Here's what "Anti-Choice Paradise" looks like. Read it and weep.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

There are a couple of anti-choice extremists on DU who actually WANT this. I want to read your opinion. I'm not nuclear-blocking anyone. Show yourselves.

http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/10/abortion_in_el_.html

Here's some gems from the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?ex=1169269200&en=adabd14407cb1deb&ei=5070) the blog post above links to. Mods: it's a nine page long article. These excerpts are a minuscule part of it all. I fully recommend everybody read the full article. Use bugmenot.com if you don't want to make the free registration.

(...) And this was why I had come to El Salvador: Abortion is a serious felony here for everyone involved, including the woman who has the abortion. Some young women are now serving prison sentences, a few as long as 30 years. (...)

In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal. Like the woman I was waiting to meet. (...)

The pope's (JP II) appointment of (arcbishop of San Salvador) Lacalle 11 years ago brought to the Archdiocese of San Salvador a different kind of religious leader. Lacalle, an outspoken member of the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei, redirected the country's church politics. Lacalle's predecessors were just as firmly opposed to abortion as he was. What he brought to the country's anti-abortion movement was a new determination to turn that opposition into state legislation and a belief that the church should play a public role in the process. In 1997, conservative legislators in the Assembly introduced a bill that would ban abortion in all circumstances. The archbishop campaigned actively for its passage. (...)

(...) The proposal to ban all abortions passed the Assembly in 1997 and became the law of the country in April 1998. "But that was not enough," de Cardenal later wrote in an article recounting the victory. In 1997, her foundation also proposed a constitutional amendment that would recognize the government's duty to protect life from the time of conception. (...)

"I believe the woman is a victim," de Cardenal told me. "The criminals are the people who perform the abortions." When pressed about the fact that the law she helped pass does treat the woman as a criminal, she said: "Yes, it's part of the law of our country. Because the woman has murdered her baby — and that's why she is sent to jail. But I believe that the woman who is sent to jail remains a victim of the abortion doctor, the abortionist, who knows exactly what he is doing." (...)

"Many doctors are afraid not to report," says Mira, the obstetrician I spoke to. This fear is heightened for doctors, she explains, by the fact that nurses also have a legal duty to report abortion crimes but are often confused about their obligation of confidentiality. So doctors are afraid that the nurses will report them for not reporting. "The entire system is run on fear," Mira said. (...)

One morning, I got permission to hang out all day at Hospital Nacional de Maternidad, a large public hospital in San Salvador, and talk with doctors there. Somehow the Salvadoran government learned of my visit, and the federal Ministry of Health dispatched an "escort" to accompany me the entire day. (..)

According to Sara Valdés, the director of the Hospital de Maternidad, women coming to her hospital with ectopic pregnancies cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube. "That is our policy," Valdés told me. She was plainly in torment about the subject. "That is the law," she said. "The D.A.'s office told us that this was the law." Valdés estimated that her hospital treated more than a hundred ectopic pregnancies each year. She described the hospital's practice. "Once we determine that they have an ectopic pregnancy, we make sure they stay in the hospital," she said. The women are sent to the dispensary, where they receive a daily ultrasound to check the fetus. "If it's dead, we can operate," she said. "Before that, we can't." If there is a persistent fetal heartbeat, then they have to wait for the fallopian tube to rupture. (...)

[Stuckinthebush]

1. Stone age mentality

Yes, and there are many here in the US who would love to see a similar system.

Fools all of them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Yeah, I felt a chill to my bones as I typed this on my laptop. -nt

[puebloknot]

58. Coming to America soon...

...if we don't stop the right-wing religious crazies in our own country.

I'm reading "American Fascists," by Chris Hedges.

Other good books: "Religion Gone Bad," by Mel White; "The Theocons," by Damon Linker.

It's hard to draw out those who want to subvert and pervert our whole way of life because their modus operandi is to insert themselves quietly into places like DU, and places like every governmental and social body they can find, and quietly chew away at the woodwork, like termites.

While we have been living our lives, like civilized citizens with compassion and intelligence, this fundamentalist cancer has been undermining everything our country has ever stood for. To tolerate the intolerable will put an end to life as we have known it, if we do not stand firm. Right-wing fundamentalist "Christianity" is not just another point of view among equal points of view. From that side of the situation, their full intention is to make their delusional, distorted religious views the law of the land.

Thank you for shining light on this truly sick view of what it is to be a woman, capable of reproducing herself. Women are not breeding stock! Not in this or any other hemisphere; not in this world!

[Shallah Kali]

72. Something similar almost happened in Virginia in 2005!

A Republican wanted to require all women to report miscarriages within 12 hours or else she gets a year in jail:
http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/lesgislative_se.html
http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/legislative_sen.html

[puebloknot]

74. This is insane.

What ever happened over this?

Have you read "The Handmaid's Tale?"

[liberalhistorian]

118. If memory serves me correctly, I think there was a

HUGE, UNBELIEVABLE outcry against it and he was flooded with angry calls, emails and faxes from furious women. So, he did what all good republicans do when they're called on their bullshit, he whined, whined and whined some more, then whined about how he was being misunderstood and his intentions had been twisted, etc., etc., etc., and he withdrew the bill. And that was in Virginia. Imagine if he'd tried that shit in New York!

[Larkspur]

2. Sounds like a modern day "witch" trial

[msongs]

3. but it is democracy in action, christo-catholic version nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. OK, now I'll fully admit I'm whoring for recs. (Only one so far?)

[fudge stripe cookays]

7. Two, sweetie.

:thumbsup:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. The irony of someone called "fudge stripe cookays" calling me sweetie isn't lost on me.

:loveya:

[Blue_Tires]

24. 23rd

[Ilsa]

6. Waiting for the Fallopian tubes to rupture? OMG! nt

[smoogatz]

9. Anti-choice extremists in the U.S. won't openly advocate for the imprisonment

of women who "murder" their "unborn babies," because they know it'll sound much too punitive to mainstream Americans--even though it's the only morally consistent position they can take. If abortion is murder, then women who have abortions are murderers, pure and simple. In fact, the imprisonment of women who have abortions is the secret, unspoken agenda of anti-choicers in the U.S., just as it was in El Salvador.

