Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUsing Pseudo-science at HHS
I thought the battle for women's rights had largely been won but the extremists are coming out of the closet with their real agenda, the assault on birth control. This fringe has won converts for its warped pseudo-science at the Department of Health and Human Services, where a proposed rule would codify that anyone receiving federal funding could not be required to provide birth control under the basis that it might violate their religious views.
The new rules would mean that all health care providers -- including pharmacists and medical staff at hospitals and clinics, medical schools and even family planning centers -- could refuse to provide all forms of contraception. Women's rights are being put at the whim of their providers who could now claim a "conscience" clause to refuse to cover birth control in medical plans or provide pregnancy prevention to rape victims.
It seems the debate over women's reproductive rights has come full circle, so that women are once again forced to argue for their right of self-determination. Every day, Americans face important life decisions, with outcomes that will reverberate for years: how to afford health care; how to die with dignity, how to talk to teenagers about sex; when and what kind of contraceptives to use; when to have a baby and whether it is safe to have more than one child. This debate is really about more than contraception, it's about life decisions and whether women get to make them for themselves.
How did this happen? With nine out of every ten American women using contraceptives, you'd think we were out of the Dark Ages. It's a small minority of activists who are pushing for these extreme measures. The Women Donors Network, together with Communications Consortium Media Center, conducted research and found that 91 percent of voters agreed that couples should have access to birth control. Voters believe, by 83 percent, that we should respect people's ability to make their own life decisions, including when to have a child -- and not impose our values and views on them.
The extremists' agenda is designed to strip woman of self-determination. We cannot allow the intractable debate on pregnancy termination to overshadow our right to prevent a pregnancy. Under the proposed HHS rule anyone -- the doctor, the pharmacist, the receptionist -- could deny a woman the right to contraception.
Given that contraceptives prevent unintended pregnancies, you would think that the anti-abortion crowd would be the biggest promoter of birth control. Not so, because their real target is to end family planning. It's time to move on to the critical issues about reproductive health and sexuality that face all of us every day -- issues such as access to contraception and cervical cancer prevention. Let's agree to disagree about abortion, but certainly prevention of unwanted pregnancy can be a common ground goal most Americans can agree upon.
The public has only until September 25 to send comments to HHS about the proposed rule. Send your comments to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. The proposed HHS rule should die a swift death and the anti-women activists should back off, allowing the rest of us to move on.
67 Comments so far
Show AllJust one more tangentially related comment. I start with assumption 1. that teenagers have always had sex and will continue to have sex no matter what anyone says. It happens in all communities including ultra-Orthodox Jews and Christians. Assumption 2 is that the "punishment" should not be death from AIDS or premature parenthood.
I see the drug industry pushing for more use of vaccines like Gardasil for teens to prevent human papilloma virus infections of the cervix. Human papilloma infections are associated with later emergence of some types of cervical cancer. The drug companies' marketers tried to make this vaccination compulsory for all teenage girls in Texas.
The religious forces opposed the mass vaccination proposal because it tended to put a stamp of approval on teenage sex.
I totally oppose the mass use of Gardasil for different reasons - because it creates a confusing and false sense of security. It is like playing a baseball game with only a shortstop on the field, no basemen, no outfielders. Gardasil provides some protection against HPV only, but against no other sexually transmitted disease, up to and including AIDS. It provides no protection against pregnancy.
Gardasil is no substitute for safe sex practices. To the extent that it lulls teens into thinking they are protected, it is actually worse than nothing. A simple condom combined with spermicide (and used religiously) would provide good protection against both pregnancy and disease. Teenagers should know this.
Joe
What does science, pseudo science or fundamentalist religion have to do with deciding to bring a child into the world. These entities are suppose to do thier job, make thier own decisions, impart that wisdom and then let others do the same. How many people should be involved in the decision anyway? No wonder there is over population, hunger, and poverty. One of the most personal decision envolves microscopic analysis and what passes as moral authority. These are all part of the problem not the solution, at least not for people that understand they are being scammed.
