"Rape Gurney Joe."
There's some new terminology in the demonization of Joe Lieberman. I saw it first today in this post at Firedoglake, complaining about Democratic Senators who are supporting Lieberman in his reelection campaign. Tracing back, I found this earlier use, also in Firedoglake, commenting on something Boxer said at Yearly Kos and calling it "damn close" to "the dumbest thing anyone said":
abortion rights reproductive freedom, but I dislike the heavyhanded political use of abortion reproductive freedom to threaten those who have some moderate position. Surely, a willingness to accommodate the religious scruples of Catholic hospitals is not something that outrages ordinary people, even ordinary abortion rights reproductive freedom supporters. Firedoglake says that Catholics -- whose religion has caused them to devote so much hard work to providing medical care over the years -- need to "get out of the fucking emergency medical business" because they want to follow their religion's teaching about contraception. That's going to sound bizarre and scarily angry to a lot of people.
UPDATE: Firedoglake responded to me. She called me an "idiot" and depicted me as a baboon. Her main substantive point is that the Connecticut law is about contraception and therefore the politics surrounding it is disconnected from the abortion politics I've referred to. There's a lot of discussion of this point in the comments, and but clearly the imposition on Catholic beliefs doesn't depend on whether the drug is a contraceptive or an abortifacient. And the politics is of a piece with abortion rights, which is why NARAL and Planned Parenthood are talked about. I couldn't tell what drug was being referred to from the post of hers I commented on. Obviously, my concern is the ugly rhetoric, and her response to me is to go all out to alienate me with additional ugliness. Sigh.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I struck "abortion" and replaced it with "reproductive freedom" in the original post. Now, can you focus on my real point?
Boxer enthusiastically expressed her support of her esteemed colleague with whom she had worked many times over the years, and said all of the opposition to Joe was based on his support of the war. She said other groups, like women, were backing Joe because he was so good on their issues. I like many things about Barbara Boxer so I’m going to assume here that she’s an idiot and not a liar.Boxer is one of the Senators who, we now see, will be campaigning for Lieberman (second link, above). So the shock she experienced at YearlyKos propelled her away from the candidate they are pushing (Ned Lamont), and caused her to become especially conspicuous in her support for Lieberman. Firedoglake's reaction to today's news -- first link, above -- goes this way:
The fact is that women in Connecticut are NOT happy with Joe Liebeman on their issues. In fact the head of Connecticut NARAL and Connecticut Planned Parenthood are EXTREMELY upset about Rape Gurney Joe telling rape victims to take a hike (literally) if they want emergency contraception and have the bad luck to be taken to a publicly funded, Catholic emergency room. In fact in a recent poll 74% of Connecticut voters think that Catholic hospitals should have to provide this necessary treatment to rape victims or get out of the fucking emergency medical business. Barbara Boxer seems, at best, a tad out of touch with what’s going on with Joe in his home state of Connecticut as she shows her support for the incumbency protection racket.
That Boxer is out of touch was backed up moments later in the hall when she turned on Curry, miffed at having been asked the question in the first place. "Why are you so focused on Lieberman?" she snapped. "Because everyone here is," he answered. This seemed to shock Boxer. Where exactly did her aides tell her she was speaking?
If Boxer wants to come to Connecticut and spend some of her political capital on Rape Gurney Joe, she better bring a Brinks truck. Because the last time I encountered Barbara Boxer talking about Lieberman, she was sadly misinformed. It was during Yearly Kos, and she was saying that opposition to Joe was "all about the war" and that on women’s issues, he was great.Well, what can I say? The label "Rape Gurney Joe" is so ugly that ordinary citizens will feel quite put off. I support
The women of Connecticut don’t think so. Before Boxer steps in the deep doo-doo Lieberman has created for himself with women in this state by his stance on Plan B and publicly funded Catholic hospitals, she might want to educate herself on his history. I’ll quote the great Connecticut Bob here:Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so.Well Joe, that’s not very helpful. I mean, I know that you’ll never need emergency contraception at two o’clock in the morning after having been brutally raped. So I guess it’s easy for you to disregard any woman who is unlucky enough to have gone through that trauma....
"In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.
Well I’m off to start calling the ladies of Connecticut Choice Voice, I’m sure they’ll be there when Boxer shows up to ask a few pointed questions. And that will be me with the camcorder.
UPDATE: Firedoglake responded to me. She called me an "idiot" and depicted me as a baboon. Her main substantive point is that the Connecticut law is about contraception and therefore the politics surrounding it is disconnected from the abortion politics I've referred to. There's a lot of discussion of this point in the comments, and but clearly the imposition on Catholic beliefs doesn't depend on whether the drug is a contraceptive or an abortifacient. And the politics is of a piece with abortion rights, which is why NARAL and Planned Parenthood are talked about. I couldn't tell what drug was being referred to from the post of hers I commented on. Obviously, my concern is the ugly rhetoric, and her response to me is to go all out to alienate me with additional ugliness. Sigh.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I struck "abortion" and replaced it with "reproductive freedom" in the original post. Now, can you focus on my real point?
