gl.

 

by month:
* March 2002
* April 2002
* May 2002
* June 2002
* July 2002
* August 2002
* September 2002
* October 2002
* November 2002
* December 2002
* January 2003
* February 2003
* March 2003
* April 2003
* May 2003
* June 2003
* July 2003
* August 2003
* September 2003
* October 2003
* November 2003
* December 2003
* January 2004
* February 2004
* March 2004
* April 2004
* May 2004
* June 2004
* July 2004
* August 2004
* September 2004
* October 2004
* November 2004
* December 2004
* January 2005
* February 2005
* March 2005
* April 2005
* May 2005
* June 2005
* July 2005
* August 2005
* September 2005
* October 2005
* November 2005
* December 2005
* January 2006
* February 2006
* March 2006
* April 2006
* May 2006
* June 2006
* July 2006
* August 2006
* September 2006
* October 2006
* November 2006
* December 2006
* January 2007
* February 2007
* March 2007
* April 2007
* May 2007
* June 2007
* July 2007
* August 2007
* September 2007
* October 2007
* November 2007
* December 2007
* January 2008
* February 2008
* March 2008
* April 2008
* May 2008
* June 2008
* July 2008
* August 2008
* September 2008
* October 2008
* November 2008
* December 2008
* January 2009
* February 2009
* March 2009
* April 2009
* May 2009
* June 2009
* August 2009
* September 2009
* December 2009
* January 2010
* February 2010
* March 2010
* April 2010
* May 2010
* June 2010
* August 2010
* October 2010
* November 2010
* March 2011
* June 2012
* July 2012
* August 2012
* September 2012
* October 2012
* November 2012
* December 2012
* January 2013
* February 2013
* March 2013
* April 2013
* May 2013
* June 2013
* July 2013
* August 2013
* September 2013
* April 2014
* August 2014
* November 2014
* December 2014
* January 2015
* March 2015

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
site feed by atom

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

 
[#] [2]
this makes me so angry & horrified i haven't been able to write about it for almost two weeks: the department of health & human services wants to allow employees at federally-funded sites to refuse to participate in "abortions" -- which i put in quotes because it defines "abortion" to include contraception based on "commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins." my jaw and my stomach dropped through the floor when i read that. i think it's completely absurd for the USDHHS to use "commonly held views" to conveniently redefine medical terms. they say "...both definitions of pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical community." NO. THEY ARE NOT.

ultimately this proposal would mean that anyone who wanted to opt-out of providing, participating, assisting or referring things like birth control pills, plan b, IUDs, norplant, rape kits, or even condoms would be able to do so without fear of reprisal for NOT DOING THEIR JOBS. it's called a moral decision, but i don't see anything moral about joining the medical profession and then refusing to treat patients. plus, i'll bet no other "moral" objections would be approved for this or any other profession: can you imagine if a doctor refused to treat jews due to her moral beliefs, or a pharmacist decided vaccinations were against his moral beliefs, or if a programmer working for a defense project refused to write code for weapons due to his beliefs? why is this particular belief receiving special protection?

this proposal is entirely beyond the pale: it protects "institutions" but not patients, and could eviscerate states who have done the right thing by passing laws to protect patients. this is the letter i wrote:

Don't allow medical professionals to deny healthcare to women!

The HHS proposal that deliberately confuses the definitions of contraception and abortion is deceitful, distasteful and discriminatory. If the device, drug or procedure is legal, it should be dispensed to women -- regardless of the personal beliefs of staff members.

Patient rights should be paramount in the medical system. I encourage the HHS to support patients, not propaganda. Anyone associated with the medical profession should put their personal beliefs aside in order to serve patients. All patients deserve being treated with dignity, respect and equality rather than shame, scorn and denial of legal services.

Redefining abortion to include contraceptives is a radical leap with neither scientific or medical grounding. Tying it to federal funding is completely unreasonable. At best, the HHS proposal is unnecessary: federal law already allows doctors and even health-care corporations (hospitals, HMOs, and health plans) to refuse to provide services or make referrals for abortion. I don't think that's fair to women, either, but it makes this new proposal to limit birth control (which reduces the rate of abortions) even more alarming and incomprehensible.

First, do no harm. Please do everything you can to try and convince the HHS to abandon this proposed regulation.
you may send your own letter objecting to the proposal to:

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt
Office Phone: 202-690-7000

Email: mike.leavitt@hhs.gov

Fax: 202-690-7203

Correspondence Secretary: 202-690-6392
(Anyone outside of the DC/metro area can call 877-696-6775 toll-free and ask to be transferred to the Secretary's office.)

also, i would encourage you to sign the petitions at planned parenthood & naral. (ann has already done so. thank you, ann!)

and in other depressing fanatical news, doctors in south dakota must tell women seeking abortions that the procedure "ends a human life" and may cause them psychological harm. of course, a fetus is not yet a human life, and carrying around and giving birth to an unwanted child also causes psychological harm, both to the mother and the child. to be fair, perhaps every doctor in south dakota should be required to warn pregnant women about the psychological harm of post-partum depression, the statistics on infanticide, and the medical risks of childbirth. and then have a mandatory waiting period of 2-4 months before returning to see the doctor again.

Comments:
Time to get the Bush apoointees and the so called moralists out of office!
 
i would love to see that happen, anonymous: volunteer for a cause this year which will have an impact. it doesn't even have to be for an organization: something as direct as convincing a cynical voter not to throw their votes away in protest would be a worthwhile thing to do.

religious morality has no place in our government. we don't need faith to be a moral nation, especially given the different faiths we embrace. let our goal be an enlightened nation, pro-moral but faith-neutral.
 
Post a Comment