[ellenfl]

10. oh, my. that is chilling. we MUST keep religion out of politics. eom

[YOY]

11. It's all terrifying but the ectopic pregnancy part is utterly horifying...

So goddamn barbaric it's criminal...

[mnhtnbb]

12. The right-wing of the Catholic Church is about as misogynistic as you can get.

[progressoid]

13. The pro-life movement: Marching forward into the past"

forensic vagina inspectors ... :mad:

[hfojvt]

14. over 100 ectopic pregancies seemed too high

considering their population is only 7 million, but they have 181,533 births a year so 100 is only .06%. That's still a hell of alot of needless suffering for a fetus that isn't going to survive anyway.

[Mandate My Ass]

20. It's excruciating pain for the mother. I know two women who've

had ectopic pregnancies and they said there is no pain in the world like it. One had a burst fallopian tube and the other got operated on before hers burst. Not to mention it's extremely dangerous and can lead to all kinds of life-threatening complications, which as you pointed out, for a fetus or embryo that has 0% chance of survival.

It's nothing short of craven sadism to put any woman through that nightmare.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

101. I wouldn't take a dog to a Catholic hospital for treatment

I've heard too many horror stories.

Such as, if they have a choice of saving the mother or the baby, they save the baby and let the mother die, thereby letting daddy raise a bunch of motherless children that mom had previously had.

Charming.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

121. Really? In Brazil they're quite good. I had my appendix extracted in one. -nt

[phusion]

15. I spent a month in El Salvador

It's a paradise for social conservatives. In most of the cities and towns besides San Salvador, you are automatically labeled a boracho (drunk) if you are seen buying beer -- especially solo women. This doesn't surprise me at all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. What -- random people come and call you that??? -nt

[phusion]

36. Maybe...

behind your back, at least. If you lived in the community and occasionally drank at all you'd definitely be criticized for it.

[phusion]

16. I spent a month in El Salvador

It's a paradise for social conservatives. In most of the cities and towns besides San Salvador, you are automatically labeled a boracho (drunk) if you are seen buying beer -- especially solo women. This doesn't surprise me at all.

[Batgirl]

17. The establishment of "forensic vagina inspectors"

shows in 3 little words the anti-choice endgame. Government sovereignty over female reproductive organs.

k/r

[Jamastiene]

19. Very. Well. Said. n/t

:thumbsup:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. I am SO using that as a screenname in every forum I can! -nt

[Batgirl]

38. would also make a fairly decent bad band name nt

[WinkyDink]

46. I call them "perverts".

[rug]

126. CSI: Vagina

[Jamastiene]

18. Shudder.

I understand how someone can think of abortion as murder to a degree, but not one of them has ever explained how miscarriage is not nature's version of abortion. For crying out loud, these people seem hellbent on not being reasonable. I shudder again. Those people are not reasonable.

[Clark2008]

102. Medically, a miscarriage is called a natural abortion.

A "miscarriage" is the layman's term for it.

[Quantess]

112. Yes, or a spontaneous abortion.

Miscarriages happen quite often, usually in the first trimester. That's why it's common wisdom for pregnant women not to announce to everyone about their pregnancy, until at least 4 months along. One doesn't want to be stuck having to explain a miscarriage to the whole world.

[Solon]

21. You know those Misogynist aren't going to respond to your thread...

They are too cowardly to be that forward, in the other thread they have yet to respond to most challenges. Its sad to see even a long-time DU poster who believes in this bullshit, but she claims to be a "Good Catholic", yeah, right.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Well, then, let their silence be their damning. Thay're not fooling anyone.

And I repeat: I'm NOT using the post-blocking option. They can post their opinion here.

[liberalhistorian]

117. Yes, amazing how vocal she was in the

WalMart pharmacy thread, and how quiet she is here, isn't it? DemBones, DemBones: where are you? Care to justify any of this fascist bullshit like you did in the other thread?

[EstimatedProphet]

22. My opinion?

My opinion is that this is subhuman. This is a repeat of the middle ages. God forbid these people get their tentacles on the US. I'm surprised they haven't made mandatory church attendance a law, punihiable by burning at the stake.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. That's why I always say

Christianity isn't more enlightened than Islam, it just got railroaded by civilization.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. I should have said "the Enlightenment" instead of "civilization." No need to be rude. -nt

[spoony]

31. No need to be simple

And, again, Christianity had a role in the Enlightenment. Newton kickstarted the entire thing with his awe-inspiring insights into physical law. While notable figures of the age were critics of the church, many others were spurred to pursue empirical understanding by their faith.

If you want to attack radical zealotry, go ahead, but I'm not going to let wholesale condemnation slide.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. My "condemnation" consisted of the following:

"isn't more enlightened than Islam."

Not much of a condemnation, really, is it?

If the term "apopletic" applies to any of us at all, I doubt it is me.

Oh, and Newton was lucky not to be near the same clerics as Galileo.

[spoony]

73. What a stunning rebutal

It's humorous that you had to have my post deleted, and even moreso that you cannot admit that your simple worldview, fundamentally tilted against religion, does not come within light years of accurately describing society nor civilisation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

125. You're free to dislike my opinion all you want.

But please don't come whining when the moderators (not me, I'm not one) delete a personal attack.

[JAbuchan08]

26. Horrible. I was watching BBC international recently

It was about a shortage of midwives in Bolivia (thankfully they are attempting to remedy the system there). Those who were lucky enough to get to a hospital were treated to an overworked and understaffed experience. Pregnancy in the developing world can be a nightmare not to mention pregnancy under the spectre of a government that doesn't care about your health.

