When the judge's robe hides that he's the big bad wolf

I'm old enough to remember a few cases (Morgan vs Foretich) in which a mother made claims that her child was sexually abused by the father (without credible evidence) and then snuck the child away so it could be raised to believe the father did, indeed, sexually molest them (tell a kid a story enough from childhood and he/she will believe and create memories from it), so I was wary when I first read Trish Wilson's post about Genia Shockome. Surely this sounds like a plot for a Lifetime TV movie special that could only be set in Texas featuring a mother denied custody of her children after suing her well-connected husband for divorce and trying to maintain custody of her children after levying charges of abuse against him.

Genia, who is 7 months pregnant, is currently in Poughkeepsie City Jail (Happy friggen Mother's Day) for contempt of court for objecting "too vigorously" to Judge Damian Amodeo's decision to allow Genia's abusive ex-husband to move their two children (ages around 7 and 9), to Texas. Genia, who had been primary caretaker of the couple's children since birth, lost custody to her ex-husband when Amodeo gave the father sole legal and physical custody 3 years ago without an evidentiary hearing or written explanation of decision. Shockhome's attorney has provided a case history at the Battered Mother's Custody Conference.

Of particular interest is the claim of Genia suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as even the judge agreed that if she has PTSD caused by the husband's abuse, he would have to grant custody to the mother. Genia was evaltuated by experts, including a court-appointed evaluator: all of the experts including the evaluator concluded that the mother suffers from panic attacks and PTSD as a result of the father’s abuse. In addition, the evaluator even acknowledged that the father abused the mother physically, verbally and emotionally throughout the relationship. Despite this, the evaluator did find that the father should have custody because "the mother was too angry to have custody because she continued to complain that the father fed the children too much junk food, did not dress them appropriately for the weather and let them watch adult oriented television." claims the evaluator stated she assumed were exaggerated and Judge Amadeo claimed the PTSD was not due to any action by the husband, but by his own actions in court.

It is reprehensible that anyone, no less a judge in family court which is supposed to ensure the best interest of the child(ren) is top priority in custody disputes, would assist a better ex-spouse in assisting one parent in estranging/alienating the other parent from his/her child(ren) without due cause.



Tags: abuse; child custody

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Sermonette: It's all about perspective

Something the fundagelicals prefer to ignore when trying to force everyone into their image of who/what needs to change to be of utility to G-d and not:

G-d's relationship to the wicked may be compared to that of a prince who, besides his magnificent palaces, owns all manner of little houses hidden away in the woods and in villages, and visits them occasionally to hunt or to rest. The dignity of a palace is no greater than that of such a temporary abode, for the two are not alike, and what the lesser accomplishes the greater cannot. It is the same with the righteous man. Though his value and service may be great, he cannot accomplish what the wicked man accomplishes in the hour when he prays or does something to honor G-d, and G-d who is watching the worlds of confusion rejoices in him. That is why the righteous man should not consider himself better than the wicked. [Martin Buber]

There are those who say the person who prayed today because they prayed yesterday are no better than a scoundrel. There are those who think theirs is the one true way, there are those who think G-d's able to see the forest and the trees and then sort everything out as necessary. The truth is we may never know the truth and G-d may not think sharing it with us is necessary.

A man gets to heaven and St. Peter is showing him around. The two of them began walking down a long hallway, and they came to a door. Peter opened the door and they heard all of these people singing hymns, and Peter said to the guy, "Oh, here are all the Methodists." Then they walked on a little further, and came to another door, and opened it, and saw a bunch of people dressed up and the strong smell of incense, and Peter said, "Oh, here are all the Episcopalians." They walked on, and came to another door, and opened it, and saw a bunch of people shouting and jumping up and down, and Peter said, "Oh, here are all the Pentecostals." But then they walked near another door, only this time, instead of opening it, Peter said to the guy, "Ssshhhh, we have to be quiet. Those are the Baptists in there, and they think they're the only ones up here!"

Sphere: Related Content

Dog day afternoon

Tenacious D does his best Gary Coleman impression

This guy's bark is much worse than his bite, and his deep hound bark has been known to scare the bejesus out of those who hear it. He has his share of problems, I was the second to adopt him after the first owner turned him in at almost 3 years old for being "too needy" - the SPCA provided limited information about his past: probably neglected, possibly abused by the original owner; the second owners returned him because he could not get along with the other dog they already had. The behavior I inherited from him (he is, I'm sad to say, the dog version of me) was marked fear aggression, dominance aggression (leading me to scream "I am the alpha here and you are my bitch"), separation anxiety and more. The first command he learned from me was "time out" (he pitches the same fit my friend's toddlers do when they get a time out too). He's a hound (known pack animals) that had never been socialized, that is the root to a majority of his problems. I've had him 3 years now, the first of which was spent schlepping him to therapy with a vet who specializes in animal behavior, canine good citizen classes and anti-depressants (for both of us).

