Bush Reminds Americans, "You Can't Trust Your Own Judgment!"

I was sent an email by Planned Parenthood recently that was extremely alarming to me, as a woman, and also as a nurse. Yet again, the Bush administration is meddling in morality. I wish this translated into taking a good, hard look into the depths of their souls and lamenting the lives lost to their ambitious, sadistic greed. That would be a storybook ending, now wouldn’t it?
No, I’m referring to the proposed Conscience rule currently in the 30 day period of discussion before being either put into law or discarded. According to an opinion piece in the New York Times by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards, if this rule became law, any hospital or health care provider accepting federal funds would have to “certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.”
Physicians have had the ability to refuse giving abortions since they became legal. Nurses, by law, must “provide, without discrimination, nursing services regardless of the age, disability, economic status, gender, national origin, race, religion, health problems, or sexual orientation of the client served” (Standards of Nursing Practice, Texas Administrative Code). But the Conscience rule doesn’t refer specifically to physicians and nurses, does it? It refers to all employees, possibly including – the receptionist that answers the phone, the tech manning an ultrasound, or the assistant that bills the insurance company.
While the rule directly targets abortion, sterilization, and contraceptive services, it indirectly goes further. “The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified ‘other medical procedures’ that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions,” write Clinton and Richards.
Let us now assume that you have never taken a risk, made a bad decision, or done something stupid. You have sex wearing a full body condom (since some STDs can be transmitted even while practicing safe sex), only with your spouse (it is impossible they would ever commit adultery), and everyone in your family and circle of friends adheres to the same procedures in their undoubtedly heterosexual relationships. When the receptionist refuses to schedule an appointment for AIDS testing, because her conscience doesn’t include the concept of communicable disease, you and your loved ones are unaffected. When a woman is raped and the hospital pharmacy technician refuses to ring up a prescription for the morning-after pill, she hopefully will be of no relation to you. When your daughter heads off to college and the physician’s assistant at the university health center has a moral objection to the birth control pill, I’m sure your daughter just won’t have sex. Sharp critical thinking skills are abundant in 18 year olds, don’t you agree?

Sexual orientation, reproductive rights, and premarital sex are all extremely personal choices. The decisions we make in these arenas have the ability to impact us on the longest of timelines. There is no black. There is no white. There are only the decisions we make for ourselves. Imagine these options being removed from you. The Bush administration, in an act of blatant condescension, has decided you’re not fit to make certain decisions about your life and your body. You may own it and operate it, but they know better.

Consolidation of Power?

John Dean’s article, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Incredible and Deadly Lie, is interesting and informative because it exposes the vulnerability of modern day separation of powers. The author suggests that checks and balances instilled by the creators of our republic can only function if elected representatives respect and nurture “the law of the land” that is our Constitution. After examining a possible breakdown in the way information was distributed between the branches before the war in Iraq, Dean gives a brief historical recount of why the Framers came to choose a republic over other forms of government. He then goes on to site the Harvard Law Journal’s article, “Separation of Parties, Not Powers,” that argues “Madison’s vision of separation of powers has, in fact, been trumped in America by political parties.” This article is a good read for lovers of the Constitution and/or haters of Cheney.