[appal_jack]

30. Important caveat

It's important to note that the "culture of life" that the christo-fascist-apologist types laud so highly in the now-conservative El Salvador was ushered-in atop a pile of human skulls generated by death squads and other para-military activities (largely with US {Reaganista} support/encouragement) during the 1980's. Are helicopter gunships strafing villages reputed to be "leftist strongholds" part of the "culture of life"?

msongs notes upthread that El Salvador's laws are democracy in action, but is it really democracy when any choice except the far-right generates such military assaults? The (pro-choice) FMLN was quite popular until the Salvadoreans learned that when they elected FMLN'ers, the death squads came visiting.

"Culture of Life" my ass. Anti-choice laws are about control of women, not care for the unborn.

-app

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. South America, at least, seems to have overcome that. -nt

[KamaAina]

33. Whoa! Is El Salvador party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Women?

then again, as an American, I should talk: we're (surprise :sarcasm: ) the only developed nation that isn't!

[KamaAina]

35. You know who else had pregnancy inspectors? The Nazis, that's who.

Note to anti's: You may not invoke Godwin's Law if the Nazi reference happens to be true. And in this case, it is: Nazi Germany actually had women who miscarried inspected to ensure that they had actually miscarried, and not aborted a precious Aryan fetus. :sarcasm:

[pitohui]

67. this was done in ceausescu's romania also, wasn't it?

not sure but it seems i heard some stories of that nature

you wonder who would even want the job of forensic vagina inspector, in romania wouldn't this have been women doing it to other women?

sometimes i hate people!

[Shallah Kali]

71. Ceausescu did have women inspected w/fines for failure to reproduce

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm

The government's enforcement techniques were as bad as the law. Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents - dubbed the "menstrual police" by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted for forging statistics. "If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary," says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. "But it wasn't our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor."

Abortion was legal in some cases: if a woman was over 40, if she already had four children, if her life was in danger - or, in practice, if she had Communist Party connections. Otherwise, illegal abortions cost from two to four months' wages. If something went wrong, the legal consequences were enough to deter many women from seeking timely medical help. "Usually women were so terrified to come to the hospital that by the time we saw them it was too late," says Dr. Anca. "Often they died at home." No one knows how many women died from these back-alley abortions.

"Celibacy tax": A woman didn't have to be pregnant to come under scrutiny. In 1986 members of the Communist youth group were sent to quiz citizens about their sex lives. "How often do you have sexual intercourse?" the questionnaire read. "Why have you failed to conceive?" Women who did not have children, even if they could not, paid a "celibacy tax" of up to 10 percent of their monthly salaries.

[ChickMagic]

95. According to my Romanian coworker

this is all true. When I told my hubby about Romania was when
he began to change his anti-choice stance (left over from
rabid right wing parental influence). My friend told me
that one of the very first things brought back after the
hanging of Ceausescu was abortion.

OT: These people confiscated bibles, jewelry, really anything of
value. My friend threw her valuables in the river rather than
have them taken. She was unable to recover them.

Another OT: She was shocked at how we view Dracula. I mean, really aghast!
Romanians consider Vlad the Impaler a hero for successfully
defending them against the Turks. She still can't stand the Turks!

[dsc]

37. I haven't seen a single DU poster who advocates

a ban on abortion that doesn't include an exception for the life and health of the mother. I am not saying they don't exist but I would like some citation to back that up.

[sandnsea]

47. Technically, that's the problem

A woman's life isn't threatened until the ectopic pregnancy reaches a particular point. The only hospital within 60 miles of me is a Catholic hospital. I had a heck of a time figuring out their policy on pregnancy emergencies and abortions when my daughter was pregnant. They even got mad that I called them abortions, I was instructed to call them D&C's. She talked to her doctor who told her unless she was hemorrhaging or something, to head to the town 60 miles away if she thought she might be having problems. These stories really hit home to me. I'd never given this a thought when I was pregnant. It was assumed science would take precedence over religion at the time. I'd have never thought pharmacists would be allowed to deny birth control either. I used to think this stuff just couldn't happen here, I don't know anymore.

[dsc]

48. I think threat would be broadly enough defined to

encompass an eventual treat which will happen such as that. I agree that hospitals should have to perform any legal proceedure that they are able to perform which would include abortions. That is due to the uniquness of hospitals in most areas. Pharmacies are a different matter. I don't think pharmacists should have the right to deny anyone but I do think drug store owners should have that right provided they clearly inform customers in writing that they refuse to sell bc and do not take prescriptions away from customers.

[sandnsea]

49. We clearly disagree

If one is in the business of filling prescriptions, it isn't their right to decide the medical necessity of the prescription. Women use birth control for reasons besides pregnancy, it's nobody's business except theirs and their doctors. Same with abortions. There isn't any reason to have laws for either one.

[dsc]

50. Store owners should get to decide what to sell and what not to sell

barring a real public emergency. I haven't seen anything like a real public emergency regarding b/c except with people taking scripts which should be against the law. There are literally dozens of pharmacies to choose from that isn't the case with hospitals which is why they should be required to peform lawful proceedures when they can. I don't want podunk hospital doing heart transplants but they should be doing easy stuff.

[sandnsea]

51. I disagree

There are taxi drivers in Minnesota who refuse to give rides to people with a bottle of alcohol, religious reasons. You want them to refuse to give you a ride because you're gay?? I bet there would be plenty of people to tell you to get another taxi, there's dozens of cabs to choose from. What about scientologist pharmacists who refuse to fill anti-depressants? It could go on and on. Pharmacists are licensed, they know what their job is. Do it, or quit. Same as everybody else in this country has to do.

[dsc]

52. A couple of things

The taxi issue is different for two reasons. One the taxi is given the right to be at the airport in return for following certain rules. I actually would be OK with them being forced to go to the end of the line of taxis if they refuse to pick someone up. The second thing is that I am speaking of owners, not pharmacists. I have big problems with forcing a business owner to stock a product that he or she doesn't want to stock. What would prevent a government from requiring a liberal book store from stocking Limbaugh's book or forbidding a drug store from selling bc? If you give a power to the government it will use it for things you don't want it to be used for.

