Oklahoma state representative Doug Cox (R-Grove) penned an op-ed this week questioning efforts by his Republican colleagues in the Sooner State legislature to increasingly restrict women’s access to birth control methods. Cox’s piece is the latest example of the rift that’s developed between socially conservative Republicans and those in the party who identify as libertarian.
A practicing physician who has delivered more than 800 babies, one “who never has or will perform an abortion,” Dr. Cox argues that one of the most effective ways to reduce the number of abortions is to increase access to contraception. I have made the same argument myself (here and here on FITSNews).
The Oklahoma legislature in which Dr. Cox serves has enacted some of the most restrictive laws in the nation regarding to access to family planning services. As a result, women are getting fewer legal abortions in Oklahoma than in the rest of the nation, but that doesn’t mean that they are getting fewer abortions. Restricting women’s access to contraception and abortion services doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, it just reduces the number of legal and safe abortions and returns us to the days of back alley procedures endured by desperate women whose choices have been limited by, well, a socially conservative legislature.
Which brings us back to Dr. Cox’s op-ed.
“What happened to the Republican Party that felt that the government has no business being in an exam room, standing between me and my patient? Where did the party go that felt some decisions in a woman’s life should be made not by legislators and government, but rather by the women, her conscience, her doctor and her God?” he asked.
Have social conservatives – led by out-of-touch politicians eager to impose their own brand of morality on people whose life situations they could never relate to – finally begun to overreach to such an extent that members of their own party are delivering the backlash? Apparently so.
“All of the new Oklahoma laws aimed at limiting abortion and contraception are great for the Republican family that lives in a gingerbread house with a two-car garage, two planned kids and a dog. In the real world, they are less than perfect,” Cox wrote.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I’m not even a Republican.
Dr. Cox understands, through real-world experience, that often the best hope a low-income teenager has for a better life is not getting pregnant while she’s still a teenager. Abstinence is an excellent ideal, but it’s not reality. To deny that teenagers will engage in sexual activity is to deny reality. Ensuring that a teenager from a low-income family has access to contraception – or at the very least not standing in her way by defunding one of the only places she can get it – can help her to help herself out of a cycle of poverty.
The same holds true for adult women.
If Republicans want to reduce dependency in this country, a good first step would be to reduce the dependents. Access to family planning services reduces the number of unintended pregnancies. Legislators should stop enacting laws that will ensure and protect more fetuses if they don’t want to deal with the natural consequences – babies born into a cycle of poverty through no fault of their own. If they decry the safety net programs that these babies depend on as “welfare” and “socialism,” then they should do something to prevent dependence in the first place: support access to contraception and abortion services. If their consciences prevent them from doing that, then they should kindly step aside while others make decisions for themselves based on their own beliefs and on the advice of their own doctors.
As Dr. Cox asked in his letter to his fellow legislators, “What happened to the Republican Party that felt government should not overregulate people until (as we say in Oklahoma) ‘you have walked a mile in their moccasins?'”
With respect to the issue of family planning services, it has been hijacked by social conservatives and will remain hostage to them until more Republicans like Representative Cox speak out.
Amy Lazenby is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. She writes with a liberal world view on most issues, but enjoys exploring where the liberal and libertarian political axes intersect. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz.
***
102 comments
“Have social conservatives – led by out-of-touch politicians eager to impose their own brand of morality on people whose life situations they could never relate to – finally begun to overreach to such an extent that members of their own party are delivering the backlash? Apparently so.”
This is the crux of it. We are starting to see some infighting on this issue, and that’s what will change things. The 2012 election showed that the GOP needs some different strategies and better outreach. The majority of women voters in that election rejected Republican social conservatism. If the GOP wants to win elections, it needs women voters, and this issue matters to them.
“Have social conservatives – led by out-of-touch politicians eager to impose their own brand of morality on people whose life situations they could never relate to – finally begun to overreach to such an extent that members of their own party are delivering the backlash? Apparently so.”
This is the crux of it. We are starting to see some infighting on this issue, and that’s what will change things. The 2012 election showed that the GOP needs some different strategies and better outreach. The majority of women voters in that election rejected Republican social conservatism. If the GOP wants to win elections, it needs women voters, and this issue matters to them.
They’ll be poor–so kill them? You’re sick in the head. Nobody is blocking access to contraception, what the fuck are you talking about? It’s four bucks at Walmart. You’re creating straw men.
It’s “four bucks at Walmart” if you have insurance and get a generic brand.
NOT TRUE. It is 9$ for women without insurance. Not to mention, if you are poor and on medicaid, they are covered.