The majority of dogs are turned over to shelters are turned in due to "behavior" or obedience issues, these issues usually come about because the original owners don't put the effort into training their dogs and understanding the basics of animal behavior. My guy could be better behaved, but I've been lax on some issues because I got extremely tired of constantly being in training and was more than willing to settle for a dog that's overcome most of his problems instead of the incredibly well behaved pup. Plus, every time I am ready to absolutely throttle him, he knows he can diffuse my anger by singing. I accept him for who he is because I took on the responsibility for his life when I chose to have a dog.

Why provide a brief overview of his story now? I do so to separate out the difference between aggression and viciousness. I do so to remind those who have dogs (or plan to get one) that having a pet is a greater responsibility than just remembering to feed & walk an animal. I do so because I am all too frequently reminded that not all people take their responsibilities seriously.

The D man weighs about 60 pounds and could easily do some major damage were he to attack (he's done some major inadvertent damage at play); he's not likely to do so unprovoked, but he could flip at another dog if he feels threatened (according to the guy at the kennel I board him when I travel, it may be more when he thinks I'm threatened). As a responsible dog owner, I pay close attention to The D man's behavior in public/with company - he loves children and plays well with them, but I'm always afraid that he could accidentally hurt someone with a nudge of his hard head or scratch and eye out due to his habit of using his front paw to get some attention.

I also try to keep a close eye on his behavior and any triggers for aggression; luckily he has a big heart and is not viscious in the least, but he has limits and I am morally, ethically and legally obligated to ensure he doesn't hurt anyone intentionally or otherwise. This is not only the responsibility of owners of dogs that people assume are viscious (bull terriers, dobermans, rotts, etc.) and larger breed dogs that could inflict substantial damage on a human being, it is also the responsibility of owners of small dogs which can be pretty nasty too (while they're unlikely to be able to inflict life-threatening damage to an adult, they could hurt a child pretty badly).

I only wish everyone with a pet could show the same respect for the responsibilities they have to their animal and their community.

Sphere: Related Content

Ann Coulter straps it on & tells us why 'mo marriage isn't sacred

During a post-speech Q & A at University of Texas at Austin, Ann Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that "a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better." Unfortunately, she didn't get around to addressing the sanctity of marital butt-fucking, but she seems to be more of a "smack it up, flip it, rub it down" kinda guy.

Sphere: Related Content

A pharmacist's conscience matters; your health and privacy do not

I came across this at DED space: A Milwaukee Walgreen's pharmacist refused to fill a woman's ("Jane Doe" to protect her identity) prescription for EC and followed up by berating the mother of six in front of a full waiting room for trying fill the prescription.

'You're a murderer. I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands,'" Doe said. "I tried to explain to her that it's emergency contraceptives, that it's not an abortion pill. She then snatched the form from me, that the prescription was attached to, telling me the paper was full of lies, and she won't be a part of it. I was crying, shaking, upset, so embarrassed. I wanted to run out of the store and hope nobody else could get a good look at me."

The woman did not get her prescription filled, got pregnant and ended up having a surgical abortion.

It's a chemical abortion. If there is a fertilized egg, it prevents it from implanting, which causes a chemical abortion,

In short, if she thinks abortion is murder, Walgreen's pharmacist Michelle Long does have blood on her hands. EC neither causes the uterus to expel an implanted blastocyst, nor induces sloughing of the endometrial lining (menstruation) to prevent implantation. If Doe hadn't ovulated and/or conception hadn't occured prior to her attempt to fill the prescription, it's highly likely (more likely than the "if" referenced above) that Long's refusal to fill the prescription caused a pregnancy she knew would aborted to occur.

The so-called "Conscience Clause" was supposedly enacted to allow pharmacist's from refraining from involvement in something they find morally objectionable, not to allow pharmacist's to violate a patient's privacy. Walgreen's policy to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions due to the pharmacist's personal moral objections to use of a legally prescribed medication facilitated the breach of privacy and they are (and should be) enjoined in any resulting lawsuit filed. In addition to losing her pharmacist's license (for the breach of patient privacy), Michelle Long should be required to pay compensatory damages to reimburse Doe for the costs associated with her abortion and any psychological counseling she may need in addition to punitive damages.

Walgreens Mission Statement: Walgreens mission is to offer customers the best drugstore service in America. We are guided by a century-old tradition of fairness, trust and honesty as we continue to expand our store base and offer career opportunities to a fast-growing and diverse group of men and women. Our goal is to develop people who treat customers - and each other - with respect and dignity. We will support these efforts with the most innovative retail thinking, services and technology. The success we achieve will allow us to reinvest in our future and build long-term financial security for our employees and our shareholders.

It's well past time pharmacies stop fooling themselves; they cannot have it both ways. As I've said a kijillion times, if a person does not want the guilt by association they state is forced upon them by filling a prescription for a medication with a use they find offensive or immoral they should not be in that position.