[sandnsea]

53. A pharmacist is given the right

to destribute drugs in return for following certain rules. Rules we make. The owner knows the pharmacist has that legal obligation. If the owner doesn't want to be in the pharmaceutical business, don't open a drug store. Once the owner does, any right to restrict legal prescriptions ends. It's exactly the same as the taxis because we the people license them for the benefit of the entire public. We don't license book sellers, that doesn't even belong in the discussion.

[dsc]

54. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of drugs

pharmacists don't routinely carry for reasons of convience, cost, storage, or other. Oxy cotin is one. Many pharmacies refuse to carry it due to the fact it is a target for theives. Other drugs are just not demanded much. If an owner of a drug store doesn't wish to carry bc and is willing to take the boycot which would almost surely come with that decision, then I think he or she should have that right. I don't think a pharmacist has the right to tell his boss what he will and won't distribute.

The taxi example is a little different. Discriminating against people is different than discriminating against products. For example, I would support permitting a drug store refusing to stock anti AIDS drugs but not support a taxi refusing to pick up gay fares. The first case is refusing to sell a product while the second is refusing to serve a person.

On edit, the product thing is all or nothing though. They can't sell bc to married couples but not single women or sell bc but not the morning after pill. In both of those cases they are crossing into refusing to serve a person.

[sandnsea]

55. It's discrimination against women

Demand is not the same as using religion to dictate a woman's right to run her own life. I can't understand how you can obect to religion dictating your right to marry, and then turn around and support them dictating women's right to not reproduce. It's the most basic right a woman has. Makes no sense. It doesn't matter that ALL women are being discriminated against, it's still discrimination. Nobody has the right to prevent me from filling a legal prescription, nobody. By not selling me birth control, they're making decisions about me as a person, married or not. It's not their right, it's not their business. Just like it isn't a taxi driver's business to make judgments about alcohol or gays. They're given a license to give people rides without judgment. A pharmacist is given a license to give people drugs without judgment. Same thing.

[dsc]

76. I am certainly not for making churches marry anyone they don't want to

I would be against any state law forbidding distribution or sale of contraceptives which is far more analgous to the situation with gay marriage. I am simply asking that I be permitted to be married by those who would wish to perform the marriage.

[Pithlet]

78. Churches don't have a monopoly on weddings

in the way that pharmacies do for prescriptions.A better analogy would be if churches were the only way you could get married. If the only way you could legally wed would be through a church, and none of the churches in your area will agree to do it, then you're out of luck. If churches as a group insisted on holding on to that monopoly, then I wouldn't see why one of the conditions would have to be all churches marry everyone. That way a group with an agenda to discriminate cannot acquire control over all the churches in a given area to shut out and discriminate.

It is simply too important for all women everywhere to have access to birth control to allow an industry that has monopoly over that particular service to pick and choose based on discriminatory practices. There is no reason to refuse to carry birth control other than to deny that service, because as it is a basic, vital need, it is always in demand. Pharmacies aren't just like any other business. They are licensed by the state to provide a service, a particular service that only pharmacies are allowed to provide. So the state has the right and the obligation to tell them they have to provide one of the basic services that only they are allowed to provide to the community. An entire community isn't harmed if all the stores in the area refuse to carry brand x of corn flakes. An entire community IS damaged if all the pharmacies have been acquired and controlled by a group with an agenda and are no longer provided birth control. No one should be able to hijack such services to press an agenda.

[dsc]

80. The state does have a monopoly on weddings

and they are exercising it by banning them for me. A particular pharmacy has a monopoly on nothing. In point of fact even as a whole they don't have a monopoly on drugs (doctors and clinics also give and sell drugs). If there really were a huge problem with stores, not pharmacists but stores, refusing to sell bc I might rethink my position. As it stands despite repeated attempts to find the people being denied this service I have not yet seen one single solitary case where a person was denied bc with no recorce without a pharmacist stealing a script. Not a single, solitary case. I don't favor giving government the power to require stores to carry bc because it is also the power to ban stores from carrying bc. I know which direction my region would be likely to go on that, and it isn't in favor of requiring bc.

It should be noted that I directly said, not implied but directly said, that I was against requiring any church to marry people they don't want to marry. What I do favor is the state allowing those who wish to marry gays the ability to marry gays and requiring the state to acknowlege the couples as married.

[Pithlet]

91. You can only sell prescription medication if you are a pharmacy

You can only be a pharmacy if the state grants your business the license to be one. So, pharmacies as an industry have a monopoly on the act of selling prescribed medicine. No other company who isn't licensed by the state to be a pharmacy can come in and take up the slack if you refuse to sell a particular medication. It's not a free market industry. The ability to sell prescription medicine is a privilege bestowed by the state, and the state indeed has the right to hold as a condition of that privilege that certain prescriptions that are important to the community must be sold. If you want absolute control over the products you sell, don't become a pharmacy.

I know you said you were against requiring a church to marry people they don't want to. I was pointing out that the reason that position is different than being against requiring a pharmacy to carry a particular medication is that churches as a group do not have the monopoly on marrying people legally, the way pharmacists as a group have the monopoly on selling prescription drugs. I was pointing out that your analogy is false. I'm not for forcing churches to marry people they don't want to because a church is not the only means of getting married. BTW, I think the state is indeed discriminating against gay people, and that absolutely should stop, particularly since the state indeed has the monopoly on granting legal wedding licenses.

ETA In other words, if the state finally got its act together and allowed gay couples to marry, and then decided to dump the whole business on churches and grant them as the sole provider of marriages (not that they would grant churches sole right because of church and state issues, but just using your analogy), then the state also has to tell them that a condition of that is that they must marry gay people, to prevent gay people from being locked out. Just as they can give the pharmacy industry sole claim and responsibility to selling prescription medication, but a condition is they must provide a form of prescription birth control. In both cases it prevents agenda seeking groups from asserting their will on the people.

