Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
George Tiller's killer "treated as a criminal"
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Cross posted from The Bilerico Project:
Filed by: Alex Blaze
June 7, 2009 2:30 PM
Over the last several decades, the right has constructed and reinforced the idea among themselves that if someone does something, however illegal or wrong, because of their "personal morals" or "religious beliefs," then they should get off the hook. According to them, it's wrong to punish, not support financially, or even have any negative reaction to a nurse who doesn't want to perform STD screenings, a pharmacist who doesn't want to give contraception to single women, a beauty pageant contestant who opposes same-sex marriage, or a restaurant owner who donated to Prop 8, because those people are acting on their Very Personal Beliefs and therefore can't be held responsible for them.
(It goes without saying that if someone who isn't a card-carrying member of the Religious Right wants to get off the hook for their actions because of their own very important personal beliefs that it's not going to happen. What they believe simply isn't as important as what a Christian conservative believes.)
We've walked down this road for a while, getting more and more ridiculous each year, but this takes the cake:
The man accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider to death as he handed out programs at a Sunday church service said he appreciates the prayers said for him and his family in the wake of his arrest.
"I haven't been convicted of anything, and I am being treated as a criminal," Scott Roeder said Thursday.
Imagine that.
I'm sure that he is being treated as a criminal, because, you know, he shot and killed a guy in front of hundreds of witnesses. But to him, it's not murder because what he did was right. To summarize quite a few conservative internet comments and blog posts I read on this item: would we treat someone who assassinated Hitler as a criminal?
Of course, it's a ridiculous position, since we don't let some dude with a gun decide who's Hitler and who's not (nor should we allow someone with a Fox News show decide that either). He was demonized for decades, and, let's face it, the left did little to come to his aid. I know that we're supposed to be looking for compromise ground with these people, but I doubt that it's in the sort of abortions Tiller was providing:
In 1994 my wife and I found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was difficult and unusually uncomfortable but her doctor repeatedly told her things were fine. Sometime early in the 8th month my wife, an RN who at the time was working in an infertility clinic asked the Dr. she was working for what he thought of her discomfort. He examined her and said that he couldn't be certain but thought that she might be having twins. We were thrilled and couldn't wait to get a new sonogram that hopefully would confirm his thoughts. Two days later our joy was turned to unspeakable sadness when the new sonogram showed conjoined twins. Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants. We were advised that our options were to deliver into the world a child who's life would be filled with horrible pain and suffering or fly out to Wichita Kansas and to terminate the pregnancy under the direction of Dr. George Tiller.
We made an informed decision to go to Kansas. One can only imagine the pain borne by a woman who happily carries a child for 8 months only to find out near the end of term that the children were not to be and that she had to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy and go against everything she had been taught to believe was right. This was what my wife had to do. Dr. Tiller is a true American hero. The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff. Dr. Tiller understood that this decision was the most difficult thing that a woman could ever decide and he took the time to educate us and guide us along with the other two couples who at the time were being forced to make the same decision after discovering that they too were carrying children impacted by horrible fetal anomalies. I could describe in great detail the procedures and the pain and suffering that everyone is subjected to in these situations. However, that is not the point of the post. We can all imagine that this is not something that we would wish on anyone. The point is that the pain and suffering were only mitigated by the compassion and competence of Dr. George Tiller and his staff. We are all diminished today for a host of reasons but most of all because a man of great compassion and courage has been lost to the world.
The pro-lifers twist the pro-choice position into "Abortion on demand," another phrase for slutty women going and using abortion as birth control instead of just closing their legs. It's ironic, then, that they'd demonize someone like Tiller who worked on what were the most extreme cases of abortion, the exact opposite of "Abortion on demand."
But their position isn't logical, and that's the point here. Tiller's work saved women's lives and alleviated many people's suffering, and yet he was sold to the nuts as the worst of the worst when it came to abortion.
Sometimes people's Very Personal Beliefs, whether they're religious or not, whether they're Christian or not, are stupid. And they're wrong. And we decide the limits of the actions people can take based on their beliefs with the democratic process, not some dude with a gun.
The fact that Roeder thinks that he can complain about being treated like a criminal, and people will actually sympathize with him even if they agreed that Tiller's work was wrong, shows how far off-track our political discourse is in this country. If Tiller didn't die from being shot, we'd be hearing a bit more from the right and the mainstream pundits about respecting people's deeply-held religious beliefs and not using the law to intimidate Christians.
Blog for Choice 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Technically this was Thursday (about 43 minutes ago), but I fell asleep. Oops:
For Blog for Choice Day this year, we are given the theme:
“What is your top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress?”
Good grief, as though I could pick just one.
I’d like to see the recently enacted “conscience” rule wiped out, for these ten reasons and a few more. That’s one specific issue that clearly relates directly to choice. I’d like to see the Global Gag Rule repealed, and restore funding for UNFPA. I’d like for our laws to allow women to exercise their choice without being subjected to misinformation under biased counseling laws or forced ultrasounds that assume women just haven’t worried their pretty little heads enough about what they’re doing. I’d like to see our discussions of these issues be evidence-based, science-based, instead of agenda-based.