How much is PlanB? It’s $50 if you can get it in time. Abortions run about $300. The cost of an unplanned pregnancy is a whole lot more. Read the doc’s full op-ed. The pill isn’t always effective. Real life happens. It must be great living in a fantasy world where things always work out for you and you can afford whatever you need. Also, I’m sure you’ll be happy to support those programs that support poor kids – the ones you call entitlements – after they’re born. Have a great day in fantasy land with Big T.
It must be great to live in fantasy world where everything is free and you can live with zero personal responsibility, and learn that type of rotten dependence at an early age. While everyone else has to pay for their medicines, AND pay for someone else’s birth control. Catastrophic illness? Pay us. Cancer? Pay us. Someone battling an illness that is life-threatening gets nothing free, even if they are dying, they get nothing for free. Children get nothing free when they have cancer either. Yet the healthy person who engages in a voluntary act gets the whole she-bang, from the pills to the morning after to an abortion–you want it ALL to be free. The moral inversion is stunning. And yet with this array of birth control, abortion numbers continue to rise, the number of babies born to single mothers continues to rise, the number of children being raised in daycare continues to rise, if birth control and abortion are the solution to all problems that you lefties make it out to be, why are there no results? Why aren’t abortions numbers going down? Why aren’t there less children born out of wedlock? Why has the American family broken apart? Why are 1 in 5 children suffering from some mental illness?
You must never have heard of Medicaid and Medicare, which actually do pay for cancer care.
And medicaid pays for contraception.
For certain types of contraception. Also, no federal Medicaid funds can be used to pay for abortions – but state funds can be used if the states allow it, which most do not. The point of Cox’s article is that OK is passing more restrictive laws that prevent medicaid from covering family planning services – he actually discusses that in the piece.
Again, for the generic. There are tons of different types of pills. Many women can’t take the generic formulations.
They’ll be poor–so kill them? You’re sick in the head.
Often times the people who are against abortion, and yes, against contraception, are against welfare too. And not just welfare that benefits the assumed lazy parents (Section 8 housing, food stamps, unemployment), but welfare that often specifically covers poor children, such as Medicaid. Personally, I think it is sick to say you care about a child enough to let them be born, even if it is into a shitty situation, but then aren’t concerned enough to help them after that.
I think people should only get abortions for justifiable reasons for the most part (rape, incest, birth defects, risk of life to mother), but I don’t think the government will ever have a means to effectively limit procedures to only those people.
Nobody is blocking access to contraception, what the fuck are you talking about?
I would say that the Republican opposition to forcing health insurance companies to cover birth control is “blocking access.” So does staunch opposition to Planned Parenthood funding. So does abstinence-only education (although that doesn’t “block access” per se, but states with abstinence-only education tend to have much higher teenage pregnancy rates).
They’ll be poor–so kill them? You’re sick in the head. Nobody is blocking access to contraception, what the fuck are you talking about? It’s four bucks at Walmart. You’re creating straw men.
It’s “four bucks at Walmart” if you have insurance and get a generic brand.
NOT TRUE. It is 9$ for women without insurance. Not to mention, if you are poor and on medicaid, they are covered.
How much is PlanB? It’s $50 if you can get it in time. Abortions run about $300. The cost of an unplanned pregnancy is a whole lot more. Read the doc’s full op-ed. The pill isn’t always effective. Real life happens. It must be great living in a fantasy world where things always work out for you and you can afford whatever you need. Also, I’m sure you’ll be happy to support those programs that support poor kids – the ones you call entitlements – after they’re born. Have a great day in fantasy land with Big T.
It must be great to live in fantasy world where everything is free and you can live with zero personal responsibility, and learn that type of rotten dependence at an early age. While everyone else has to pay for their medicines, AND pay for someone else’s birth control. Catastrophic illness? Pay us. Cancer? Pay us. Someone battling an illness that is life-threatening gets nothing free, even if they are dying, they get nothing for free. Children get nothing free when they have cancer either. Yet the healthy person who engages in a voluntary act gets the whole she-bang, from the pills to the morning after to an abortion–you want it ALL to be free. The moral inversion is stunning. And yet with this array of birth control, abortion numbers continue to rise, the number of babies born to single mothers continues to rise, the number of children being raised in daycare continues to rise, if birth control and abortion are the solution to all problems that you lefties make it out to be, why are there no results? Why aren’t abortions numbers going down? Why aren’t there less children born out of wedlock? Why has the American family broken apart? Why are 1 in 5 children suffering from some mental illness?
You must never have heard of Medicaid and Medicare, which actually do pay for cancer care.
And medicaid pays for contraception.
