I know it’s the holidays and everyone’s got their mind on Bailouts, Nazis, and Jennifer Aniston (like we do every year) but I think, “we” and when I say, “we”, I mean you really need to focus here.
Every other liberal/leftie/progressive has his or her non gender-specific under clothings in a bunch over President-Elect Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren do the invocation at the super-historic-superlative laden-inauguration to end all inaugurations on Jan, 20th because it turns out Rick Warren is not the guy from Yes, like I thought he was but he’s actually some mega-church Christian Conservative guy who is against abortion and marriage equality. They feel it’s a slap in the face adding insult to injury after California’s Prop 8 vote (and the similar votes in Arizona and Georgia) and I can see their point.
However, moving past the divisive past 8+ years of politics means that we all need to move out of our little insular comfort zones. This means sometimes talking to people we don’t actually agree with on everything. Maybe it even minds finding common ground with these people to meet common goals. Remember how McCain and Clinton before him attacked Obama because he said he would meet with people he didn’t agree with? Yeah, this is kind of like that. And honestly 1/3d to 2/5ths of the people Obama will be president of have similarly fuckwitted morals as this Warren guy. Don’t we want to give the fuckwits some representation too? I mean at least we took the presidency away from them.
Also, it’s an invocation; religious voodoo that really shouldn’t be involved in federal politics at all anyway. If you’re going to criticize anything how about criticizing the invisible man in the sky part of this? Having a deluded man do this part of the thing, doesn’t seem that crazy to me. Rick Warren isn’t getting a cabinet post, he’s not minister of homosexual persecution, he’s not opening up the internment camps, he’s there to say nice stuff to Jesus.
Now let’s compare this high media stakes ballyhoo about the inauguration to something the actual president has done. Bush has enacted a policy that allows medical professionals to become conscience objectors to any particular medical procedure they don’t feel like doing or supporting. That’s right supporting. The janitor or cashier can stop you from getting your valve replacement or your anti-biotics. The big fear in this is that it will essentially make it legal for medical care providers to ban abortions or birth control; especially where they are the only health care provider in a geographical region. But hey, it could actually be way worse than that. Why should they stop at reproductive health once they’ve banned that. They could use such a ruling to refuse to perform expensive procedures or ones that don’t have a high enough success-rate to be malpractice-proof. They could decide not to perform treatment for particular illnesses that affect certain ethnic groups more than others.
Admittedly, they’ll probably not get around to persecuting everyone and just persecute those who have sex and aren’t rich enough to go to the next hospital over or the next state over… etc but this is something that actually has real and immediate impact on people’s lives and is an infringement on American constitutional values.
You see the difference here? One issue involves not shunning someone because of what their religious beliefs; the other involves restricting medical care based on religious beliefs. One is inclusive the other exclusive. One is reaching out with an open hand, the other is reaching out with a fist. I know at first glance we sometimes can mistake the open hand with the fist but like I said before. We really need to focus, people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Unfortunately Caleb, it is not that simple as you make it out to be. I think I know something about health care, running a business, medcial economics and the goverment's role in this process, and there are many facts you simply don't understand, and I am reacting specifically on your comments about health care and abortion, and your attempt to try to create a synthesis fo different ideas about health and rights.
1. Abortions are legal. They have been since Roe V Wade.
2. Not all doctors perform them that are OB/GYN. This is for several reasons.
They are not trained.
They can be risky procedures.
They can pay poorly and not allow adequate compenastion for risk of the practioner.
And yes, other doctors do not because of their medical opinion and beliefs do not want to perform them.
Likewise, jehovah witness' do not recieve blood.
Also, Christian scientists do not alwas take antibiotics.
I am sure there are others who becasue of religious beliefs do not allow a doctor to advocate for them in their best manner.
3. Finally, doctors are called to make their best judgements on the basis of their patient's wishes. This is true, and it is done all the time. Likewise, we have to make decisions on what we think is best. It took me 15 years to STUDY to be a doctor, and in 15 minutes you expect someone to make a competent decision about their healthcare? It can't always be done.
I am not purporting an answer per se, certainly the Jehovah Witness problem has forced us to let people to die unnecessarily, in my opinion when they could have been saved with blood, likewise, there have been some advances in the field of hemostasis in surgery as a result.
This is a complex issue, and to tag a few doctors who may not want to perform a procedure because of religious conviction is too simplistic. This isn't how it works. Last time I was there, 30-40 abortion were being performed in cook county hospital a week for free!
It really marginilizes an extremely impotant issue on the basis of fervent anti-religious sentiment, and anti-professsional/doctor/etc. hatred which charactizes the hard left, and distorts the complexity of the issue, and also polarizes people UNNECESSARILY.
In fact, most doctors DO perform abortions, and most are willing to fight for the right to perform them. They also won't do them in a catholic hospital, where its nto allowed--THE SAME DOCTORS. So, like I've noted, it's too complex, and your argument is just too simple. Besides, why do you think more abortion would solve social problems. I mean your cna quote freakonomics, but if you have no jobs in the inner city, which you don't in chicago, you can have a millnon abortions and that won't make the west side any better.
Hey but you're free to have your opinion.
Correction: Most doctors who are trained to perform abortions will do them when called upon to do so.
Sorry, anonymous, but you are missing the point. Obviously I wasn't being clear enough in my post.
The new ruling is not about doctors. It's about people who work in hospitals. That can include doctors but it can include janitors, nurses, anyone.
It's also not legally about abortion. A person could refuse to take part in any procedure for religious reasons against a doctor's wishes, against the patient's wishes.
The fear isn't for people in Chicago who have medical options, who can find another pharmacy, who can find another medical practitioner. The fear is for the people in rural communities, the ones who might not have access to transportation. The ones who might have to travel hundreds of miles, or take the day off of work, to get something like the morning after pill.
Frankly, I'm surprised to hear someone who claims to be a doctor not be against this govt intrusion against professionalism. Your 15 years of medical training and knowledge about what is best for a patient, as well as their wishes, can be effectively thwarted by the lowliest, most untrained, un educated in your facility.
If it were for any other reason than the big invisible daddy in the sky, would any sane person allow that to happen?
Post a Comment