women in warthogs

Right before I went to bed last night, I read this NYTimes.com article: "Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill." It describes some sneaky politics - limits on women's reproductive rights attached to a giant spending bill. An economic policy footnote with specific social consquences; hoping to promote a change in US abortion policy without debate.

I was somewhat cheered, glumly cheered, reading my state Senator's response:

The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.

"I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."

If you look at the skewed gender balance of the US Senate (86% men) then it makes sense that women's health issues would not receieve due process. And it seems appropriate that one of the fourteen female Senators would feel charged to put herself between this proposal and the law.

I went to bed shortly after reading about this, and I had a dream: dozens of women climbing into the Warthogs from Halo 2, riding through the streets, weilding giant alien plasma cannons. It was a brief image, but it seemed like a suitable direct response to these politics.

Comments

[Giao]

That's sort of interesting because it's a fairly one sided argument isn't it? By that I mean women proclaim the issue is choice. Women who want abortions are making a choice; they should be free to make such a choice. The provision in the spending bill would allow medical providers who chose not to perform the operation to ... well, not provide the operation. You know they have a choice too. Or do you think that women should have a choice and we should all go along because they're the only ones who should be allowed to make a choice?

Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection" to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

I'm thoroughly pro-choice. I support women's choice over their body. I support doctors' choice in the operations they are willing to provide.

[Brummbar]

[b]If you look at the skewed gender balance of the US Senate (86% men) then it makes sense that women's health issues would not receieve due process.[/b]

Attaching clauses and riders that have little or nothing to do with the main bill is pretty much S.O.P. in Congress - for example, adding a gun control law to a federal highway funding bill. This sort of thing IS due process; it's how the system works.

[b]And it seems appropriate that one of the fourteen female Senators would feel charged to put herself between this proposal and the law.[/b]

Yes, especially when the Senator in question is a partisan liberal Democrat like Boxer.

I would, however, like to know how this is "taking rights away from women," as Boxer warns, when as Giao pointed out above all this actually does is allow medical professionals to make a choice based on THEIR rights re freedom of conscience.

Unless, that is, Boxer is one of those who defines "taking rights away from women" as any impediment whatsoever to the 24/7, no-questions-asked availability of abortions. I wonder...

[jdiaz]

hrm...Conscience protection is less great than some of you might think. Doctors have to treat any patient they come across, even if they believe that the patient is undeserving of life, or the treatment needed. Medical professionals do *NOT* get a choice when choosing whom to treat. With regards to what operations they can/will perform, it's more complicated, but I think the usual rule is that if the operation is in their field, more safe than the alternatives and is a medical (as opposed to cosmetic) issue, then they're expected to perform it.

Using the "S.O.P." here is especially lame, considering how potentially explosive this issue is socially and politically, and how localized the effects of this would be. While it'd be nice to have facilities where these procedures aren't done for those medical practitioners who don't consider abortion ethical, our medical infrastructure is so thin and weak in this country already that i fear this would only force some women into pre-Roe v. Wade decisions, and a return to that state shouldn't be anybody's goal.

Incidentally, I find the new warthogs a little slow and difficult to manuever. Although i don't think a army of women in banshees would have the same presence. Balance issue?

[plumage]

"a change in US abortion policy without debate."

hmm, that sounds suspiciously like what roe v. wade was.

[Giao]

This is not a case of doctors refusing treatment but refusing to be trained in a procedure. Please re-read the portion I quoted again. It's the part that says doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training.

They're not refusing anyone treatment. But if women want doctors untrained in abortion procedures to perform on them, they can line up if they want. They have a choice afterall.

This is handy for doctors who are, for example, Catholic residing in states that have certifications that would require them to be trained in abortion procedures to practice.

[Brummbar]

Jdiaz,

Good point about the limits of "conscience protection," but I don't think we're talking about medical emergencies here. Even the pro-choicers admit that the vast majority of abortions are elective and have nothing to do with any danger to the mother's life.

In my town, a local doctor caused a stir last year when she refused to perform some plastic surgery on someone whom she felt didn't need it and was motivated by pure vanity as opposed to medical need...

[jdiaz]

Plumage, I'd say being presented to the Supreme Court constitutes at least some debate.

Giao, you seem to admit yourself it's a de facto limitation on the procedure's availability. And i'm not sure about certifications for doctors- would anyone other than an ER or OB/GYN be required to be trained in the procedure in order to practice? I'm only an EMT, but you dang well may have a good point there.

and Brummbar, i think my point was just that if access is reduced (especially in particular communities over others), it could lead to a rise in backalley abortions, which is more or less a travesty and an emergency in itself. argh. reminds me of harm reduction vs zero tolerance debates.

[jdiaz]

Plumage, I'd say being presented to the Supreme Court constitutes at least some debate.

Giao, you seem to admit yourself it's a de facto limitation on the procedure's availability. And i'm not sure about certifications for doctors- would anyone other than an ER or OB/GYN be required to be trained in the procedure in order to practice? I'm only an EMT, but you dang well may have a good point there.

and Brummbar, i think my point was just that if access is reduced (especially in particular communities over others), it could lead to a rise in backalley abortions, which is more or less a travesty and an emergency in itself. argh. reminds me of harm reduction vs zero tolerance debates.