For certain types of contraception. Also, no federal Medicaid funds can be used to pay for abortions – but state funds can be used if the states allow it, which most do not. The point of Cox’s article is that OK is passing more restrictive laws that prevent medicaid from covering family planning services – he actually discusses that in the piece.
Again, for the generic. There are tons of different types of pills. Many women can’t take the generic formulations.
They’ll be poor–so kill them? You’re sick in the head.
Often times the people who are against abortion, and yes, against contraception, are against welfare too. And not just welfare that benefits the assumed lazy parents (Section 8 housing, food stamps, unemployment), but welfare that often specifically covers poor children, such as Medicaid. Personally, I think it is sick to say you care about a child enough to let them be born, even if it is into a shitty situation, but then aren’t concerned enough to help them after that.
I think people should only get abortions for justifiable reasons for the most part (rape, incest, birth defects, risk of life to mother), but I don’t think the government will ever have a means to effectively limit procedures to only those people.
Nobody is blocking access to contraception, what the fuck are you talking about?
I would say that the Republican opposition to forcing health insurance companies to cover birth control is “blocking access.” So does staunch opposition to Planned Parenthood funding. So does abstinence-only education (although that doesn’t “block access” per se, but states with abstinence-only education tend to have much higher teenage pregnancy rates).
Here’s a novel idea…….Let people be responsible for their own birth control methods. My God, is there anything that you libereals don’t think the taxpayer should pay for?
You missed the point. It isn’t only the funding of contraceptives that’s a problem but the banning/regulation of abortion and birth control by social conservatives which is also a problem.
No, you miss the point. Cox was writing in opposition to a bill to allow pharmacists not to fill prescriptions that they objected to on moral grounds (“But wait, some lawmakers want to go even further and limit everyone’s access to birth control by allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception.”). No one is banning birth control. You can always go to the pharmacy down the street. The issue is compelling each individual pharmacist to violate their beliefs in the same way the HHS mandate forces religious institutions to violate their beliefs by funding contraception and abortifacients. I have no moral objection to contraception, but obviously millions of Catholics disagree with me. That is their right, and I find it grotesque that a supposed libertarian is in favor of forcing some medical professionals to violate their beliefs.
You are correct CL, any self identified Libertarian should be for maximum freedom/voluntary society. The conflict even in libertarianism should be the intersection between life/liberty. (like abortion, or when killing someone in self defense is justified or not, etc.)
He was also writing in opposition to the bill in that passed in the Oklahoma House last Friday (previously passed the Senate) that would effectively defund Planned Parenthood. He has given interviews about his opposition to that bill.
Actually, the only other bill he specifically mentions was to prevent Medicaid coverage of the morning after pill. No mention of PP. He may have spoken separately about PP, but his oped was limited to two specific bills.
He has been giving interviews about the Planned Parenthood defunding bill, which passed in the OK Senate 2 days after the tornado there, since it passed saying essentially the same thing. This op-ed was written within that context.
Even if the PP issue was part of the secret subtext of the linked oped, I still fail to see what that has to do with anything I posted or that appears in this sub thread. In fact, it just reinforces the comment Scrappy made about taxpayer support that Eric claims to have missed the real point of the oped. So it seems you agree that it is Eric who is missing the point.
By the way, I just read the “defunding Planned Parenthood” bill, and not surprisingly found that to be something of a mischaracterization. PP is still eligible for public funding for screenings, but the bill does prioritize other types of facilities, such as public facilities and rural clinics, for any such grants of taxpayer dollars. If there are such facilities, then PP in Oklahoma may suffer but access to women in Oklahoma has not been reduced one bit. If there are not such facilities, then PP can get the money and … access has not been reduced one bit. So Cox is really just shilling for PP, which, I am sure coincidentally, gave him an award recently.
It’s not a secret subtext at all. He mentions being concerned about poor women in the article. Those women get contraceptives through Medicaid or Planned Parenthood.
Contraception is widely and cheaply available. And as to the person relying on Medicaid to fund it, Medicaid and PP are not synonymous. Contraception has been federally subsidized since Nixon, and nothing Oklahoma does can cut off the federal funding stream.
And I read the bill, too, as well as the other laws linked to in the article above, and if you really think that access to contraceptives and family planning services for women in Oklahoma has not been reduced one bit, then you are in serious denial of the facts. Just look at the link about the state’s restrictive laws. If you still want to say that access hasn’t been reduced, you’re delusional.
Please clear up my delusion. The grants are the same, the only thing that might change is the provider. So only one who may suffer is PP. Which makes the unyielding (and dishonest) defense of PP very revealing that it is actually the abortion aspect of PP that people are really worried about. And while you are enlightening me, please also explain how the PP bill changes anything the original commentator or I said.
