Josh Hafenbrack of the Orlando Sentinel reports on a group called "Personhood Florida" that is seeking to change Florida's constitution to define "personhood" as beginning with conception - in this case, when the sperm meets the egg.
But wait! There's more!
The amendment seeks to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Also criminalized: the morning-after pill and oral contraceptives taken by women, known as the pill. "There are some (birth control) methods that kill a child," said Pat McEwan, who is leading the Personhood Florida group.
A few questions immediately spring to mind. Are the backers of "personhood" initiative in Montana associated with the "national anti-abortion" group driving Florida's? And do Rick Jore's people also believe that oral contraceptives would be banned if their initiative passes?
And lest you still doubt that the primary goal of these folks is to control sexuality, and not to protect the "unborn," consider the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, which would outlaw divorce in California.
I guess any woman in an abusive relationship can just go f*ck herself, right?
Reminds me of a comment I got in response to a post showing that the criminalization of abortion doesn't actually lead to fewer abortions, and suggested that, if the anti-abortion crowd really wanted to reduce abortions, they'd back things that work, like universal and affordable health care, subsidies of day care and higher education, and robust and realist sex ed. The response?
Do you really think that having a few less abortions happen is worth the increasing moral cesspool that we're tossing each new generation into? It's destroying souls (and society as a whole) to save a few bodies.
It's not about a "few bodies," stupid! It's about the morality!
Wulfgar, among others, have pointed out the strange argument made by conservative Mark Steyn recently:
Makes a lot of sense. If we have more STD prevention, it will be safer for loose women to go into bars and pick up feckless men, thus stimulating the critical beer and nuts and jukebox industries.
Obviously, this is a strange way to talk about sex -- women are sluts and men are blameless. But the stranger piece is the second sentence:
To do this, we need trillion-dollar deficits, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off, but, with sufficient investment in prevention measures, there won't be any children or grandchildren, so there's that problem solved.
The real problem is apparently not just that evil sluts are having sex -- it's that they're having sex, but not having kids. Note that the problem is not that they don't want to have kids, but that they're taking steps to avoid having them. A slightly preferable situation would apparently be loose women flocking bars and having unwanted children.
The modern conservative movement really is an odd beast.
Over at 4&20 blackbirds back in December, Rebecca wrote about a Broadus' pharmacist's decision not to dispense oral contraception because of religious preferences. A great debate ensued, and it seemed that those registering complaints with the Montana Board of Pharmacy had a good case. Gazette commenter "Liberty Girl":
First of all - John Lane does not own the pharmacy. He is an employee and the only pharmacist for miles. (And suggesting that the pharmacy owner fire him or hire additional staff ignores the reality of provider-shortages in our rural communities) Aside from that fact, the reality is that people across Montana should be concerned that a state-licensed pharmacist can deny services based on his personal beliefs. Pharmacists are critical to the delivery of healthcare in our rural state. Not having any sort of guidance or standards for that licensure means that patients, who have legal prescriptions, can be denied care because the pharmacist disagrees based on his personal religious beliefs. John Lane took an oath to be a pharmacist, not a priest. If he can no longer fulfill the obligations of his chosen profession - for all of his clients - then he should consider a new line of work.
Yesterday, however, Planned Parenthood seemed to have come up with a good compromise: allowing pharmacies to have non-pharmacists dispense pre-packaged contraceptives:
''Customers' access to services in-store, without discrimination or delay, is paramount,'' [Planned Parenthood spokesperson] Stacey Anderson said. ''In Montana, this accommodation may be achieved through a combination of rule-making and/or statute that expressly protects patients' ability to access care and, in the case of rural Montana where pharmacists are limited, allows non-pharmacists to dispense prepackaged birth control.''
Ron Klein, executive director of the Montana Board of Pharmacy, said allowing people who aren't pharmacists to give out birth control would first require action by the state Legislature.
There are two issues here. One, is that it's not advisable to legislate pharmacists to carry certain kinds of stock. That's unreasonable: what if they can't move the product? On the other hand, as Anderson said in the Helena IR piece, like hospitals and other health-care providers, "pharmacists should be regulated to not only protect patients, but also to guarantee nondiscriminatory practices and access..."
Planned Parenthood's suggestion seems eminently reasonable. The pharmacist can adhere to his religious beliefs and not personally dispense the product, yet the patient can still receive her prescription medicine.
Something like this may not be much of an issue in an urban area, where there are plenty of pharmacies to choose from, but in Montana a personal choice to deny women certain kinds of health care could potentially be a big problem.
So...now all that needs to happen is to get a bill throught the state legislature allowing non-pharmacists to be able to dispense contraceptives to patients with prescriptions...
On Mother's Day 2007, as I was enjoying my morning coffee and reading the local newspaper with my husband and kids, I noticed an ad that listed healthcare providers who oppose Roe vs. Wade. The ad read:
The sanctity of human life has always been one of our most cherished heritages. The family unit is the foundation of our society. The devotion and sacrifice of mothers over the years and the continual care and concern for their unborn has been the cornerstone of the family...As health-care professionals, we call upon the American people to once again reaffirm the right to life for future generations of the unborn and join with us in our efforts to restore respect, dignity and value to each human life - born or unborn.
Being staunchly pro-choice, I had a flash of irritation but I quickly turned the page and decided not to let the religious right ruin my Mother's Day. A couple weeks later, a co-worker informed me of a friend that had been denied basic healthcare at her locally-owned pharmacy, Snyder Drug. This pharmacy has decided to no longer carry birth control. When she approached the owner to find out why he informed her that he believes that birth control is dangerous for women. Say what?!! So, I also put on my investigative hat (borrowed from Shane Mason and made of tin-foil ). Lo and behold, the new owners of the pharmacy were listed on the anti-choice ad from Mother's Day. Now I think there are a lot of common sense arguments that can be made to counter this particular pharmacist's claims, but my gut reaction is to share a part of my family history. In this case and many others: the personal is political.