• Patients should not always wonder if they are the next one who will have their valid prescription refused/confiscated or their privacy violated due to the personal beliefs of pharmacy staff
• The only way for pharmacy staff to avoid being in a position they find objectionable is to avoid working at pharmacies that do stock these medications with the intent of honoring valid prescriptions
• The only way for pharmacies to reassure their customers is to make it clear that they either will not stock and fill prescriptions for contraceptives or they will require their staff to fill all valid prescriptions presented in a timely fashion (or transfer the prescription as necessary when the drug really is not in stock)

Tags: reproductive rights; religion; health care;Abortion

Sphere: Related Content

Getting the finger takes on a whole new meaning

Only in America could giving someone the finger be something taken literally. Not too long ago, our friend Anna Ayala considered suing fast food restaurant Wendy's because she bit into someone else's finger while eating some Wendy's Chili. In a bizarre twist to the case, authorities still have no idea to whom the finger belonged. The same cannot be said for this finger found in pint of frozen custard.

Clarence Stowers of Wilmington, NC found a surprise in the pint of chocolate custard he bought at a nearby Kolh's frozen custard store. While savoring the custard, he got a mouthful of old Brandon Fizer. . or, more accurately, Fizer's right index finger. Twenty-three year old Fizer lost the finger when he accidentally stuck his hand in a mixing machine which lopped off his index finger at the knuckle. Despite being back at the store 30 minutes after the accident, Stowers refused to return the finger because he wanted to "preserve the evidence" should he decide to file suit against Kohls.

"The general manager attempted to retrieve it and rush it to the hospital," reads a statement posted Thursday on Kohl's Web site. "Unfortunately, the customer refused to give it to her and declared that he would be calling the TV stations and an attorney as he exited the store."

Officials at the hospital Fizer was taken to also attempted to retrieve the finger, in the hopes it could be surgically re-attached, without luck.

According to Stower's attorney, Lee Andrews, his client is concerned about possible disease in the fingertip and kept it because he wanted someone to test it for "all the diseases that are out here now." Apparently, it didn't occur to Stowers (or his attorney) that, as the owner of the finger was known, testing for disease could have easily been performed even if they'd returned the finger (more easily and accurately as a matter of fact).

"He's upset to the point that he's been debilitated to some degree," Andrews said. "Emotionally, it's been very upsetting to him."

Stowers was so debilitated by his distress, he place the finger and custard in his home refrigerator and would only take it out to show television cameras. Stower has since placed the finger in protective custody at an undisclosed location.

Fizer has been dealing with his loss in private - there's no word on whether he's been debilitated at all.

Sphere: Related Content

This is not the first time I've criticized the FDA for an idiotic decision

and I'm sure it won't be the last. The only good thing about being able to criticze this (and the BS over EC) is the fact it's a criticism not related to work. The FDA has decided implement new regulations to prevent men from anonymous sperm donation if they've been sexually intimate with another man in the 5 years prior to donation.

The decision is based on a misguided belief that, since the HIV infection rate is higher among men who admit to sexual relations with other men, a man who admits to any sexually intimate interaction with another man in the past 5 years must automatically be ruled out as a donor, while men who do not admit to this exposure and/or those with other high risk exposure will not automatically be excluded from the donor pool.

AIDS cases related to heterosexual contact represent an increasing proportion of cases in North America. Heterosexual contact is the most common mode of transmission among women diagnosed with AIDS in the U.S., and has doubled as a proportion of female AIDS cases in Canada since 1991. While a large proportion of these cases reported sexual contact with an IDU, a substantial proportion of women who acquired their infection heterosexually were unaware of their partner's risk status. In addition to injection drug use, the use of crack cocaine in the United States has been associated with an increased risk of HIV transmission through sexual contact in both urban areas and the rural South.

Between 1990 and 1995, the average HIV prevalence among heterosexual men and women attending STD clinics in North America changed little. However, the seroprevalence rates of heterosexual men and women in New York, Miami and Washington, DC, grew by 5 percent or more.

Many people assume that sexual transmission is primarily through anal sex and that men on the receiving end are gay. From my own interactions with many heterosexual men (and I mean, "homosexuality is wrong", conservative/republican men), there seem to be a lot of them
who are not only into anal sex but express interest in being penetrated themselves. Many heterosexual men also engage in risky (heterosexual) activies that put them at high risk of sexually transmitted diseases many of which can facilitate HIV infection.

Additionally, quite a few of the sperm donors are students, including medical and life-science graduate students which increases risk exposure through work/school.

"The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors,' said one document."

If the FDA wants to increase safety, they should insist on mandated HIV testing of all germ cell donors (sperm and ova) at the time of donation and 6 months post harvesting (the cells should remain frozen until then) instead of exluding donors a priori based on admitted sexual activity.



Tags: gay; HIV; FDA

Sphere: Related Content

Free for a price

I just came across Donna Wentworth's review of the inanity of considering information gathered using public funds as private "intellectual" property. She, of course, references the utterly idiotic Rick Santorum-sponsored (is that redundant?) bill to prevent the publicly funded national weather service (NWS) from diseminating the information it gathers to the public without additional charge (paying for the service through taxes is considered getting it "for free" by Santorum). This free distrubution of publicly financed information is tantamount to"unfair business practices" because it prevents AccuWeather from making a profit by charging consumers to access the information they've already paid for. Santorum considers this information to be "intellectual property" owned by AccuWeather. As far as I know, AccuWeather has neither the proprietary rights on the weather itself, nor a patent/copyright on reporting of information in a user-friendly fashion such that any reporting of weather data in a manner easily understood by lay people is an infringement on any patent they may have on their specific reporting format/style.