The bill re-allocates family planning funds to public providers and hospitals instead of private providers like Planned Parenthood, so it effectively defunds the org in OK. According to it’s site, Planned Parenthood operates five clinics in Oklahoma and serves about
8,400 men and women there a year. It cannot use public family planning funding to pay for abortion services. It provides birth control and cancer screening services. Not sure what else there is to clear up.
Cancer screening services? They don’t offer mammograms. They might feel for a lump. That is totally dishonest to say they offer cancer screening, and yet when Obama announced that do mammograms–which they do NOT at a single PP in the nation–he was never corrected in the media. And all these morons believe that they do. Which they do not.
They offer pap and HPV tests to screen for cervical cancer. Those are cancer screenings. They do not offer mammograms, but, from the PP website:
“Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve.”
So w/ regard to breast cancer, they provide education on how to do self exams – which is how many women detect lumps in the first place – and then connect them with providers who perform additional testing.
Seriously, calm down, Francis.
The supposed delusion was not that PP wouldnt face a cut in funding, it was that access by the public would not be affected. Reallocating to different providers does not reduce access to the actual services being funded(as someone pointed out PP doesn’t even provide many of the services, only referrals, so reallocating to the actual provider would likely increase access by improving efficiency).
Thence any reduced access can only refer to the other service PP provides – abortion, which are not sip posed to be publicly funded in any way. I call that a myth because money is fungible and any money given to PP is funding their abortion mills. The premise that paying others to do the screening services reduces access to abortions proves the point.
Here’s a novel idea…….Let people be responsible for their own birth control methods. My God, is there anything that you libereals don’t think the taxpayer should pay for?
You missed the point. It isn’t only the funding of contraceptives that’s a problem but the banning/regulation of abortion and birth control by social conservatives which is also a problem.
No, you miss the point. Cox was writing in opposition to a bill to allow pharmacists not to fill prescriptions that they objected to on moral grounds (“But wait, some lawmakers want to go even further and limit everyone’s access to birth control by allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception.”). No one is banning birth control. You can always go to the pharmacy down the street. The issue is compelling each individual pharmacist to violate their beliefs in the same way the HHS mandate forces religious institutions to violate their beliefs by funding contraception and abortifacients. I have no moral objection to contraception, but obviously millions of Catholics disagree with me. That is their right, and I find it grotesque that a supposed libertarian is in favor of forcing some medical professionals to violate their beliefs.
You are correct CL, any self identified Libertarian should be for maximum freedom/voluntary society. The conflict even in libertarianism should be the intersection between life/liberty. (like abortion, or when killing someone in self defense is justified or not, etc.)
He was also writing in opposition to the bill in that passed in the Oklahoma House last Friday (previously passed the Senate) that would effectively defund Planned Parenthood. He has given interviews about his opposition to that bill.
Actually, the only other bill he specifically mentions was to prevent Medicaid coverage of the morning after pill. No mention of PP. He may have spoken separately about PP, but his oped was limited to two specific bills.
He has been giving interviews about the Planned Parenthood defunding bill, which passed in the OK Senate 2 days after the tornado there, since it passed saying essentially the same thing. The op-ed by him was written within that context.
Even if the PP issue was part of the secret subtext of the linked oped, I still fail to see what that has to do with anything I posted or that appears in this sub thread. In fact, it just reinforces the comment Scrappy made about taxpayer support that Eric claims to have missed the real point of the oped. So it seems you agree that it is Eric who is missing the point.
By the way, I just read the “defunding Planned Parenthood” bill, and not surprisingly found that to be something of a mischaracterization. PP is still eligible for public funding for screenings, but the bill does prioritize other types of facilities, such as public facilities and rural clinics, for any such grants of taxpayer dollars. If there are such facilities, then PP in Oklahoma may suffer but access to women in Oklahoma has not been reduced one bit. If there are not such facilities, then PP can get the money and … access has not been reduced one bit. So Cox is really just shilling for PP, which, I am sure coincidentally, gave him an award recently.
It’s not a secret subtext at all. He mentions being concerned about poor women in the article. Those women get contraceptives through Medicaid or Planned Parenthood.
Contraception is widely and cheaply available. And as to the person relying on Medicaid to fund it, Medicaid and PP are not synonymous. Contraception has been federally subsidized since Nixon, and nothing Oklahoma does can cut off the federal funding stream.
