…and this is a 
Blurring the distinction between contraception and abortion
Category: Development • Politics • Religion
Posted on: August 11, 2008 12:42 PM, by PZMinion
Monday morning, PST: time for some science with a side of controversy, Danio-style
There's a Department of Health and Human Services document circulating that's got the pro-choice lobby up in arms. Afarensis and The Questionable Authority weighed in on the sociopolitical impact of such a policy last week, but in addition to the significant threat to reproductive rights that it presents, this proposal is yet another example of the complete lack of scientific expertise informing decisions about public health.
At issue is the determination of a time point that marks the beginning of pregnancy. The consensus of the medical community is that an established pregnancy occurs at the point when the blastocyst successfully implants into the uterine wall. This time point makes a lot of sense in considering early events in the reproductive process. Pre-implantation embryos have a vast distance to travel, complex chemical cues to navigate, and a ticking biological clock to contend with within the bounds of the female reproductive cycle. Roughly 40% of all embryos don't survive the ordeal. These odds are one good reason to hold off on crying 'pregnant' until a successful implantation is achieved; another is that implantation signifies the beginning of the physiological impact of a pregnancy on a woman's body. Developmental events prior to implantation have essentially no impact on maternal tissues, which are just marking time until the beginning of the next menstrual cycle. The massive signaling between embryonic and uterine tissues that occur during implantation, the establishment of maternal and embryonic connections and boundaries, delineating the difference between 'self' and 'not self', are all medically relevant occurrences in terms of the physiology of the female patient, hence the general accord within the medical community in marking this time point, and none before it, as the point at which a pregnancy is established.
Naturally, the 'life begins at conception' crowd takes issue with this definition. The DHHS document echoes the concerns of the religious right in a proposal that seeks to give citizens the power to decide for themselves when a pregnancy begins, and act accordingly in exercising their religious freedom. The document details numerous preexisting 'conscience provisions' designed to protect the rights, and the federal funding, of institutions or individual health care workers who decline to perform any service they deem morally objectionable or contrary to their particular belief system. These are the grounds upon which it has been acceptable for ambulance drivers to refuse to transport women to clinics where abortions will be performed, for emergency room staff to fail to offer or administer emergency contraception after a rape, and for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives. Pro-choice advocates and proponents of church-state separation alike have been outraged by these faith-driven attacks on reproductive choice, but the authors of the document in question bemoan the 'intolerance' conveyed in any expression of these sentiments. They contend that such conscientious objectors are well within their rights to refuse such treatment if it conflicts with their religious views, and use this concern as a platform to expand the degree to which they may do so.
Federal endorsement of the opinion that life begins at 'conception' (in reality, as we know, the matter is not so easily settled) is a grim development, not only because of what it could mean for abortion rights, but because of how some forms of contraception are reputed to function. Although the indisputable primary effect of oral contraceptives, including EC, is to inhibit ovulation, it has been widely accepted that a secondary mechanism by which these treatments prevent pregnancy is through changes to the uterine lining that decrease the likelihood of successful implantation. Further, interference with the implantation process has long been thought to be the principle mechanism by which IUDs prevent pregnancy. It is thus not surprising that those who believe a pre-implantation embryo is a fully-vested human life consider the above mechanisms forms of abortion, and health-care workers holding this view would, under this new policy, be acting within their rights to freely hold and express their religious beliefs when denying these treatments to patients. The kicker, though, is that there are precious few studies investigating the hypothesized implantation-blocking properties of either oral contraceptives or IUDs, and the few published data that are available do not support these claims.
Previous studies of Levonorgestrel have concluded that, while ovulation is effectively suppressed if administered in a timely manner , it appears to have a negligible effect on post-ovulatory events. A 2007 review of multiple studies investigating the presence of viable gametes and pre-implantation embroys in IUD users concluded that the inflammatory response resulting from the presence of an IUD, as well as the actions of synthetic hormones released from the device, have significant effects on the reproductive process prior to fertilization.
Interestingly, many of the studies investigating these contraceptive mechanisms have taken place in Chile, a conservative country where all abortions--even therapeutic ones--are illegal. It is troubling to think that increasing restrictions on reproductive rights could necessitate similar studies by researchers in the US. It is more troubling still to realize that, given the diminishing currency of science in this country, even the most conclusive and rigorous studies may not affect policy changes if they do not align with popular opinion.
Medicine & Health
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: rjb | August 11, 2008 1:04 PM
From a purely medical point of view, we should use the mirror image of the definitions of human life that we use to demonstrate death. When a person is technically brain-dead, they no longer have any more rights of self-determination, etc. So why not use it on the other end of the life spectrum as well? Personally, I feel that until the fetus is living completely separately from his/her mother, then the decision relies completely on the mother. But the brain activity point would probably be a good starting point, and would push all discussions of abortion at least until the late second trimester. This seems to me to be the best argument that is able to convince the vast majority of people on different sides of the argument.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 11, 2008 1:06 PM
Why should they change what they think & do? Public opinion is always right! Right?