Labels: abortion, Connecticut, rape, religion
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:49 AM
220 Comments:
Yep, it's terriby ugly. Detestable.
Just wondering: do you ever search for ugliness on the right? There's a huge amount of that, too. It is also ugly and detestable.
You could start with that other Ann.
But that wouldn't be red meat to your base, now would it?
"I dislike the heavyhanded political use of abortion to threaten those who have some moderate position."
Couldn't agree more. Sadly, the polarization on such issues, especially on fierecely partisan sites like Firedoglake is the norm on both sides of the political sprectrum. Of course "ordinary people" don't think in such extreme terms, if by ordinary you mean the great majority of voters who don't habituate sites like that or LGF or listen to extremely partisan talk radio for example. But these types of partisan outlets are increasingly setting the tone of debate. And that tone is evident on the comments sections of this site as well.
Most moderates, I am sure, have neither heard of nor give a damn about "firedoglake".
The nonsensical proposition that "women are against Lieberman" because he won't force Catholics to administer abortifacients is so stupid that it hardly merits comment. FDL can just not vote for Lieberman, and see how that works out. What a dope.
But what about the public funds? Can't we at least pull our tax dollars from religious institutions that put their religious beliefs above the rights of the citizens that might be brought to their doors in an ambulance? The "rape gurney joe" rhetoric is ugly, but I think the "it's just a short ride" rhetoric is ugly, too, and thoughtless.
Or maybe, AJD, Ann gets more worked up by things like this on the Democratic side because that's her side, and she has more of a personal stake in it. Why should she care about Republican fanatics trying to get the Republicans to commit political hara kiri? The Repubs aren't her party.
Ann talks about the stuff that interests her. No commitment to "fair and balanced" is even implied. Why should that bother you?
Elizabeth (or anyone else): Could someone please explain what "use of public funds" we are supposedly talking about?
AFAIK, Catholic hospitals are private and the only public funds provided are reimbursements for treating patients covered by public plans. In that event, I don't understand your problem with that. Would you prefer that they not accept patients covered by the government?
I am certain that if the unfortunate victim called the rape crisis line or a victim's advocate during the intitial report stage, they would be advised where the nearest sympathetic facility was located.
Why is the abortion issue the major platform in the Democratic Party? The abortion issue is cleverly ensconced in political correctness that prevents rational discussion of it. If you disagree with it, you are immediately branded as a "rapist by other means" as evidenced by the favorite phrase, "Keep your laws off my body!"
There are other issues to consider!
Re: "But what about the public funds?"
The problem is, of course, that there is literaly no possible way to practice hospital medicine in the US without accepting public funds.
In essence, such a directive would mean that the government could demand a particular position be taken on abortion. In some states, this is demanded of pharmacists.
I wonder if this kind of decision ought to be coerced.
So, for the hard left, re Catholic hospitals (as well everything else), it's "Rule or Ruin"? How very Kim Jong-il-ish.
The more I read from the Firedoglake blog, the more I think that blogger and its posters are coming unhinged.
And I don't view Lieberman's tactics to run as an independent if he loses the primary as any more unfair than what they did in new jersey with Torricelli and Lautenberg. Each instance violates the spirit of elections but not the law (apparently).
This demonstrates why many conservatives are very skeptical of private charities of any sort relying on taxpayer funding. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The more dependent on taxpayer funding a charity is, the less free it will be to follow its own religious and moral teachings, the more it will be a mere servant of the state. Those who demand a charity give up its principles in return for government funding are, in fact, furthering the abolishment of private charities.
And that's not even beginning to mention the hypocrisy of a leftist arguing to condition receipt of government funds on a violation of one's religious beliefs... Solomon, anyone?
That said, I recognize the time limit required for successful use of abortiofacients like Mifeprex (the treatment I suspect is under discussion) limits a woman's options here, precisely when clear dispassionate thought is least likely. (And surely it adds insult to injury to tell someone to do this themselves in a moment of trauma.)
As a result, I can see how it would be simple to require treating hospitals to make arrangements for such care, but not provide it.
Re: "But what about the public funds?"
A couple of thoughts. (I am not Catholic, or even a practicing anything)
1. ER care is a money loser everywhere. period. The uninsured, illegals, etc. a money loser
2. Catholic "charity" hospitals are just that. Good works by the local church that are a net drain, like Catholic schools, but provided for the common good out of Christian charity
3. One can't be in the health care business without accepting government funds. They should turn away Medicare and Medicaid patients? Let the wailing begin now!!
4. Some people have religious scruples about various things. To the extent that the Catholic church provides supplemental care in the community, it serves a public good. I doubt that they are running hosptials with huge empty bed pools, or with expensive Cardiac care centers, but rather practicing main stream community care. what the community needs.
5. Like the recent case that forced the Catholic Adoption agency in Mass. to close over gay adoptions, attempts to legislate a set of morality into church affairs should be resisted.
6. Boxer is an idiot.
7. Whether I agree fully with Lieberman on this issue or not (and I do), I think he has a principled well thought out position that is defensible.
