Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Secundus , ignarus primum ut is est incommodus

Just when my hatred of the reign of King George II has begun to mellow in anticipation of its end, W is proceeding with one of his most heinous moves ever.

BushCo plans on implementing a rule prior to its departure, and it comes to us courtesy of the Health and Human Services Department and the Secretary of HHS, Mike Leavitt.

Who is a Mormon.

I’m telling you just in case that knowledge should fill you with a not insignificant sense of foreboding, which it certainly does me. Really, hearing that some highly-placed government official is a Mormon is kinda like hearing da-dum…da-dum… when you’re watching Jaws. You know nothing good is going to follow.

Likewise, the rule is being championed by the Christian Medical Association, and the League of Catholic Bishops, two groups whom I’m sure have your personal freedom, and the best interests of women, very close to their hearts.

So, the rule would forbid any entity that receives federal funds from taking action against an employee who refuses to perform, or even take part in, any medical service that they morally object to.

So first of all, try to think of a hospital, or pharmacy, or doctor’s office that doesn’t receive federal funds. To be clear, it doesn’t have to be entirely, or even significantly, federally funded, it just has to receive federal funds. The LA Times estimates that nearly 600,000 entities would be affected, nation-wide.

Secondly, you might think that this rule is designed to protect doctors who don’t want to perform abortions, and you might think “Hey, I can live with that. Doctors shouldn’t be forced to perform abortions.”

You’d be wrong. Doctors are already protected from performing abortions.

This rule, while being written broadly enough to have many fucked-up consequences that we’ll explore in a sec, is aimed specifically at one event, and that event is the availability to women of the so-called “morning after pill,” one of a class of drugs known as Emergency Contraceptive Pills, which is what women take, for instance, after a sexual assault, in order to prevent pregnancy. Please bear in mind as we proceed that the pill also, by preventing pregnancy, prevents abortions.

Wait, how do I know that that’s why this rule is being forced down our throats at 5 minutes until midnight on the last day in the life of this farkakteh administration? Because they admit it freely. Yes, they have absolutely no problem in the least admitting that they are just fine with keeping women from preventing unwanted pregnancies, even when those pregnancies are the result of rape.

And people wonder why I am not a big fan of Christianity. Look, Christianity may be fine in theory, but in practice…not so much.

So, who’s against the new rule? Oh, only the American Medical Association, and the American Hospital Association, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Yeah, those stuck-up old fuddy duddies at the AMA, AHA, and ACOG, with their concern for the patient, and the health of the patient, and that whole crackpot patient-centered approach to medicine. When are those cranks going to get with it, and realize that medicine is really all about doctors and their feelings about things?

And not just how doctors feel about things. Because even if you do get a doctor’s prescription for ECP, the pharmacist could feel like he doesn’t want to fill it. The clerk could feel like he doesn’t want to stock it on the shelves. And under the broad language of the rule, physicians would be protected from, for example, assisting gay people with artificial insemination, or in-vitro fertilization, and the only reason they need to give is that they feel, um, conflicted about gay people. The lab tech at a fertility clinic could refuse to perform any part of the process as well. Not only that, but if you were dying, and the medicine they were going to give you for the pain might also suppress your ability to breathe, no matter how okay you and your doctor were with that, the nurse could refuse to give it to you. Just refuse. Because he has issues.

And under this proposed rule, the government would protect those people.

Okay, I know I took a cheap shot earlier when I said that Christianity sucks in practice. I should apologize. I should, although I don’t feel like apologizing. I feel like saying that "sucks" is a nice word for what Christianity does. I also feel like saying that although I don’t believe that Jesus ever existed, I am willing to concede that, not unlike Yoda or Frasier Crane, Jesus gave some good advice from time to time, although of course I must also point out that the words of Jesus are pretty much summarily ignored by the church organizations and by most Christians as well.

If you read what Jesus said, he’s mostly interested in people treating each other better than they were. More compassionately. He wanted to make life more kind, and for rich and poor to be treated more equally, and he pretty much said that’s what God is interested in, too.

So if there is a Heaven, it’s clear that what’s going to get your ticket punched is helping those in need, not refusing to give aid to a woman who’s been raped, or to a couple who desperately want children, or to a 19-year-old woman with a life-threatening pulmonary embolism who requires an emergency abortion.

Remember when white hospitals refused even emergency treatment to black people? I think that if you look back, you find out that when they did that, it wasn’t a copy of the Constitution they were waving in everyone’s faces. It was the Bible. The Bible has been used to justify more mean and evil deeds than the whole of do-gooding Christianity has ever been able to prevent or mitigate. That’s a net loss, Christians. You might want to think about declaring bankruptcy. Or on second thought, just apply to the U.S. Government for a bailout. I’m pretty sure W could hook you up.


SkylersDad said...

Surprised I am Vikki! Good advice Yoda did give. Understood he was not...

Just when we thought Bushco was going to just hang out on the ranch clearing brush for the rest of his term, along comes this lump of shit.