It seems to me that we all are allowed to make choices. A young girl, a rape victim, or any woman- has the right to make a choice, or at least an informed choice. Isn't that the point of the American judicial system? ALL sides are heard, and then the judge decides what is fair, and best, based on all of the collected information. The judge asks questions, makes sure that both sides have had a fair presentation, and then " weighs the evidence."
Why should any individual in this country have any less jurisdiction, when it pertains to their own personal decision making?
Now, the conscience clause. The nurse, practitioner, or pharmacist.. this person MADE their choice. They CHOSE this line of work, this position, this particular employment. I respect that they would and should have the right, like a compromised judge or attorney, to recuse themselves from a case, due to conflict of interest. A judge ( or attorney?) does this to ensure fairness and objectivity for the plaintiff. An attorney who does not.. will be selective and partial, impacting the entire proceedings.
To deny submission of valid and relevant information cannot be fair and impartial for the woman who finds herself pregnant, or possibly pregnant. Often scared and confused- she deserves the council of someone who does not have a vested interest in the outcome. At the VERY least- she needs to know that the information( evidence) she is receiving is incomplete and biased. I,e,( example) " I am not presenting you with full information about birth control and/or abortion because I am a conservative christian and have a problem with these procedures."
Informed decisions are the most essential component of our civic responsibility. Therefore it is the absolute duty of those who safeguard our civil rights to ensure that we can be adequately informed in order to make mature, well-thought and responsible choices based on the widest range and best information that is available in today's world.
I think store pharmacies, e.g., Walgreen's, should weed out the deluded freaks. Let the freaks work for their own freak pharmacies that cater to freak consumers who buy into the deluded god BS.
(Did I sugar coat this too much ???)
don't be shy- say what you really think...
;)
True, they could go into dermatology or one of the many many fields that does not involve reproduction. Or if a reproductive conservative wishes to work in obstetrics or gynecology, they could work in a private practice or faith based clinic that tells you up front that you will not get the full range of services.
But if you are taking public money (Medicare, Medicaid etc.) to support your facility, then by law you should have to behave in a secular way, present options or else excuse yourself from being in a position to deny care and information to patients.
Would you force a Jehovah's Witness to get a transfusion? No. But would you put a Jehovah's Witness in charge of a Blood Bank?
Joe
Good article for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who would re-criminalize abortion.
I can respect people who feel abortion is murder if they also reject when murder is murder - like the death penalty and the mass-murderings of war. It would be good if they would oppose murder by neglect as well, as happens to people displaced by wars, flood and drought. Or people who are disabled or poor. Or abused children who are allowed to die because we penny-pinch with staffing for agencies that should protect them. Or people who breathe toxic fumes at work even after people know it can cause death or people like my grandfather who die in preventable mining accidents. I cannot go on because there is an 1000 word limit.
Those who believe that abortion is murder should not get abortions and nobody should ever force or pressure them to do so. They should not have the power to criminalize abortion when others feel this drastic step is required. People will always get abortions. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy will compel some to do so. The only question is whether the abortion is safe and legal or left to quacks and butchers.
But all this has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIRTH CONTROL aka FAMILY PLANNING. Banning or limiting contraception is an unwarranted interference in people's sexuality, especially women. It is so primitive and hypocritical!
I remember as a child overhearing our sweet devout Catholic neighbor, mother of four small children, who was discussing with my mother whether to stop having sex with her husband or to defy the church and use birth control. I remember clearly she said that her husband worked hard and that was his only fun and they were in love. She also cleaned the brothers' quarters at the local high school at night and said there were frequently women there and bottles of whiskey. So the two of them decided that it was less sinful to use the contraception than to create unhappiness in the family or add more children they couldn't support. The neighbor left with a smile on her face.
I especially support educating teenagers about contraception and safe sex. We don't need pregancies or sexually transmitted diseases among the young. I do not think that educated teens have more sex than non-educated teens, all other things being equal. Forbidding does not work. Lots of activities may help reduce boredom sex. But we are made with sex drive, some more than others. So why not teach them about this just as much as you would teach them about what kind of foods to eat or how to treat others with respect? It is part of taking responsibility for your actions and for your life.