8. For the most part, Joe takes positions based on what he thinks is right, rather than how it Polls. And his sense of "right" is based on firm princples. We need more guys that politic that way, not fewer.
They are not talking about Mifeprex (RU-486). They are talking about Plan B, a high dose of hormones found in conventional birth control pills. Plan B has not been shown to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
I wonder what percentage of health care professionals in Catholic Hospitals are actually Catholic, or even more specifically, Catholics who strictly follow church teachings.
Ann, you mischaracterize the situation when you describe it as part of the right to an abortion. Emergency contraception is a form of birth control, not a form of abortion.
The Catholic Church, as we all know, opposes both birth control and abortion.
I agree that the language used by FDL is offensive. But let's not confuse the issue by bringing in the abortion debate. To the extent there's a debate, it's about groups (like the Catholic Church) that want to restrict access to birth control.
(As an aside, this is another example where the left shows it's lameness at framing. If we talked about "Emergency Birth Control" rather than "Emergency Contraception" the debate would be much different. That's true, even though contraception and birth control are synonymous.)
Amber,
My understanding was that catholics had an objection to interfering in the conception process which reaches contraception (Plan B) as well as abortion (RU-486). If that is the case, doesn't that make the difference you draw nugatory?
Just wondering: do you ever search for ugliness on the right? There's a huge amount of that, too. It is also ugly and detestable.
You could start with that other Ann.
Coulter is a joke. A 12 year old could refute most of her inflammatory arguments, so why should Althouse waste time on her blog?
FDL, I presume, is still taken seriously. That's why there's merit in this callout.
GJ: I did say "they want to follow their religion's teaching about contraception," but you're right that I kept mentioning abortion rights -- because that's the basis of the political interest groups FDL is referring to. Anyway, isn't it abortion to someone who believes life begins at conception? The egg is fertilized, so it's a human being with a soul to a Catholic, right? And the drug is designed to oust that soul from the body that would otherwise provide for it. Where is the line between contraception and abortion? The 'ception, it seems, is too late to "contra." Of course, many other forms of contraception come into question this way, something that many women may realize and feel quite bad after they've used a device that works this way.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Abortion supporters doing/saying something ugly?
No suprise there - they are supporting an ugly act to begin with.
There are a lot of interesting--and tough--issues here; I'll address one: The entanglement problem here seems to come not from any alleged public funds, but from the fact that when someone calls 911, a government service, they might end up at a hospital that follows the dictates of a particular religious institution.
Here is a more blatant hypothetical: imagine being in a car accident, then, bleeding profusely, being taken by the ambulance to a hospital run by Jehovah's Witnesses, where they refuse to give you a blood transfusion. Should they be forced to violate their religious beliefs in order to meet your needs?
"The egg is fertilized, so it's a human being with a soul to a Catholic, right? And the drug is designed to oust that soul from the body that would otherwise provide for it. Where is the line between contraception and abortion?"
But as I indicated in my reply to Amber, above, catholics oppose contraception as well as abortion.
To me, the line is fertilization. Anything thereafter is abortion, and because it is impossible to say with any precision where life begins other than that it is not before conception, contraception is acceptable (indeed, is to be strongly encouraged) while abortion is not. Thus, while I'm happy to talk compromise (something the pro "choice" lobby is desparate to avoid), it bears noting that even allowing abortion in the first trimester is a compromise. It may or may not be an acceptable compromise, but a compromise it is.
(Sorry if this wanders a little off-topic, I'm kind of involved in two similar discussions in this area right now).
I wanted to see if there was more context to Lieberman's comments, but the post FDL links to doesn't actually address it, and you eventually have to get behind a registration wall at the New haven Register to find it. But the Register article doesn't say if he was quoted at a public appearance, was being interviewed, or what.
FDL used some ugly rhetoric prior to settling on "Rape Gurney Joe." In this post, it says Lieberman's stance on this means he supports rapist rights. I wonder if Boxer was shocked, not so much that people at YK wanted Lieberman to lose, but that they were willing to use such ugly rhetoric about a colleague of hers.
This post has been removed by the author.
SC: Wow! I'm glad you're back!
I'm actually pretty thrilled about this.
I wish we'd get more blunt statements telling us exactly where the left stands on issues. Kos is right - before we have sweeping electoral victories, the left has to stand up and tell the nation exactly what it stands for. It has to strip away the niceities and phony polite rhetoric, and really fight and scrap. It has to show the country what it's made of before it earns big wins at the polls.
Of course the sweeping electoral victories big wins it earns will be for Republicans, but hey, you can't have everything, right?
I'm not a big fan of the swinish Republican party, but a vicious, utopian left seems to be storming the gates of the Democratic Party and rendering it ineffective both as an agent of neo-liberalism, and as an opposition party. The sooner the ranters are driven out of the center left, the sooner the Dems will have a chance to return to power. I don't find much to like in Dem policies, but somebody has to check the pork barreling Republicans.
in a recent poll 74% of Connecticut voters think that Catholic hospitals should have to provide this necessary treatment to rape victims or get out of the fucking emergency medical business.