Posted by: carr2d2 | August 11, 2008 1:10 PM
i don't get how it's ok to protect the rights of medical workers not to violate their particular ethical systems, while completely ignoring the rights of the rape victim (or woman otherwise facing unwanted pregnancy) to obtain whatever treatment she feels is necessary and warranted in her ethical system.
this type of legislation is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: Schmeer | August 11, 2008 1:15 PM
rjb,
In many cases
"until the fetus is living completely separately from his/her mother"
would mean roughly 18-22 years. ;)
Posted by: True Bob | August 11, 2008 1:15 PM
This is not limited to over the counter remedies or ER care. This also applies to pharmacists refusing to provide Plan B, without providing alternative sources. Essentially, telling the woman, TS, your doctor's scrip is no good here.
Any pharmacist should only be caring about proper filling of scrips and ensuring that interactions are minimized (or at least the patient is informed). Anything else is a violation of the implied contract. Well, except for boner pills.
Posted by: Alex | August 11, 2008 1:16 PM
While he does irritate me on occasion, Slate's William Saletan had a great response to the (il)logic of this legislation: The pro-life case against birth control, nursing, and excersise.
Posted by: Keanus | August 11, 2008 1:22 PM
It's not even a question of public opinion. Those who advocate the views espoused by the Bush administration do not constitute a majority of the public. It's a view accepted by a minority and an ignorant one at that. These are the same people who promote the fiction that abortion causes breast cancer and mental instability in women undergoing it, without a shred of clinical data to support either claim. The document issued by the Department of Health and Human Services is nothing less than an effort to install a religious belief as a clinically based directive. That's unconstitutional, unethical, immoral and in the long term untenable.
Posted by: Charlie Matthis | August 11, 2008 1:23 PM
What if power plant workers refused to turn on power on the sabbath...What if Homer Simpson was Jewish and he let the plant blow up because he refused to work? If you don't want to do something, get a different job.
Posted by: True Bob | August 11, 2008 1:25 PM
Alex, it isn't legislation, it's an interpretation of enforcement within HHS. As per usual, no other branches of government were involved in this evildoing.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | August 11, 2008 1:30 PM
What I always find annoying about these "religious objection" cases, is how little religious conviction these people seem to have. Let's say that you have a job as a pharmacist: if you have a "religious objection" to providing contraception, then - surely - the only correct "religious conviction" response would be to find another job. Enforcing ones convictions on other people is not showing any form of conviction whatsoever: it's nothing but moral cowardice.
If the religious don't want to sell alcohol, then they should have the courage of their convictions, and not work in an off-license. If they don't want to sell contraceptives, then they should damned well actually have the courage of their convictions and quit their damned jobs: that's showing that they have convictions.
And calling these religious nutters, "conscientious objectors" is just stupid. Nobody is requiring them, by law, to be pharmacists, ambulance drivers or anything else. I'm sure there's plenty of work in the churches they could do. They're moral cowards. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Zeno | August 11, 2008 1:32 PM
This is part and parcel of the "pro-life" movement, especially the Catholic cohort of it. My parents routinely receive pro-life exhortations inserted in the church bulletins they receive at Sunday mass and no real distinction is drawn between abortion and contraception. Both are castigated as "anti-life." While some in the anti-abortion movement might be happy if abortion were prohibited by law, many won't rest until birth control drugs are also outlawed.
After all, who are you to decide whether or not you should have eleven children? That's God's decision!
Posted by: Zombie | August 11, 2008 1:33 PM
If somebody objects to providing health care, they should express that objection by not being a health care provider.
Posted by: mayhempix | August 11, 2008 1:34 PM
-"They contend that such conscientious objectors are well within their rights to refuse such treatment if it conflicts with their religious views, and use this concern as a platform to expand the degree to which they may do so."-
I have no problem with them refusing to proceed based on personal beliefs...
They should just be required to relinquish their license/employment to dispense medical and pharmaceutical services or manage government (read: public) funds and then they will no longer be exposed to such personal moral dilemmas.
Posted by: cubefarmed | August 11, 2008 1:35 PM
@carr2d2
My cynicism knows no bounds, honestly. The reason why someone's precious woo-woo rights are so much more important then a rape victim (or woman in an unwanted pregnancy) is because obviously any woman who finds herself with an unwanted or traumatic pregnancy is just a stupid slut for opening her legs in the first place and she deserves whatever she gets afterwards - including an unwanted child. Rape is a conveniently forgotten trauma for the kind of anti-choice patriarchal morons who support this type of legislation. I don't buy the 'sanctity of human life' argument at all. If that were the case, the U.S. wouldn't be causing 'collateral damage' in the form of lost innocent lives in Iraq.