No, AccuWeather can't compete with "free" but AccuWeather doesn't own the information they want to charge to access but it is not the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that a company can turn a profit when they do not have a product sufficiently unique from something freely available that we are willing to pay extra to use that product, especially when potential consumers are already funding the free service with which the for-profit company wishes to compete. If AccuWeather wants to reimburse the taxpaying public for the information they are provided and do so at a rate we all find acceptable, we can negotiate an agreement. Afterall, is it not an unfair business practice to require us to give AccuWeather information for free in order for them to be able to sell that information back to us?

Sphere: Related Content

Pat Roberston contends religious affiliation should preclude high level government service

Pat Roberston, in an appearance on ABC's "This Week", announced that adherence to religion and belief in scripture should be used to prevent a person from service in high level government positions, including judgeships. According to Roberston, he'd be wary of those with religious affiliation (even those whose affiliation is with non-fundamentalist denominations) based on what he considers offensive rhetoric in scripture which, by implication, verifies the inherent contradiction between adherence to religion and support of modernity and democracy. In particular, Robertson expressed concern over religious references to "war against infidels." Robertson is not the only leader to cite a concern about the potential of those with religious affiliation serving in that sort of capacity in the US government, Robertson's concern was seconded by Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Louis "It is not a civil right. It is a behavior" Sheldon.




Tags: Muslim; Christianity; politics

Sphere: Related Content

My Truth too

Bon at Abortion Clinic Days posted about a new 'zine/organization called Our Truths which is a project from that is the collective vision of a diverse group of women who are reproductive rights activists, social workers, counselors, feminists, writers and artists. As he says, until those of us who have had abortions but aren't constantly beating ourselves up for, as the "Pro-life" movement claims "making the wrong decision", "using abortion as birth control", "making a decision out of convenience or without careless disregard" can share our experiences and what we've learned from them, women who have abortions will always be stigmatized as promiscuous, selfish, irresponsible, immature and/or confused.

Unlike many of the "Pro-life" women who have an abortion (or two) in between protesting, my actions are consistent with my views. As Amanda points out "the jaw-dropping hypocrisy and weirdness chronicled" in the rationalizing and attitudes of some "Pro-Life" women is mind-boggling. When they ("Pro-Lifers") "have to have an abortion" it's different than when women who are pro-choice do. They have no choice, we make immoral/uninformed/confused choices or are coerced. When women who've had abortions feel regret/remorse and become "Pro-Life" activists, they believe that since they have regrets and know they've done something wrong, we must also feel that way (if we do not now, we will one day as soon as we accept truth as they "know" it).

The organization is now accepting submissions through July for it's September issue focused on abortion in pop culture.

I regret being in a position that abortion had to be considered, I do not regret making the decision to terminate my pregnancy when I was 19: when the potential benefit was primarily mine and the vast majority of risk would have been faced by the child I could have had, I decided that to force that chance on another was unconscionable. About nine years later, upon reflection, I wrote this, which I just submitted to them.



Tag: Abortion

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Sermonette

I came across the Sunday Sermonette Meme at Majikthise and figured I'd give it a whirl. This is even more applicable today than when it appeared in the New York Times Magazine:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[Albert Einstein, 9 November 1930]

other sermonettes at Effective Measure, Creep & Blink & Wirkman Netizen

Sphere: Related Content

Chastity is kewl

"I don't know why Chastity Awareness Week starts tomorrow, wouldn't the first week of March make more sense?"

[Ol Cranky on PA HR 539]

Tags: reproductive rights; abstinence; conservative; fundamentalism

Sphere: Related Content

Activist judge "doesn't know why"

LG, a 13 year old girl who was about 14 weeks pregnant was denied the right to make her own decision regarding her pregnancy by Florida judge Ronald Alvarez despite delineating understandable and legitimate concerns about going to term:

"I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job," the girl said as Alvarez and her guardian ad litem, assigned to shepherd her in the legal system, questioned her.

L.G. laid out different reasons for wanting an abortion.

"DCF would take the baby anyway," she said, but later added: "If I do have it, I'm not going to let them take it."

She also questioned the health risk of carrying the fetus to term.

"Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn't you all look at that fact that it'd be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?"

LG had quite a few very good points. Dr. Ethelene Jones who is an expert in obstetrics & gynecology pointed out that an abortion is, indeed, safer than going to term for the girl

"At her age and at her stage of gestation ... her risk of death from an abortion procedure is about 1 in 34,000," said Jones, who has held positions at Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. "The risk of death in pregnancy is about 1 in 10,000."

The girl has been taken for counseling to clinics on 3 occassions where alternatives and risks to abortion were discussed. Yet, when the girl asked Judge Alvarez why she couldn'tmake her own decision he replied "I don't know" (G-d bless her, she responded with "You don't know? You're the judge").

