I was bumming around on Facebook and came across this article. The topic is the seemingly hypocritical nature of the pro-choice crowd. This was the last part of the article:
Pro-choice advocates are quite right to upbraid Republicans for opposing big government everywhere except the uterus: Do they really believe their own rhetoric about government and individual rights? It’s a fair question. It’s also a question abortion-rights advocates might want to ask themselves.
Disclaimer: Just so everyone knows, I’m Pro-Choice. I’m not here to argue for or against abortion, I thank my lucky stars I was never in that position. That being said: it’s legal, people are still against it, and no one can find common ground.
I’m really only going to delve into the questions of: Do doctors or hospitals have the right to refuse to provide a service if it goes against their morals? I’m also going to touch on the issue of pharmacists and emergency contraception; a judge in Illinois recently ruled that pharmacists do have the right to refuse to pass out EC.
First, I want to mention one of the amendments that the clowns in Washington came up with. It’s H.R. 358, AKA The Protect Life Act (interesting name since money seems to be the main concern, not life), here is a summary and here is the full text.. The PLA was drafted to amend portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It has been convoluted and twisted so much that I’m not going to bother to argue for or against it. I also want to add that the bill hasn’t been voted on and probably won’t be. I do want to talk in hypotheticals and explore possible solutions if this ever went through.
So let’s say the PLA did pass and amended parts of the PPACA. This would give doctors and hospitals a choice concerning how they run their business. If the doctor or hospital administration does not agree with abortion and doesn’t feel right performing the procedure, then they don’t have to and don’t have to face legal action because of their moral choice.
This is where many pro-choice advocates say: “Hold up! What about the woman who has a life threatening condition and is unable to safely stay pregnant?” Part of me shares that concern, but the other part of me says: What ‘life threatening condition’ is so dire that one couldn’t be transferred to another facility?
I don’t pretend to be an expert but I have been pregnant twice and from all the pregnancy books I’ve gone through I don’t remember any cases where ”We have to end this pregnancy N-O-W!” conditions exist. That being said, if there are cases like this, I’d like to learn about them.
The life of the mother aside, we know that the majority of abortions are routine. We also know that the women this bill is going to impact are those who have to buy into a healthcare exchange (PPACA), whether they are low-income or have an employer that doesn’t offer health insurance coverage. It may also affect women who live in more conservative areas but lets face it, in some parts of the country abortion providers don’t have a presence to begin with.
So now I go back to the article from reason.com and answer the question: Do I really believe my own rhetoric about government and individual rights? I’m sorry to say, I don’t have a definitive answer on that.
I have a couple of ideas to deal with some of the unintended consequences this bill may cause. A database of hospitals and doctors who will not perform routine or emergency abortions can be set up. In addition to that, some type of signage needs to be posted outside the building to alert the potential patients of what procedures they don’t offer. That way women don’t need to waste time with a doctor who wont help them or, in the case of the ‘life threatening condition’, the patient could just be taken to a different facility.
Now if there were ever a case where a women who needed the procedure to save her life ended up at a hospital that doesn’t perform abortions, the hospital would then be responsible for stabilizing the patient, finding an alternate location, and arranging the patient transfer. It may be more ’work’ for the hospital but, oh well, at least their conscience will be clean and the woman got the needed medical attention.
With the issue of conservative pharmacists my compromise would be pretty much the same. There should be a national database of pharmacies who refuse to carry and dispense EC, as well as posting signs outside the building in plain view that advertise the fact. Another idea is to take the pharmacy out of the picture to begin with, if not at least partially by letting OBGYN’s dispense the pills?
On the other hand,I have no problems with individual pharmacy chains (example Walgreens, Right Aide, CVS) having some type of contract in place that says:
Company policy dictates: We dispense Emergency Contraception; you, the Pharmacist by accepting a position with our business will be required to fill the prescription. If you refuse, you will lose your job! The customer comes first!
This is absolutely with the rights of the business to enforce and I really wish more companies would take that stand. This would apply to hospitals as well.
In my humble opinion though, if there is an aspect about a potential career that could go against your personal beliefs; then you should consider finding a different career path. Really though, who am I to tell someone what career to get into?
We are such a “rights” hungry nation. We are so worried about our rights that we forget other people have rights too. Our fearless leaders in Washington can’t see that perhaps, The People can solve some of these problems on our own. No, they are too busy trying to please the party base or coming up with ways to screw the people on the other side of the aisle.
One more thing to think about when it comes to the government stepping in to break up our little bitch fights: When taking away someone else’s rights; what rights do you want to give up? Ponder that!!