CONTRACEPTION:
Better than shotgun weddings between kids who are too immature even to plan to bring a condom, no?
Better than abortion, no?
Better than uncared for children of unprepared teenage mothers, no?
Better than giving away a precious child for adoption and being haunted for the rest of one's life, no?
Better than promoting a mindset of taking risks rather than being responsible, no?
Better than denial, pretending that sexuality is not part of our nature, no?
Better than making the cost of having sex a lifetime of child support payments, that often lapse, no?
Ideally "Every child should be a planned and wanted child."
Joe
'Joe"
Never mind...
What?
Joe
God has chosen those not cursed with veracity to impose His will on those not cursed with intelligence.
religion: A tool or concept created to control the will of the people. works really well doesn't it.
Rickster
I have mixed feelings about this whole subject. I believe in freedom of conscience and support those who would refuse to participate in the military occupation of Iraq, the destruction in Afghanistan, the sanctions agains Cuba and Iran. I support conscientious objectors. I would also support those who would refuse to participate in capital punishment, the kangaroo courts at GITMO, and other institutions of our death cult society.
I would hope that I would have supported those who refused to collaborate with the Nazi death camps, those who might have refused to take part in the Tuskegee, and similar, 'medical' research. I would also support a medical professional who decided against doing transplants because of the knowledge that many organs are not available because of a timely donation, given freely, but because they believe that they were using forced donations, acquired through theft and murder, which I have read is happening in several countries.
So how, in good conscience, do I draw the line for those whose conscience says that abortion is murder? I wouldn't accept these arguments against them in those other cases I mentioned, what makes this one so clearly, to all of you, different? I would suggest that there are probably sufficient other health professionals who could take ip the slack.
I do not come to this position through any religious beliefs. To put it mildly, I don't believe in any god, and have a rather marked distaste for all religions, all the time. I think they are all BS, without exception.
This is not an easy question. You are not talking about some trivial decision or procedure. People have to follow their conscience and I totally respect that. Frankly abortion, especially at later stages is not a happy event. I know one medical professional who had to stop participating in them because it increasingly upset her.
However I am opposed to making abortion a criminal offense. It will not prevent abortions, makes them more dangerous and criminalizes people who are making a difficult choice and the medical professionals who help them.
To me there is no moral rationale whatsoever for a medical professional to block information about or access to contraception. In fact, as the article points out, contraception is a large part of of the solution. It can reduce or virtually eliminate the need for abortion, as well as help women have more control over their lives and help make for happier families.
Joe
I think you're absolutely like most pro-choice people. Like Barbara Bush (of all people) says: "It's a woman's choice; not for the government to decide."
So, for people with any sense and compassion, outlawing abortions is awful in every way.
But nobody likes abortions, and no decent, sensitive person is indifferent to them. Good grief, the thought of it makes me shudder, and I deeply sympathize with a woman who accidently gets pregnant and just can't face having a child for any number of reasons. Usually, it's with grim determination and a heavy heart that a decent sensitive person goes through such a thing. And often with tears afterwards.
I did my sensitive-guy thing one time with a fairly close acquaintance (not quite a friend) who was having an abortion. We met after it was done to have a coffee and talk... Like most sensible people, I think it's a pretty huge decision, and a difficult one. (In my own family, we weren't ready for our second and the thought fleetingly crossed our minds, but we didn't. Now, I can't imagine the world without my wonderful son, frankly.)
Talking to this woman who'd just had an abortion, she let it slip it was her 3rd...!? I haven't talked to her since. No lectures, no drama, just no contact. Not my kind of person. Abortion as birth control is as awful as it sounds.
Yet, it's a woman's choice, not for the cop around the corner to prevent it.
God as Creator gave human beings free will to make their own decisions in life in regards to their own lives & whatever situations that may occur in their own lives.
Jesus never gave any indication he came to start a new Religion. Jesus taught his Father's Spiritual Kingdom that is not of the world of man, nor worldly things. Why should I judge someone who makes choices I wouldn't make considering I might make choices that others would make for themselves?