Does Alvarez usually renders decisions without being familiar with applicable state laws or did he just "conscientiously object" to letting the child make a decision he finds morally offensive? Florida State Law allows pregnant minors to make their own decisions regarding their pregnancy (link courtesy of Nick at morons.org):

743.065 Unwed pregnant minor or minor mother; consent to medical services for minor or minor's child valid.--

(1) An unwed pregnant minor may consent to the performance of medical or surgical care or services relating to her pregnancy by a hospital or clinic or by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, and such consent is valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.

(2) An unwed minor mother may consent to the performance of medical or surgical care or services for her child by a hospital or clinic or by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, and such consent is valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.

(3) Nothing in this act shall affect the provisions of s. 390.0111.

Florida tried to enact a parental notification law, but there is an injunction against it because it is unconstitutional.


Tags: abortion; reproductive rights; fundamentalism;judicial activism

Sphere: Related Content

Rush for a change of atmosphere

As Faithful Progressive noted here and here, our (not so) good friend Rush Limbaugh is back in the news for. . . well for being Rush Limbaugh, inventor of lowbrow oral flatulence. Limbaugh recently stated his belief that there are 2 gods, the god of Christianity and Catholocism and the god of the the religious left. Limbaugh himself is a big fan of the former because

"that G-d has moral absolutes. That G-d has right and wrong, that G-d doesn't deal in nuance, that G-d doesn't deal in gray area, that G-d says, 'This is right and that is wrong.'"

That is also a god who has decreed the "sanctity of marriage" and the god of religions that state marriage is for the development and protection of the family (that means you get married and have babies). That is a god that believes crime deserves punishment, and that is a god that does not look kindly on sinners standinging in judgement of others.

Rush Limbaugh, staunch defender of marriage (& protection thereof) and, now, orthodox Christianity (which sees marriage as a vehicle to procreate) has been divorced 3 times and 0 children. He does not honor that which he demands (although this yahoo seems to place the blame for divorce on use of any contraception other than natural family planning).

Matthew 19: 8-9 "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Rush "Hang 'em high. Put the drugsters in jail" Limbaugh has made his stand on illegal use of drugs pretty clear:

"If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river too."

But when it was discovered he was one of the white folks who'd been "getting away with it," he did everything possible to avoid the punishment he'd impose on others.

2 Peter: 13-14 "They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!"

2 Peter: 18-19 "For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him."

Now as he attacks those who a members of non-Orthodox [Christian] religions or members who refuse to judge others and legally impose the dictates and dogma they willingly accept by essentially accusing them of not worhsipping the "right" god, he says he was just interjecting some levity. The joke's on Rush, his god of moral absoultes that does not comprehend nuance would not have a sense of humor and would judge Limbaugh quite harshly for his trangsressions, as well as his unmitigated audacity to stand in judgement of others.

It's the seventh day of Pesach, the day we're reminded of David's song of Thanksgiving. Limbaugh, as usual, knows not of what he speaks. There is not a god of the left and a god of the right (frankly, if there were, why should anyone follow the one he can't respect and admire?), there are, however, too many false prophets.

2 Samuel 22:51 A tower of salvation of His king, who shows mercy to His anointed, to David and to his heirs forever

Tags: religion; rush limbaugh; conservative

Sphere: Related Content

The Unconscionable Clause

I'm sure you've read all the debates back and forth about Pharmacists and other healthcare providers not wanting to be involved in abortion, anything they consider to possibly impede implantation of a fertilized ova in a woman's uterus (ova+uterus=female) and anything else they consider to be related to sins of sexual immorality. Last night I posted about Colorado Gov. Bill Owen's veto of a bill that would ensure that rape victims were provided with all the health-care related information due them (including information on/access to emergency contraception or referral to someone who would) as should be required under law and the arguments that contraception (emergency and routine) causes sexual immorality and abortion. Today, this non-feminist took an electronic stroll over to Feministe to come across an interesting little tidbit about how Catholic Hospitals plan to treat rape victims.

Now I understand that the Catholic Church proscribes contraception (except natural family planning) with the belief that sex is a sacred act between a married couple with a primary (but not sole) purpose of procreation. Based on this, it makes perfect sense for Catholic Hospitals not to perform abortions except when a patient presents in an emergent situation with an ectopic pregnancy. It also makes sense that their pharmacies would not stock contraceptives, physicians would refrain from prescribing contraceptives (I'm not sure if they're permitted to prescribe them for treatment of endometriosis or to shrink an ovarian cyst); surgeons would not perform tubal ligations, or any form of hysterectomy on a woman that is not post-menopausal except to save the woman's life (i.e., uterine/ovarian cancer) and choices in fertility treatments would be limited.