And I read the bill, too, as well as the other laws linked to in the article above, and if you really think that access to contraceptives and family planning services for women in Oklahoma has not been reduced one bit, then you are in serious denial of the facts. Just look at the link about the state’s restrictive laws. If you still want to say that access hasn’t been reduced, you’re delusional.
Please clear up my delusion. The grants are the same, the only thing that might change is the provider. So the only one who may suffer is PP. Which makes the unyielding (and dishonest) defense of PP very revealing that it is actually the abortion aspect of PP that people are worried about protecting (which lays bear the myth that tax dollars in no way support PP’s abortion services). And while you are enlightening me, please also explain how the PP bill changes anything the original commentator or I said.
The bill re-allocates family planning funds to public providers and hospitals instead of private providers like Planned Parenthood, so it effectively defunds the org in OK. According to it’s site, Planned Parenthood operates five clinics in Oklahoma and serves about
8,400 men and women there a year. It cannot use public family planning funding to pay for abortion services. It provides birth control and cancer screening services. Not sure what else there is to clear up.
Cancer screening services? They don’t offer mammograms. They might feel for a lump. That is totally dishonest to say they offer cancer screening, and yet when Obama announced that do mammograms–which they do NOT at a single PP in the nation–he was never corrected in the media. And all these morons believe that they do. Which they do not.
They offer pap and HPV tests to screen for cervical cancer. Those are cancer screenings. They do not offer mammograms, but, from the PP website:
“Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve.”
So w/ regard to breast cancer, they provide education on how to do self exams – which is how many women detect lumps in the first place – and then connect them with providers who perform additional testing.
Seriously, Lighten up on the Obama/evil media outrage, Francis.
The supposed delusion was not that PP wouldnt face a cut in funding, it was that access by the public would not be affected. Reallocating to different providers does not reduce access to the actual services being funded(as someone pointed out PP doesn’t even provide many of the services, only referrals, so reallocating to the actual provider would likely increase access by improving efficiency).
Thence any reduced access can only refer to the other service PP provides – abortion, which are not supposed to be publicly funded in any way. I call that a myth because money is fungible and any money given to PP is funding their abortion mills. The premise that paying others to do the screening services reduces access to abortions proves the point.
“Restricting women’s access to contraception and abortion services doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, it just reduces the number of legal and safe abortions and returns us to the days of back alley procedures endured by desperate women whose choices have been limited by, well, a socially conservative legislature.”
This is one of those cliches liberals cite as if they are self-proving. Maybe it is accurate, but some evidence would be helpful.
“Where did the party go that felt some decisions in a woman’s life should be made not by legislators and government, but rather by the women, her conscience, her doctor and her God?”
I have no problem with contraception, but this is just inane. The bill he is talking about is to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate THE PHARMACIST’S religious beliefs. When did libertarians convince themselves that forcing someone to violate their beliefs was in any way an expression of freedom? It is especially rich from a doctor who says in the same op-ed he will never perform an abortion. Well how wonderful that he has the moral discretion that he seeks to deny to pharmacists.
From the American Pharmacist Association’s “Pharmacist Oath”, one taken by any graduate of a pharmacist school:
“I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients.
I will RESPECT [my caps] and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our PROFESSION’S [my caps] moral, ethical and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”
It is immaterial what the personal ethics of the pharmacist may be. What matters is the professional ethics. If a pharmacist refuses to prescribe a potential treatment to a patient because they don’t like the rationale, they are violating their profession’s ethics and should no longer be in that field.
This is just breathtakingly silly or dishonest. You understand the Catholic pharmacists this bill is intended to protect those that believe that many medications they are called to dispense are tantamount to murder. So the pharmacist very much believe their oath requires them to protect the innocent lives that they believe the drugs will destroy. And by your ridiculous framing, a doctor refusing to perform abortions is violating the Hippocratic oath. Which should show how crazy the argument is if you are essentially arguing that ripping an unborn baby into pieces (read how a dilation and evacuation is performed) is somehow required by the Hippocratic oath.
Here is the modern version of the oath that most medical schools use in this country:
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/content.php?pid=23699&sid=190964
A doctor refusing to administer an abortion is not and will never be in violation of that oath, per the American Medical Association. This has been debated time and time again, but the overwhelming majority of physicians subscribe to that concept. This rightfully allows Catholic or other faith-based hospitals the option to refuse to conduct abortions. I’m 100% behind that.
However a pharmacist has a different responsibility than a doctor and takes a different oath. A pharmacist has a responsibility to provide medicine or treatment without infiltrating the patient’s privacy or withholding available medicines that others can provide.
I believe you are the crazy one if you consider the morning after pill abortion. Zygotes cannot and will not exist outside the womb, so don’t demagogue the issue by claiming it will destroy a “human life”.