The two segments of his society that Jesus railed against were the Religious Factions of Israel, & the Rich. Jesus told the vast majority of the Religious Factions of Israel that their father was the Devil who was a liar & murderer from the beginning. It was most of the Religious Leaders of the Temple who sought Jesus's death. Religion doesn't mean anyone knows God.
The Israelites had the Books of the Torah & still they didn't know Jesus when he showed up upon the earth. Reading a book doesn't mean anyone knows God.
Making laws will not keep people from breaking those laws. Jesus taught the greater of the law was Love, Forgiveness, Compassion & Mercy.
Forgive & you will be forgiven. Those who are merciful will be shown mercy. Judge not any you will not be judged. All of those things form Spiritual Circles.
An Agnostic fellow once said to me I seemed to be reading from another book than the book the Christians read when I was talking to him about Jesus, the Spiritual Kingdom, & prophecy.
Yes human beings did exactly what Jesus knew they would do which was to turn him into Politics & Religion so they just began perpetrating their murders, thefts, & tortures upon people in his name instead of Caesar's. Isn't my job to judge them of times past, nor to judge the ones who do the same today as they have free will.
Life is good.
Nine out of ten people (women, for lack of a male contrceptive) would not patronize a fundamentalist practionier. The real question is the equality of access to reproductive health care. Women have made reasoned decisions long before fundamentalist religions have exerted influence about morality and that won't change. You can make any number of laws but environmental support
will ultimately be of greater significance.
The announcement is at:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821a.html
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf
The PDF file (second link) has instructions for filing electronic comments, but they're incomplete or misleading. That's not unique to this particular issue -- I've found it difficult to file on-line comments with other agencies too (FCC, Dept. of the Interior).
To post a comment, start here:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp
In the search window in the middle of the page, enter the keywords "provider conscience". Or enter this docket number in the search window:
HHS-OS-2008-0011-0001
On the page that opens, you should see a blue hyperlink that says "Send a Comment or Submission". You may see several. Click on one, and it should open an on-line comment template.
Alternatively, you can try this link:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064806da3bc
Right now there are about 1300 comments posted. The comment period is open for one more week.
"I am a Christian and believe that the Bible should guide our lives."
Do you believe the whole Bible (which one?) or just certain parts?
nyvisitor
Congress wrote the enabling law of the HHS rulemaking function and HHS may not violate the First Amendment by writing a rule that prevents lawful government service because of the religious views of the government's employee or other agent.
The state of an employee's or an agent's conscience or personal religious views may not be allowed to control or end the right of patients or clients to government services.
I am a Christian and believe that the Bible should guide our lives. The Bible is quite clear. It says nothing about a married couple deciding to control the times when they would have children. The Bible does not dictate how many children a husband and wife should have or whether they may attempt birth control. Since pessaries and condoms were devised in early history, the absence of their mention in the Scriptures' discussions of marriage is significant.
I think that, even if the US Constitution allowed it, no law or rule should be dependent on completely subjective, unverifiable, and unwritten conditions such as the personal religious views of an agent or employee.
How can abortion be murder when a fetus is not alive (in the sense of viable on its own)? Just askin'.
If you don't wanna sell me condoms, don't ask for a job at my pharmacy!
If abortion is murder is ejaculation genocide?
"I'm Christian and I am a moderate."
Just curious, but how does this work? Do you just edit out the passages of the Bible you don't like? Doesn't that devalue the holiness of the book and the religion? If, for example, you find Adam and Eve a little ridiculous, and choose to ignore that part, why wouldn't you also decide to ignore the part where Christ rises from the dead? How do you decide which supernatural parts to cut and which to keep?
It's belief by convenience.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony
Hey, racism isn't the problem. I'm a racist, but I'm a moderate. I don't advocate exterminating *insert race here* I just don't want them at my country club.
Nobody but you is making a big deal about race. Not all Christians are racists.
Allegory - look it up.