In all of the aforementioned instances, Catholic Hospitals make certain exceptions in emergent situations. Oddly, the exception 6 Catholic hospitals in Colorado make in the case of rape is incomplete: physicians will be permitted (not required) to tell a victim/patient about emergency contraception and write a prescription (if asked by the victim/patient) if she has not yet ovulated; if she has ovulated, they are not permitted to discuss emergency contraception. This, one can assume, is based on a belief that contraceptives are abortifacients because they could possibly thin the endometrial lining making it less hospitable to implantation of a fertilized egg (more accurately, by implantation it's now 16 cells and called a blastocyst). The primary mechanism of action of emergency contraception (high dose progesterone) is the prevention of ovulation, so I am quite glad to see these hospitals allowing discussion of and access to EC for women who haven't ovulated (there are many "pro-lifers" who don't approve it's use at all). There are other suspected ancillary mechanisms of actions for contraceptives (it is not uncommon for a drug to be approved as safe and efficacious without the actual mechanism of action being known at all) that include creating an environment in the female genitourinary tract that is hostile to sperm or creates other barriers to fertilization if ovulation does occur. Another possible (tertiary) mechanism of action for some contraceptives may include making the uterus less hospitable to implantation because with chronic use, many women do experience lighter periods due to development of thinner endometrial linings (this is one reason women with endometriosis are prescribed hormonal contraceptives). Bear in mind, the implantation rate post conception is about 40-60% in the best of circumstances, so it's extremely difficult to determine if/when routine use of hormonal contraceptives causes a statistically significant decrease in the implantation rate. This being said, this is an unlikely mechanism of action for EC as the medication is acute use of high levels of progesterone (as I've mentioned in a few places, if a reproductive endocrinologist could correct me and/or clarify the situation, I'd greatly appreciate it). If the providers at these hospitals intentionally omit information about a treatment that could prevent fertilization, they're acting as a de facto agent of the rapist by prolonging the physical trauma and facilitating any resultant pregnancy. If the victim is not provided the information in time, becomes pregnant and decides to terminate, the providers (and the hospitals themselves) are responsible for the forcible creation of a child as well as its "murder" as a matter of policy.

Healthcare practitioners are held to a different standard than other professions for good reason. They are required to provide all reasonably relevant information and information about things that are rare but potentially serious/severe in nature to their patients (and/or their caregivers) to ensure they are adequately informed. As a healthcare provider, you are not permitted to omit information in discussions with patients because you don't approve of what they might do with that information. Patients (or their caregivers) must be able to make informed decisions and provide informed consent; full disclosure (including referral for additional opinions/treatments that may be different than what you think appropriate) is necessary for this to occur - anything else is malpractice. Just as a genetic counselor or OB does not have the right to omit pertinent information about potential treatments/therapies that may impact the decision a patient (mother/couple) makes when the provider believes termination of pregnancy is warranted but thinks the information might lead the patient to decide to continue the pregnancy, a provider does not have the right to withold pertinent information to a patient because that provider believes the patient would decide to terminate the pregnancy (because the provider thinks abortion is immoral).

In cases in which healthcare providers have conflicting interests, they are obligated to fully disclose this conflict of interest, provide factual information about alternatives and allow the patient to make decisions voluntarily without prejudice. Forcing decisions upon patients due to a conflict of interest is unethical and immoral (the only place where this country seems to allow this in healthcare is when the conflict of interest involves someone imposing pregnancy on a woman because the provider does not approve of abortion/contraception). There are ways to avoid these conflicting interests, it is the responsibility of the healthcare provider to avoid them if they stand in the way of the provider being able to treat a patient without prejudice.



Tags: health care; contraception; abortion; reproductive rights; fundamentalism; catholic

Sphere: Related Content

Blame it on B

According to a New Republic article, conservatives across the country have a host of reasons for opposing the emergency contraceptive Plan B:

• Concerned Women for America has stated a concern for the long term effects of the drug
  
• they emphasize this concern completely disregarding the fact that it is an acute use drug so exposure is essentially minimal and the fact the drug has been available without prescription in many countries since 2002 (and with a prescription even longer), & there is considerable safety data regarding long-term use of both high and low dose hormonal contraceptive
• Those who believe that an unimplanted zygote is the equivalent to a living, breathing human being consider all hormonal contraception (emergency and routine) as abortifacients based on the possibility of ovulation and fertilization occuring followed by the resulting blastocyst possibly being unable to implant in the endometrium due to use of these medications
• I'll need an OB/GYN to explain why they believe a high dose of progesterone will induce abortion or prevent implantation, since progesterone levels decrease if conception doesn't occur and increase when it does (the corpus luteum produces progesterone, so if fertilization does occur one wouldn't expect the sudden drop in progesterone after final dose of Plan B to trigger menstruation if the corpus luteum continues to produce adequate levels of progesterone to make pregnancy viable post implantation)
  
• EC will increase risky sexual activity (i.e., sex when pregnancy isn't a desired outcome of sex)

Jessica, at Bush v Choice, commented on the article as follows [emphasis added]:

I'm glad that Cohn points out that women who are suffering most because of the lack of EC availability are rape victims and not crazy spring breakers, as the conservatives would have us believe. But don't crazy spring breakers deserve EC, too? By focusing on victims of sexual assault as the primary users of emergency contraception are we somehow bolstering the argument that "irresponsible" teen girls shouldn't have access to it? Just putting it out there...

