About BO's Veto of the Emergency Contraception Bill
They said on the news this morning that Owens vetoed that bill rewuiring hospitals to inform rape victims of emergenty contraception on religious grounds - that it would be unfair to Catholic hospitals.
A non sectarian hospital was taken over by the catholic church. The people in our town tried to fight it knowing full well the church's stance on birth control, abortion and sterilization. One of the major issues was over the treatment of rape victims and the catholic church's ban on giving information about the Morning After Pill. We lost. So now when a woman is raped, the police will take her to a hospital 10 miles away to avoid this catholic hospital and their treatment of rape victims. I am told they do it routinely. Horrible that they have to do this, but nice to know that there are still people around who care.
4. Hmmm...he said religious grounds? Not because of free speech?
Good question. But one also has to wonder about acceptable standards of care. Does religious belief trump the standard medical level of care in every single case? This also would seem to protect pharmacies from dispensing birth control pills and condoms even if they are used for reasons other than birth control.
On a slightly different note: If a woman comes in still "pregnant" with a dead fetus that hasn't naturally aborted....do you wait for nature to take it's course or provide the medical alternative? Is the religious belief to define the level of medical care? I do believe this happens. I am not making this up. Sincerely pious Catholic physicians don't do abortions, whether it's a twelve year old girl possibly becoming pregnant from incest or a woman with a failing pregnancy. It can be the same to them.
This whole thing reminds me of the scene in Legally Blond when Reese Witherspoon questions the sincerity of the man who had a one night stand and later becomes interested in the resulting pregnancy. She asks if the future of all sperm is of such crucial importance are masturbatory emissions considered reckless abandonment? (Or something like that.) Could things reach that level of oversight? When idealism goes wingnut, it might be possible.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.