And when you give women full control over their reproductive organs, it gives patriarchal religions and government's less ability to keep women unequal and under their thumb.
For an interesting read that really helps highlight where this kind of thinking comes from, I reccomend the book 'When God Was a Woman' by Merlin Stone. It's about the change from pagan and women-centered religion to the patriarchal Abrahamic religions. Fascinating from a sociological and/or anthropological viewpoint.
Posted by: CL | August 11, 2008 1:38 PM
@ #6
Alex,
Thanks for the link...great article, everybody should take a look.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 1:39 PM
They can take my Mirena away when they pry it out of my cold, dead uterus.
Sadly, the evidence is that a lot of them are perfectly willing to make that the case in order to do so.
Posted by: grolby | August 11, 2008 1:41 PM
It is thus not surprising that those who believe a pre-implantation embryo is a fully-vested human life consider the above mechanisms forms of abortion, and health-care workers holding this view would, under this new policy, be acting within their rights to freely hold and express their religious beliefs when denying these treatments to patients.
I disagree with this interpretation. The right of the patient to receive legal and essential health care (birth control is legal and essential) trumps the right of the health care employee to "express" his or her freedom of religion by refusing said care. The provider is under contract to provide that care. If an employee denies treatment, they are not only breaking their contract and not only not doing their jobs, they are also unconstitutionally denying the patient their rights to freedom of religion. After all, what is allowing health care workers to deny treatment to patients based on personal beliefs, but the state endorsing the notion that the provider's beliefs are more important (and more "real," apparently) than the patient's? That's NOT how health care is supposed to work. That interpretation is ass-backwards. A patient having their rights infringed upon may have no recourse. The health care worker DOES: work a different damn job. A patient's right to expect competent, complete health care trumps a health care worker's right to keep a particular job.
I know we're on the same side, but I really think that the facts of conception and implantation are irrelevant to the interpretation of rights. "Life begins at conception," is just code for ensoulment anyway. It's a strictly religious belief, and the practice of medicine has no obligation to give any time to such nonsense. It interferes with practicing the best medicine possible.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 11, 2008 1:41 PM
The stupidity index continues to go through the roof. I can barely stand to read the news anymore.
How fucking moronic do you have to be to NOT see the negative impact of unchecked procreation? Fucking lemmings.
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 1:46 PM
There is an enormous amount of pure hypocracy and dishonesty among the christofascist wingnuts trying to outlaw contraception.
With mordern medicine and food readily available, any woman should be able to have 10 to 20 children. We are adapted to an environment where childbirth was once often fatal, half the kids died before 5, and living to 35 was rare.
So if you look at the family sizes of humanoid toads like Robertson (4), Dobson (2), Bush (2), Cheney (2?) and so on, it is obvious that they are using some form of family planning. They aren't walking their talk and treating their wives like walking incubators.
Nowadays, most intelligent responsible people think small families are normal. There is no shortage of people and no point in having a herd of kids that one cannot support in the expensive style we are used to.
The majority of the US people are quite willing to tell the wingnuts that their family size is their own damn business and they should just stay out of their medicine cabinet and get the hell lost.
Posted by: Kristin | August 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Shakesville links today to an article in "The Colorado Independent" about the idiot who's sponsoring the amendment to declare that all fertilized eggs have full constitutional rights, same as if they were actual people. One of the sad parts in the story (there are many) is that the sponsor is a physician, and has formed some advocacy group that other crazy physicians can join, where they can all get together and express their ignorance and hatred of women. It's absolutely sickening that this guy, who has been educated as a doctor and therefore should know better, it promoting this scientifcally invalid a/k/a BS claim.
Posted by: True Bob | August 11, 2008 1:50 PM
This is easily extended to other beliefs - like I think you're too fat, so no, you may not buy those chips. Provide the service or get the hell out of the way.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 11, 2008 1:51 PM
Here's the thing that's always bothered me on this topic with respect to pharmacists:
There are pharmacists who say that their pro-life religious convictions prevent them from selling birth control/Plan B/etc. because killing a baby is immoral.
And those same pharmacists sell cigarettes at their front counter... products that kill, quite literally and indisputably, 50% of their customers who purchase them.
I guess it's all in the timing. Didn't Jeebus say that hypocrites go to a special place?
Posted by: IceFarmer | August 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Did anyone else watch God's Warriors on CNN last night? Normally, CNN is a mishmash of junk and BS with the occasional tidbit of good news. They touched on the legal issues surrounding abortion and the stacking of the Supreme court among other things. I was wondering if anyone else had seen the show?
