Wednesday, February 16, 2011

An eye for an eye? Really?! Are we still doing this?

Yes, I understand that the bible literally tells us that an eye for an eye is justified. But since when do we take every line of the bible seriously? And aren't we supposed to be living in a country free of religious persecution? Isn't that what US laws are supposed to be about; protecting our civil rights without imposing religious doctrine on us?

Without using the biblical concept of an "eye for an eye", how can one institute laws on justifiable homicide? (Or for that matter, capital punishment, which like most leftist liberals I am against.) Or maybe it is just that the legislators in South Dakota are just complete and totally out of their minds. How else can you explain this, a bill that allows for murder of abortion providers.

Let us revisit this: an abortion provider is a doctor who goes against all odds to get her* training in the first place. She fights against her med school administration to learn how to preform a safe and legal medical procedure, ignores the comments from her peers and faculty that it isn't worth her time, and takes ownership of her own fears about what being a provider might mean. She struggles to find a job that will allow her to even perform abortions (as many large group practices and corporate hospitals would rather not get involved with all that), pays higher malpractice insurance (because that is how insurance companies work), and has to put up with much bureaucratic BS of sonograms, waiting periods, and the rest, in-order to simply do a small facet of her job as a health care provider. Depending on where she lives and practices, she might have to crawl through windows to get into work, disguise herself in wigs, wear a bullet proof vest, face protesters and hate mail, and convince her small children that no matter what some of the other kids at school are saying she's really not a "baby killer". The best part is that she does this all because she believes in the healthcare of women. She takes her medical oath seriously and believes that all patients are entitled to quality, safe, and accessible health care. She knows that no woman makes decisions about reproduction lightly. She wants to do everything she can to empower women about their own bodies. She understands that we live in an unfair and unjust society and will do everything she personally can to combat that. She wants to be able to look her grandmothers and daughters in the eye and say "I know how hard women have been fighting for their own rights, lives, bodies, and I will continue the fight until there is fully equality." She doesn't think she's a hero. She knows she is simply doing what she was trained to do: take care of people's emotional and physical health.

(*Of course, there are MANY male providers too, and he would be going through exactly the same thing.)

So now, these lovely legislators in South Dakota are saying that it is justifiable to murder this hard-working and compassionate doctor for simply doing her job. Anyone else see a problem? To make matters worse, it is not just these fine folk from South Dakota that are out of their cherry-picking minds. It seems our elected officials in DC are behaving in a similarly problematic way. I got the following e-mail today from MSFC (who borrowed it from an ARHP email) regarding the current anti-abortion/women's health legislation currently on the floor:

"*Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 217)- Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced this measure which would devastate Planned Parenthood and other similar groups by denying Title X federal family-planning funds to groups that offer any form of abortion access—even when it is not government funded. By attempting to attach this bill to the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution, Title X opponents would prohibit any agencies—like Planned Parenthood and all State health programs—that perform abortions or provide any funding to an entity that performs abortions from receiving any federal funding.
*No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act (H.R. 3)– While current law already bars federal money from being used to directly pay for abortions, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has proposed this bill that would deny tax credits and benefits to employers who offer health insurance to their staff if that coverage includes abortion access.
*Protect Life Act (H.R. 358)- Federal law currently requires hospitals receiving Medicaid or Medicare funding to provide emergency care to all individuals, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. If the facility can't provide the necessary care, it must transfer the patient to someone who can. This bill, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), would allow hospitals to turn away women who need to terminate a pregnancy in order to save their own lives.

Additionally, the Republicans on the hill want to completely eliminate Title X funding through their budget cut proposal. In this budget cut, they also want to slash the budget for programs like WIC and other community programs."

So what do we do? Do we simply sit back and let them poke our eyes out? Or are we going to finally stand up and say enough is enough. Let us not repeat the fights of our mothers and grandmothers. Let us not sit blindly back as they strip us of control over our own bodies. Call your legislators. Talk to your friends. Take a stand. VOTE! Do something, damn it! Otherwise, I'm moving somewhere civilized, with socialized medicine and freedom of choice.

1 comment:

Erin said...

They hoped the bill would 'significantly reduce the number of abortions.'

Seems that could be addressed by better sex ed, access to contraceptives, and support for new moms.

What a completely crazy idea. Much crazier than sanctioning the death of a health care provider....