Sometimes, I really wish I'd uploaded that Feminist Rage icon I made for lesbiassparrow...

[meganbmoore]

 Most, I assume, have heard of the proposition that will allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions or provide any sort of preventive medicine or procedure on moral grounds with no consequences.  Apparently, it now goes into effect within 30 days.  Doctors will not be required to offer any aid, or to direct patients to another physician.

This post by naamah_darling links to the actual proposition, and lays things out pretty clearly, and I recommend everyone reads it.  If you look in the comments, any objections to having a problem with this proposition are pretty well addressed.

Now, here's the thing:  I support sticking up for your beliefs.  However, the entire point of taking a moral stance-any stance-is that you make that stance with a willingness to accept the consequences, understanding that there will be consequences.  It means choosing your beliefs over  what is accepted or expected, knowing that you may be condemned for them, and may even suffer for them.   A doctor refusing to offer services under this law will not be making a moral stance.  He or she will be will face no consequences for their actions.

Anyone who went into a medical field where they would be expected to perform abortion or provide other preventive measures within the last few decades knew that is something that would be a part of their duties.  They already made their moral decision.  It's a part of their job, and this law allows them to refuse to do their job with no consequences.  (Actually, that's not true.  The patient has to face the consequences of the doctor's decision.  Other, better people have ranted about that.)  There are medical fields a person can enter where this would never be an issue.

Is it different if a person has a moral conversion, for religious reasons or not, after entering the field?  Yes.  And at that point in time, they should make the choice between their job and their morals.  Not say "well, I no longer feel comfortable with this aspect of my job, so I now refuse to do it, but I don't expect to be held accountable for this, be it reprimand, paycut, suspension, or job loss."

And, quite frankly, how long do you think it will be before this is used to justify refusing other treatments?  Refusing treatment because of a moral objection to homosexuality or different religious beliefs?  Because of a drug overdose?  Because of gang related injuries?  Injuries caused by substance abuse?

And after that, how long until treatment is refused for more personal reasons?  The kid who bullied you in school, that person who cheated on your kid or sibling when they dated, the speaker at a political rally you disagreed with, your ex?

Because if you think it won't spread to anything else, even if it does take a while, I think you are very, very sheltered.  At best.

And as this is largely being portrayed as a religious issue in the media(though not by anyone on the f-list I've seen, or any of the OP-ers I've been linked to), I'd just like to mention that not every Christian believes in forcing their beliefs on others, or expecting them to adhere to the rules they live their own lives by.  Nor does every Christian pass moral judgement on people who don't live by their rules, or expect others to make exceptions for them.  Most are too busy living their lives to dictate how others should live theirs. 

And now I'm going to go read something that actually makes me happy.


Note:  This post is not about abortion.  Very bluntly:  if you comment defending or condemning abortion, or anything close to either-or, for that matter, stating that this is about abortion-I will delete your comment, even if I agree.  Abortion itself is not the point here. 

ETA:  No, really, that note in bold?  I meant it.  Any comments condemning or defending abortion, especially those directed at other commenters, are being deleted.  Period. 

ETA 2:  To clarify:  I consider this to be an issue important to female rights because it's refusal of medical treatment that is specific to women.  Honestly, do you really think a law would be passed saying doctors could refuse male-specific treatments because they don't agree?

Comments

[random-angelic.livejournal.com]

paperclipchains linked me here.

You pretty much sum up my own thoughts since my own first thought upon hearing about this was the precedence it sets and the insurance problems. I've linked to here and a couple other places in my journal. I hope you don't mind.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

That's fine.

I think "abortion" is such an inflammatory word that it's hard to look past on either side, but it's only one of many problems. A system of checks and balances would do wonders for this act.

[random-angelic.livejournal.com]

Honestly? Because I live in a religious area the abortion thing isn't that big a deal for me. The way most hospitals do it out here if a doctor has a moral objection to abortion is, if the patient is determined to get an abortion, then the doctor gives that patient the address and phone number for the nearest clinic - which will gladly provide that sort of care for free if their doctor gave them said address and phone number. This, I think, is probably the safest way to do this without harming the patient or the doctor's conscience precisely because it's not an officially sanctioned practice. So, if that practice keeps up after this, the abortion aspect of it will still remain a non-issue in my area .

It's everything else involved with this that could become an issue in the future. Abortion is one thing since the clinic does it for free, but the birth control could be a problem and the insurance could, too. Give it ten or twenty years and this whole thing could turn into a downright mess.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I'm religious and have no intentions of ever having an abortion, regardless of the circumstances, and I have no health problems that require any of the medications, so I, personally, won't eb affected by this. But there are a host of other factors that, I think, the average person looking at this will completely miss.

The thing is that, right now, people are expected (and I think legally required) to refer a patient to someone else. This removes that.