I didn't catch all of it but much of it was very interesting. Both good and bad. It completely affirms that Jerry Falwell was a total douche and completely nuts at the same time which was nice to see. The segement with Jimmy Carter about the Baptist congress was quite interesting. They showcases some pretty good wingnuttery and douchebaggery throughout. I worry for you, my friends south of the border. Their lobby and voting power is increasing far too fast. Within 20 years it will no longer be the U.S. of A. it will be the Unidded Jesusland of Amerikuh if you aren't careful.
Posted by: IceFarmer | August 11, 2008 1:57 PM
Did anyone else watch God's Warriors on CNN last night? Normally, CNN is a mishmash of junk and BS with the occasional tidbit of good news. They touched on the legal issues surrounding abortion and the stacking of the Supreme court among other things. I was wondering if anyone else had seen the show?
I didn't catch all of it but much of it was very interesting. Both good and bad. It completely affirms that Jerry Falwell was a total douche and completely nuts at the same time which was nice to see. The segement with Jimmy Carter about the Baptist congress was quite interesting. They showcases some pretty good wingnuttery and douchebaggery throughout. I worry for you, my friends south of the border. Their lobby and voting power is increasing far too fast. Within 20 years it will no longer be the U.S. of A. it will be the Unidded Jesusland of Amerikuh if you aren't careful.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 11, 2008 1:57 PM
@23
Within 20 years it will no longer be the U.S. of A. it will be the Unidded Jesusland of Amerikuh if you aren't careful.
I envision it more like this.
Posted by: Nick Gardner | August 11, 2008 1:57 PM
After all, who are you to decide whether or not you should have eleven children? That's God's decision!
You pretty much summed up my grandmother's position on the subject, and she's not even Catholic!
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 2:01 PM
Most state laws say that is illegal. Pharmacists are licensed to provide an essential service, not licensed to practice medicine or push their religion. They just cancel their license and that is the end of it. Not surprisingly, this hasn't been happening anymore.
It is OK to be a Hindu who thinks cows are sacred. It is not OK for them to then get a job in a slaughterhouse and refuse to kill and cut up cattle.
Posted by: H.H. | August 11, 2008 2:03 PM
#10 Armchair Dissident, exactly right. Religious people have a right to refuse any medical treatment for themselves they deem morally objectionable. They do not have a right to withhold treatment from others which they find morally objectionable. Huge difference. But see, in fundy Christianity, it doesn't matter what sort of person you are, but how many "sinners" you manage to harass. That's the draw that makes it one of the fastest growing sects. It has none of that difficult self-examination/improvement nonsense with all focus being on how bad those "other people" are.
Posted by: IceFarmer | August 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Sorry for the duplicate posts, don't know what happened there.
Posted by: IceFarmer | August 11, 2008 2:06 PM
@ Evolving Squid,
Good call there. Read it. Very creepy. Uber disturbing.
Posted by: oxytocin | August 11, 2008 2:08 PM
I don't know if anyone saw Bush on NBC last night, but there he was, during an Olympic broadcast, repeatedly bringing up the topic of religion in China. He attended a church service and insisted that the Chinese have nothing to fear from gentle xians, meek and mild. If Bush had his way, they would move from a totalitarian government to a celestial dictatorship. Bloody hell....
Posted by: MicroZealous | August 11, 2008 2:08 PM
Pandering to ignorance and hypocrisy brought the last eight years of Bush - so, scientifically, it must work. Blargh.
For a bittersweet, lighter look, see the Onion story:
"Christian Scientist Pharmacist refuses to fill any prescription." /Snark.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40096
Posted by: mayhempix | August 11, 2008 2:17 PM
- Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 1:46 PM
- "So if you look at the family sizes of humanoid toads like Robertson (4), Dobson (2), Bush (2), Cheney (2?) and so on, it is obvious that they are using some form of family planning. They aren't walking their talk and treating their wives like walking incubators"-
I would say it has a lot more to do with natural selection.
Would you want to fuck any of the above... or one of the women who married them?
;^ )>
Posted by: Faintpraise | August 11, 2008 2:18 PM
I think I'm in agreement with most people here when I say- they should just do the job they're paid for, and if they don't like it they should get another one. We have a surprising amount of this attitude here in the UK- a case a couple of years ago in my own city where a woman tried to buy Emergency Contraception over the counter at a large pharmacist, only to be told that every single pharmacist on duty refused to sell her EC on religious grounds. Fortunately the woman was confident enough to go to the press regarding this, imagine how often this might happen to less confident, perhaps very young, women, who might just leave and possibly end up with an unwanted pregnancy as a result.