Love the argument that pharmacists owe higher duty than doctors. Nothing ridiculous about that at all. There is nothing in the oath that justifies such a position.
I love the left’s claim to represent science, when they say things like “don’t claim a zygote is a human life.” Basic biology says a zygote is a life. It meets all criteria for a life form we have ever applied in biology, and its unique DNA makes it unquestionably a human life. The real issue under the abortion on demand position is whether that human life is a “person”. But there is simply no scientific doubt whether it is a human life.
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/
Emergency contraception (morning after pill, Plan B, etc) is not abortion. That’s the science of it. It disrupts ovulation, which prevents fertilization of an egg. Here’s what the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has to say about it. I’m going to go with the doctors on this one:
http://www.acog.org/About%20ACOG/ACOG%20Departments/Health%20Care%20for%20Underserved%20Women/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20about%20Hormonal%20Approaches%20to%20Emergency%20Contraception.aspx
I personally have no problem with anything that acts prior to fertilization, but I am not Catholic. And I think hypocritical “progressives” who preach about tolerance should quit trying to coerce Catholics to violate their beliefs.
I think the larger problem is Catholic employers who try to force their beliefs on non-Catholic employees.
We were talking about individual pharmacists being compelled to violate their beliefs, but religious employers are in point of fact not forcing their beliefs on anyone. They are choosing not to pay for something they disagree with. There is no Constitutional right to fringe benefits, and until Obama’s HHS mandate (it was not even legislatively enacted but simply imposed by the ever encroaching regulatory state) there was nothing at all controversial about this principle.
And this should be self-evident – sadly we are becoming so narcissistic and entilted that it must be pointed out – but if contraceptive coverage is important to you, don’t work for a religious organization. You call them secular positions, but the churches consider their schools, hospitals, shelters, etc. to be part of their missionary works. You don’t get to decide for the Catholic Church, for example, the nature of its activities.
There actually is no exception, both de jure and de facto. It is just a proposal that has been floated. It is not the law. Moreover, the proposal is so narrow as to be meaningless. For instance it applies only if the institution serves and employs only people of the faith. So Catholic schools run by nuns are out because they accept Protestant students. As one writer observed, Jesus and his disciples would not have qualified.
“Restricting women’s access to contraception and abortion services doesn’t reduce the number of abortions, it just reduces the number of legal and safe abortions and returns us to the days of back alley procedures endured by desperate women whose choices have been limited by, well, a socially conservative legislature.”
This is one of those cliches liberals cite as if they are self-proving. Maybe it is accurate, but some evidence would be helpful.
“Where did the party go that felt some decisions in a woman’s life should be made not by legislators and government, but rather by the women, her conscience, her doctor and her God?”
I have no problem with contraception, but this is just inane. The bill he is talking about is to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate THE PHARMACIST’S religious beliefs. When did libertarians convince themselves that forcing someone to violate their beliefs was in any way an expression of freedom? It is especially rich from a doctor who says in the same op-ed he will never perform an abortion. Well how wonderful that he has the moral discretion that he seeks to deny to pharmacists.
From the American Pharmacist Association’s “Pharmacist Oath”, one taken by any graduate of a pharmacist school:
“I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients.
I will RESPECT [my caps] and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our PROFESSION’S [my caps] moral, ethical and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”
It is immaterial what the personal ethics of the pharmacist may be. What matters is the professional ethics. If a pharmacist refuses to prescribe a potential treatment to a patient because they don’t like the rationale, they are violating their profession’s ethics and should no longer be in that field.
This is just breathtakingly silly or dishonest. You understand the Catholic pharmacists this bill is intended to protect believe that many medications they are called to dispense are tantamount to murder. So the pharmacist very much believe their oath requires them to protect the innocent lives that they believe the drugs will destroy. And by your ridiculous framing, a doctor refusing to perform abortions is violating the Hippocratic oath. Which should show how crazy the argument is if you are essentially arguing that ripping an unborn baby into pieces (read how a dilation and evacuation is performed) is somehow required by the Hippocratic oath.
Here is the modern version of the oath that most medical schools use in this country:
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/content.php?pid=23699&sid=190964
A doctor refusing to administer an abortion is not and will never be in violation of that oath, per the American Medical Association. This has been debated time and time again, but the overwhelming majority of physicians subscribe to that concept. This rightfully allows Catholic or other faith-based hospitals the option to refuse to conduct abortions. I’m 100% behind that.
