Senator Clinton and Cecile Richards (the president of Planned Parenthood wrote an op ed piece for the New York Times about a new proposed policy for Health and Human Services.
In a nutshell, this rule would allow any agency that receives federal funding for health care to refuse to provide any treatment they object to. Yes, this measures applies to any treatment, although abortion and birth control almost certainly top the right-wing shitlist. This policy will drastically affect women’s access to health care, especially for those in poor or rural areas. The ramifications of this rule are endless and frightening. Since legal protections for LGBT people are limited, and homosexuality is another issue that conservatives find to be “morally objectionable,” I fear that this policy would negatively affect health care access for the gay community as well.
I fail to understand why certain militant pro-lifers are pushing so hard to ban contraception. I suppose some people truly believe that life begins at conception, and that preventing an embryo from implanting itself is just as morally objectionable as having an abortion. Some forms of birth control, such as the copper IUD, prevent embryos from attaching themselves to the uterine wall. Although I disagree, I can understand the logic behind lumping those two medical practices in the same category. However, hormonal contraceptives prevent ovulation by keeping women’s bodies in a constant state of false pregnancy. Therefore, fertilization does not occur. If “pro-lifers” really valued life so highly, wouldn’t it make more sense to support birth control and family planning in order to decrease incidences of abortion?
The fact that birth control is now under siege is a clear sign that this is not about when life begins; rather, this rule concerns legislating morality and controlling women’s bodies. This measure is not a bill or a law, but an internal policy of Health and Human Services. I encourage all of you to make your voices heard and let the Bush administration know that you object to this new measure, for all it’s worth. Since this is a legislative policy, rather than a bill or law that we can contact our representatives about, change could be tougher to come by.
On a side note, the whole issue of “healthcare workers’ rights to refuse service,” could and should instead be framed as an “inability or refusal to perform the essential functions of a job.” Although I find meat consumption to be ethically objectionable, acquiring a job at Mickey D’s and refusing to serve burgers would render me a schmuck, not a revolutionary. I could give myself a high-five for this important, symbolic victory; however, the realistic achievement of this non-action would be nada, zippo, zilch. My refusal would not stop people from wanting to eat dead cows, nor stem the flow of other workers willing and eager to serve them. I realize that these two situations are not exactly parallel, since a lack of cheeseburgers is not going to endanger anyone’s health, but relevant comparisons can still be drawn. If you find an inherent, essential part of your job to be morally repugnant, perhaps you should consider a career change. Just a thought.
No Comments on "hormonal contraception, abortion, what’s the difference?"