The same applies to Magistrates who refuse to place children to be adopted by gay couples, and Registrars who refuse to perform Civil Partnership ceremonies- BOTH recent cases in the UK- it's all an extension of the same kind of thinking...
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 2:19 PM
Maybe. It isn't uncommon for a country to turn into a bunch of lemmings and enthusiastically march off a cliff.
Maybe not. There is now a backlash against the christofascists. They had power for 8 years and have nearly wrecked the country. Everyone is paying $4/gal. for gas, many people have lost health insurance and jobs, the dumb war, the dollar dropping, and on and on.
Rumor has it that Dobson's Focus on Destroying the USA has been losing members and donations.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 11, 2008 2:21 PM
What I find missing from all the talk of a pharmicists right to not fill a plan B prescription is the lack of responsibility for making the decision that affects the second person. In my dreamworld, the pharmacist who refused to fill a plan B would become potentially responsible for half the cost of raising the kid to 18 if the worst case happened. After a couple of successful lawsuits, I bet all plan B perscriptions would be filled without comment. The same goes for the anti-choice people who intimidate women by getting in their face when entering an abortion clinic. I would make it so the only way to avoid financial responsibility in such cases would be to stay on the far side of the road.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 2:21 PM
Yah, that whole interview creeped me out. In addition to saying that the Chinese have nothing to fear from religion, he also claimed that once religion is established in a country, no government can stop it. I'm not sure the Chinese would agree that those to assertions are consistent with one another.
Posted by: davery | August 11, 2008 2:21 PM
#10 Armchair Dissident
Great point, well said. I'll use that next time I'm having this debate with someone.
Posted by: SSiE | August 11, 2008 2:24 PM
And I thought we had an idiotic Health Ministry here in South Africa... Just goes to show how the religious right in the developed world is at best equal to the most superstitious, even primitive convictions of the developing.
And no, in case anyone thinks so, there was no racist overtone in that last sentence, only sadness at the lack of scientific education in places like rural Africa, made so much worse by tribal superstition and the remnants of several decades of Western Christian influence.
At least here in South Africa we have a liberal constitution that guarantees women the right to choose, and enough state-run (and private) 24-hour abortion clinics that seem to operate successfully and without bother. This whole issue also points out another, more basic one: The developed world (like the US), can 'afford to worry' about issues like these, while the developing world just tries to survive. We have straightforward abortion and contraceptive laws, and they are more than likely to stay that way, since there are so many other, more pressing issues to spend government time and money on. We have our own occasional outbreaks of government woo and stupidity, but we can always look at what's happening in the US and shake our heads in amused disbelief.
All I can say is, use your rights and votes to fight this with everything you have - blurring the lines between contraception and abortion in this way can only pave the way for more death, hatred, bigotry and reduced civil liberty.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 11, 2008 2:30 PM
@34
Contraception over the counter at a large pharmacist, only to be told that every single pharmacist on duty refused to sell her EC on religious grounds.
This is only peripherally related, but some years ago, a server at a government cafeteria not only refused to sell me a sandwich with meat in it, but also lectured me on the evils of eating meat on Friday (except fish, the un-meat). I actually listened to this, being stunned into speechlessness. I literally could not believe my ears. After her rant, I immediately took the issue up with the supervisor on duty and got my sandwich made (in front of me, I wanted to ensure no saliva, etc.) I'm guessing she was of the Catholic flavour of lunatic.
Unfuckingbelievable. I filed a formal complaint, and got a form letter apology from the company. Whoop-de-do. In retrospect, I should probably have sued for discrimination and the embarrassment of being dressed down in public by a sandwich lady. In any case, I was younger and less jaded then than I am now and I didn't want any more fuss.
Really, if meat on Friday is evil, maybe you shouldn't be working the lunch shift at a cafeteria in a government building.
Posted by: Nausicaa | August 11, 2008 2:30 PM
I don't see how it's at all acceptable for physicians or pharmicists to refuse service in the way described. Would it be similarily okay for a police officer to refuse serving no-knock warrents for drug crimes because the officer morally objects to a practice that has resulted in the destruction of hundreds of innocent lives? Is it okay for a Muslim fire fighter to refuse to enter a burning church because they have a religious objection? How about accountants who disagree with GAAP?
I think it's safe to say that the only reason this is allowed is because the objections to abortion are principally rooted in Christianity - and by golly, these beliefs deserve respect!
