Discussions Across the Table

The Daily Show hosted Mike Huckabee last night. Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee had a very lively discussion about reproductive rights. While only the shortened version was shown on television, the full version shown on TheDailyShow.com is very much worth watching. The full interview is a very good representation of the main issues presented by both sides, how they can be presented intelligently, and gives a good example of a lively but polite and open engagement of ideas by people who hold different opinions on hot button issues. I really had a lot of respect for Mike Huckabee during this interview.

There were instances where I disagreed with his opinions, but he was also very respectful of the pro-choice side while sticking to his own thoughts and ideals, and he considered many of the options that were presented to him with grace. I think it is evident, though I will state it, that I have always had respect for Jon Stewart and the way he conducts himself in interviews. At any rate, I leave the links to the videos for any who wish to watch it. I look forward to any who wish to leave their own thoughts and criticisms.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Exclusive Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Exclusive Interview Pt. 3
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

War on Drugs

In the continuing wacky adventures of The Decider before he graciously steps down, MSN has decided to cover Bush's proposal of a bill that would "protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion".

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

This reminds me of a story that ran in USA today last August (coincidentally enough) about a lesbian couple who had been denied access to artificial insemination because the doctor objected on moral grounds. They sued, not because the doctor rejected the mother-to-be, but because he refused refer them to a hospital where the procedure could be carried out. The article also quoted single mothers who had faced a similar challenge.

As a Christian, I can understand that there are a lot of moral conflicts that could meet any person in any work environment, and for that reason, these proposed regulations could have their pros. However, I fear this:

The regulation would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."
Critics argue that the broad definitions of abortion and the types of workers who could object would cover everyone from the top doctor at a hospital to the janitor.

And this:

The regulation could trump dozens of state laws that require health plans to cover birth control, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and hospitals to offer emergency contraception to women who have been raped, critics said.

"You could imagine a group of people with less than honorable intentions seeking to get hired at a family planning clinic with the specific objective of obstructing access. Under this regulation, there is little you could do about it," said Jill Morrison of the National Women's Law Center.

Most importantly, this:

Others said the rule could have additional implications, including justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking health care.
"As soon as you have a definition in one part of federal law, it can become the inspiration for the reinterpretation of other statutes," said R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Because of this:

The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.

Here's where I try to make suggestions, knowing that drafting a bill that doesn't infringe on some person's rights is problematic at best, and that this particular government has been trying for ages to negate the rulings of Roe vs. Wade without thinking about the implications to women's health (see previous post on John McCain's view on current issues).

I'd like to say that if you work in a public institution, you should know that your duty is to serve the people in the best manner possible, and if you cannot provide a service, you should refer that person to someone who can. But I know that some people probably wish to get out of the public heath care system and into a private institution.

All I can say is that restrictions on contraception, abortion, and other things that apply to planned parenting should be limited to private institutions, who can make up their own rules and owe nothing to the public or the government. Governmental institutions should serve the people.

Though military workers may disagree with the war that is currently being fought, it is generally considered their duty to follow orders as long as those orders are lawful. Lawyers are expected to make inquiries into the guilt or innocence of their clients so that no guilty men or women are set free, and no innocents detained, and they are expected to do their best to uphold the law despite personal feelings. Medical workers are expected to uphold their duties, which is to help people solve their health concerns. This does not mean they always have to go against their beliefs, but if they work in a public location they should at least be required to give the people a resource for what they choose to do. The path to contraception should not be closed off for any one party's interest. That doesn't mean that consideration for each party's feelings can't be considered in full.

Let's Do the Timewarp Again

McCain's campaign has recently released videos accusing the media of being in love with Obama, and with good reason. Very rarely in this tempestuous season have the issues that McCain stands for or against been addressed -- even in his own speeches. Often in the CNN televised speeches given by McCain, he spends at least half of his time talking about his opponent's weaknesses...and not about what he believes or will do. I believe that McCain plans to win on a scare tactic: "Obama will bring more taxes, will not solve the economic crisis, and will continue our dependence on foreign oil".

Georgia Women Vote made the comment that McCain's website even is Obama central.

So to remind myself what McCain stands for, besides back lashing, I went to his campaign website and took a look.

One of the first things that caught my eye was his plan to repeal the decisions of Roe vs. Wade and return verdict to state level. His ultimate goal in abolishing abortion is outlined, containing quips like "the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby". The way he phrases it, it makes it sound as though society has forced these women to abort their pregnancies. One of his first tactics is to relieve individuals of responsibility and make it a philosophical fight rather than what it would be if abortion were made illegal again: a medical one.