The moderate Republicans are getting more scared year after year that the social "conservative" wing of the party is going too far at the cost of breaking the unnatural alliance between the corporate elites and the religious elites. Rabid rightwingers are against the lives of men, women, and children be it here at home or elsewhere around the world. From denying affordable healthcare to promoting wars, this rightwing mania has been ruining the country for decades. It's time to put the gender divisions aside and stand up to the rightwing elite. UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL !
And by the way, I'm a Christian and I'm moderate so not all Christians are rightwing. The secular and the religious left ought to be uniting against the Religious Right that has been ABUSING religion for decades to sell this country out for their political and personal expediencies.
This is not about morality. It's about who will have power over whom.
How about this? I'll leave you alone as long as you leave me alone. Modern science, technology, and the good things of this planet belong rightfully to everyone equally.
I don't care how rich you get as long as others don't die in the process.
John F. Butterfield
Sorry folks, don't expect world peace if you can't realize that abortion is murder.
"Sorry folks, don't expect world peace if you can't realize that abortion is murder."
If you believe this, then you should be outraged at the idea that family planning and birth control should be restricted or forbidden. If we decrease the number of unwanted children and children that people cannot afford to have by controlling their conception, then we will have fewer abortions.
You should be fighting the restrictions proposed by HHS.
What a tremendously stupid statement. How many wars have fetuses fought? Insurgencies? How many nobel prizes? How many fetuses have nursed the sick or the poor? How many are elected to office? Teach schools? Aborting a fetus has NO measurable impact on the general world, only on the life of the woman making the decision.
You can claim abortion is wrong all you want. Fine. I don't agree. But stating that stopping them will cause world peace is simply insane right wing tripe.
Killing a fetus or stopping an unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with anyone but that woman and her God and if she's lucky some loving partner. That is IT!
Take your God and shove him frankly if you have that sort of attitude.
No No Goose... that fetus could grow up and be president one day! heh.
Actually true, it could. However on the face of it his(?) comment is worthy of ridicule in that aborting an infant can NEVER lead to the loss of another life (except sometimes the mother - rarely thank God (the forgiving one that I believen at least)). So how could the aborted fetus aid peace or hinder it? It ceases to exist and thus has no more impact in the wider world. Bad logic flaw that reeks of fundamentalist Christians.
also- basing on the christian belief that we are/have each, a soul. and if god is omniscient and omnipotent.. he would know not to send the soul of a saviour to a fetuses/ baby that would never be born... and... if we are all souls.. the soul cannot be destroyed.. so who/what is being harmed by the termination of a pregnancy? and no, I am not being sarcastic.. this is a sincere philosophical/religious question. anyone?
Indeed... unless of course that all events are preordained and we're screwing with the fabric of karma by murdering the president to be in the womb. Then again, the universe is self-correcting.
John F. Butterfield
Abortion is murder. If you think it is ok to murder then how can you claim to be against murder. The change has to start with you. Be the change you want.
And by the way I am a socialist, not right wing.
Murder is unlawful killing. There are lawful killings, for which you're not ever going to be charged. Such as killing in self defence against an attacker, killing by accident on the job, killing by driving error.
Abortion is not unlawful, therefore it cannot be murder. Even when it was unlawful the people involved in the 'crime' were never sentenced to death - which was the penalty in all other murder cases of that era. So even in the distant, and not so distant past it wasn't the same kind of 'murder' that you're making such a blanket statement about.
Back to the article, it's talking about birth control - not murder, not abortion - and the abuse by religious nuts who argue that bc is the same thing as murder. I understand why they're arguing that, it's from the slipery slope type of arguement. Are you arguing that b/c is a form of abortion/murder?
You're a product of right-wing religious propaganda. When your kind agrees that war is murder, or to adopt all the unwanted babies resulting from non-abortion of unwanted fetuses, or to pay taxes to raise those kids, you'd have a little more credibility. A male regressive religious true-believer sitting back parroting the pre-programmed phrase "abortion is murder" is part of the problem, not the solution.
John F. Butterfield
If you think it is ok to murder, don't claim that you are for peace.
There are abortions where the child is viable outside the "?mother?".
And that's precisely why universal access to contraception is necessary.
John F. Butterfield
Sorry folks don't expect world peace if you can't realize that abortion is murder.