Posted by: Danio | August 11, 2008 2:30 PM
It is a good point, but it is the point that the DHHS document was specifically drafted to counter. It cites numerous examples of the backlash against practitioners who refuse to dispense/treat and concludes that they are in conflict with the existing laws:Posted by: Armchair Dissident | August 11, 2008 2:32 PM
Oh, FSM. Don't even start me on that one. I covered that last month (I will never understand how the tribunal found in her favour - she broke the law!); but that particular case really highlighted just how out of kilter the current thinking is: she's a bigot. She doesn't want to officiate in gay weddings, because she's a bigot. But because she's "religious" that's okay. No it bloody well isn't. She's a bigot. She - like so many virulent homophobic organisations - are just using the word "religious" as a cover.
And look at how select the issues covering "religious freedom" tend to rotate around:
* Churches not appointing women priests - and thus not accepting that women are equal citizens.
* Churches not accepting gay people - and thus not accepting that gay people are equal citizens.
* Churches not permitting contraception or abortion - thus implicitly stating that women are subject to male authority.
It's completely retarded. They'd be shoved out the door with a fiery poker if they started interfering in laws designed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination -- and rightly so. Yet when they start posturing about women, or gay people, they're treated seriously. It says a lot about how little has actually happened to equality in both the UK and the US that this is so.
Posted by: Nausicaa | August 11, 2008 2:32 PM
I forgot to include my point in the post above. Point is, if you can't handle the required duties of your chosen profession, it's time to pick a new profession.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 2:37 PM
Not a direct response, but your mention of a national health ministry sparked in me this quixotic thought: If we had a national health service here, the whole "conscientious objector" thing would be a non-issue, because it would clearly be unconstitutional — a violation of the patient's 1st Amendment rights — for a government employee to deny care based on any sort of religious test. It's only because healthcare providers are private individuals that they can muddy the issue by attempting to assert an affirmative 1st Amendment right to deny care.
Reason #4,765 why we need national healthcare!
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 11, 2008 2:39 PM
@43
She doesn't want to officiate in gay weddings, because she's a bigot.
That's why the state should have no part in weddings at all. None. Zero.
Weddings should be whatever ceremony n-number of people wish to have to declare their devotion to each other.
Partnerships for raising children, division of assets, etc. should be treated as something like corporations, IMO, without all the wedding-related douchebaggery.
Posted by: Rarus.vir | August 11, 2008 2:40 PM
It seems we are once again being held hostage by token respect for peoples retarded religious views. Religion, prejudice, sexuality, and political opinions need to be checked at the door of the place of employment.
We will fight, tooth and nail, until everyone sees the utter stupidity that forms the foundation for religious reproductive rights.
Life doesn't begin at conception; it began, arguably, 4 billion years ago.
Comment #1
From a purely medical point of view, we should use the mirror image of the definitions of human life that we use to demonstrate death. When a person is technically brain-dead, they no longer have any more rights of self-determination, etc. So why not use it on the other end of the life spectrum as well? Personally, I feel that until the fetus is living completely separately from his/her mother, then the decision relies completely on the mother. But the brain activity point would probably be a good starting point, and would push all discussions of abortion at least until the late second trimester. This seems to me to be the best argument that is able to convince the vast majority of people on different sides of the argument.
I don't think standards for death could be used for the beginning of life at all. From zygote to infant and sometimes beyond, there is negligible intelligence, but potential for growth.
The thing is, no one approves of abortion, it's a terrible thing, but letting it go for religious purposes is ludicrous, there are so many other fine reasons to NOT do something.
Personally I don't have any issue with any kind of abortion, mainly because I am a man, and I won't ever have to deal with it. If I were a woman, then it would be MY decision, not some religious wing nut.
Religion Poisons Everything.
Posted by: Rick R | August 11, 2008 2:40 PM
Danio quoted- "In general, the Department is concerned that the development of an environment in the health care industry that is intolerant of certain religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions, and moral convictions may discourage individuals from underrepresented and diverse backgrounds from entering health care professions."
Yeah, because xians are such a helpless minority and need federal protection from the big bad persecuters. Just like the stripper who gets Jesus in a big way and decides lap-dancing for strange men for money is a sin, and should be allowed to retain her job and read out of the babble instead.
What part of "get another job" don't these idiots understand?
Posted by: defectiverobot | August 11, 2008 2:52 PM
@Zeno (#11)
And that's what disturbed me most about that woman who was pregnant with 7 children (can't remember her name and don't care to look it up) and rejected Doctor's recommendations to abort some of them for the safety of the others. Her response was something along the lines of "whatever happens will be God's will." Hmmm. God's will. Where was God when you needed the fertility drugs to get pregnant in the first place? Are you telling me that it wasn't God's will to NOT make you pregnant in the first place?
Science is always good when it works in your favor, kinda like God.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | August 11, 2008 2:54 PM
EvolvingSquid:
It's slightly different now in the UK: if a service is offered to the public - irrespective as to whether it is a state-run or private organisation - then it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. So even if the state wasn't involved in weddings, she would still have been breaking the law. Interestingly, in this case, the law was passed specifically without a religious opt-out, much to the disgust of the catholic church, and despite their vehement protestations, which makes her tribunal outcome even more peculiar.