Yeah, if a given medical procedure isn't widely-enough available, start closing hospitals.
That'll show 'em!
Buddy Larsen's right. This isn't about health care. This FDL mutant is simply driven frantic by the thought that somebody out there is permitted to disagree with her.
I wonder to what degree she wants the law to force people she identifies with to violate their most deeply held ethical convictions. I bet you she'd argue that her own views should be privileged over those of the "other".
SippicanCottage,
Maybe the bookstore had to cut back on feng shui books to make room for books of Constitutionally-protected "virtual" child pornography.
CB, that's a good analogy.
Contraception and abortion are legal. That is the position of our government, and if you want to call it coercion, so be it, but both are legal and should be available. The idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose what they will dispense, given a doctor's presecription, is ludicrous. Don't be a pharmacist if you feel the need to make judgments about what medicines people ingest.
Certainly, at least, if a hospital refuses to treat a rape patient fully, they ought to be required to arrange other treatment, and see to it that the patient is delivered hastily to a facility that will honor her rights. In fact, emergency vehicles ought to be instructed not to take rape patients to Catholic hospitals, and circumvent the problem altogether. I don't see the principled thougtfulness in "there's another hospital a short ride away," without Joe going into some detail as to how that short ride will be managed in the best interests of the crime victim.
cb, I'm referring to your analogy on blood transfusions.
CB: I disagree about the hypothetical. In fact, it would be impossible for such a hospital to receive accrediation and be permitted to operate.
Operating rooms without access to blood wouldn't be given a certifiate of need. Not providing certain services such as abortion is no the same as offering services but either not providing them or rendering poor quality.
This post has been removed by the author.
If Catholic hospitals "get out of the [beeping] emergency medical business" she would be in the same position as the hospital refusing the emergency contraception, i.e. that is looking for a different medical position.
Many continue to confuse their right to have something as somehow imposing on private entities an obligation to provide it to them.
The left wants to make all service facilities (shopping malls, hospitals, etc.) fundamentally "public", thereby imposing all sorts of obligations on the purely private owners of those institutions.
Elizabeth, you are fundamentally saying that all moral judgments regarding medications and health treatments must be made by the state, not the individual providers of such services (doctors, pharmacists). Is that really what you want? Is everything that is not prohibited thus mandated?
Suppose a pharmacist 5 years ago believed Vioxx to be harmful, despite its FDA approval. Is it your position that the pharmacist is REQUIRED to dispense it to any patient with a prescription, even if the pharmacist believes it will do harm? Must a doctor with the same misgivings about Vioxx prescribe it upon the patient's insistence, or may the doctor make his own judgment about the safety and effectiveness of the drug?
Elizabeth - I've never understood that logic - that pharmacists shouldn't be pharmacists if they won't do whatever you would like.
Would you teach a class on, say, Why Women Should Be Subjugated or Homosexuality is Depraved and Wrong? I'm sure you wouldn't. And you should have every right to stand down from teaching a class that absolutely goes against your beliefs.
I'm not grasping why you don't believe other professions should have the right to not violate their own ethics.
Elizabeth, abortion is legal. Why should any doctor be permitted to refuse it on the basis of conscience?
Similarly, there is a right to commit suicide with a physician's assistance in some places. Why should a doctor be permitted to refuse somebody's request to kill themself, if it is a legal right?
Likewise, a defense attorney performs a legal task too, in defending clients, the use of an attorney's services being another right guaranteed by the constitution. Why should any attorney be permitted to decline to represent a child raping mass murderer, or perhaps Ken Lay, or maybe Henry Kissinger when he is eventually brought to trial in Spain?
Thanks to Sippican Cottage for the stats on how many rape patients in Connecticut per year. I say this because I worked in a busy innercity ER for seven years and can scarcely remember it ever coming up.
Maybe rape as such would be first be defined in contact with law enforcement and their specialists, I don't know. We certainly saw and dealt with a fair number of children beaten or abused by their parents or women beaten by their husbands or trauma of every conceivable variety.
I just don't remember being presented with more than a very few rape victims as such. It was extremely rare.
(This was not, by the way, a hospital affiliated with any religion or church.)
When I watched (as a lifelong Democrat) the 2003 Democratic Presidential candidate debates, Lieberman was booed and hissed every single time it was his turn to speak, before he ever opened his mouth.
Was this because of Catholic hospitals and rape victims in Connecticut?
Nonsense.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I suspect if providing after-rape drugs to a crime victim were in any way profitable, the hospitals would not shy away from doing it. If (When?) a ground-breaking cardiac treatment arises from stem-cell work, will Catholic Hospitals refuse to use them because of their stand on human stem cells? How that evolves will be interesting to follow.
Pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and similar medicines have always struck me at best as similar to people who buy houses next to airports and then complain about the noise.
if they won't do whatever you would like. -- gee, Jennifer, I'm not asking them to spin on their heads and sing me a little song. I want them to fill prescriptions issued by doctors. What's so unfair about that? Why should people who've been to their physicians and received treatment then face the moral judgment of a pharmacist, and perhaps not receive the medical treatment they need? Your analogy is inane. And if I were hired by a Catholic university, I would indeed be subject to their ethics, and if I couldn't force myself to stick to the dogma, I'd have to quit.
You also confuse personal and professional ethics. The ethics of the profession is to fill prescriptions. If your personal ethics preclude filling some prescriptions, then there's a clash between your work and your beliefs. It's perfectly reasonable of states to require that pharmacies issue prescriptions. There is certainly room for allowing a particular pharmacist to pass the prescription over to a collegue, but I don't see why any patient should have to roam from store to store until he or she finds a pharmacist that doesn't morally object to the prescribed medical treatment.
Pogo,
What do you disagree with? Your comment seems to support my hypo. The state would say to the JWs, "you provide the care that we as a society have determined to be appropriate, even if it violates your religious beliefs, or we won't license you." Why could the same not be done to the Catholics? Though it's a much closer question, our society has determined that appropriate care of a rape victim includes giving her emergency contraception, just as appropriate care of a trauma victim includes blood transfusion.
Elizabeth,
I'm assuming your 11:01 post was to distinguish my blood transfusion analogy from my mention of virtual child pornography, but there is a comparison to be drawn there, too. Suppose you own a bookstore, and a customer orders a book of virtual child pornography. Though it is legal, and Constitutionally protected, it is repugnant to your morals, so you refuse to order it. Can the customer then demand that you not let your beliefs interfere with your job, or get out of the book business?
Al, pharmacies are a single-stop providor of medications. Doctors have specialties. If I went to an abortion clinic, I'd expect they had hired a doctor willing to do the procedure. I don't expect a "we'll dispences what we approve of" at a pharmacy.
If I'm appointed an attorney, and he doesn't want my case, the city or state appoints another one. I don't know enough about the process, but I expect the attorney has to make a case for why he's dropping out. A private attorney is a different issue, but again, it's not like you show up at an office with a prescription for legal help. It's not an apt analogy.
Elizabeth - I've never understood that logic - that pharmacists shouldn't be pharmacists if they won't do whatever you would like.
Pretty much, don’t be surprised when the argument turns to physicians and hospitals that refuse to perform non-therapeutic abortions. We’ve already heard calls from some pro-abortion zealots to try to force medical schools and students to train on the procedure even though many have decided to opt out.
cb, I just don't see the comparison between buying books, and needing an emergency procedure or medication. There's no compelling need for the book, and a competitor can provide it. Surely you don't mean to equate the situation of a woman who has been raped, or even who has had consensual sex, and requires emergency contraception with someone looking for a book.
thorley, if med schools don't teach the procedure, how will women receive safe, therapeutic abortions? Do we just say, too bad, you have a tubal pregnancy. Let's hope it doesn't rupture!
The thread got partisan real fast. As someone who knows all about ERs I was thinking it over and remembering rape kits and the counselors we would call... and BAM! elizabeth and jacques/quxxo are off on nasty tangents just like that.
How many straw men can you create within ten minutes? I guess that's a rhetorical skill of some sort. Because you're not exactly seeking to shed any light on the topic, are you?
Thorley (or someone else): Are the medical procedures for a therapeutic abortion substantially different from those of a non-therapeutic one? Can you really train for one and not the other?
Ignacio, what is a light bulb, really? I mean, if you have a lot of them, they aren't light at all. So your attack on me is completely off point. And what is bulbous? While a light bulb is bulbous in one respect, it's spherical if you look at it from another direction. So your arguments don't hold much water.
ignacio, pray tell, what "nasty tangent" did I raise, and how does my tone in any way compare with quoxo? I think you simply equate "nasty" with having something to say with which you disagree. Simpleminded, that. And nasty.
The abortion topic isn't what this thread is about, and it's obviously turning in that direction. No one here doesn't have a firm stand, and no one's going to change anyone else's mind. I'm interested in the question of whether Leibeman's response to the issue of emergency contraception is sufficient, or dismissive (I find his response dismissive) and how voters in CT might respond to him, versus how fellow senators are responding. I'm not as interested in whether people at firedoglake or any other blog use some bad words in their posts--that's become a tiresome, and boring, criticism.
The egg is fertilized, so it's a human being with a soul to a Catholic, right?
Plan B works by stopping ovulation.
That's why it is not 100% effective. That's why it needs to be taken very soon to be at it's most effective.
A very small proportion of eggs may be fertilized and not implant because of the changes to the uterus. If, however, this is a part of your religious beliefs, you should be concerned about the small, small chance of this happening with your birth control pills.
Plan B is the equivalent of taking several birth control pills.
That is why women can and do use their every day birth control pills as a substitute for Plan B.
FYI: If you are going to do this check with your doctor to make sure you are using the right type of birth control pills.
I don't think the "its a short ride" rhetoric is as ugly as you do. So, I think his position is moderate and will ultimately be accepted by the average Joe. UNLESS, the opposition manages to spin it into being anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-women. That's a likely problem for Lieberman.
