Tag Archives: fundiegelicals

Cui Bono?

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

The lovely and talented Taggles recently sent me a very interesting press release from the ACLU. It seems that a Florida court deprived Samantha Burton, a pregnant woman, of her right to determine her own medical care, and the ACLU is a tad exercised about that fact.

Here is what happened. Ms. Burton went to a Tallahassee hospital to get treatment for a difficult pregnancy. Once she got there, someone (possibly her attending physician) informed the State of Florida that an uppity wimminz in her 25th week of pregnancy might (gasp!) be considering an abortion. The State, horrified at this exercise of free will by a private citizen with scary ladyparts, went to the Circuit Court of Leon County to implore that this travesty of justice be stopped. (snark)

The Court decided that to “protect the interests of her unborn child,” Ms. Burton did not have the right to refuse any medical care that might extend the life of her child. Ms. Burton was ordered to stay in the hospital for the duration of her pregnancy – up to 15 weeks – in order to keep her from doing anything that might harm the child.

According to the ACLU’s amicus (“friend of the Court”) brief, when Ms. Burton sensibly requested to change hospitals:

The court further ordered that “Ms. Burton’s request to change hospitals is denied as such a change is not in the child’s best interest at this time.” (Id. at 3.) The court approved the State’s wholesale control over Ms. Burton’s liberty and medical care during pregnancy on the erroneous legal premise that the “ultimate welfare” of the fetus is the “controlling factor” and was sufficient to override her constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and autonomy. (Id. at 1.) After at least three days of this state-compelled confinement and management of Ms.Burton’s pregnancy, doctors performed an emergency cesarean section on Ms. Burton and discovered that her fetus had already died in utero. Thereafter, she was released from the hospital. (Appellant’s Ex. E, at 1; Ex. F, at 1.)

The brief continued:

As addressed fully below, first, the court erred as a matter of law by failing to give any real consideration to the liberty and privacy rights of Ms. Burton and instead applying what amounted to a “best interest of the fetus” standard. (emphasis mine) Such an approach turns on its head well-established standards protecting the right of every adult to make private decisions about their own medical care. Second, the court erred in equating the asserted interest in protecting fetal life to the State’s “parens patriae authority to ensure that children receive medical treatment which is necessary for the preservation of their life and health,” (see Appellant’s Ex. D, at 1), and in holding that the interest in fetal life justified confining Ms. Burton to a hospital bed and overriding her right to refuse medical treatment. Finally, applying the correct constitutional analysis, and looking to appropriate medical standards of care, it is evident that the State did not demonstrate the type of compelling interest necessary to justify the extraordinary use of involuntary confinement and forced medical treatment in this case.

I have said before that the fundiegelicals are not pro-life. They are pro-UNBORN life. They consciously and maliciously elevate the potential life of the fetus (which, ironically and sadly in this case, was already dead) over the life of the mother. Why? Because the mother is nothing, an empty vessel. She has no rights and no function except to serve at Man’s Pleasure. The Bible tells us so, somewhere. Where? Don’t bother me with such minutiae. I’m sure Jesus said it right after He said “Homosexuality is a sin” and “Abortion is murder.” A-MEN!

Continue reading

Advertisements

Safe, Legal and Rare is Back On the Table…

thanks to:

HILLLLLL-AAAAAA-REEEEEEEEEEE!

(Haven’t had a good Hillary whine in a while. Ahhhhh, it felt good!)

Come on. Isn’t she magnificent? And can you imagine Barack Obama having the spine to stand up for women’s rights the way she does here?

One of the most ridiculous memes I heard from die-hard Obots in 2008 was that Hillary would sell out women’s reproductive rights down the river. Oh, as opposed to Mr. Dial-An-Evangelical currently occupying the Oval Office? The guy who threw away funding for birth control in order to “get 80 votes” for his budget, for which not one Republican voted anyway? The guy who thinks women get late-term abortions because they’re “feeling blue?” The dude who thinks women need to consult a committee before deciding what to do with their own bodies?

I have a question for those religious folks who feel they have the right to control my reproductive organs. If you believe God made us, then God put women in charge of either having, or not having, babies. If God trusted us, why don’t you?

Toxic Meme Alert! Today’s Word Is: Discrimination.

Something Stinks!

Something Stinks!

For those of us who are firmly in the pro-choice camp – that is, who believe that the woman’s choice reigns supreme when it comes to her own body – the election of Barack Obama was quite a blow. We were paying attention to the way he claimed women should consult a committee (of men, of course) before she made her choice about her own reproductive status. We noticed that he did not pick a new HHS secretary for quite some time after his inauguration, which meant that Bush’s “conscience rule” has been in effect since the end of last year – and although the 30-day comment period expires today, the right-wing fundiegelicals seem to be the only ones commenting. They are screaming to the high heavens that Obama should not roll back the rule because they feel otherwise they will be “discriminated against.”

I have news for the meme-meisters of the evangelical movement. The government telling my doctor or pharmacist that they don’t have to inform me of all of my options regarding my own body, or that they have the right to deny me health care or birth control is discriminatory TOWARDS ME. This “conscience rule” keeps women in the dark, and prevents them from getting medical procedures and prescriptions that they paid for.  To meddle in the lives of women and their loved ones to this degree is an inexcusable use of government power.

Besides, in order to prove discrimination, wouldn’t these “Christian” doctors have to prove some kind of harm was caused by rolling back the rule? Believe me, they do not want to play this game. The harm endured by a woman who is forced to bear her rapist’s baby, or bear any unwanted child, is lifelong. The “harm” endured by a doctor or pharmacist who is “forced” to do his or her job, the job for which he or she is paid, is simply non-existent; and here’s why.

Continue reading