to the Divine exactly like you are, no changes necessary, and that that will never change and that there will never be a list of rules for you to follow or be punished. But these people don't get that. They started trying to steal that experience away from me as soon as it happened and I don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive them for that. (Hey, Jesus is all about the forgiving. My personal guides are a bit...less so. Though I try. Usually.)
So, here's the thing -- even these compromises may not work in every town. Like I said, in rural areas with only one pharmacy and one pharmacist....there are lots of women going to be without their pills. Which pisses me the hell off. I'm waiting to see when men start getting denied their ED drugs or their cholesterol drugs or whatever. But, oddly enough, I haven't seen that yet. Wonder why? Hmp.
Labels: birth control, religion
Friday, March 10, 2006
My life is not a theory
I don't live in South Dakota or Mississippi or any of the other state currently trying to pass abortion bans. Thankfully, my state is too busy cleaning up after Katrina to worry about that at the moment, though I don't doubt they'll get around to it. But hundreds, if not thousands, of women like me live in those states. Pregnancy may not exactly endanger our lives but it would certainly imperil our health. So, we do our best to avoid it. We use multiple levels of birth control, we practice strict monogamy with partners we truly trust, we abstain when we feel that's our best option. We are not irresponsible women. We are not thoughtless, child-like beings who cannot understand that one of the possible outcomes of sex is pregnancy. We understand that, we simply wish to avoid it. So, we do all that we can to do so.
And sometimes, that's not enough. Sometimes, we get pregnant anyway. If we're lucky, we have supportive partners who will stand by us and help us deal with that -- regardless of the decision we make. Some of us will choose to brave the odds and continue our pregancies. And some of those pregnancies will result in healthy babies, healthy mothers. Some will result in healthy babies, dead mothers. Or healthy babies, damaged mothers. Or dead baby, dead mother. Or some combination thereof. But so long as it's a choice made by the woman who is pregnant, to risk her life or not, it's a choice that should be honored and respected. It's not a choice that should be forced on any woman.
We are not abstractions. We are not some percentage of all abortions performed. We are not a percentage of all pregnancies. We are real, live women. We have families. We have friends. We have people who love us, whom we love. We have roots and connections in this world. The loss of a single one of us has ripples that no law can foresee or legislate. Yes, anti-choice people will say, but what about the baby? What if you're aborting the next Einstein or the person who grows up to cure the very disease you're sick with? To that I say: What if the woman you're killing/maiming IS the next Einstein or the woman who will cure this disease? Why do they always assume that the people who are already here are incapable of greatness? Why is it always someone not born yet who will save the world? Have they so little faith in those of us in the here and now that they can't imagine we're capable of saving ourselves? Or is it just because we're women and women can't do those sorts of things? Also, if we're going to get into the 'What if' game, what if the fetus that's aborted was the next Hitler? What if it was the next Stalin? That game is a dead end. The fact is, you don't know. You can't know and it's pointless to speculate.
They also show a remarkable lack of faith in the God (most of them) claim to believe in. If god is so powerful and all-knowing, why would he put a soul in a fetus he knew was going to be aborted? Why would he allow the next Einstein to be created, knowing s/he would never be born? That doesn't say much for god.
I'm sick to death of being treated like a Thing. I am not a Thing. I am a Person. I am a Human Being. A Woman, specifically. I am not some number on a page, not some compilation of medical records that a judge gets to look at and decide if I'm sick enough to warrant terminating a pregnancy that's threatening to rob me of bodily function but not quite my life. This is MY life, I get to decide if the risks are worth it. I get to decide if having a child is important enough for me to risk liver failure, or kidney failure, or stroke, or heart attack, or permanent muscle or joint damage. I do. Not the state, not a bunch of men in Washington, not anyone else. Me. If you think you can take that right away from me, and all the other women (not theories!) in this country, you're in for a rude awakening. Women are not theories and it's time people were reminded of that.
And sometimes, that's not enough. Sometimes, we get pregnant anyway. If we're lucky, we have supportive partners who will stand by us and help us deal with that -- regardless of the decision we make. Some of us will choose to brave the odds and continue our pregancies. And some of those pregnancies will result in healthy babies, healthy mothers. Some will result in healthy babies, dead mothers. Or healthy babies, damaged mothers. Or dead baby, dead mother. Or some combination thereof. But so long as it's a choice made by the woman who is pregnant, to risk her life or not, it's a choice that should be honored and respected. It's not a choice that should be forced on any woman.
We are not abstractions. We are not some percentage of all abortions performed. We are not a percentage of all pregnancies. We are real, live women. We have families. We have friends. We have people who love us, whom we love. We have roots and connections in this world. The loss of a single one of us has ripples that no law can foresee or legislate. Yes, anti-choice people will say, but what about the baby? What if you're aborting the next Einstein or the person who grows up to cure the very disease you're sick with? To that I say: What if the woman you're killing/maiming IS the next Einstein or the woman who will cure this disease? Why do they always assume that the people who are already here are incapable of greatness? Why is it always someone not born yet who will save the world? Have they so little faith in those of us in the here and now that they can't imagine we're capable of saving ourselves? Or is it just because we're women and women can't do those sorts of things? Also, if we're going to get into the 'What if' game, what if the fetus that's aborted was the next Hitler? What if it was the next Stalin? That game is a dead end. The fact is, you don't know. You can't know and it's pointless to speculate.
They also show a remarkable lack of faith in the God (most of them) claim to believe in. If god is so powerful and all-knowing, why would he put a soul in a fetus he knew was going to be aborted? Why would he allow the next Einstein to be created, knowing s/he would never be born? That doesn't say much for god.
I'm sick to death of being treated like a Thing. I am not a Thing. I am a Person. I am a Human Being. A Woman, specifically. I am not some number on a page, not some compilation of medical records that a judge gets to look at and decide if I'm sick enough to warrant terminating a pregnancy that's threatening to rob me of bodily function but not quite my life. This is MY life, I get to decide if the risks are worth it. I get to decide if having a child is important enough for me to risk liver failure, or kidney failure, or stroke, or heart attack, or permanent muscle or joint damage. I do. Not the state, not a bunch of men in Washington, not anyone else. Me. If you think you can take that right away from me, and all the other women (not theories!) in this country, you're in for a rude awakening. Women are not theories and it's time people were reminded of that.
Labels: abortion, birth control, disease, feminism