Jessica obviously hadn't checked out the comments to my favorite self-described fat Jew's post about Colorado Gov. Bill Owen's veto of a bill that would have required hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception. I know she didn't read the comments earlier because there is no notice about her having a stroke directly related to comments that put the responsibility for being prepared to know about and have access to EC prior to rape (if you have a uterus and are of child-bearing potential you best plan ahead) or hunt down that information and medication when the "moral" healthcare providers intentionally mislead you by lies of omission.

What will become of us if we require police/healthcare providers to provide EC information, access or referrals to those who will provide those things (and/or EC becomes available OTC) to rape victims? Well, if we're thinking as rationally as those who consider prevention of pregnancy as murder, the next logical step will be an alarming increase in the amount of non-marital sexual activity (both consensual and not). After all, if EC is readily available women will be more willing to be raped since there's an easy way to avoid their responsibilities by just aking a couple of pills. ..right?





Tags: health care; contraception; abortion; reproductive rights; fundamentalism

Sphere: Related Content

SDRAWKCAB SSA

This morning, in the midst of correspondence with my colleagues in Poland, I quickly checked my calendar to determine if there were any upcoming holidays that would impact our timelines and noted that next Thursday is the Polish May 3rd Constitution Anniversary. I ran a quick check on it and found out the following:

The May 3rd, 1791 Constitution was the first liberal constitution in Europe and the second in the world, after the Constitution of the United States.

Following the American pattern it established three independent branches of government — executive, legislative and judiciary. Throughout the constitution runs philosophy of humanitarianism and tolerance including: perfect and entire liberty to all people; rule by majority; secret ballot at all elections; and religious freedom and liberty.

But, most importantly, the constitution abolished the one vote veto powers of individuals who would undermine proposals, for their own dubious reasons.

Later in the day, I snuck a quick peak at Fafblog where, lo' and behold, Fafnir had posted an interview with The Constitution which included a preview of the next School House Rock episode:

I'm a Constitution in exile, just a Constitution in exile,
And everybody's ignored me for a while…

Unlike the US, the Poles get a 4 day holiday week-end to honor their Constitution and we're in the midst of what may be a 4 year run of the Republicans & Fundagelicals trampling on ours. Which country is ass backwards?



Tags: fundamentalism; politics; conservative; poland; constitution

Sphere: Related Content

Why Plan B may not work for Plan B

When Barr Pharmaceuticals submitted the Rx-to-OTC Emergency Contraceptive Plan B to the FDA, I doubt they suspected that after jumping through hoops and making a novel suggestion in their submission that they'd still be in political limbo.

The FDA, in it's politically charged Not Approvable letter, did not state any safety concern with the drug's use in women 16 and older. Under the circumstances, there was no reason to hold up the approval of Plan B as an OTC any further (except to continue to play politics to appease the religious right). In the face of regulatory action that was considered to be based purely on politics (the advisory committee vote was overwhelmingly for approval), Barr re-submitted with the the suggestion to make the drug available without prescription to patients 16 and older, but require prescription for girls under the age of 16. To facilitate this idea, the suggested a Plan B for Plan B - keeping it Behind the Counter to would prevent girls under the age of 16 from purchasing the product without a valid prescription. The problem with this suggestion is the same problem facing women trying to fill prescriptions for not only emergency contraception, but trying to fill their prescriptions for routine contraceptives (regardless of whether they're for contraception or to treat a medical condition), some pharmacists will refuse to hand over the medication.

Under these circumstances, pharmacists who wish to impose their religious doctrine on women could still interfere with purchase of the products to those who are legally able to do so without a prescription. In order for Plan Behind the Counter to work, the drug would have to be available behind the register/customer service counter where other drugs like tobacco (and alcohol in states that don't limit sales to liquor stores) are available for purchase by anyone able to show ID to verify they are legally allowed to purchase the item. Additionally, there will have to be some assurance that store managers, customer service employees or check-out clerks will not also be allowed to refuse sell the medication when someone legally attempts to purchase the medication.

I doubt this idea would bode well for Karen Brauer's PFLI since the organization's primary goal is to interfere with a woman's ability to practice contraception, not to avoid their own involvement in something that offends their moral sensibilities. Arizona Kmart Pharmacist Dan Gransinger has suggested that pharmacist's lie to avoid filling valid prescriptions in light of AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano's veto of HB 2541. This, he suggests, can help a pharmacist avoid complicity in someone else's sin and inconvenience a patient (or worse). It's not as though these pharmacist's have a problem with lying since they preach that use of contraceptives is committing an abortion (there is a difference between causing the expulsion of an implanted embryo and the rare possibility that a blastocyst will not implant solely due to the possibility of a thinner endometrial lining). Ironically, these beliefs are based on a literal acceptance of scripture, and they conveniently ignore the fact that bearing false witness (aka telling lies) is one of G-d's big 10 and Proverbs has a lot of not too nice things to say about liars:

Proverbs 14:5 " A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies."