Ultimately, I think average people understand that not all hospitals are equipped to provide all procedures. There is no backlash against that. Practically speaking, there is very little difference between being able to provide a procedure and choosing to provide a procedure.
So, the average person is not likely to feel that hospitals should be FORCED to provide all procedures that one set of the population define as a RIGHT.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Re: "the care that we as a society have determined to be appropriate"
"Legal" and "appropriate" are not equivalent terminology in Medicine. The long and short term health care problems arising from abortiofacients demand medical judgement.
"May" does not equal "must".
Re: "I find his response dismissive"
It's as dismissive as the name "Rape Gurney Joe", an epiuthet that doesn't suggest the desire for a well-reasoned discussion. Is anyone on the left or right able to discuss this without drawing lines in the sand? No, not while we live under Roe.
Re: "whether people at firedoglake or any other blog use some bad words in their posts--that's become a tiresome, and boring, criticism"
The inability to remain civil illustrates something not quite right about Lieberman's opposition, a fact I do not find tiring. And to hear it so stated repeatedly, well, like any bad behavior, ignoring it doesn't always lead to its extinction. Sometimes shame is appropriate.
Hey! A lesson in friendship from a stalker. Great.
I'm kind of disturbed that so many educated people are unaware that birth control pills can be used as emergency contraception.
And, of course, I recommend talking to your doctor.
But the following are the brand name birth control pills that are used for emergency contraception:
Plan B and other progestin-only ECPs can be taken in one dose or in two doses, 12 hours apart. Combined hormone ECPs must be taken in two doses, 12 hours apart. The sooner they are started, the better. ECPs reduce the risk of pregnancy by 75-89 percent when the first dose is taken within 72 hours. ECPs will not affect an existing pregnancy.
Pill Brand Manufacturer 1st Dose 2nd Dose (12 hrs later)
Progestin-only Pills
Ovrette® Wyeth-Ayerst 20 yellow pills 20 yellow pills
or 40 yellow pills in one dose
Plan B® Barr 1 white pill 1 white pill
or 2 white pills in one dose
Combination Hormone Pills
Alesse® Wyeth-Ayerst 5 pink pills 5 pink pills
Aviane® Duramed 5 orange pills 5 orange pills
Cryselle® Barr 4 white pills 4 white pills
Enpresse® Barr 4 orange pills 4 orange pills
Lessina® Barr 5 pink pills 5 pink pills
Levlen® Berlex 4 light orange pills 4 light orange pills
Levlite® Berlex 5 pink pills 5 pink pills
Levora® Watson 4 white pills 4 white pills
Lo/Ovral® Wyeth-Ayerst 4 white pills 4 white pills
LowOgestrel® Watson 4 white pills 4 white pills
LuteraTM Watson 5 white pills 5 white pills
Nordette® Wyeth-Ayerst 4 light orange pills 4 light orange pills
Ogestrel® Watson 2 white pills 2 white pills
Ovral® Wyeth-Ayerst 2 white pills 2 white pills
Portia® Barr 4 pink pills 4 pink pills
Seasonale® Barr 4 pink pills 4 pink pills
Tri-Levlen® Berlex 4 yellow pills 4 yellow pills
Triphasil® Wyeth-Ayerst 4 yellow pills 4 yellow pills
Trivora® Watson 4 pink pills 4 pink pills
With a regular 28-pill birth control pack, use any of the first 21 pills for emergency contraception. Don't use the last seven pills in a 28-day pack. They are only reminder pills that contain no hormones. With Enpresse, use only the orange ones. With Triphasil or Tri-Levlen, use only the yellow ones. With Trivora, use only the pink ones.
------------------
I'm really surprised that people draw such a strong line between birth control pills and Plan B -- when they do the same thing, in a medical sense to prevent pregnancy.
Number me confused about this thread.
The long and short term health care problems arising from abortiofacients demand medical judgement
So - are you talking about birth control pills here?
I assume you are medically concerned about birth control pills. Yes? Or are you talking about something else?
Gak. I don't understand this. Are you people confusing RU 486 with Plan B?
CB, What if you had a bad accident and were taken to a Christian Scientist reading room?
Elizabeth: "I'm not as interested in whether people at firedoglake or any other blog use some bad words in their posts--that's become a tiresome, and boring, criticism."
And that is a bogus criticism. I'm not objecting to "bad words," I'm highlighting over-the-top rhetoric and the display of anger and ugliness that is alienating to nonextremists. I'm talking about political style and political ideas not being prudish about language. The attempt to pin prudery on me is a rhetorical move of yours. You're "bored" with the criticisms? I think the criticisms hurt, and I intend to continue.
In my previous comment: should read different medical facility not medical position (I'm not even sure what that means).
Practically speaking, there is very little difference between being able to provide a procedure and choosing to provide a procedure.
