Spring Break
New bill lacks conscience
Lara Oliver
Issue date: 1/22/09 Section: Opinion
By the time you're reading this article, Obama will have been inaugurated in as the 44th President of the United States and President Bush will become like that bizarre uncle you used to have to pretend to listen to at Thanksgiving until he was finally arrested for a DUI in his boss' Nissan Stanza.
But, unlike that crazy uncle that believed his life was a mirror image of Jodie Foster's in Silence of The Lambs, Bush has the power to keep his influence in politics long after his butt no longer graces the seat in the Oval Office.
Supreme Court Justice appointees, monetary and social influence aside, I'm talking mostly about the new "Right of Conscience" bill that Bush drafted earlier this winter.
The new bill extends beyond a physician's moral objection and refusal to perform an abortion. It includes any member or personnel's of a federally funded medical establishment (that includes nurses, secretaries, orderlies and cleaning crew) right to refuse artificial insemination, birth control and emergency contraceptive prescriptions and even information regarding where to find these services.
In short, if you're a scared girl with a problem in a small town with one Planned Parenthood, and the secretary doesn't believe in contraceptives or abortions (leading one to wonder why she took the job in the first place) then you're S.O.L.
Now, I completely understand a person having moral objections to abortion. I am Catholic, after all. But in all my time of taking care of female friends, acquaintances and working at a rape crisis hot line, I've learned that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, many of these mistakes stem from a malicious intent upon the girl and not, as so many vocal preachers on campus believe, the girl's own lapse in judgment.
At times like these, I believe it is a physician's job, as prescribed under the Declaration of Geneva, to keep "the health and life of [their] patient as first consideration." By that, I mean I can understand a physician's moral objection to abortion but I think it's downright criminal for a health care worker to not even alert a patient as to where they can find the services they need.
But, unlike that crazy uncle that believed his life was a mirror image of Jodie Foster's in Silence of The Lambs, Bush has the power to keep his influence in politics long after his butt no longer graces the seat in the Oval Office.
Supreme Court Justice appointees, monetary and social influence aside, I'm talking mostly about the new "Right of Conscience" bill that Bush drafted earlier this winter.
The new bill extends beyond a physician's moral objection and refusal to perform an abortion. It includes any member or personnel's of a federally funded medical establishment (that includes nurses, secretaries, orderlies and cleaning crew) right to refuse artificial insemination, birth control and emergency contraceptive prescriptions and even information regarding where to find these services.
In short, if you're a scared girl with a problem in a small town with one Planned Parenthood, and the secretary doesn't believe in contraceptives or abortions (leading one to wonder why she took the job in the first place) then you're S.O.L.
Now, I completely understand a person having moral objections to abortion. I am Catholic, after all. But in all my time of taking care of female friends, acquaintances and working at a rape crisis hot line, I've learned that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, many of these mistakes stem from a malicious intent upon the girl and not, as so many vocal preachers on campus believe, the girl's own lapse in judgment.
At times like these, I believe it is a physician's job, as prescribed under the Declaration of Geneva, to keep "the health and life of [their] patient as first consideration." By that, I mean I can understand a physician's moral objection to abortion but I think it's downright criminal for a health care worker to not even alert a patient as to where they can find the services they need.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 7
X
posted 1/22/09 @ 12:18 AM EST
A Catholic that believes in helping someone get the services they need even if it's contraception or abortion? That's almost as rare as a Catholic choking on a condom! Or a Jew being electrocuted by Christmas lights!
jimbo327
posted 1/22/09 @ 9:13 AM EST
I believe that if that is your only concern with "W" them rest easy because BHO has signed an excutive order that prevents this and other similar "Midnight" orders from being enforced. (Continued…)
John
posted 1/24/09 @ 1:49 PM EST
So the author evidently thinks "freedom" involves forcing people to do things with which they disagree? Where's my dictionary of the English language, something is amiss here. (Continued…)
Kathryn
posted 1/26/09 @ 5:01 PM EST
If you go into a profession that requires some "dirty work", hey it's your problem. People go to doctor's for assistance with their problems, not to be judged and denied service. (Continued…)
John
posted 1/26/09 @ 11:06 PM EST
That's a bogus comparison, Kathryn. Serving someone food that one considers to be unclean doesn't hold a candle to helping someone commit what one considers to be first-degree murder. (Continued…)
Kathryn
posted 1/27/09 @ 1:05 PM EST
As bogus as it may be, to people who don't shove their religions in others faces, this is basically the same thing. Denying people service because it's against your beliefs, especially if you're a doctor. (Continued…)
Kyle
posted 1/28/09 @ 10:57 AM EST
A person doesn't have to be "religious" to be against abortion. Is a woman's "right to choose" more important than a child's right to live?
Here's an idea: instead of giving criminals a nice death of lethal injection, how about we abort them instead. (Continued…)
Post a Comment