Crazy Talk

There is one more day of public comment allowed on the federal regulation that allows medical and pharmaceutical personnel to not dispense family planning services on the grounds of religious objection. Not content to continue the neverending skirmish over abortion, this regulation specifically covers sterilization also, meaning you could find yourself arguing with a doctor or nurse over getting your tubes tied or clipped (that means you're affected too, guys!). Time was, only the Catholic hospitals did this sort of nonsense, making women get permission from their husbands for all sorts of procedures, but that just meant that determined people could avoid Catholic hospitals. Now getting fixed could be like running a maze, starting with your GP, and continuing through every level until you get to the OR. Then heaven help you if a nurse decides she can't be part of such a sin mid-way through your procedure, and the Keystone Kops have to run around looking for a less sanctimonious person.

The bitterly funny part about this is that the fundies have overlooked some things, and deliberately slipped others in without thinking of the wider consequences. First off, the reg has been written loosely enough that contraceptives can easily be included. Thus, your doctor or pharmacist can easily refuse to prescribe, dispense, or even inform you about the pill, IUDs, etc. The horrible part here is that some medical professionals believe that the pill is equivalent to abortion by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs, when as far as I can tell from reading about it, the pill prevents ovulation, so no conception can occur at all. Have they read something different, or do they not bother to research at all before taking their stand? Also, there are a number of maladies that are treated with daily hormone therapy, aka, the pill. First among these is endometriosis, which is terribly painful and incurable. Do the people pushing this idea not know about the non-contraceptive uses of contraceptives, or do they just not care? Since only women are affected directly, is our health being trashed for the sake of other people's religious notions?

Secondly, how long until the protection of religious conscience extends beyond family planning? I can imagine doctors refusing to give blood transfusions, alcohol based medicines and medicines or medical supplies derived from animal products or proven with animal testing. I'm sure there are many more plausible examples you can think of based on religious grounds or moral convictions.

Anyway, if you think this sort of protection ought to be extended to conscientious objectors in medicine, then do nothing, and Good Luck to you in future. If you think this is a terrible idea, let the feds know by submitting a comment: consciencecomment@hhs.gov

If this thing goes through, I'm going to propose regulation that allows me to avoid equations in my engineering work, because they just confuse the measurements I get direct from G-d.