[Solon]

93. There is a fatal flaw in your comparison of Churches with Pharmacies...

Pharmacies are businesses of public accommodation, and more than that, Public Health facilities, Churches are EXEMPT from ALL rules that govern businesses of public accommodation, and facilities that dispense drugs are more regulated than most businesses. Also, your fear is unfounded about Pharmacies being REQUIRED to STOCK drugs, they AREN'T required right now, what they ARE required to do is to have the MEANS to allow you access to drugs, as long as you have a prescription from a doctor. Most pharmacies hold the most commonly requested drugs for patients, antibiotics for flu and related diseases, birth control for women, ED drugs for men, cardiovascular medication, etc. Anything more "exotic" or rarer than those are usually mail ordered, most of the time in advance, if possible.

Also, there is another flaw, and that is that states actually have to PASS "conscious clause" laws in the first place to restrict access to drugs. This restricts the rights of PATIENTS, which, in my opinion, is much more important than the discomfort of a pharmacist.

Many of these drugs are time dependent, usually there is a 72 hour window in which they are effective. Many pharmacies have DELAYED transferring prescriptions until its too late. Quite a few have confiscated prescriptions, so the patient couldn't simply travel to another pharmacy to get it filled. Things like this happen, I don't understand why anyone would advocate this blatant abuse of power by pharmacists.

[Pithlet]

94. I don't understand it, either.

The argument defending the right for pharmacies to refuse to sell birth control ignores the reason that the pharmacies who practice this are doing so. They aren't doing it because lack of sales are hurting their bottom line. They're doing it because of political pressure by groups who want to see access to birth control disappear, and no other reason. The argument is very similar to the one that says businesses should be able to discriminate against minorities because businesses should have the freedom to serve whomever they wish.

[dsc]

100. I am not advocating keeping scripts

in point of fact I have stated, iterated, reiterated, and am reiterating again, that pharmacies should not be allowed to keep scripts. I don't know how much clearer I could possibly be. I also stated and am now iterating that pharmacies should be required to state in writing that they don't fill bc perscriptions. Given the huge number of pharmacies I fail to see a compelling government interest.

[Solon]

104. This is a big country...

Not every town has 5 or more different pharmacies, many, mostly in rural areas, have maybe 1 or 2 and that's it for a 100 mile radius or so. Also, government is called for, in regulation, when its in the BEST PUBLIC INTEREST, no one has an inalienable right to DENY someone else medication for NON-MEDICAL reasons, period.

[dsc]

105. Everytime I ask for one example of someone denied

bc without the script being taken and actually being prevented from getting the bc. If it became a problem I would likely change my mind. But I have yet to see any case where this has come up.

[Solon]

107. This is from a few years ago...

When Suzanne Richards went to a drive-through Brooks pharmacy on a recent Saturday night, an assistant told her the pharmacist could not fill her prescription for the morning-after pill.

When Richards told the assistant she had gotten the prescription filled at there before, pharmacist Todd Sklencar came to the window and told her he was morally opposed to prescribing something that could end a life, Richards said.

Sklencar then told her to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy.

"He said something like, 'I believe this will end the fertilization of the egg and this conception was your choice," Richards told Foster's Sunday Citizen.

(snip)

Richards returned to the pharmacy later that night with her father, but Sklencar once again refused to fill the prescription and did not tell her where she could get it filled, she said.

On Tuesday, another Brooks pharmacist contacted her, told her he had just been transferred to the Union Avenue store and said she could pick up her prescription.

By then it was too late. The pills must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg, or to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus - the medical definition of pregnancy.

-- Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Morning After Pill Prescription, AP, Sep 26, 04.

Unfortunately, this is from a few years ago, and is an AP story, in other words, you have to purchase the story yourself to get the actual article, it is no longer available online.

[dsc]

108. One has to wonder why she didn't go to another pharmacy

immediately. Since she eventually did, there had to be other ones around. I feel bad for her but it seems like she could have avoided the problem.

[Solon]

109. Did you even read the snippet?

The Pharmacy didn't tell her where to go to fill the prescription till AFTER the 72 hours were up. They didn't transfer the prescription till then.

[dsc]

110. Why should they have to tell her where to fill a script

I go to one pharmacy and they don't have something and I go to another. If they took the script then it falls in what I said before. If they didn't then she could go to another store.

[Solon]

113. The Prescription was probably called or faxed in...

That happens at Pharmacies, she probably didn't even have a piece of paper to verify, just her ID. If there were no other pharmacies from the same company in the area, then the ONLY way for her to get her prescription would be for this pharmacy to transfer the prescription to another. Being time-constrained, calling the doctor's office is out, because most people pick up such prescription after they get off work(after 5 pm), etc.

The point being that you should NOT have to jump through hoops to get a damned drug like this for some stick up the butt moral policeman.

This is like justifying rape cases where the victims are denied emergency contraceptives at certain hospitals for "moral" reasons. I guess you agree with Lieberman, and they should just "hitch a ride" to another hospital! To be honest, your attitude disgusts me. :puke:

[dsc]

114. No I don't

and if you had read my posts where I state and then iterate that hospitals, which are close to unique should be under different rules than pharmacies which aren't, then you would know that.

[Solon]

119. Why shouldn't pharmacies be under the same rules as hospitals?

Both deal with health care, vital parts of health care, just different sections, if you will. Unless you count herbal tea shops as Pharmacies, in and of themselves, Pharmacies are just as "unique" as hospitals, considering that you can't GET prescription drugs almost anywhere else, outside of doctor's offices(when available), clinics, and hospitals. They all have overlapping responsibilities, your doctor's office may have some free samples of a prescription pain killer, as an example, and a clinic may have the same, but to actually BUY the stuff, you have to go to a pharmacy, especially for certain drugs, because both clinics and doctor's offices have limited selections and supplies.

I really don't understand your argument, why should Pharmacies be treated differently than any other Public Health Facility?

[dsc]

122. Because there are lots of pharmacies but only one hospital

in most places. Also most hospital patients can't travel easily.

[Solon]

127. That's your assertion, you need to prove it...

There are places in this country where there is ONLY one pharmacy for well over 100 miles, should different rules apply to them?