Self defensive killing isn't murder. It could be manslaughter, but even then the thing has to be a living human being. A fetus is not a living human being. Neither are a sperm cell, nor an egg, a living human being. It's not until the thing can live outside of another human being (only women Johnny boy) that one can say if it's a human or a parasite.
Mind you there are some parents who argue that their kids are parasites...
Rockerbabe1
You are positively correct and well said.
The only problem I see is that you are up against "God" on this subject.
Now take it from someone who's family history will testify, when it comes to "rights" and God", when "God's people" are in power (as they are now), "God lets them" twist logic, lie, cheat, betray--- in other words "do what ya gatta do to win". It stops being a health or "women's issue" when they get "God" in on it. Try not to forget that these are the same people who use the logic that it is doing "Gods" work to save those little "unborn" babies, in those "wombs"---but it is OK to shed lots of innocent blood as "collateral damage"----in a war.
If on the other hand, more health care providers and professionals move to make the changes, there will be changes.
The health care professionals could form their own groups as non-profits, take donations from like minded people *, and provide the services the Government does not when under the control of "God's people".
Not only would this be a positive professional statement, but a powerful social statement-----and make "God's people" look like the fools they are in the process. Just a suggestion.
* This is the only true way for people to make a statement, as well as assure that their tax dollars are used for the things they believe are important. When a person makes a tax deductible donation to an appropriately organized cause/organization/charity etc., they actually "apportion their taxes"----something the sixteenth amendment does not offer. This is a true statement of power.
Try it. The present method is certainly not successful; and as a "progressive thinker", you are duty bound to learn from the mistakes of the "Conservative thinkers"----"God knows they don't"...........
Your reasoning has a fatal flaw. They are talking about people who are paid with federal dollars. That's our tax dollars. If health care providers want to make decisions for their patients based on their beliefs, then get them out of the public systems that uses my money to run. They can get their own private medical practices and serve those who believe as they do. If they use public money then they must serve ALL the Public, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
I am not exactly sure of your meaning, but religion and god have little to do with my opinion. I am also a patient in the healthcare system and I demand respect for the medical plan of care my physician and I have agreed upon. Interference from other people and their religious beliefs is not wanted and will not be tolerated at least by me. I have no problems standing up for myself, but that is not to say others can advocate for themselves in an effective manner. When individuals come into the healthcare system, they are often extremely vulnerable and do not need the beliefs of another inflicted upon them. There seems to be too much concern for healthcare workers as opposed to providing the care women and their families want.
Everyone should contatct HHS at consciencecomment@hhs.gov and make themselves known.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
You are asking for a common ground goal will never be shared with the elite. Not only are individual issues decided for us, even the deciding of the issues is decided for us. With the Magna Carta and heabes corpus out of the picture it allows ideas like creationism to be more easily forced on society. The elite’s aren’t winning, but they are regrouping at the top. They have to as their empire crumbles. And any time the elephants fight, life underneath suffers.
Hoa binh
You know there are parents who have refused medical treatment for their kids because of religious beliefs, and as far as I know most have been taken to court for child abuse.
So can't we have the same protection for patients who are victims of religious objections ?
While individuals who identify themselves as Christians might not behave so as to impose their religious values upon others, the fact is that the Christian version of the Golden Rule invites this interpretation of the principle of reciprocity. Among east Asians and pre-Socratic philosophers the Golden Rule was given as “Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you.” (This was the most succinct form given by the Buddha.) Following his principles of logic, Aristotle removed the double negative giving it the form “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In this form it was taken up by the Pythagoreans and would up in the gospels. While the earlier version was a stricture for tolerance against doing evil, the later version implies that one should impose one’s own sense of virtue upon others.
It is not religion that is the problem, it is Christianism that is the problem. The doctrines of Christianism are a moral step backwards from those religious teachings that antedated it – and all the more dangerous for its universal imposition through the sword upon Western civilization.
All religions are the problem, and the government's recognition of them is the problem.
All religions are the problem, and the government's recognition of them is the problem.
