What's next, chastity belts?

[lunadelcorvo]

The Department of Health and Human Services is crafting a proposal that, among other things would:

1. Require than health care providers who receive any federal funds be unable to hire/fire based upon an employee's unwillingness to provide health care services based on religious objections. This includes things such as abortion, but also emergency contraceptives, and even common hormone-based birth control pills. ( NY Times article)
2. Redefine contraception itself as abortion. (See articles here and here.)

John McCain seems in favor of insurance companies not covering basic birth control/contraception (although he is in favor of them covering things like Viagra) and has no clear stance on (or possibly understanding of) issues of sex education vs. abstinence only education, or even whether or not condom stop the spread of STDs. (See articles here, here and here.

Obama has said he is against abortion, and while he seems at present unwilling to move against Roe v. Wade, he does seem to be in favor of imposing further limitation on access to abortion.

Increased protection for health care provider who refuse care or services for religious reasons not only protect their rights to practice even when not doing part of the job they supposedly practice, protect their status under Medicare, but in some areas, even shield them from liability in cases where their refusal to treat on religious grounds results in injury or death.

The worst part of this is that those affected will be the most in need of quality health care, reliable contraceptive information, and reproductive options - low income women, already struggling with poor availability of insurance and health care, rising costs of living, and lack of readily available education on health issues. How can anyone kid themselves that these measures will do anything but raise infant mortality, send public health care costs through the roof, increase teen pregnancy, occurrences of STDs like AIDS, and overburden an already faltering public assistance system? Ultimately, the highest price will be paid by the very children the right-wing claims to be trying to protect - those born to parents who would otherwise choose to control their fertility, rather than being denied the option to do so.

Are we trying to return to the dark ages, where women live short, brutal lives, endlessly pregnant and deeply impoverished? Are we that desperate to control the population that we must sink ourselves into overpopulated squalor, with no control over our own reproduction? It certainly looks that way to me...

Comments

[sorshawolf.livejournal.com]

"send public health care costs through the roof,"

But that's the key, right there. I'm pretty well convinced that they are taking our freedom away from us all because of money. This country, though it was not founded on such a premise, is hurtling down into a black abyss called greed.

Taking away a woman's right to chose is only going to cost lives - be it an infant left somewhere to die with no one to love them (and that, to me, is a very heart-wrenching thought) or a woman who tried to get an abortion in the back of a very dirty building and died because of unsanitary conditions. The right doesn't think about these things, they only see that what will bring the majority of the votes.

Unfortunately, the government we've had for I don't even know how long is more about political power than the people they are supposed to protect: Us.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

I see your point, but I can't see how even the babies and mothers who will die can psoobily make up for the immense cost of caring for those who don't. However (and I know this sounds deeply paranoid, but these days, it may be warranted) it would certainly create a wider need for 'faith-based initiatives,' thereby putting even more power and money in the hands of the religious right directly.

It really harks back (to me, anyway) to the combination of ignorance, poverty, overpopulation and 'making evil' of sexuality that allowed the meteoric rise of the medieval church. After all, it's a basic route to power -

-Control sex/sexuality via discourses of guilt, shame, sickness, aberration
-Remove birth control from individuals, which not only lowers personal wealth & independence, but also creates excess population, making education more difficult to obtain, and mobility extremely difficult.
-In the modern financial world, cripple people with debt they have no hope of ever escaping, further tightening the irons.
-Control the resultant poor, uneducated masses by maintaining tight control over the one shred of hope - that of a life after death, to be bought only by strict obedience to the power structure.
-Bonus is a massive, cheap labor force, with no expectation of anything resembling freedom, fairness, or individual rights. Work them until the drop, because they will keep having more babies.

It's a terrifying picture, but the church did it once, and sometimes I wonder....

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

I agree.

This is deeply disappointing...

[queencheeze.livejournal.com]

Moody Blues lyrics ... "The Story of Your Eyes":

But I'm frightened for your children
That the life that we are living is in vain
And the sunshine we've been waiting for
Will turn to rain
........