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 2:54 PM
You will note that they didn't mention which underrepresented and diverse backgrounds are excluded from the health care industry. That is because there aren't any.
What is excluded are people who think being a doc or pharmacist allows them to tell other people what to do. It doesn't.
I suppose New Age alternative medicine people, Xian scientists, and faith healers are excluded. But so what? They can still do whatever it is they do, although they probably can't collect from insurance or medicare.
Posted by: Rick R | August 11, 2008 3:01 PM
I agree completely with #10 above who stated that this is nothing less than moral cowardice.
I have religious objections to some of my job duties. Both my religion and my career path were choices I freely made. But I don't have the courage of my convictions to quit my job and find another avenue I could find morally acceptable.
So I need to push others to live in such a way that my freely chosen moral sensibilities aren't offended.
Fucking cowardly wankers.
Posted by: Danio | August 11, 2008 3:03 PM
Actually in a lot of places they can. My state employees union-sponsored health insurance (family coverage to the tune of $1000/month) pays out for acupuncture, naturopathy, and chiropractic, and several practitioners in each group are even 'in network' providers. Urggghhhhh.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 11, 2008 3:04 PM
"What part of "get another job" don't these idiots understand?"
But I think it's deeper than that. They (some anyhow) look at going into Pharmacology to one day be able to have the chance to deny a "baby-killing" woman from stopping a pregnancy. Like the self-annointed tools that go into Biology degree programs expressly for the purpose of getting a PhD so they can go out into public and try tearing evolution and science down, these people see themselves as being on a mission. They consider themselves warriors for, in the US's case, Christ. And they'll do what they can to infiltrate and take over whatever organizations they can (the government being the biggest example) to push their ahistorical, ascientific, immoral garbage because if they don't they just know they're going to be turning on a stick in hell.
Others see it as a power trip, an opportunity to grab authority they shouldn't otherwise have, to run other peoples' lives. And religion just makes it that much easier.
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 11, 2008 3:05 PM
Isn't it interesting that no trolls have shown up to present "arguments" for the other side, knowing that they don't have any?
Don't assume that only single, or somehow compromised women are the ones having abortions. In the early years of legal abortion in the USA, at any rate, the majority of abortions were done on married women, who either felt they had enough children already, or the spacing was detrimental to the mother's family plans. In spite of practicing birth control with an IUD, I became pregnant when my son was six months old. Being of fragile health, and knowing that there was no way I could be a good mother to two infants simultaneously, I elected to terminate. I neither regretted this decision nor felt remorse over it. What the christofascists are trying to do is an abomination; however, I like to think that people of reason have been pushed all they can stand, and are now pushing back - hard. Remember the Japanese general who mused after the Pearl Harbor attack that he feared all that had been done was to awaken a sleeping giant?
Posted by: bric | August 11, 2008 3:08 PM
Four words: Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus
Posted by: redgirl | August 11, 2008 3:14 PM
To start off, this DRAFT regulation alarms me. It shows how deep the fundies have burrowed into HHS. But, on the other hand, this is a DRAFT. Which means that it hasn't even been published yet in the Federal Register. Which means, EVERYONE CALM DOWN. The leaking of the DRAFT is an obvious trial balloon, or a pissed off career employee out to embarrass the Bush administration. Assuming this gets published in the FR, sometime in the next 2-3 months, then undergoes a comment period (usually 90 days), and then the final rule publication, about 45 days after the comment period. So, by the time this thing is to be finalized, Barack Obama will be president, and this proposed rule will vanish like morning dew.
Posted by: khan | August 11, 2008 3:16 PM
I approve of abortion.
It is no more a 'terrible thing' than an appendectomy or a wisdom tooth extraction.
But since it involves a woman's crotch, it is somehow the concern of the patriarchal demented fuckwits.
Posted by: That Other Kid | August 11, 2008 3:19 PM
Honestly, that's the thing I find the most ridiculous. Essentially, these people are saying that because of their religion, they should be able to not do their job and still get paid. It's insane.
If you don't want to dispense drugs to people who need them, don't become an effing pharmacist.
Posted by: cubefarmed | August 11, 2008 3:26 PM
In the event that this regulation does become permanent, I'd love to see medical care providors and pharmacist's required to publicly display services or medications that they will not perform, prescribe, or dispense. In the name of free market capitalism which the Republicans who support these measures also espouse, of course.
I wonder how quickly some of these medical facilities and pharmacies would go out of business. Alas, we all know that won't happen. Someone will find a way to say it's discrimination.
