this week the oklahoma legislature overrode governor brad henry's veto of two abortion measures, which means the measures took immediate effect.
one of the bills requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion. the other measure prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy.
this isn't going to be a blog about the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. i've thought long and hard about that issue, and since there's no chapter on gestational age and the soul in the bible, i went straight to the source and asked god when the soul enters a fetus. he in his infinite wisdom replied, "[silence]."
now i could be wrong, but unless stephen hawking has created some magical telephone to the afterlife available only to the pope and planned parenthood and the oklahoma legislature, then i'm pretty sure that everyone has received the same response from the almighty: nada. so i'm not interested in discussing the right or wrong of it with anyone who doesn't have irrefutable proof, and until then, i'm not taking part in the abortion debate--and frankly, i don't think anyone else should be debating it, either, except between themselves and god. who won't answer, by the way. frustrating, no?
but back to these bills. what i find interesting--and i don't like to generalize about the right or the left because i myself am all over the place--but what i find interesting is that the same people who are vehemently protesting obama's "death panels" regarding physician guidance on end-of-life discussions are the same ones who are supporting the oklahoma legislature's required physician guidance on end-of-pregnancy discussions.
now, wait. what? you can't have it both ways. either the government is in the exam room, or they aren't. you can't pick and choose to suit your cause.
i'm appalled that the legislature thinks it's okay to dictate how doctors communicate with their clients. these requirements that doctors engage abortion patients in lengthy conversations about the fetus so that women can be "informed" about their choice to end a pregnancy: where is the requirement that doctors engage pregnancy patients in lengthy conversations about the cost of raising a child to adulthood, and carbon footprints, so that a woman can be "informed" about their choice to carry a pregnancy to term? the whole concept is woefully imbalanced. women can inform themselves just fine.
i mean, what's next?
before we can perform your hysterectomy to save you from potentially fatal cancer we are required by law to count how many viable eggs you are going to be throwing away as medical waste, and we have to show it to you on an ultrasound and read you this script drafted by your state legislature.
before we can perform your masectomy to we are required by law to show you a film about why it's best to breastfeed your baby so that you are fully aware of all potential drawbacks to this procedure recommended by your oncologist.
does the legislature think we're all idiots??
and i think it's even more abhorrent that this legislation allows doctors to outright lie to their patients about the condition of their pregnancy if the physician thinks that the information might cause a woman to seek an abortion. are you insane, oklahoma legislature??? i can't even communicate how repugnant this premise is. that's barbaric.
the bottom line for me: the government shouldn't be placing ANY requirements on how doctors talk to their patients - about life, death, or anything in between. and it shouldn't protect doctors from lying or misleading patients about real medical issues. these things should be left to the oklahoma and american medical associations who have actual medical knowledge--not just a bunch of morally ambiguous suits up at the capitol lunching on smoked salmon and making judgments about the decision-making abilities of intelligent adults they've never met.
i hope all of you understand how important it is that this legislation be overturned - and it will, it's blatantly unconstitutional. this has nothing to do with whether or not abortions are immoral or criminal, and everything to do with interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. the implications of this legislation are far-reaching: i'm not planning to seek an abortion, but i am planning to have another baby at some point, and this legislation allows my doctor to arbitrarily withhold crucial information from me about my pregnancy and the health of my unborn child.
EVERYONE should be frightened by this.
3 comments:
amen.
it was interesting to see two view points on fb: yours (and the comments) and a friend of mine who is a priest from the northeast (and the comments). your comments were much much more accusatory (?). open-mindedness is a much desired thing.
* and by you, i mean the comments. not you. :)
1. Well, actually God does have something to say about the baby in the womb. Psalms 139:13-16 gives much comfort in letting us know that God has provided protection and love for us from our first second of development -even when He "knit us together in our mother's womb - His eyes saw my unformed body." If God loved me that much, I'm sure He would want me to protect the next baby in line.
2. I agree with some of your points tho- I do not want the govt in my examining room - ever. No matter what the discussion is about.
3. Smoked salmon...I'm thinking they eat tons of bologna!
Fortunately God also gives us all free-will, and though He did "knit us together," he does not call for law to dictate His work based on the theological interpretations of the English translations, much less a single translation. David, the Psalmist, also prayed for harm to come to his enemies children (109) and laments of God's supposed abandonment. If we are to take the song of David literally, as is suggested with Psalm 139, then we cannot call any of the others poetry or song either. This opens a dangerous theological path and discussion. Using this, we could just as easily use Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 and Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 to justify abortion and euthanasia based on quality of life; Or Job when he talks of the grace of death as an infant (Job 3:2-4,11-19,10:18-19). One could certainly make the argument to justify abortion based on quality of life.
As a Christian, I believe that the Bible does not support or oppose abortion. Even a miscarriage due to being struck by a man is treated as a civil issue (Exodus 21:22-25 ) by the Bible, and I sincerely doubt that anyone in this country would take that verse literally (eye for an eye anyone?). Oh, wait! In Oklahoma and several other states, we do! Right? You kill my sister, you are subject to the death penalty. However, if a baby is lost, it is not even considered a person. It's a civil issue. (I'll ignore that the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring".)
All of that being said, I think the law places an undue burden on those who can least afford it, and I also believe the laws to be unconstitutional. It encourages patient and doctor to lie to one another or withhold information, which threatens the health of everyone involved and further increases the distrust between patient and doctor.
Post a Comment