RandyLuvsPaiste said...

"... nurse could refuse to give it to you. Just refuse. Because he has issues."

Based on personal experience, most of the men in Nursing are really Go-with-the-flow. If a nurse is really judgmental and intolerant, it's almost always a woman. Not a sexist opinion, but an evidence-based observation. Especially an older woman who is bitter and burned out, that went into nursing when women felt that their only other career options were were teaching and clerical work.

So as an RN, does the new law mean I can withhold treatment from any Republican, Mormon, Catholic priest, Death-penalty supporter, carnivore, Fundamentalist Christian, or Crocs-wearer based on moral principles?

deadspot said...

Christians, and I say this with all due respect, are assholes.

Nobody made them become doctors. In my humble opinion, if they don't care to practice medicine, they may want to review their other career options.

Spooney said...

Did I ever mention my distaste for organized religion?

dguzman said...

Judgmental fucking hypocrites.

I hope someone/some organization is figuring out how to track these refusals and their effects--because I want to know how many lives this "little" bullshit rule affects.

Why is he still even hanging around? Can't the guy take a hint? No one wants to even shake his hand at big intl events. The guy's a leper. Let him go to his colony and hide out until parts of him fall off.

SFNative said...

"So as an RN, does the new law mean I can withhold treatment from any Republican, Mormon, Catholic priest, Death-penalty supporter, carnivore, Fundamentalist Christian, or Crocs-wearer based on moral principles?"

Well, yes. Yes it does. At least, it could - and should - be argued in court that it does.

GETkristiLOVE said...

Life more kind, want to make. Treated equally, me and you. A Jedi craves these things. Not be reckless.

Dad E said...

This is another instance of religious dogma trying to subvert "equal protection under the law". If memory serves, there is something called the 14th amendment to the constitution. This action will not meet those standards and will be declared unconstitutional. Or next we will have teachers demand that they not have to teach Jews or atheists, etc. base on their (im)moral beliefs.

Of course Bush and company have no idea what the constitution is all about.

If only Christians concerned themselves with the ideas of charity Jesus tried to impart instead dogmatic reactions to their primal fears, they would never reach for a stone.

Anonymous said...

This last minute stunt by the Bush administration won't go anywhere. It will generate a lot of publicity and eventually get struck down, but it will sure give Republican fundraising a big boost in the meantime. That, I suspect, is the real reason for it.

whoissecretdubai said...

a humble request...(for anyone not allowing this post through--not spam--)

Anyone happen to know who Secret Dubai (the blogger: is?

kiki said...

i hate it how so many christians are so hypocritical of the wayt hey treat others. So judgemental.

Distributorcap said...

vikki - i am so with you

this law would also allow people who dislike or are against gays to not treat AIDs....

and it gets worse.....

bush is a complete shit and has done thousands of awful things -- this rule might be the worst...

bubbles said...

Sorry Randyluvspaiste, but I think generalizations about men or women in any profession is a dangerous and unnecessary road. Anecdotes exist for all professions for both genders.

As for Bush, God help us, he still has a few more weeks to go to do more damage. Just think, he used to care about public opinion... now it doesn't matter!

Good post, vikki.

RandyLuvsPaiste said...

Hey Bubbles-
As a general rule, your point is right on, but consider this: Men who enter a vastly female-dominated, caring profession are usually comfortable with themselves, as well as people different than themselves. Not an anecdotal opinion, but an evidence-based observation from 20+ years of working in Mental Health.

Doc said...

The Bible, much like firearms, can and does fall into the wrong hands, and someone always gets hurt. Throughout history, more people have been hurt, maimed, or slain in the name of God than for any other reason. Too many people latch on to a little piece of scripture and use it to justify hurting others instead of reading, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and using that as a guideline for their life.

I count myself as a Christian and try to lead a good and moral life, but I am often ashamed at the attitudes and actions of people who claim to share my faith. I read the Bible now and then and I feel I get something out of it, but I also understand that it was written by MEN two thousand years ago whose advice might not apply to the world we live in today.

Let's face it folks, there is no good reason to stone people, gouge out eyes, lop off hands, or keep slaves anymore and I don't think there was then, but this was written at a time when survival was questionable, most people didn't live past thirty, and it was written with a tribe mentality by MEN and most people don't take these things into account when they cite some passage to defend their irrational fears.

I totally understand how my friends who are agnostic or atheist arrived at their beliefs. Christianity has gotten a bad rap and for the most part, they deserve it. But there are some Christians that do some good in the world and don't judge or hurt people who don't believe like them. I'd would like to think that perhaps I am one of them.

Wonderful post as always dear. The country needs more vigilant watchdogs like you.


Grant Miller said...

I second what GKL said.

vikkitikkitavi said...

One of the things that I struggle with as I write this blog is how my Christian friends will feel about some of the things I say. But in the end, it comes to this:

1. We both have a right to express our beliefs.

2. We both understand that there are intelligent and thoughtful and considerate people on both sides, no matter how much our dogma may generalise otherwise.