It's a pill, not a procedure, so it's all about choice, practically speaking. I also think women are perfectly capable of deciding what they think of Leiberman's stance without blaming "spin" for the results.
geoduck, so long as you don't ask us to number you as fucking confused, I guess you're on safe ground.
I understand your distinction, Ann, and agree that in the main discourse, that moniker will turn people off. Your point about that was specific, and focused on how it affects the success of making an argument against Leiberman.
What I'm bored by is a longtime, continual theme among some commenters here who are self-righteous about the appearance of some curse words in some leftist blogs or their comments sections.
It's a pill, not a procedure, so it's all about choice, practically speaking. I also think women are perfectly capable of deciding what they think of Leiberman's stance without blaming "spin" for the results.
I should have used the term service. I was making a comparison between hospitals that aren't ABLE to provide a full spectrum of services and hospitals that CHOOSE not to. There is no difference on the receiving end WHY a hospital isn't providing a service that you want.
Are only women voting for Lieberman? I wasn't aware of that. Is your argument that political spin doesn't affect any voters? Or just doesn't affect women?
You might notice that the bulk of my response to your solicitation was how voters would react to his position on its merits. I only mentioned spin as a possible issue.
Elizabeth:
"Contraception and abortion are legal. That is the position of our government, and if you want to call it coercion, so be it, but both are legal and should be available. The idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose what they will dispense, given a doctor's presecription, is ludicrous."
I think your understanding of the term "legal" is a little tenuous. "Legal" simply means "permitted to be available", not "must be sold at every possible outlet." The upshot of your theory is that a private business can be coerced into selling products they don't want to sell. Pornography is legal - can I sue WalMart for not selling it? The Chicago Tribune is legal, but neither of the gas stations near my house sell it - why not? It's legal, it should be available. The idea that gas stations should be able to pick and choose which newspapers they want to sell is ludicrous.
Elizabeth, you have ignored my question about whether a pharmacist has an obligation to dispense Vioxx (back when it was legally on the market) based on his belief that Vioxx was, despite Merck-funded studies to the contrary, dangerous to the patient.
Do you believe that a doctor had an obligation to prescribe Vioxx to any patient in pain who wanted it, and do you then believe that a pharmacist had an absolute professional obligation to dispense the Vioxx prescribed, regardless of the pharmacists own beliefs about its safety and efficacy?
So how about kids who refuse to dissect animals in class? How about civil disobedience?
It's nice to hear that lefties now have, and (as of last month) always did have, an eternal, unvarying principle (until later this afternoon, when a different issue comes up) that everybody must always obey the rules, regardless of their personal ethical position.
Naturally, lots of other people have an equal amount of exactly complementary explaining to do.
Patrick, I didn't see your question, so thanks for repeating it. I don't see the standards of safety and personal morality as being equal. I don't think it likely that individual pharmacists would decide to fill or not fill Vioxx prescriptions, but that the corporations (Walgreens, etc.) would decide not to stock it and make that decision known. And if pharmacies are not stocking an unsafe drug, wouldn't that create a movement among doctors to not prescribe it, for the same reasons? What I oppose is the randomness of pharmacists deciding to not fill prescriptions for drugs because they disapprove of the behaviors, or imagined behaviors, that lead to someone coming to their counter with a prescription for the drug. Doctors prescribe drugs, pharmacies stock and dispense them. They're licensed to do this, they have professional ethics guiding them, and if their personal ethics conflict with the job, I think they should consider a change.
Maybe I am off-base here, but what strikes me as particularly interesting about this post, the later one about John Kerry's non-endorsement, and some of the criticisms of our esteemed hostess is how effectively a significant portion of the Democratic Party works to offend, attack, and even demonize centrist moderates (among whom I include our hostess). I do not believe Ann is a conservative (nor do I believe she regards herself as one). Her views are a mix -- the very essence of a centrist. Yet, here we have a discussion of abortion/the right to choice, an issue on which the left should be able to appeal to her. But they have not; in fact they do not even pretend to try. Philosophical purity has its place in politics, but in a two party system, the two major parties must be capable of making the compromises needed to form electoral majorities. The Republicans are no angels, but they do appear more capable of allowing dissent and civil discussion -- and therefore are likely to continue to be viewed as more capable of governing.
Annn I share your position on trying to keep the rhetoric civil, but I think for a lot on the more radical fringes, the language is the politics, and vice versa. Neo-marxists argue ad infinitum that the use of language in an out-of-bounds manner is a form of resistance to the capitalist patriarchy's hegemony, and furthermore (fill in excruciatingly boring left wing boilerplate touting bad manners as a tool to smash capitalism here).
The loudest calls in the fever swamp are for Dems who can fight, calling people "Rape Gurney Joe" or "Hitler" is apparently not enough fight for them. I suspect they'd really approve of somebody who could take a cane to Bill Frist's head on the Senate floor, which would put the Fighting Dem in the company of some other well known Fighting Dems. I suspect even then you'd still hear disappointment that the cane wasn't a baseball bat or a shotgun, but the grudging admission that "it's a good start." The language is the politics, or at least a good, clear expression of it. It's not rhetoric, it is what the speaker actuallly believes. Give him some credit for speaking truth to... someone.