Sure you don't mean that religion is not a problem, until the gov't shoves it down your throat? It doesn't matter what anyone believes, what matters is when they force you to act as they believe.
I would say religion is ALWAYS a problem. I'm affected adversely by it even when the government isn't involved. It's just a lot worse when the government enables it.
Don't think of religion. Ok, that's probably like saying don't think of elephants. Just take a deep breath and ease your mind. Let me know how that works out. Have you tried yoga by the way?
There you go. That is so silly, and self-flattering. Even where they have elephants, they're not everywhere. Religion is everywhere. I come from a frankly great family, parents, siblings, the whole bit. I know how lucky I am for that.
But they're mostly all very religious other than me, and it causes real problems. Not huge, insurmountable problems, but real and at times pretty serious problems, as in a case of an unwanted pregnancy and where the obvious solution is an abortion. Real serious problems that wouldn't exist if the whole thing came down to common sense and respect and compassion for others. But instead a few 'deeply' religious people act as if an abortion was the equal of a vicious murder, quoting all the 'talking points' from the priests and bishops and the pope, and all those nut-case evangelical ministers. And of course, serious judgements and arguments lead to very painful situations.
Our society is chock-full of nasty problems caused by religion. As if we could just
pretend and they would go away.
A couple of relatives are nut-case born-agains. And we're supposed to be 'understanding' because it's a personal matter. Oh yeah! Believing that the universe was created 6000 years ago, requires the rejection of huge chunks of science. The science that put humans on the moon and gives us all these incredible things (what I'm using right now, etc.) is the same science that determined that the earth is 4 billion years old, that the city of Jericho was built close to 10,000 years ago, what dinosaurs looked like and that they disappeared many millions of years ago, how petroleum formed under ground and how long it took, etc.
Taking the bible to be all literally true requires belief that God ordered genocide, and that the end will involve unspeakable horror for the vast majority, while a tiny minority flies first-class right up to heaven to live in eternal bliss with the orchestra of harp-playing angels doing continuous covers of the Stones, Beatles, and the Who. Hank Williams on Saturday mornings.
Religion is anything but a little bit of personal belief. It's nasty, self-serving, aggressive, holier-than-thou, competitive politics with a much more narrow-minded my-way-or-the-highway modus operendi than the normal politics of electing representatives.
75 million evangelicals in this country don't believe we need to worry about the environmemnt, etc., because it's all in God's hands and there's nothing we can do about it. It's not just Palin who thinks the Iraq debacle is a direct job order from God.
Just forget about it indeed.
Sara Palin for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sara
Sara
Sara!!!
She will not use any birth control and will keep popping babies, nursing them while in office!!!
Put the red nuke button on her chair as she goes through post partum!
YEAH!!!
Love
Zero
Hey, this apparently appeals to half of the country, as sickening as it might seem.
I guess this is Republican feminism, career-woman ambition but good old fashioned theocratic values. >:-)
As a healthcare provider myself, I have learned to respect the rights of others with regard to care. Imposing my personal beliefs on another would be disrespectful, hurtful and very unprofessional and if I don't respect another's right to medical care they deem appropriate for themselves, then what right do I have to expect the same care? If one does not like being around contraception, abortion or sex education or anything else objectionable, then one should not be working or looking for employment in these areas. The healthcare field is vast and complicated and many opportunities exist in all areas. Seeking work in an area where moral objections are present, is just plain unprofessional and inconsiderate.
My rights as a patient should not be held to some religious belief that has nothing to do with me; my rights to professional collaborative medical care with my physician would be severely compromised by imposition of these rule changes. And for the most part, will apply only to services to women, which I find appalling and discriminatory. What next, refusal to give care to those in need of blood transfusions? How about a moral objection to the use of antibiotics, antidepressants or such meds as ritalin? How about a moral objection to organ transplantation? These rules, if allowed to be implemented will severely impair the provision of healthcare for women and in some cases to many other patients. There is nothing compassionate or moral about these rules and they need to be roundly condemed and opposed by all Americans.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
Well said. Absolutely.