Also, while its true that Hospitals, especially in rural areas, can be just as rare, in MOST places of the country, this isn't true. I live in a moderate sized city, not big, not small, and we have at least 4 hospitals that are minutes from me, hell, I could name them, there is SSM St. Joseph Center, Barnes-Jewish St. Peters, Progress West HealthCare Center and SSM St. Joseph Center West. This isn't including specialist hospitals, like Centerpointe, which is a Psychiatric facility.

Go a little further out west, and the situation changes, Vandalia, Missouri, as an example, has only ONE pharmacy, and its the only one for well over 40 miles around, oddly enough, its called Vandalia Drug Company, a really original name, don't you think? By the way, this pharmacy serves about 2,000 people who live in the area.

[dsc]

128. oh please

Sure I can come up with areas that have tons of hospitals and few pharmacies if I torture all logic and work real hard. But in wide swaths of this country there are places with one or two hospitals in say a 20 minute ambulance ride but dozens of pharmacies in say an hour drive. Again, I would revisit my position if there were a real problem that developed. The phone in script should not be taken by pharmacists that don't have the drug. Frankly I think the number of store owners who would refuse to stock bc would be miniscule and I think the solution in those rural areas would be government clinics.

[sandnsea]

89. Walmart isn't a church

Should judges be required to marry anyone who comes before them? Should a person who does non-religious marriages be required to marry anyone who comes to them? I think they should. If they want the license, they should be required to do the marriage. You wouldn't support them discriminating against people of color would you?? No.

[dsc]

98. I honestly don't know

Not having been married I don't know how hard it is to find someone to perform a marriage. It would depend upon how likely it would be that wide swaths of land would be berefit of marriage providers. In all honesty I wouldn't want to be married by someone who didn't want to marry me.

[sandnsea]

99. A non-minister?

I don't really know about that. There are usually a few people in an area that perform marriages outside of churches, not all are affiliated with a religion. There aren't a lot. I would imagine in any given area, there wouldn't be very many who would officiate. I certainly agree that you would prefer someone who was happy to marry you, but absent that, should they be required? Like they might be required to marry interracial couples, etc? Should a realtor be required to sell to gay couples and minorities? It's all the same. You get a license to fulfill a public trust, you can't pick and choose from there.

[Pithlet]

56. There's a big difference between not stocking the medications

for storage, or lack of demand, and refusing it to purposefully discriminate. Governing bodies can and should revoke the pharmacy's license for refusing to stock a medication such as birth control. I have no problem with shutting down pharmacies that refuse to stock basic birth control. There's nothing morally, ethically or legally wrong with that. Wherever there aren't laws requiring them to do, so there should be. If they're going to open up a business to serve the community in such a vital capacity, then they're obligated to carry such a basic product of that service, and if they refuse, then they don't get to profit from that community they're harming by refusing to serve a most basic need. There is no reason other that discrimination to deny it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. Read Griswold v. Conn. and Eisenstadt v. Baird

Those cases were in the late 1960s (Griswold) stating that married couples had a right to contraception.
Eisenstadt v. Baird was decided in 1973, and established that unmarried people had a right to contraception, both decided under the right to privacy laws.

The circumstances of Eisenstadt were particularly ridiculous. A professor gave a lecture on contraception and brought various devices, including a package of contraceptive foam, which an unknown unmarried college woman took home.

[dsc]

75. both of those are state action

states are banned from many things people aren't.

[dsc]

81. In addition and past editting time

The state banned anyone from giving bc which left no recourse at all for those denied. In this case one pharmacy says no you to to another one which is likely right down the road.

[liberalhistorian]

116. Not if the prescription was

phoned in, she couldn't have. In that case, as sandnsea has said, she would have had to have waited for the pharmacy to actually transfer the prescription to another pharmacy and she would have been at their mercy to do so. They waited until three days had passed before transferring the prescription. If a scrip is phoned in, you don't have the actual written prescription in your hands, which may have been the case here. It is NOT NOT NOT the business of ANY pharmacist why you have a LEGAL prescription, and it should not be his choice as to whether or not to fill it.

And, living in a rural area as I am now, (rural SD, I'm moving from Rapid City), I am much more aware of how much of a hassle this could be for people. There is no pharmacy here within fifty miles. If that one refused to fill a prescription, or waited to transfer it, then the next pharmacy is fucking ninety miles away. Please explain to me why people should have to go to such trouble to get a goddamned LEGAL prescription filled just because the pharmacist is opposed to that particular prescription. It isn't his business and it shouldn't be his choice as to whether or not to fill it.

And I simply cannot for the life of me understand why you don't see this, when you, yourself, are the victim of the governmental moral police. In other words, people you don't even know making choices for you based on THEIR beliefs and values. People who've decided, for whatever reason, that they're opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage and who've then made the choice for you that you cannot marry.

[dsc]

124. Because it is the government who is saying I can't marry

I actually know ministers who would marry me but the government won't let them. Corporate employees are vastly more likely than government ones to forbid discrimination against gays. The last thing I want to see is an increase in government power in this realm. If the government has the power to require stores to carry bc it has the power to forbid them from carrying it. I know which way my region would go.

[mondo joe]

85. There is no reason to not require a minimum formulary in order to hold a pharmaacy license.

Just saying.

[ChickMagic]

96. When my boss was pregnant

She had her first child at 43 (knocked up - believe
it or not). She had a horrifying pregnancy and was
told that if she got pregnant again, she would probably
die. She was in a Catholic hospital and they had to
involve a priest who heard all the gory, personal
details to decide whether her tubes should be tied.

Then, they had to ask the husband's permission.

[Swamp Rat]

39. "medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors?!?"

porra! :wow:

[LynneSin]

40. Can I donate relocation money to any nutjob here in the US that wants to move to El Salvador

Let the rest of the country - the MAJORITY the right to choose for themselves?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. I think you inspired a great general-purpose retort in the style the RW likes so much

"If you don't like it here why don't you move to El Salvador?"