However a pharmacist has a different responsibility than a doctor and takes a different oath. A pharmacist has a responsibility to provide medicine or treatment without infiltrating the patient’s privacy or withholding available medicines that others can provide.
I believe you are the crazy one if you consider the morning after pill abortion. Zygotes cannot and will not exist outside the womb, so don’t demagogue the issue by claiming it will destroy a “human life”.
Love the argument that pharmacists owe higher duty than doctors. Nothing ridiculous about that at all. There is nothing in the oath that justifies such a position.
I love the left’s claim to represent science, when they say things like “don’t claim a zygote is a human life.” Basic biology says a zygote is a life. It meets all criteria for a life form we have ever applied in biology, and its unique DNA makes it unquestionably a human life. The real issue under the abortion on demand position is whether that human life is a “person”. But there is simply no scientific doubt whether it is a human life.
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/
Emergency contraception (morning after pill, Plan B, etc) is not abortion. That’s the science of it. It disrupts ovulation, which prevents fertilization of an egg. Here’s what the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has to say about it. I’m going to go with the doctors on this one:
http://www.acog.org/About%20ACOG/ACOG%20Departments/Health%20Care%20for%20Underserved%20Women/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20about%20Hormonal%20Approaches%20to%20Emergency%20Contraception.aspx
I personally have no problem with anything that acts prior to fertilization, but I am not Catholic. And I think hypocritical “progressives” who preach about tolerance should quit trying to coerce Catholics to violate their beliefs.
I think the larger problem is Catholic (or other religious) employers who try to force their beliefs on their employees by denying coverage for contraception based solely on their own religious beliefs, even when the employee is working in a secular position, and especially when the employer runs a for-profit business – like Hobby Lobby – not a church. Other for-profit businesses have to comply with the law, so those businesses should, too (the ACA makes an exception to the contraception mandate for true religious organizations, but not for for-profit employers who want to use their personal beliefs to fail to act in compliance with the law).
We were talking about individual pharmacists being compelled to violate their beliefs, but religious employers are in point of fact not forcing their beliefs on anyone. They are choosing not to pay for something they disagree with. There is no Constitutional right to fringe benefits, and until Obama’s HHS mandate (it was not even legislatively enacted but simply imposed by the ever encroaching regulatory state) there was nothing at all controversial about this principle.
And this should be self-evident – sadly we are becoming so narcissistic and entilted that it must be pointed out – but if contraceptive coverage is important to you, don’t work for a religious organization. You call them secular positions, but the churches consider their schools, hospitals, shelters, etc. to be part of their missionary works. You don’t get to decide for the Catholic Church, for example, the nature of its activities.
There actually is no exception, both de jure and de facto. It is just a proposal that has been floated. It is not the law. Moreover, the proposal is so narrow as to be meaningless. For instance it applies only if the institution serves and employs only people of the faith. So Catholic schools run by nuns are out because they accept Protestant students. As one writer observed, Jesus and his disciples would not have qualified.
But no rift among the liberals, Lizenby and democrats.
Kill them the morning after or kill them after they are born, wiggling on the operating table. Just murder them, and the liberals SMILE big and gleefully…
.
Now I understand the debate about conception, and how, at one time, a decent human being could have bought the pro-abortion argument…
But now Liberals (led by Obama) openly support the KILLING of LIVE Babies, placing their Lust for infant blood above the life of the mother…
For anyone, ESPECIALLY a Woman, to be Pro-Abortion, after the wholesale mutilation it has eveolved into, is ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING…
After Dr. Gosnell was caught (how many more?)…there should have been an IMMEDIATE and iron-clad moratorium on ALL Abortions, untiil every clinic in the country is inspected to see how much murder is taking place…
You are BLOOD SOAKED, EVIL and FILTHY people….comparable to Hitler’s NAZIs…
You get more ridiculous by the day. Pro choice folks support safe, legal abortions. Gosnell was performing illegal abortions. Even Planned Parenthood released a statement condemning him and his actions. Pro choice people do not support what Gosnell did. Sane people understand that.
Planned Parenthood condemning their brother, Dr. Gosnell is like Obama taking shots at the IRS for targeting non-liberal voters…it’s laughable…
You are not THAT stupid are you???
You assholes are nothing but pro birth. You bitch about the poor mooching, slut mothers, food stamps…so tell me shit stain, are you and the gop going to feed and house these unwanted children? I’ve got it T. After they’re born we’ll give them guns!
Couples, with means, are BEGGING for babies to adopt. They even go to China or Russia to get children that are discarded..
Don’t try to absolve your Holocaust of the innocent by your cliché Class-Hate argument. You are a FILTHY B@$*@*d….and irresponsible fathers and mothers do not Acquit you of your guilt and deserved shame…
They’re also shipping them back to Russia or leaving them in airports or worse. Guess you missed that news?