His next issue outlined is adoption. While adoption is fantastic, I love the subtle hint to abortion, yet again, in his plan to " promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy". The next time I meet someone who plans on having an abortion, I'm going to encourage them to call it a "crisis pregnancy".

McCain seems to encourage a time warp of sorts -- back into the time when contraception was illegal, when abortion was punishable by law, and when women had to go to back alleys or endanger themselves with coat hangers. By repealing Roe vs. Wade, we put an entire generation of work in danger, and we put ourselves in danger. We are already in the middle of a food shortage globally. We cannot afford another age of baby boomers. We cannot afford to continue on our path of abstinence only education. We cannot afford an age where condoms are not available, and STDs spread more quickly because people do not know how to protect themselves.

I encourage voter's to go to each candidates website, especially the three leading: Bob Barr, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Only by understanding the issues from each candidates perspective can we vote intelligently and bring ourselves forward, rather than backtracking into the past, or (what could be considered worse) continuing on the fruitless path we're on. Everyone needs to vote in November. Rights are endanger, and policies that are negative to the health of our country are being proposed.

Baby Killers and the Guilt Complex

That dirty F-word: Feminism

The above denotes a column I found in passing recently. It belongs to the West Georgian, a newspaper belonging to the University of West Georgia, and I am highly impressed with the intelligence and quality of this column. The author is well-versed in the subject, and has been able to intelligently defend her stance in spite of some negative feedback in the comments. So, in homage to the article, I've decided to express my views on the matter. Anyone who would like to point out places where my thoughts may be unsound, or I lack some sort of education on the matter, please feel free to comment. I'll respond in a timely manner.

Abortion: it's probably one of the touchiest issues in American culture right now. I won't speak for the rest of the world. It's definitely up there with homosexuality, the death penalty, immigration, the war in Iraq, terrorism, and racism. There is a lot of room for intolerance as far as debate goes.

As for me, I'm Pro-Life. Not just because I'm Christian, and therefore "have to be", but because I know that I personally could never go through with an abortion without feeling guilty for the rest of my life. I would be plagued with imagining what the child would have been like, and what it could have done for the world. Even if I didn't want a child, I would know that there are many families that want children very badly but cannot conceive, and my baby could have brought them happiness. That, too, would drive me deeper into guilt.

I believe that life begins at conception, because science tells us that cells are alive. That cell becomes what we are - human beings, living, breathing, thinking. Only God knows when the soul is implanted, and when thoughts begin.
But my beliefs effect only my decisions. I can share my beliefs with people, but I should not be given the power to prevent them from making their own decision. If abortion was made illegal, then people would still have abortions. People will always have abortions. They would just have the abortions in unsafe ways. Then these women would die, along with their unborn babies, and we would lose two lives, instead of one. There are radical pro-life groups out there that take protesting to the extreme, and make the women who have abortions out to be complete monsters. Sex hungry whores. Baby killers.

I had a friend once who was opposed to using contraception because she didn't like the feel of condoms while having sex. She was impregnated several times, and each time, though I begged her to go to an abortion clinic if she insisted on getting rid of the baby, she preformed the abortion herself by pressing hard on her stomach. This is dangerous -- if it didn't work, it could have injured the baby severely, made her sterile, or made delivery very difficult. In doing this (several times) she could have injured herself to the point where she would be unable to have children in the future, if she chose to.

The reason that she chose not to go to a clinic was that she was afraid that she would be harrassed by others, kicked out of my high school (which does not allow any girl to attend who is or has ever been pregnant), and shunned by her family. She didn't want to have children, and she couldn't consider carrying the baby for adoption purposes because that would alert others to her pregnancy. So she took matters into her own hands.

The point of the above story: people shouldn't be made to feel guilty about the choices that they make by people who don't understand their situation. Trust me: no matter what, you have no right to judge. If you don't believe, read the Bible. God agrees with me.

If you really don't like the fact that someone you know is getting an abortion, you can talk to them and try to understand why they want to get an abortion and whether it is possible to change their mind. But in the end, it's their choice, not yours, and taking away that choice would be a violation of freewill. It's constitutionally protected. Look it up.

And if you really want to decrease the number of abortions, then swallow the fact that people are going to have sex. As this is the case, education on sex, and tools that can help prevent pregnancy and STDs would really be the best way to go. There is no double standard for sex, and a woman is not going to turn into a whore if she decides to have sex.

True, abstinence is the only course that guarentees being pregnancy and STD free, but that is a post for another time.