Pro-choice bill in Wisconsin stalled
A Wisconsin bill that would require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors has been held up, despite overwhelming support from voters. Get the full story at BushvChoice.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pro-choice bill in Wisconsin stalled.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5446










Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Shorter Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch: "There's no protection for health care workers who don't care about rape victims and refuse to do their job! We can't just put the rights of rape victims over the rights of those who have crazy religious beliefs!"
If you are so insane that you refuse to help your patient, who has just been raped, you do not deserve your job. [Likewise, if you are a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication like EC, you shouldn't be a pharmacist.]
Emergency contraception is not abortion! The Capital Times story's headline gets it right: http://www.madison.com/tct/news/197177
We should not allow the media to conflate these issues.
I feel like all the hullabaloo about EC indicates it's not just conception that's sacred to the religious right, it's semen that's been ejaculated inside a woman. Which is still icky.
The pinheads are proudly defending the rapists' right to impregnate a victim.
So religious beliefs trump victim's right, women's rights, public health, and now also 82% of Wisconsin voters.
Are you guys certain that we actually live in a constitutional democracy?
"So religious beliefs trump victim's right, women's rights, public health, and now also 82% of Wisconsin voters.
Are you guys certain that we actually live in a constitutional democracy?"
This administration isn't known for giving a damn about the Constitution, unfortunately :(
If a Christian Scientist decided to go into medicine, I wonder if he'd have much luck arguing for withholding medical treatment.
That's what I've always wondered. When did religion become a suitable excuse for only doing a portion of your job? If there's a religion/job conflict, what business did that person have taking the job in the first place? The employee really needs to work it out for him/herself and not expect the company, and it's customers to adapt.
-Roni who will now be adding my URL to be distinguished from the other Roni that posts here. First time that's happened.
If a physician or other health care professional's excuse for not complying with her ethical obligations is "An invisible man in the sky told me to do it", either she is delusional or disingenuous in violating her oath. Either way, she shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.
I think that Elise wins.
I may be inviting the wrath of the collective here, but this doesn't seem (necessarily) outrageous to me. The quote "There's no protection for those who would not do this and who are exercising their constitutional right to not do this on religious and moral grounds," makes it seem like the objection is that this might be used on women without their consent, and therefore might violate their constitutional rights. I'm pro-choice not because I like abortion, but because I see no reason I should get to impose my views on others. In the same way, doctors should not impose against religious beliefs without consent.
In regards to the vast majority of voters supporting the legislation and attacks on our democratic premises, it seems to me that a major part of democracy is shielding the minority from the majority. After all, it wasn't too long ago that the majority of voters didn't believe women should vote.
(If the speaker misled me with his quote, I would totally agree that holding up the bill is counter-productive)
"The quote 'There's no protection for those who would not do this and who are exercising their constitutional right to not do this on religious and moral grounds,' makes it seem like the objection is that this might be used on women without their consent"
I got the impression that quote was about ER workers who don't want their workplaces to offer EC, not about rape survivors who don't want to take EC.
"The quote 'There's no protection for those who would not do this and who are exercising their constitutional right to not do this on religious and moral grounds,' makes it seem like the objection is that this might be used on women without their consent"
Could it also be that there are no safeguards for hospital staff who are opposed to it? Often, you can refuse to dispense it if there is someone else there who will do it for you.
There's a world of difference between the right to EC in a hospital and a right to have EC dispensed by the person who first treats you.