Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
"protecting people's first ammendment rights is worth a 30 min ambulence ride...heck even an hour."This post sounds misinformed anguille.
You are taking the ammendment to the bill he passed way out of context.
The ammendment he was trying to get added in, unsucessfully, was to allow Catholic Hospitals to deny abortion requests. The bill stated that if a rape victim came into a catholic hospital and requested the morning after pill/abortion then the HOSPITAL would have to pay to transport the patient to another facility where a doctor could do it without violating their religious faith and freedom.
This bill both protected the first ammendment religious freedom of catholic hospitals and protected the rights of a woman who requests an abortion. It put the expense on the hospital for transportation to a facility that could provide the medicine/procedure without violating an individual doctors religious freedom.
Knowing is half the battle .
Sorry i kinda said it 2 times
It throws another roadblock up in front of a rape victim who needs medical care and timely acess to the 48 hour pill. If a Catholic or any other person finds it impossible to reconcile their religious beliefs with the doctor's oath to do no harm and with the responsibility of a medical person to provide the best care possible for a patient, then that person should find themselves another profession. Rape victims come to hopitals for medical care. they have just been raped. They do not come to hospitals to see their own religious beliefs overridden by someone who happens to be an a more powerful position that they are. They have already been raped. They don't need to be raped again in another sense.
To abuse a position of power inorder to deny a rape victim access to the 48 hour pill is unconscionable and inhumane. Any medical person who does that should be stripped of their license to practice medicine. Anyone who can't respect the religious beliefs of their future patients should be disqualified from seeking to be a nurse or a doctor.
In the state this legislation was proposed in the farthest drive to a hospital from anywhere is 30 minutes. I think protecting people's first ammendment rights is worth a 30 min ambulence ride...heck even an hour.
Some would argue that an abortion is a direct violation of said oath as it "murders" the unborn baby.
They would still get all the other treatments but would have to go elsewhere for the pill, at the expense of the hospital not the patient. Calling the protecting of a doctors first ammendment rights rape is at best disingeneous.
It appears you don't believe in the very principle our country was founded on, religious freedom and the freedom to practice your religion without persecution for it.
I feel you are being very unreasonable with your position. That is my opinion of our back and forth here.
As a potential rape victim I DO NOT think I will want to put my urgent medical needs aside to fulfill the perverse desire of someone who is not experiencing a medical emergency to impose their queer religious ideas on me and put my health at further risk. Nor do I think I should be obliged to.
I feel that your's and Mr Brown's opinion that I should do so highly unreasonable. You forget that rape victims have religious rights too. Don't diminish them just because they are a victim of a rapist.
Let me ask you, PP, should you come to the emergency room bleeding and in need of a transfusion, would you agree to travel an hour to another hospital should the doctors in the first hospital explain to you that as Jehovah's Witnesses they don't think a blood tramfusion would be what God wanted for you?