So you are against Aborting the adoption, sparing the child, in the one case where the liberal woman tried to de-adopt…but you have no problem w/ milions of babies being killed…So Typical of the leftwingers..
As a female fiscal conservative, I am afraid the issue of abortion will not be a “choice” once China owns us. I am sure you pp know the Chinese government’s rules regarding having babies.
Once China “owns us?” They have a small fraction of our national debt, and Japan has about the same amount.
But the Communists Completely OWN your mind Smirks…and you got Obama elected, using the ways of Mao…
And: You have told us that a lot of your ideology is innocent, w/o ulterior motives. Yet you have been caught lying and corrupt over and over. I certainly do not believe you, based on experience..and anyone would be foolish to think you would not lie to forward your dangerous intentions….
As a female fiscal conservative, I am afraid the issue of abortion will not be a “choice” once China owns us. I am sure you pp know the Chinese government’s rules regarding having babies.
Once China “owns us?” They have a small fraction of our national debt, and Japan has about the same amount.
Even libertarians don’t agree on abortion(on the basis of the sanctity of life vs. freedom of choice(for the mother only))…it’s an incredibly difficult topic.
It will never be resolved.
If you are immoral. w/ no regard for the innocent, defenseless baby, it’s not a difficult topic…You are an abortionist, and that is palced before all else…
You leftwingers do not wrestle w/ this. Pro-lifers care about babies because they are moral and human decency tells them that the most vulnerable should be protected from buthchers trying to oppose poltical foes……
Leftwingers HATE good (God-based) and anything moral (see Obama)…And pro-lifers remind abortionist champions that they are un-wholesome and dirty people. That’s pretty easy to understand…unless you are tryiing to fool yourself to try to sound smart, which I think you’re doing…
I’m glad you have it all figured out Big P.
Btw, I’m pro-life personally, I just have no idea how that notion fits within the context of being against coercive gov’t intrusion into people’s lives.
At this point it’s an unsolvable conflict for me personally.
If you’re Struggling w/ the protection of Babies from Abortionists, you are being guided by some pretty sinister forces…
Most people would rather sound smart to pop culture, than embrace the unquestionably moral and Right thing to do. It’s not negotiable…
Also: Government is all in our lives. To act as if this is an intrusion issue shows you to be either ignorant or coward…
You seem to be a little off track, in hopes that someone will see you as open-minded. When in reality, you’re just mixed up, because that’s exactly what the left wants you to be….
The struggle Big P is the justification of one evil (gov’t intrusion & coercion) in our lives to stamp out another evil.
As I said, I’m glad you have it all figured out.
Also, I’m quite aware of the hypocrisy of the Left on the issue.
They champion all sorts of gov’t intervention in everything, but conveniently use this case to suddenly “jump” on the side of those wanted no or limited gov’t when it suits their platform.
Holy shit, I’m actually having a lucid conversation with you.
That is true as to the issue of state action (whether it is more libertarian to allow a woman to exercise whatever choice she wants or to recognize and protect the liberty of the innocent child). But libertarians should be able to agree on not compelling individuals to violate their own beliefs (in this case, forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for drugs to which they morally object). Doug Cox apparently agrees that he should be afforded this freedom, he just wants to deny it to other medical professionals. He brags about his moral choice not to perform abortions, which obviously presupposes that as a doctor he should have the choice not to perform this medical procedure. Yet he is arguing that the rules should be different for pharmacists.
I agree that all actions should be voluntary, a pharmacist should have the right to not sell abortion meds on the basis of his/her beliefs.
Even libertarians don’t agree on abortion(on the basis of the sanctity of life vs. freedom of choice(for the mother only))…it’s an incredibly difficult topic.
It will never be resolved.
That is true as to the issue of state action (whether it is more libertarian to allow a woman to exercise whatever choice she wants or to recognize and protect the liberty of the innocent child). But libertarians should be able to agree on not compelling individuals to violate their own beliefs (in this case, forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for drugs to which they morally object). Doug Cox apparently agrees that he should be afforded this freedom, he just wants to deny it to other medical professionals. He brags about his moral choice not to perform abortions, which obviously presupposes that as a doctor he should have the choice not to perform this medical procedure. Yet he is arguing that the rules should be different for pharmacists.
I agree that all actions should be voluntary, a pharmacist should have the right to not sell abortion meds on the basis of his/her beliefs.
Wonder if there’s a special place in H#!! for women who champion Baby-Killing is a Civil Right???