politicizing women’s health, again

I really thought I was done writing about politics, at least until inauguration day. But news like this infuriates me, serving as a reminder that when it comes to women’s health and reproductive freedom, the personal is always political. 

I don’t care what anyone’s personal views on abortion are. As long as they are not imposed on others. Especially if you’re a medical professional. Those who work in the medical field pledge to uphold patient care as paramount (or support those who do). There is no room for personal or religious beliefs to interfere with that care. If you don’t believe in the care, find another area of work.

It may come as no surprise to many that the lame duck Bush administration — in a last ditch attempt to expand protection of health professionals who refuse medical treatment based on their personal beliefs — plans to issue a last minute rule to take effect later this month, just before a new administration takes office. 

The rule will further minimize the ability of women to secure safe abortions even when medically necessary to protect their health. But it doesn’t just protect the views of doctors and nurses (at facilities that receive federal funding). It applies to all health care employees including technical and administrative staff. It doesn’t just apply to procedures such as abortion, but even allows staff to withhold information about such procedures. Even where a procedure could save your life. 

What’s more, the rule’s interpretation can easily be expanded to apply to fertility treatments such as IUI, IVF, and birth control. Or treatment sought by singles, gay men and lesbians. And it will, no doubt. This past summer, a California appeals court ruled that doctors could not refuse fertility treatment based on their religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. But this new regulation would expand their “right of conscience” to do just that. 

While there are already laws in effect (from the 1970s, known as the “Church Amendments”) stating that no one can be compelled to perform procedures that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, the new rule will go far beyond what is already on the books.

Timing is critical of course. It’s no accident that the rule was snuck in just before the election and will take effect just before Bush leaves office. Of course this means instant controversy should Obama consider taking action, and unfortunately it may not even on his radar even if he were ready for such a fight. My fear is he is not. 

Recognizing this as an ethical issue that will compromise patient care, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) urges that a “patient’s well-being must be paramount” in such conflicts. Because these conflicts wrongly impose personal beliefs on patients and can adversely affect their health, are often based on “scientific misinformation” or “create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities,” ACOG has rightfully called for limits of “conscientious refusal” in reproductive medicine. As part of their primary duty to the patient, “All health care providers must provide accurate and unbiased information so that patients can make informed decisions.”

This raises so many issues for me. First and foremost, get the church out of my fucking doctor’s office. It just doesn’t belong there. Period. Second, out of my politics. Stop politicizing women’s health, family-building, and “moral values.” Third, stop calling yourself “pro-life.” No one is pro-death. No one cheers abortion. Yet it is a medical necessity for the health of certain women. Not “air quotes” health. A real fucking heartbreaking necessity. And it is a personal private right for women who should have the freedom to choose if, how, and when to build their family. 

This is not a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong. Reasonable minds can differ of course, and I will not have that debate here. This is about being able to hold those views as your own. (We are a pro-choice family seeking to adopt, after all.) Everyone is entitled to their own “rule of conscience.” But don’t pretend to fulfill your primary duty to the patient if your personal beliefs stand in the way. This is about the ability to seek and receive unbiased medical care with patient health as paramount. So get out of the way.

Perhaps hitting closest to home today is this very point. You know if those embryos sitting in frozen storage were capable of creating life in me, I’d be the last person in the world to destroy them. But they have not, and they are not likely to. So don’t even think of trying to tell me that they are precious life. Those cells don’t equal a child. 

Fuck (edited in the interest of civility) Screw you, W, and the stupid mule you rode in on. (Better?) I think you’ve done enough damage, don’t you? You can go now. Don’t let the door slam your ass on the way out. 

One more thing, how come “conscientious objectors” and veterans of military service aren’t afforded the same respect, rights and protection? Will someone please explain this to me, or perhaps to the politicians in Washington?

~ by luna on December 2, 2008.