Posted by: Ames | August 11, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm surprised this has taken so long to trickle to the top of the blogosphere. I gave a legal analysis of this a while ago, and Scibling PalMD reported on it earlier too. This is a seriously disturbing direction for HHS to go in, and this needs to be getting mainstream media attention. Spread the word!!
Posted by: Helioprogenus | August 11, 2008 3:29 PM
You know with these fucks, they'll do everything and anything in their power to dictate what women should do with their wombs. With them, there is no such thing as personal choice, it comes down to protecting and guarding your property (i.e. a woman's womb). It's the same reason why they're adamantly against administering HPV vaccines to adolescent girls. Perhaps these girls will realize that they in fact have control over their own bodies, and the power that these fucks have over them is just illusionary.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 11, 2008 3:37 PM
"""the whole "conscientious objector" thing would be a non-issue, because it would clearly be unconstitutional -- a violation of the patient's 1st Amendment rights -- for a government employee to deny care based on any sort of religious test. It's only because healthcare providers are private individuals that they can muddy the issue by attempting to assert an affirmative 1st Amendment right to deny care.
Reason #4,765 why we need national healthcare!"""
Ummmm, you are kidding right? The federal government thinks it has the power to legislate morality and without much fuss, the populace concedes. Then, when a group gains control of the federal government (in this case G W and the Falwell college crowd) those who hold the same beliefs as Falwell's crowd cheer while the secular crowd boos and hisses.
If health services were an exclusive governmental venue right now, the anti-science, Falwell crowd would have stripped much from the secular needs and wants already, as the Bill Of Rights has been given away by hapless voters on both sides of the R and D equation.
If you are dismissive of the Constitution, and demand federal government control over services and the administering of most tax revenue, you will get government CONTROL and your taxes will not go to where you desire them to go. This is being demonstrated right before your very eyes.
George Bush and his federal cabal is the punishment Americans have inflicted upon themselves by trying to use the federal government as a blunt tool for their societal desires.
Posted by: Rick R | August 11, 2008 3:39 PM
cubefarmed wrote- "In the event that this regulation does become permanent, I'd love to see medical care providors and pharmacist's required to publicly display services or medications that they will not perform, prescribe, or dispense. In the name of free market capitalism which the Republicans who support these measures also espouse, of course.
I wonder how quickly some of these medical facilities and pharmacies would go out of business. Alas, we all know that won't happen. Someone will find a way to say it's discrimination. "
I like this idea. A lot. If this should become permanent, I would push to have a particular pharmacy's stance posted publicly. I'm not a woman so am not a consumer of women's birth control products. But I certainly can (and would) take my pharmaceutical business elsewhere.
Posted by: DocWazoo | August 11, 2008 3:39 PM
I also approve of abortion. This is one of the chief reasons I became a gynecologist - so that if it is ever illegal, or no one else is available to provide the service, I'll still be able to do it.
Posted by: Rarus.vir | August 11, 2008 3:41 PM
#58
As I said, I don't have a horse in this race, seeing I am a man. Sometimes there arent any good answers. Abortion should be avoided at all costs, but my point was that for all the 'reasons' a woman could have an abortion, or not have an abortion, religion is perhaps the worst one of all.
Really I have reservations about anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing. At best it is a necessary evil.
Posted by: Danio | August 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Rarus.vir, would you care to elaborate on your assignments of 'good' and 'evil' here? I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2008 3:49 PM
Most likely just propaganda babbling. These sorts of regulations fall most heavily on the young, stupid, and insane women. Your average middle aged career woman isn't going to be showing up at a pharmacist with a hangover looking for plan B. Very often anyway.
Here is a classic and real life example of the victims of such regulations. The girl is a Texan white. Her parents are meth addicts who forget for weeks on end that they even have a daughter. She has little education although she is not stupid. Her now ex boyfriend is much older and borderline for normal intelligence.
In this case, neither birth control nor abortion took place. We now have a lost and undereducated 16 year old girl from a dysfunctional family wandering around with a baby. Needless to say, the state is picking up every penny of the bills. The chances of the kid with a kid making it out of the poverty swamp are low to nonexistent.
Posted by: Scott D. | August 11, 2008 3:54 PM
If one isn't able to do their job, then they should have chosen a different profession. A christian becoming a pharmacist and refusing to distribute medication, is really no different than a vegan working on a slaughter floor and refusing to touch meat.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 3:55 PM
But I certainly can (and would) take my pharmaceutical business elsewhere.
Unless you live in a small town that only has one pharmacy, that is. Then you're screwed.
Posted by: khan | August 11, 2008 3:55 PM
Really I have reservations about anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing. At best it is a necessary evil.
How would you feel about removing something that crawled up your rectum and took root?