About BO's Veto of the Emergency Contraception Bill

[CO Liberal]

They said on the news this morning that Owens vetoed that bill rewuiring hospitals to inform rape victims of emergenty contraception on religious grounds - that it would be unfair to Catholic hospitals.

Does that make his veto unconstitutional????

:shrug:

[Warpy]

1. Yes, but the constitution is now toilet paper

and rape victims must be forced to bear an unwanted brat just so some Catholic won't get his religious feathers ruffled.

Asshole.

[CO Liberal]

2. Is There Grounds To Nullify His Veto???

And make the bill become law without his signature, seeing as it was approved by both houses of the Legislature???

[HockeyMom]

3. Town where I live

A non sectarian hospital was taken over by the catholic church. The people in our town tried to fight it knowing full well the church's stance on birth control, abortion and sterilization. One of the major issues was over the treatment of rape victims and the catholic church's ban on giving information about the Morning After Pill. We lost. So now when a woman is raped, the police will take her to a hospital 10 miles away to avoid this catholic hospital and their treatment of rape victims. I am told they do it routinely. Horrible that they have to do this, but nice to know that there are still people around who care.

[MissMarple]

4. Hmmm...he said religious grounds? Not because of free speech?

Good question. But one also has to wonder about acceptable standards of care. Does religious belief trump the standard medical level of care in every single case? This also would seem to protect pharmacies from dispensing birth control pills and condoms even if they are used for reasons other than birth control.

On a slightly different note: If a woman comes in still "pregnant" with a dead fetus that hasn't naturally aborted....do you wait for nature to take it's course or provide the medical alternative? Is the religious belief to define the level of medical care? I do believe this happens. I am not making this up. Sincerely pious Catholic physicians don't do abortions, whether it's a twelve year old girl possibly becoming pregnant from incest or a woman with a failing pregnancy. It can be the same to them.

This whole thing reminds me of the scene in Legally Blond when Reese Witherspoon questions the sincerity of the man who had a one night stand and later becomes interested in the resulting pregnancy. She asks if the future of all sperm is of such crucial importance are masturbatory emissions considered reckless abandonment? (Or something like that.) Could things reach that level of oversight? When idealism goes wingnut, it might be possible.