"If one does not like being around contraception, abortion or sex education or anything else objectionable, then one should not be working or looking for employment in these areas."
Sensible, yes. But I fear the agenda is to help the 'right to lifers' get a foothold inside healthcare facilities to further obstruct women's access to care ... Getting past protesters on the sidewalk is bad enough... having them in the exam room with me in various "professional" positions... YUCK!
100% correct rockerbabe1. Where public money is involved, the secular and scientific approach to medicine must be followed. Health considerations and respect for the patient must be paramount.
Refusing to provide contraception is simply and outright a result of some ancient patriarchal obsession about controlling women's sexual behavior. Those who wish to adhere to a private religious agenda in regards to health care are welcome to open their own facilities on their own dime, not mine.
Joe
Right on, Rockerbabe1, you hit the nail on the head so it say twang!
______
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
We can thank RELIGION for this mess ! The so-called conscientious objectors are using RELIGION to justify their control freak behaviors. When we recognize RELIGION for what it is, the world's largest pyramid schemes, only then will we make progress. As long as RELIGION is protected and respected, we will live in these dark ages.
Btw, don't know how old Barry is, but I wonder how she could possibly have thought that the battle for women's rights had "largely been won". I see evidence of gender inequity every single day.
Religion can't be the problem. It is the ABUSE of religion that is the problem. Wouldn't your religious friends agree to that?
How is it "pseudo-science"? Looks like plain old religious fringe ideology taking back what we "won" in the 1960s. Or trying hard to do so. Part of the problem is the proverbial "short memory" of folks in the USA, helped by leaving a lot out of school curricula.
What's good for the goose...
I imagine that any service provider, fireman, plumber, policeman or postman
for example, could refuse to provide services based on some personal ideology.
Good point.
Onward Christian soldiers.
Hey, not all Christians are bad. I'm Christian and I am a moderate. One of my daughters, also a Christian, is married to a Muslim and he's a moderate and they get along rather well even as they try to survive the economic thrashings against them.
You completely miss the point. You're confused and defensive.
It's not about individuals, it's about organizations that do harm. That pollute the minds of individuals and encourage negative things for their own benefit. You could be the greatest guy in the world and a real credit and benefit to your neighbourhood. Wouldn't be the least bit strange. And you're free to choose. But you still support and help maintain an organization that is based on superstition and that in the long run does more harm than good.
My mother is religious to the point of being stupid and narrow about it. But she's a great, compassionate, thoughtful, genuinely generous, adorable person in every way possible where religion doesn't get in the way. And she's very sharp where religion doesn't confuse the issue. The point is that some of her narrow-minded stupidity comes straight from that horrible, global corporation called the Catholic church. (Other religions may not be quite as bad in some ways, but they all have their deep problems.)
Individuals do have responsibility, but the problem is partly how religions pollute the minds of individuals. As do communism and fascism. They all appear to make sense at a certain level and they brainwash people who are fundamentally not bad people.
Most individual christians are just regular people to a large extent; nobody here is claiming they're all cruel, stupid, extremists! But cruel stupid people have the perfect vehicle for their personality defects in religion. There's a religion out there or a sub-division of one, if you will, to cover just about every perversity and character flaw imaginable. It's old hat that that racists found justification in the bible. Born agains will tell you that for being an atheist, I could be killed (by them) and they would go to heaven for having done God's work, and I, of course, would be relegated to eternity in flames. Evangelical belief is almost as much about unbelievable sadism and cruelty as it is about science-denying stupidity.
Without religion, society could help those people. Their favorite brand of religion fans the flames of their warped personalities.
The church, through the pope doesn't allow contraception, but some quite religious, church-attending members of my family used them anyway, figuring the pope and the church were full of shit on that one. And of coure that caused problems with those who thought it was a 'sin', because the pope said so. Some individual priests did look the other way.
There's an election campaign in Canada as well right now, and there the Catholic cardinals and bishops have basically come out practically ordering their members to support the Consevative party because it's the only party that is against pro-choice. Religious officials sticking their noses in politics just like in this country. What mildly intelligent progressive who would bother to contribute to this site cannot see what is going on????