Skip to content

scary stuff

September 19, 2008

Women and people who care about them, check this out:
Ten points for Clinton.
This gives me the heebie-jeebies. Back home, this would be terrible. Girls would end up pregnant, and have no options. Even hear I’m not convinced it would be easy. Dear lord, at one point the Bush administration tried to define the pill as abortion. *shudders*. Luckily that’s been changed, but the broad language of this rule scares me. It would make it possible for a woman who’s been raped to be denied Plan B.
While I respectfully try to understand where these people are coming from, I don’t really get it. Why would you become a doctor if you didn’t want to help people with all of their healthcare problems? Surely at some point they are schooled in ethics and how their services and morals may sometimes be at odds. I guess I should talk to a med student about this, but I feel like you ought to understand that you don’t get to pick your patient’s morals. Also, don’t threaten to take away birth control, dammit. Very little gets me up in arms like that subject.
You can send in a comment here through NOW:
Or post on the blog of the guy who’s in charge here:

3 Comments leave one →
  1. September 23, 2008 3:58 am

    Putting some of this bill’s issues aside at least it provides a legal out for doctors to tell the patient that they need to go somewhere else. I know I did my homework when I went in for birth control and such. But I look at people like my sister who doesn’t always think about life (as many teenage girls don’t) and I wouldn’t want her to go to a doctor that disagreed with any of her moral choices. Lets face it people can’t be unbiased if they strongly disagree with something. Doctors are human just like everyone else. She wouldn’t get nearly as good of medical care than as if he simply said “no I’m not going to give you birth control you’ll have to go to a different doctor”. Would you take Zinc and Theo to a doctor who didn’t like guinea pigs? All the ethics classes in the world can’t override human nature. Clearly there should be an “except in life threatening circumstances” included in the bill and also a “you must refer them to another doctor if their insurance requires a referral”. Also you can’t take this article without a slight grain of salt. Hilary Clinton writing about the Bush administration is like fox news reporting on Obama.

  2. September 23, 2008 5:01 am

    And you don’t worry that in areas with fewer doctors, this might cause girls to have few/no options for birth control?
    I dunno, it sounds like a nice idea, but really it seems to me to be just another attempt at getting rid of birth control. And honestly, allowing doctors to say “I don’t agree with your morals, so I won’t do this” scares me. It does not seem like a big step to then say “You’re gay, so I won’t treat you”. I understand not forcing doctors to do abortions, but allowing them to not hand out the pill? Also, I’m no expert, but it seems like you would have to have training to do an abortion. Simple answer for doctors who don’t want to perform them: don’t get that training. Specialize in something else.
    Honestly, what I really don’t get is the fact that, as billed, it’s an unnecessary law. There are already laws allowing doctors to not perform abortions if they don’t want to. If that is the aim of this rule, then it is unnecessary. If that is not the aim, then the people proposing it should bill it as what it is: expanding the list of things a doctor cannot be forced to do. It’s like the gay marriage prop in Michigan. Gay marriage was already illegal, but what that prop did was expand the list of things that counted as too similar to marriage to be allowed.

  3. September 24, 2008 2:27 am

    I guess I just think people blew it WAY out of proportion. I read the actual bill before I read this article and it really sounds like they are just giving doctors a way to make sure the rights they were given by previous laws remain in tact and also define issues that were left ambiguous in previous laws due to problems that have occurred with people not following those laws. And also if someone refused treatment to someone who is gay that isn’t a questionable procedure but discrimination. Denying an HIV test has nothing to do with gay rights. I’ve known very few people with aids but the ones I did weren’t gay they got it from their opposite sex partner. I truly believe that if someone was denied treatment based on sexual orientation they’d sue the doctors asses off and win because this bill doesn’t say anything about refusing treatment based on a persons lifestyle but the ability to refuse particular procedures. That be like saying I’m not going to treat you because your black. The doctor would have to prove that he refused that particular treatment to every other patient who walked through his door. Which makes it not a gay rights issue unless there is some health issue that is specific to gay people.
    Oh and the link I (hopefully) included below also addresses not forcing doctors to go to training for a procedure that they don’t believe in, it was another issue that they felt needed clarification. So that hospitals can’t force doctor to be trained in something they don’t believe in.
    Hopefully this copying a link thing works but if it does here is the proposed bill
    If that doesn’t work you can go to
    and click on the link that says “proposed rule” to get the pdf
    Oh and on a totally unrelated note- when are the guinea pigs and bunnies going to play?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: