Bush's "Conscience" is stuck in the 1800's

So Bush doesn't really see a problem with detaining prisoners for indeterminate amounts of time, killing innocent children and families, or destroying the environment so fat asshole American twats can have their giant pick-up trucks freely polluting our streets, but he draws the line at women's rights.

He may not have been able to completely overturn Roe v Wade, but he's found a bullshit loophole so that he can take a nice bite out of our reproductive rights. Basically, he's passed a few "conscience" based rules (whatever the fuck that means) saying that if doctors, pharmacists, etc. have a religious or ethical dilemma with providing abortions, birth control, etc. they don't have to. Words cannot describe how angry this makes me, but at the same time it makes me excited for the new year and a chance for our country to start cleaning up the despicable state our country has been left in by this evil piece of festering dog shit. Below I have posted an email sent to me a few days ago in a mass email. I think it pretty much sums up how ridiculous and disgusting these new rules are. Enjoy...

A sad day for reproductive health

December 18th, 2008 by Lauren G.

The controversial regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services, now known as the “right of conscience” regulation, takes effect tomorrow. The regulation is a broad rule that allows workers in the health care field (including non-medical staff such as custodians as it turns out) to refuse to do their jobs based on “moral convictions” against certain medical practices. This regulation encompasses of course a doctor’s right to refuse to perform an abortion (such individuals are already protected by the National Research Act, by the way), but many other dangerous regulations followed suit:

Some methods of birth control (such as oral contraception, emergency contraception, and the IUD) can be defined as “abortifacants” because they can prevent implantation after conception. Medical staff who believe life begins at conception may refuse to partake in the prescribing of these medications, including a EC after rape or sexual assault.
Doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals are allowed to refuse to prescribe, fill, or provide comprehensive information about birth control if they themselves are “morally opposed” to it. Any clinic receiving federal funding cannot refuse to hire or take disciplinary action against these individuals. This measure consequently allows deceptive “crisis pregnancy centers” to continue advertising themselves as legitimate medical facilities, and lays a foundation for the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act to once again fail in Congress.
Fertility specialists may refuse service to lesbian women, unmarried women, and any woman that the fertility specialist sees “unfit” for motherhood.
My question is, why stop there? Why not pretend sperm are “sentient beings” and redefine condoms as abortificants as well? Then doctors and clinicians wouldn’t have to deal with handing out all those pesky free condoms if they didn’t want to. Why not let doctors be “morally opposed” to women having more children than she appears to be able to support? Let them sterilize women at will! Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But the truth is, these new “rules” could open the flood gates for all sorts of new, outlandish redefinitions of reproductive options, from limiting access to birth control to creating a new culture of eugenics.

The obvious contradiction here is that it doesn’t work both ways. There is no regulation being proposed that would make crisis pregnancy centers hire staff that would discuss comprehensive family planning with clients, and yet a staff member that would work to the detriment of a legitimate family planning clinic’s mission has gained a sort of job security based on “right of conscience”. The real problem is that this idea of “choice” gets all mangled up in this conversation, and no I’m not talking about the choice of the patient. I’m talking about those who swore an oath to do their jobs but think they can “choose” when to put their medical duties on the backburner. They say prescribing or even talking about birth control is against their personal convictions. Well guess what? You’re a doctor, and your job is to assess situations from a medical standpoint, not a moral one. If a doctor is obligated to let living patients die because they requested a DNR order, they should also be obligated to provide a measly little birth control prescription with legitimate medical information if requested to do so.

The same goes for pharmacists. Let’s say I was a pharmacist and, for some bizarre reason, was opposed to the elderly treating their high blood pressure and therefore refused to fill Beta blocker prescriptions for clients over 65 years of age. You, the patient, have made the decision to take these Beta blockers, but I have made the decision not to give them to you. Discrimination? No. “Personal conviction.”

Why does it sound so crazy when discussing something as trivial as blood pressure medication but not when considering reproductive medicine? It’s outright misogyny, another facet of a culture of control over human lives that the Bush Administration has asserted time and time again, and it has not slowed in its last few months of existence. Discrimination is being repackaged as “personal conviction,” and with this new proposal, there are zero consequences.