Or ashes. Who will speak for women and children in the near future?
Who will protect their rights? Will they have any? Frightened, indeed.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

I live in dread of the day that references to A Handmaid's Tale are no longer over the top, alarmist, fear-mongering. It seems we get closer every day....

[sentimental13.livejournal.com]

I may not be pro-abortion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tell a woman she can't have one. I've had friends who had them and I know the sort of psychological scars it can leave. That's what I would talk to someone about if they wanted an abortion, the long term issues it can cause. Abortion should only be a last resort. If the woman's health will prevent her from properly carrying the child to term, or the decision is made because of the child's health and quality of life, I can understand it. Not sure what I'd do in the circumstance, but I can accept a woman's right to make her own decisions BUT abortion should never be used as a form of birth control. There's a pill called Plan B, and it's for those unfortunate instances where things don't go as planned in regard to sex.

Education is really important, and it seems like no one's prepared to provide it. Based on what I learned, your best options for not having to deal with a potential child are: abstinence, contraceptives, Plan B, adoption, abortion. We need to educate people about the safe places to drop off a baby, no questions asked, like the fire department and police station. You don't have to leave a name, and you can change your mind within 30 days I think is the time frame.

Planned Parenthood's funding is crap compared to what it used to be, and even a few years ago they were already having trouble getting volunteers. We need to put money into places like that, into centers that will take care of unwed mothers and counsel them on the options while leaving the ultimate decision up to the mother.

We can't legislate morality, haven't we figured that out by now?

Concerning the health care people being unwilling to administer abortions because of religious reasons, I'm completely behind legislation that would protect them in that case. Abortions should be a specialty, not a requirement for all ob-gyns or other doctors. There should be a position for at least one specialist in every hospital, and this person should be protected by law as well.

But people unwilling to give out birth control at all? Contraceptives work before pregnancy to prevent it. That's not destroying life in the way that abortions do in the eyes of most religions. Anything taken post-conception, maybe those would fall under the category of the specialists. I don't know, it's all in that sticky territory that we still aren't willing to talk about en masse beyond pro-life and pro-choice distinctions.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

I fully respect your position here. Anyone who thinks abortion is 'no big deal' is an idiot. No one is really 'for abortion,' like it's a good thing. But I'm with you, you can't remove the right to make that choice.

I find it ironic that the loudest voices against those rights are also the voices that are against actual sex-ed, and often the same ones trying to redefine birth control (whether the Plan B pill or regular hormone based BC pills) as abortion, and protecting practitioners who refuse to issue or fill prescriptions for them. And now there are threats of insurance companies not covering the pill.

Sadly, no, we haven't figured out that we can't legislate morality. Then again, I think the most extreme on these issues have a rather dodgy sense of morality in the first place. Say what you will about pre-marital sex or 'children put of wedlock (not that I agree, just that there is *some* kind of an argument there) I want to know, married or not, how it is in any way ethical or moral to have more children that you can afford to support, in an already overpopulated world?

You are right, there is much that we as a nation are too reluctant to just discuss openly and solve, preferring to relegate issues of sexuality to the realm of taboo and superstition. It boggles that we are even still debating these issues in the 21st century! Pardon me if this sounds fatalistic, but it seems like this country gets more backward as the rest of the world moves forward....

[sentimental13.livejournal.com]

Seriously, we do seem to be moving backward. We keep going round in circles. We're headed for another depression, dealing with another un-winnable war (okay, that's another story for another day), and royally screwing ourselves up.

I want to see Insurance companies covering birth control, and I want to see Planned Parenthood and similar places get more funding so that more people who can't afford insurance or contraception can obtain what they need at reduced prices or for free. The people who can't afford these things are the same people who can't afford to feed their children at that point in their lives. I do think it's a bad idea to have children if you can't support them, especially with the overpopulation issues currently. Where is the money going? What programs are being funded, while the ones to educate people who can't afford it are on the way out? I just don't understand. It's very frustrating.

You know, I can support just about anyone's opinion, but that opinion better be founded on having spent lots of time considering the options and potential results. Someone who says hands down that people shouldn't be educated on sex obviously haven't thought that through because I've never seen a sensible, logical argument. Argh. Think, people, if you have brain cells left, I want to scream.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

LOL Amen to that!