So many other things, though, have an effect on women and the choices they make. I’d like to move away from abstinence-only sex education, so that individuals will be better informed about how to control their own reproduction. I’d like to make pharmacies put up signs indicating whether they will or won’t fill prescriptions for birth control, or dispense emergency contraception. I’d like WIC to include more than a suggestion of fresh fruits and vegetables. I’d like for all people to be able to afford healthcare, including contraception. I’d like our approach to “the war on drugs” to be overhauled so more people can be with their families instead of in jail. I’d like for us not to assume we know who “deserves” to have children, to recognize that choice is an issue of being able to have children, too, of reproductive justice that isn’t just about abortion. I’d like people to make a living wage. I’d like women to be able to talk about abortion without fear or shame, given how common an experience it is across the nation.
But you know, I think that’s all an awfully tall order a handful of days into a Presidency.
Stop Gaslighting Me!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Two things need to be talked about: Bush and Obama.
First, Obama. I voted for the man. I gave money. I even went the watch party, and I hate parties. And, I would never, ever want McCain/Palin to be in power. But, the idea that he invited Rick Warren to be apart of the inauguration infuriates me. It's not because I don't like his theology-even though I don't. It is because of his political views. Equating the "Social Gospel" viewpoint with Marxism [because helping people is UnAmerican] and the Homosexual community to some of the worst society has to offer(incest and pedophilia) is abhorrent and unacceptable to me. Try saying that my friends are the same as the lowest of scum to my face and we'll have a lot to "talk about".
Obama tried to defend his position by saying that Warren was so nice to invite Obama to Warren's church in 2006 that he wanted to return the favor. That is not returning the favor. Returning a favor is inviting Warren to the White House on talks about something or inviting Warren to his church. But, to invite such a man, especially after the LGBTQ community just had dirt kicked in its face because of Prop 8 (which Warren was an ardent supporter of), is careless and tactless. What if Obama invited a vehemently anti-woman or anti-Hispanics or anti-children? People would be up in arms. Apparently, it is okay for a certain portion of the country (at least 10%) to be ignored or shunned. Obama even felt like saying that he is a huge supporter of LGBT equal rights. Granted, he is better than his Republican opponents. But to not be for marriage rights is to be against LGBT equal rights. Not that Hilary would have done better. In fact only Kucinich was for gay marriage. But Mr. Obama, please do not stand up and say you support equal rights when you do not support gay marriage. As it was written in the opinion of Loving v. Virginia: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".
Enough of Obama. On to Bush, my favorite.
A couple of years ago, I was apart of the NEW Leadership program at OU. I loved it. I wish I could return every year. I loved it because it taught me many things. One of the major things that it taught me was that I should be proud to be a woman and not let anyone put me down because of it. Prior to NEW, I believed being a woman was such a burden: you have to look pretty, be smart-but not too smart, certain height, certain weight, certain shade of whatever, gotta get married early-because no one wants an old hag, gotta have kids-whether you like them or not, and always, ALWAYS, keep your thoughts to yourself- you don't want to be thought of as a nag. Thankfully, that old me has gone away. But the problems have come back. Oh, they are not the same. Now, being a woman is burdensome because everyone keeps trying to mess with my ovaries. They're mine, damn it! And if I don't want them to be used; then, don't make me.
All this stems from the Bush Administrations last effort to have me hate being born with two X chromosomes rather than just one. The Administration just pushed through new HHS regulations that includes the "right of conscience rule":
Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.
Well, this is very annoying. First, let me say that although I'm sure the Administration's target is abortion and contraceptions. This also applies to simple things like cold medicine. And the rule is so broad that it not only includes the doctor or nurse or pharmacist, but also the cashier ringing you out. If you have a Christian Scientist as a cashier, then to bad, no Sudafed for you.
So, essentially, even if you have the right to obtain an abortion, you may not have access to the information necessary to actually know all your options. I would never deny how smart a doctor is, but I don't really think it is up to a doctor to decide what is morally right for me or for my body. If the law has already decided that I can have access to reproductive technology, then why is a doctor allowed to tell me something different? I would like the advice I get from my doctor to be based on my health needs, not his/her religious and moral beliefs. Just as Rachel Maddow says, "If you are Amish, you may have the right to drive the bus, but you should not be able to."
Doctors give advice just as lawyers give advice. You give your patient/client the information and he/she acts on it- to his or her improvement or detriment. I go to the doctor and I want birth control that doctor better give it to me.
Although it is possible to go to a different doctor, who the hell wants to go doctor shopping? And women shouldn't have to do that because the government got pious. Plus, this affects mostly women who are poor and/or live in a rural area. They have less options than others.
So thanks, Bush Administration. I don't believe in Hell, but now, I wish there was one so you guys can fry in it. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
While Mayor, Sarah Palin Charged Rape Victims for their Own Justice
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
From Feministing:
Multiple readers clued us into the latest incredibly disappointing fact about Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin: under her mayoral leadership in Wasilla, Alaska, rape victims were charged for their own rape kits. Op-Edna explains:
A rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings to assist in the conviction of those who commit sex crimes. The kit is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed. It is usually humiliating and uncomfortable for the victim-imagine enduring that and then paying $1200 just so that the criminal who assaulted you might be caught.