[flamingyouth]

43. This is just horrifying.

I volunteered in an abortion clinic for years (and sadly, it's closing its doors at the end of the month after more than 30 years of serving mostly low-income women). The break room was covered with FBI wanted posters and we received threats often.

I was in preschool when Roe v. Wade became law, but I refuse to go back to that time, and please ... for the love of all that is good, keep the forensic vagina inspectors far, far away from me. :scared:

[gratefultobelib]

44. Thank you for posting this. I was in college in the 60's and I really

didn't know much about abortions (I wasn't really clear on how the um, sex act worked!), but I just knew abortions were illegal, and you went to hell if you had one! But along came Gloria Steinem (thank you, Gloria!) in the 70's and the feminist movement, and I saw things much more clearly. I have since fought for abortion rights and will continue to do so with vigor!

[Straight Shooter]

45. It's cruel, inhumane, sadistic, barbaric, and patronizing. Therefore, it must be God's will.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

[and-justice-for-all]

59. Even with abortions we still have a population of 6 billion +,

No one, but the woman, has any idea as to why she decided to have an abortion and last I knew it took 2 so if 1 is going to be jailed, then so should the sperm donor. Why is it always the womens fault??

Not to mention that with a ban on abortions, there will be abortion parties or a women will just do it the old fashion way with a coat hanger..Instead of having a save and clean enviroment, its back to the ally. So, they only thing that has been accomplished with this ban is 1) putting womens lives at risk and 2) the continuation of invasiveness by religion and govenment into peoples private lives.

[NoodleyAppendage]

60. Hello...South America and the Catholic Church. What did you expect?

Africa and South America are the Catholic Church's last remaining strongholds of ignorant, impoverished citizenry. Much easier to control the message when people are ignorant of anything other than their overlords. ZARDOZ, my friend...Zardoz.

J

[knitter4democracy]

70. *cough* Central America

Central America has a long history of a liberal vein in the Church, especially El Salvador. Liberation Theology started there.

[NoodleyAppendage]

86. Clearly not so liberal in El Salvador given their anti-abortion stance.

Liberation Theology may have started there...but it looks like it's taken a hike from the region.

J

[knitter4democracy]

97. Not from what I hear. That's like saying that we're all Republicans.

Just because we had a Republican Congress, President, and Supreme Court. Not exactly fair.

[Canuckistanian]

61. If only the Catholic's anti-death penalty and antiwar stances were so tough.

There would be an end to war and executions.

And I wonder if El Salvador still has a death penalty.

[kikiek]

62. As my favorite saying goes if you don't believe in abortion don't have one.

But I am not influenced by dogma and superstition. You are brave and that is appreciated and needed.

[knitter4democracy]

63. I'm personally pro-life, but politically, only pro-choice makes sense

I heard her interviewed on NPR when the article came out. I remember that I was driving and almost had to pull over when she described the ectopic pregnancy and the woman she talked with. Her details on the forensic vagina inspector were truly, truly horrifying. I was shuddering when I got home.

I know pro-lifers, and very, very few of them would go that far. They don't want to admit it, but they wouldn't go so far as to inspect women and make women die of ectopic pregnancies in their mania to make every zygote get a chance to live, even for a few days. I know one, but I can't imagine him, even him (a priest candidate in an extremely conservative Catholic seminary) going this far.

[NoSheep]

66. Can you tell me how "pro-life" fits with living in a capitalist society?

This isn't a hostile question toward you personally... However, I am totally stymied as to how someone can identify their purpose with that term and still live in this society without trying to completely overthrow the powers that be. I'm a bit irritated that the term "pro-life" has become the property of some...while others seem to be labeled the opposite yet their politics and life-ways reveal otherwise (to those who dare to witness them). I'd just really like to know your thoughts about this. I have no intention of arguing with you. I just want to know what you think.

:hi:

[knitter4democracy]

69. I'm fine with discussing it.

:)

I look at it like babies should have a chance to live. Even if I were raped (God forbid), I would still think of it as my baby, not the bastard who gave it to me. I have carried two to term and lost one very early, and I know what that path is like. I couldn't lose another one, especially if I chose to end it.

Here's where I get cranky, though: I can't force anyone to live my way. My path is mine. Another woman in another life-situation entirely should be able to make her own decision. Yes, I'd be sad if she chose to end a healthy pregnancy, but it's not like I think she'd burn in hell or anything. Life is complicated, and sometimes we are faced with shitty choices (pardon the term). I can't make anyone do anything and would hate it if I could.

The war and the death penalty infuriate me. The Texas law that says hospitals can kill their patients by removing all support if the "ethics" board agrees to it infuriates me. I would be more active in fighting those things if my health were better.

Women need to be treated as full human beings with rights over their own bodies. Men do stupid things and have that right--so should women. We also do some damn amazing things, and that should be allowed, too. Life is too hard for only one path to be "right" or "allowed."

[NoSheep]

83. Thanks for elaborating on your views.

Here is where I get upset with the term "pro-life" when SOME people claim it as their own:

We have many right-wing politicians who say they are "pro-life". One may assume their stance boils down to mean they are anti-abortion. Let's say a poor woman becomes pregnant and she knows she cannot afford to have a child so she seeks an abortion. Those same "pro-life" politicians would deny that very child, when born, a right to government subsidized health care. They may say that the concept is "socialist". Those same people would deny a living wage to the less fortunate. How can they say they are concerned for the unborn yet be so unconcerned about quality of life when it is born?

In a capitalist society, which I feel encourages people to be dog-eat-dog, I'm not sure one can willingly participate in that economy and be truly "pro-life". I think only in a society where basic needs like health care, quality education and living wages are guaranteed (so called socialist concepts) can we honestly assert that we are "pro-life".

[knitter4democracy]

111. I completely agree with you.

I know so many people who have this odd disconnect about that. They just can't see that their ideas on poor people needing to work harder or get more training have an impact on the abortion rate. Odd.

