Abortion is always a hot button issue and one few can find any consensus on but in my opinion Bush and his cronies have gone to far. (Again.) Bush and his religious nut buds couldn’t get abortion banned so they decide to try to get it done through Federal agencies instead. This attempt angers me in several ways: government enforced religious ideology, government interference, states rights, patients rights, federal departmental oligarchs, and sexism.
And this is one of the things that piss me off about anti-abortionists and religiously inspired politicians using the government and governmental agencies to twist laws and redefine definitions to suit their own agenda.
The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various
procedures — including the prescription 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,'”
(Note: bold is my own emphasis to highlight the part I strongly disagree with.)
WTF? Termination of life before implantation is abortion? How can it be life if everyone is saying it’s not life until implantation? Yes conception occurs before implantation but is it “life” at that point? Regardless of the debate over when life starts this new “definition” sounds too much like religiously inspired fascistic ideology than any meaningful medical definition. This redefining is dangerous and well beyond the pale of the normal ongoing debate over abortion.
Perhaps worse is this is a government agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, staffed by individuals making a unilateral and blanket change without any consensus or input from the public in an attempt to over ride many local governments’ positions on the issue of contraceptives and abortion that the Bush administration and it’s more extremist members oppose. If HHS is successful it sets a dangerous precedent as to when and where the government (or in this case a small sect with in the government) can impose its ideology on anyone. What next? HHS decides that since religious people supposedly live longer everyone will be required to attend church/synagogue/mosque/et. al.? The Department of Labor decides that since women don’t make as much money as men then they should simply be banned from employment? The Department of Justice decide children are more like to be criminals if from single parent homes therefor children are automatically taken away from single parents? Where does the imposition stop?
I have no problem with wanting to protect doctors who find birth control objectionable on moral grounds and do not wish to prescribe them. However, I draw the line at fanatics in the government who use the excuse of protecting said doctors to cover a religiously inspired attempt to remove a woman’s (or anyone’s) right to control their body. Look, I hate abortions but trying to define abortion to the point that
it would ban contraceptives is completely and utterly disgusting and quite frankly sexist. Why are they not clamoring in the same memo to ban condoms and contraceptives for men? After all, they are also forms of birth control. I’ve even heard some consider male birth control methods equal to abortion because they intentionally prevent conception. If the government bans all forms of birth control are they also going to re-establish and strictly enforce laws requiring men to financially support the children they fathered as well?
We all know it is no one’s business, especially the government, about people’s private medical decisions. What should have been a very simple clause protecting doctors with moral objections to contraceptives has now been turned into an attempt to further strip people, particularly women, of medical options based on religious ideology. As much as I dislike abortion I have a much greater dislike the government unnecessarily imposing itself into the private lives of its citizens. Simply let the doctors who have objections, have their objections and refer their patients to other doctors without such concerns. No need to impose ideological doctrine nor any need to redefine anything.
I do wonder where McCain and Obama stand on this one.
I know McCain is generally pro-Life/anti-Abortion, with some exceptions, but also gets dodgey when it comes to birth control such as when questioned why he supports allowing health insurance to cover Viagra but not birth control pills. On the other hand McCain has also shown a dislike for government intrusion into private lives. I’m guessing overall he’d support this stupid new redefining.
Now Obama is decidedly pro-Choice with in the frame work of Roe v Wade and staunchly against government intrusion in that regards. It is one of the issues I tend to agree with Democrats on over Republicans. Is it enough for me to vote for him as President? No. But if he should lose the Presidential race at least I know he and moderate Republicans can work together on this issue to take a practical approach without theological intrusion.