I really hope I'm not anyone's primary news source on this stuff [links on the right do a much better and more timely job], but just in case I am, there's been quite a to-do in the department of health and human services lately. you've got hella thorough coverage on RH reality check, and a good overview on NYT , but in short, the HHS has leaked an unabashedly pro-christian, anti-choice, anti-science piece of proposed legislation that would require all federally-funded health programs to say that they won't refuse to hire providers based on their opposition to abortion. why, you ask? well, gosh darn it, they're concerned about doctors' and nurses' and pharmacists' itty-bitty feelings, and they think these 'conscientious objectors' deserve some protection. now, I could get into how little this has to do with conscience and how much it has to do with turning every woman who doesn't agree with you, who doesn't want to bear children for the fatherland, into a second-class citizen. I could get into how ridiculous it is that the government is asking health programs to set aside ideology for the sake of non-discrimination on this end when it simultaneously supports individual pharmacists who refuse to provide emergency contraception based on their personal ideas about right and wrong. the point is, HHS doesn't give a shit about being sane. the authors seem to think they make perfect sense and mention derisively that some states have passed laws requiring pharmacists to fill scripts for plan B, AND I QUOTE, "despite religious organizations' objections to the abortifacient nature of the drug." can anyone see where this pseudo-science bullshit is going?
it beings us to the second part, the less obvious, more sinister part, the part of the proposal where the HHS basically says, 'conception? implantation? we can't seem to get a straight answer from those pesky scientists! so, we don't care about where the majority of americans stand on this issue], we're going to let THE PEOPLE decide what an abortion is.' I am not lying. page 17, line 5 says, "the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason." like the kind of reason this crazy train's been running on so far? according to the proposal, the kinds of 'abortion' these stellar potential women's health employees can object to includes "any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." for now, that includes all pills [especially POPs], IUDs, and of course, EC. but if this became law, how long until someone declared that they would no longer contribute to mass genocide by handing out condoms, thus preventing the union of spermatozoon and oocyte as god himself intended?
as a side note, RH reality check claims [though I couldn't find the language in the proposal, but I still have some catching up to do] that this proposed regulation would remove all federal funding from subsidized birth control. as if the DRA didn't fuck teens, college students, and low-income women over enough, this is just icing on the 'family values' cake.
my favorite part, though has to be this little winner, which comes near the conclusion of this little slice of women's rights hell: "an underlying assumption of this regulation is that the health care industry, including entities receiving [HHS] funds, will benefit from more diverse and inclusive workforces." because you know what a woman seeking birth control really, really wants? someone telling her she's going to hell. what do you mean you disagree? why can't you respect diversity?
good times on that front.
No comments:
Post a Comment