[Triana]

64. This is torture of women!

Period!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[snot]

65. Forcing women to carry to term is slavery.

The day they are able and willing to commit to extracting a fetus without significant risk or expense to the mother AND to finding someone else to care for it forevermore is the day I'm ok with prohibiting abortion. Until then, it's involuntary servitude of the worst kind.

[ananda]

68. Forensic vagina inspectors?!!??

Whoaaa. It's so bad over there.

This upsets me almost as much as Bush's playing dictator
and causing the deaths of so many in so many places,
along with the virtual death of the Constitution and free
speech.

[w4rma]

77. Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick society. (nt)

[NotGivingUp]

79. very sick....but, you know, we must preserve the cannon fodder n/t

[Stewie]

82. "fetal malformation"?

I have a problem with that. Terminate a pregnancy because the kid isn't attractive?

[nashville_brook]

84. fetal malformation refers to serious birth defects

this one is from Thalidomide.



this one is from dioxin, a Bhopal victim.




i'll spare you any more -- you can google-image "birth defect" to learn about "fetal malformation."

[Momgonepostal]

87. I don't think "malformed" means "not attractive"

Some fetuses have enough wrong with them physically that they won't live more than a few hours at most after birth. My force the mother to endure a 9 month long pregnancy if the baby has no chance of even short term survival?

[LeftyMom]

120. Prenatal testing doesn't tell if the kid will be ugly

It sometimes tells if the kid will be really misshapen or otherwise seriously disabled, but even very serious deformities are often not diagnosed before birth.

The idea is not to terminate the pregnancy because the child will be unattractive, (even with the high-end 3D ultrasounds, they all look like ET anyhow,) but to have the option if the child faces serious disabilities which would have a severe negative impact on their ability to survive of their quality of life or the lives of their family. Often it just means preparing to make surgical corrections or to raise a child with a severe disability, and often that special precautions can be taken during birth to minimize trauma, to birth in a place better equipped to handle a fragile child or to get a more vulnerable child (such as those with heart defects) out safely.

I was born with a minor and correctable birth defect- I'm sure my parents would have appreciated advance warning to prepare for the idea that their child would need surgery in the first few days of life, especially since my condition is often associated with a more serious problem I didn't have, and ruling that out sooner would have eliminated a great deal of worry. (On the other hand, diagnosis of the more serious issue might have led to talk of termination, because my parents had neither the financial capacity nor the patience to deal with a physically and mentally disabled child. Sad, but arguably better than woefully unequipped broke people struggling with a really messed up kid or surrendering that kid to eternal foster care.) Not that it matters though, when I was a hatching ultrasounds were pretty new and the Rorschach-like images were often misinterpreted- I got the shock of my life when my expected baby brother came out lacking the anticipated equipment. Prenatal testing, both via ultrasound and lab tests, is much more accurate and sensitive now, though some tests are problematic in terms of false positives that mean more tests or risk of miscarriage and their use has to be weighed against one's comparative risk and potential response to a bad result.

[Momgonepostal]

88. That was a very sad and eye opening article

It gives me an excellent reason to continue voting for pro-choisce candidates here in the states.

For the record, I know there are anti-choice democrats, but I have never met any who are so extreme that they would agree with everything El Salvador is doing. I don't even know any republicans who think a woman should have to suffer through an ectopic pregnancy.

[Cell Whitman]

90. Isn't this the article the NYT retracted part of?

I can't get past the "wall' but is this correction from the same article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/pageoneplus/corrections.html?ex=1169269200&en=c89217f7b64124a4&ei=5070

An article in The Times Magazine on April 9 reported on the effects of laws that make all abortions illegal in El Salvador. One case the article described was that of Carmen Climaco, who is serving a 30-year prison sentence in El Salvador.

The article said she was convicted in 2002 of aggravated homicide, and it presented the recollections of the judge who adjudicated Ms. Climaco’s case during the pretrial stage. The judge, Margarita Sanabria, told The Times that she believed that Ms. Climaco had an abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant, and that she regretted allowing the case to be tried as a homicide. The judge based her legal decision on two reports by doctors.

The first, by a doctor who examined Ms. Climaco after the incident, concluded that she had been 18 weeks pregnant and had an abortion. A second medical report, based on an examination of the body that was found under Ms. Climaco’s bed, concluded that her child was carried to term, was born alive and died in its first minutes of life.

The three-judge panel that received the case from Judge Sanabria concluded that the second report was more credible than the first, and the panel convicted Ms. Climaco of aggravated homicide.

[blm]

103. Maybe it needs its own thread

Might not get seen down here, Cell.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

92. C.S.I. Vagina

forensic vagina inspectors ?!?!?!? :wtf:

This IS the logical conclusion of the "anti-choice" position. If you oppose choice because it is murder, this is exactly the ending point for that position. There is no middle ground. If one believes abortion=murder and it should be outlawed, then one must support no exceptions and strict law enforcement. Sounds like El Salvador is a fundy and extremist Catholic wet dream.:puke:

[kdpeters]

106. It was when I read this article last year that I finally GOT IT!!

As a gay man, the issue was one that had never before sparked a sense of urgency, and it's still not an easy issue for me to quite come to terms with completely. The thought of a child being aborted if she were deaf, gay, or has Down's Syndrome really troubles me deeply. But the image of women suffering the indignity of surrendering their vagina to authorities as a crime scene was an eye opener for me about just what it is at stake and why this issue is of such paramount importance for me to take much more seriously.

No wonder the right wingers are desperately trying to discredit this article. It's quite powerful.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

115. One problem I have with "anti-choice" - it's a class thing...

women with no resources would resort to dangerous or ineffective methods.
women with resources would make a "quick shopping trip" to France.

"anti-choice" just means that the choices are extraordinarily bizarre.

[bleedingheart]

123. The anti-choice crowd doesn't care until it happens to them

and that is it.

They will persist in pushing their anti-choice movement until they get their dream or they will just piss and moan for eternity.

However if their "dream" happens, then they will cry to heaven when a woman in their family gets caught in the very web they created.

It is the age old hypocrisy.