Proverbs 14:25 " A truthful witness saves lives, but a false witness is deceitful."

People, both pro-choice and "pro-life", were offended by the suggestion. NARAL took it a step further and wrote to Kmart to complain and ask that Kmart remove Gransinger from managing or working as a dispensing pharmacist at any Kmart. Pro-lifers complain this may be harsh, but if someone feels so strongly about an issue such as this, I don't understand why they wouldn't be willing to accept the personal consequences of their actions. Companies who sell items should do so with the plan they will sell them to anyone who is legally allowed to purchase them (and the prescription is what determines if a person can obtain prescription medications). Would Walmart allow a sales clerk to refuse to ring up the sale of a gun or ammo if the purchase was legal without taking action against the sales clerk? Would they be required to hire someone for the camping & hunting section who would refuse to sell guns based on their moral convictions? I doubt it. If you stock an item for sale, be prepared to sell it. If you don't want to subject your personnel to making decisions or selling something they consider immoral, don't hire them for the division/department that sells those items or don't stock the items.

If pharmacies and pharmacies franchises want to capitulate to religious beliefs that allow some personnel to impose their beliefs on someone who does not share them, they should stop stocking these medications and have the testicular fortitude to make public statements saying as much. Pro-choice folks will gladly stop shopping at those establishments, which will leave more for them to sell to right wing idealogues.

If we now allow pharmacists the ability to refuse to do parts of their jobs based on their morals, don't we have to allow a sales clerk to refuse to sell any item they find objectionable as well? Where will this end? Can a managing pharmacist at a pharmacy that does sell contraceptives require other pharmacists on duty to refuse to fill prescriptions (is that managing pharmacist not complicit in sin if s/he allows those working under him/her to dispense the contraceptives)? Can a an individual impose his/her religious views on formulary decisions for Medicaid? Can an individual at an insurance company notify a pharmacy that a prescription for contraceptives is not covered (or is being filled too soon) to interfere with a person obtaining a refill, just because that individual does not approve of contraceptives? Could it go beyond contraceptives and abortion, spilling into religious based refusal of legal and medically acceptable procedures or treatments?

There is no difference between allowing the religious right to subject me to their religious views and my forcing a Fundamentalist Christian woman to use hormonal contraceptives or have an abortion. Both are reprehensible impositions of one's personal beliefs on another and interference in their healthcare. It's about time the practice of medicine got back to being between a physician and a patient without the local church or politician getting involved in something that has nothing to do with them.

As I've said many times before, the Conscience Interference Clause is not about an individual pharamcist's ability to protect his/her mortal soul, it's about the religious right's unnacceptable demand to be able to interfere in the ability of women to fill valid prescriptions for medications.



Tags: religion; abortion; Politics

Sphere: Related Content

Frist vows to crown Bush King

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure that the Senate votes on confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Maybe Frist has forgotten that this isn't a monarchy and he is a US Congressman, not a member of the House of Lords. There are what, 10, nominees that haven't been confirmed but Frist won't rest until King George (and the Fundagelical Movement) gets everything he demands?

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling in Texas with Bush, said "our view is that Senate Democrats need to stop playing politics and give all judicial nominees an up or down vote."

As I noted last night, the Fundagelicals and Republicans claimed fillibusters were necessary to protect against the "war on Christianity" (that would be Hormel's nomination as ambassador, and we all know he was nominated in a sly Clintonian move to force good Christians to convert to homosexuality if they wouldn't just try it themselves).

Since King George and the Repugs insist on re-nominating folks that were completely unacceptable in his first administration the filibuster is needed to protect freedom of religion [the inclusive form of the word, not just orthodox Christian denominations] and ensure maintenance of civil rights and the modicum of healthcare the average US citizen currently has access to.

I agree with FP that Billy-boy's profane piety may well work to the advantage of the rational among us. The faithful who, last November, abstained or voted against Democrats because they were irked at the frequently voiced disdain for the religious right are now seeing exactly what it is that's triggered those comments (the "liberal elite" who are openly hostile to religion, even when it's not imposed on them, are another issue - but they are a fringe minority). They are finally speaking up and reaching out, which should help build a strong coalition of liberals and progressives (both religious and secular) as well as bring in some moderates equally desperate to live in a rational and civilized country.

Politicians live and die by the polls, so the Republican lock-step may get tripped up as candidates start looking toward mid-term elections. If the Republicans pay attention to what the majority of their constituents want, cooler heads may prevail. If the right wing doesn't back off from their hystrionics, they may *gasp* lose power.




Tags: fundamentalism; gay; filibuster; politics

Sphere: Related Content

Pistol-packin' progeny

I tripped over this at Excellence through Mediocrity. What better way to show you're "Pro-Life" than hanging a gun toting fetus from your Christmas Tree or rear-view mirror?

The "brown" model wears an attractive beret, and they both come complete with a metal ornament hanger!


Tags: abortion; wingnuttery

Sphere: Related Content