Oh yes, P. Froward, and "righties" are all, always, consistent in their positions. Hmmm.
I simply can't imagine that the people who write such angry blather actually interact with human beings in this way. It seems to me that there are always people who are going to support, or oppose, someone no matter what tortured logic is required (the consistency is in the support) and people who are going to try to be consistent with their positions, and vary on individuals they support. (NOTE: the people who bring religion into politics are usually found here. It's hard to argue when someone says, "God told me")
Calling people who disagree with your positions a name is not the same as refuting them. Putting idiocy in their mouths and then refuting your own idiocy is right out of Rhetoric 101. Firedoglake did it, and Ann called them out. Now half the posters here are doing the same thing. Sheesh.
If a Doctor with a license from the state prescribes it, then it is the job and ethical duty of a pharmacist with a license from the state to distribute it.
No room for conscientious objection on moral grounds in your world, eh, Jacques?
Jennifer, good point. My position is that I think CT voters will make up their minds, and the spin will as usual be part of the noise of the election, not the substance.
p. froward, doesn't civil disobedience come with consequences?
Would you support a priest who decided to hell with this confessional confidentiality; I don't like what this guy just confessed to and I'm going to the cops, or his wife, or his employer, to rat him out? There are different standards that come with different callings.
The idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose what they will dispense, given a doctor's presecription, is ludicrous."
I agree.
And I think it is insensitive in the extreme to tell a rape victim that she must transfer to another hospital if she wishes emergency contraception. At the minimum the hospital should allow the nurse trained in how to collect rape evidence to dispense emergency contraception.
(Which by the way, is recommended to be over the counter by the FDA. And emergency contraception is over the counter in Washington State.)
I really wonder if all these people saying it is an "abortion" have ever used the birth control pill or had a significant other who has used the birth control pill that do the same work as emergency contraception. (The the many brand names on my earlier comment.)
You may need to think about the ideological consistency of your views.
geoduck--"Are you people confusing RU 486 with Plan B?"
Well, what is the Connecticut bill about? I'm not seeing news stories discussing this.
In any case, the Catholic scruple is against both contraception and abortion. I didn't mean to derail the discussion over the distinction of whether the medication produces an abortion.
Simon, I'm just not following the comparison of medical treatment to magazines. I don't need a newspaper to maintain my health, but I might require estrogen to control bleeding, or a contraceptive, on schedule, to prevent pregnancy. I think our health system would be out of control if we accepted a do-as-you-like approach, with no regulation and oversight, including making sure patients can fill the prescriptions needed to maintain their health.
Clearly, on Iraq and a small sub-sub-section of abortion, the left has taken certain non-negotiable positions. They are ready to expel their former VP candidate on those grounds.
Is the strategy to shore up that base, which is smaller than the whole of the Democratic party, which was not large enough to gain the Presidency, and expel the remainder?
Do they think that will be a winning local and national strategy?
I worry that there seems to be confusion about how the birth control pill and/or how the reproductive system works in co-ordination with the birth control pill.
Anything given that early has to be emergency contraception. (Plan B or several birth control pills.)
RU486 isn't given until about 6 weeks into the pregnancy.
(The active agent in Plan B operates in the same way as the birth control pill. In fact - Plan B is a concentracted birth control pill.)
What the hell is a "rape gurney," anyway?
Re: "I'm just not following the comparison of medical treatment to magazines."
The comparison is just meant to demonstrate that "may" does not equal "must" when granted a license to practice.
The downstream effect of changing that policy, to equate may with must, would be, in my view, deletirious. The actual number of people affected here is small, and there are other options than the single hospital to which one is brought.
But coercing such conformity would inevitably push some hospitals away from providing emergency services for everyone (usually the poor, who use ER services disproportionately).
One must be careful to avoid letting perfect be enemy of the good.
Re: "I worry that there seems to be confusion about "
Your problem is answered once you consider the issue of "intent".
Intent divides these acts in a way you eem not to be aware of..
I think it is insensitive in the extreme to tell a rape victim that she must transfer to another hospital if she wishes emergency contraception. At the minimum the hospital should allow the nurse trained in how to collect rape evidence to dispense emergency contraception.
Ann doesn't.
'Nuff said.
Sorry to get off topic - but I was worried that people didn't understand how the birth control pill worked.
On rhetoric:
The rhetoric from Firedoglake isn't geared towards a majority of the population. It's geared towards a small base of activists. And this particular rhetoric is red meat for the base.
You can see how the red meat to the base works on the right, also. For example, the Christian Coallition is an example of a activist organization that is fired up by particular issues.
(Or, for example, see conservative talk radio in the election of 1994 as an example of how throwing "red meat" to the base helps to organize and create more intensity in the upcomming election among a relatively small population when compared to the "moderate" population at large.)
The bases then operate within the political parties in a particular fashion. But their political "job" is not to be moderate. Their job is to activate and organize their base - who then work as the foot soldiers in volunteering for elections, donating money, ect.