Let's put this into perspective. One of the services that almost every American (with the exception of a few hardcore Libertarians, I suppose) agree that our government should provide is policing and investigation into crime, especially of a violent nature. Rape, one of the most difficult to prosecute, disproportionately affects women--young women, in fact. If Palin wants to play fierce mother hen in her stump speeches, I suggest she explain how it is that she wouldn't do everything in her mayoral power to make sure that rapists be caught and prosected.
What adds insult to injury here is her stance on abortion for rape victims. So, not only did she neglect to support women who were raped in getting the evidence they needed to get justice, but she doesn't believe they should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies after they've endured such violation.
What a frickin' feminist.
Note: the Democratic governor changed this heinous policy in 2000.
Abortion from a doctor's perspective
Monday, September 8, 2008
By David Katz, MD
The topic of abortion will rear up in rhetoric, and between its lines, throughout the presidential campaign now underway in earnest. It will reverberate in public policy after the votes are counted.
And so I confront this polarizing topic with equal measures of trepidation and resolve to state:
I am emphatically pro choice.
And I am just as emphatically anti abortion.
The first statement from a public health physician with public policy leanings left of center should come as no great surprise. The second might surprise--but shouldn't. It is the second side of the same position. No one is for abortion, least of all the women who resort to it.
I know such women. They are among my friends (and perhaps yours), my family (and perhaps yours), and my patients. No one of them is for abortion. Each of them confronted it as a last resort. Some with equanimity. But some made the most anguished decision of their lives. And some have dreamt in troubled agitation ever since of that life that might have been. (Find answers to your pregnancy questions here).
Yet few would revisit the decision, even after the clarity of retrospection, and the filter of patient reflection. The regret that derives from a last resort is not resorting to it, but needing to; being left with no better options in the first place.
The moral debate over abortion is, in fact, an insoluble distraction. On the one hand are compelling arguments about autonomy, on the other, compelling arguments about competing autonomies, and the sanctity of life. Both sides of the argument inspire passions, but neither persuades. In the end, the war of words is internecine; everyone loses. An opportunity for unified purpose and unified progress is squandered.
Those, like me, who are pro choice might cite the principle of autonomy--that I and I alone should rule the destiny of my very own skin. But ethicists point out that my autonomy is bounded: my right to swing a stick ends where your nose begins. How that relates to the unique dyad of pregnancy, and an entity that is not yet viable on its own, is debatable. The issue of viability, and privacy rights, were central to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But abortion, arguably, puts two noses in play. Autonomy is not an iron clad defense of the right to choose.
The sanctity of life is by no means an iron clad argument against it, either, because it is not a principle we fully honor. We live in a society that sanctions capital punishment, meaning some priorities- punishment among them- trump life itself. The same societal groups that most adamantly oppose abortion seem most adamantly to defend capital punishment, and lethal means of self defense.
We accept that our police are entitled to shoot and kill those who threaten their lives and limbs, and soldiers are entitled to kill those who might pose a threat to our way of life. An unintended pregnancy could very well constitute a far more certain threat to one's way of life than the basis for certain wars.
We even accept, although of course with deep regret, the collateral damage of war--the death of innocent bystanders an ostensibly greater good demands.
The notion that the heavy hands of government might disentangle the delicate stands of this Gordian knot seems very far-fetched. We have historical evidence they can not. When abortion was illegal in the United States, it was nonetheless common--just also unsafe.
According to Planned Parenthood, there are still over a million abortions each year in the United States. That number is much lower than it was during the 1980s and 1990s, but we should be able to agree across ideologies it is too high.
Lowering it will not result from ideology, but rather epidemiology: the public health science of what actually changes outcomes at the population level. Our immediate and common needs are better addressed by data than diatribe.
Whatever changing abortion laws might do to abortion rates, it would do nothing to change the rates of unintended pregnancies, or the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Posting the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall does nothing at all.
Data show that educational programs that empower girls and convey a sense of responsibility to boys are helpful. Emphasizing abstinence as an option works, too, provided there are contingencies for when it is not the option chosen. Acting as if it always will be is among the most ineffective strategies of all: denial.
Teaching about barrier contraceptive use--condoms in particular--and making such contraceptives readily available is highly effective. And, of course, these interventions are just what is needed to reduce the toll of HIV as well.(Find out why growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists refuse to prescribe or dispense birth control pills).
Current policies in the United States place ideology ahead of epidemiology. Sexual education and contraceptive access are inconsistent; the current administration favors ineffective, abstinence-only instruction. Family planning services are underfunded. Contraception is left uncovered by many insurance policies.
Opposing a desperate remedy while propagating its malady is badly muddled at best, at worst, downright hypocritical. As political positions are debated and policies compete, hypocrisy should not be among the contestants. I dare to hope that whatever our disparate positions, that is a policy on which we all might agree.
