Helpful Maps For Rape Victims in Joe Lieberman’s Connecticut

You may recall that a couple of months ago, Holy Joe Lieberman said that he supported Catholic hospitals in their resistance to providing Plan B to rape victims because, well, Connecticut’s not a big state, and it’s not all that far to a non-Catholic hospital.

But how to get there?

Connecticut Bob is here to help.

Well Joe, that’s not very helpful. I mean, I know that you’ll never need emergency contraception at two o’clock in the morning after having been brutally raped. So I guess it’s easy for you to disregard any woman who is unlucky enough to have gone through that trauma.

But here’s a suggestion: Why don’t you provide maps for the victims, so they can walk out of the Emergency Rooms of the various Catholic hospitals around the state, hail a cab, and take that “short ride” to another hospital?

You know what, Joe?

Never mind.

I’ll do it.

And knowing how difficult it is to even GET a cab at 2AM, I’ll include the distance between the hospitals, in case the victims have to walk (or crawl) there.

So here ya go, Joe. Just print these out and send them to the Catholic hospitals Emergency Rooms. (Of course, we all know they wouldn’t even give them to the victims, but it can’t hurt to try…)

H/T Atrios.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

65 comments for “Helpful Maps For Rape Victims in Joe Lieberman’s Connecticut

  1. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    Why should the government force Catholic hospitals be forced to give out drugs that go against their religious beliefs? Don’t leftists and feminists support the separation of church and state?

  2. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    Because they’re treating victims of a crime, dear Andrew, and crime is a concern of the state.

  3. Fitz
    May 5, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    I believe the issue strikes even deeper than that Andrew.
    Why does the Catholic Church establish & run so many hospitals anyway?
    (in fact, they invented the hospital – named after the Knights Hospitalar, who would care for the sick & infirm; as Jesus commanded)

    Well, what is the purpose of a hospital?
    Why of coarse its to protect & save human lives. (easy)
    By providing abortions these hospitals would be directly inverting their entire established purpose.

  4. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    Plan B, Fitz. Nobody’s asking them to perform abortions.

    And before you say, “But Plan B *is* an abortifacient!” do go look up something about reproduction and how long it takes for the sperm to reach the egg. The idea here is to prevent fertilization prior to the sperm meeting the egg — that’s why it has to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex (or rape), and why it’s most effective within the first 24 hours.

    And not only is nobody asking Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, they’re not asking them to provide emergency contraceptives to anybody but rape victims, who are often loaded onto an ambulance and taken to the nearest hospital, not the hospital of their choice.

  5. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Because they’re treating victims of a crime, dear Andrew, and crime is a concern of the state.

    So would you have any problems with a federal law that required all universities in America to have ROTC programs, including universities run by religious sects that oppose war (i.e. Quakers)? Raising an army is a concern of the state.

  6. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    And not only is nobody asking Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, they’re not asking them to provide emergency contraceptives to anybody but rape victims

    The thing is, feminists and leftists aren’t just politely asking them to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims, they are attempting to use the power of the state to force them to.

  7. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    The military has other avenues to raise an army; rape victims loaded into an ambulance do not have the option of choosing where to go for treatment, nor do they have time to futz around going from hospital to hospital.

    Try again.

  8. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    The thing is, feminists and leftists aren’t just politely asking them to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims, they are attempting to use the power of the state to force them to.

    See Comment #2.

  9. May 5, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    My question for Holy Joe, is what happens when a woman is taken to a Catholic hospital (unconcious, in an ambulance) and is too injured to be moved to another treating facility within 72 hours?

    BTW, I don’t know if this is a policy of all Catholic hospitals and/or Drs. who are admitted to them. For instance, my gyn, practices at a professional building at our local Catholic hospital and is admitted to perform surgery there, and she prescribes BC.

  10. Sally
    May 5, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Look. It’s been well-established that the state has an interest in regulating hospitals to make sure that they provide competent care. Religious hospitals aren’t entitled to provide incompetent or abusive care just because they’re religious.

    There isn’t a similar established precedent for the national government regulating universities. Instead, the governnment forces universities to do things through back-door methods, by threatening to withhold federal funds. I think it’s very bad that the federal government uses this tactic to force religious universities to allow military recruiters on campus, but I uphold their right to do so.

  11. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Look. It’s been well-established that the state has an interest in regulating hospitals to make sure that they provide competent care. Religious hospitals aren’t entitled to provide incompetent or abusive care just because they’re religious.

    So why is it that leftists think that a nativity scene in a park or a Ten Commandments monument at a courthouse is an intolerable violation of the separation of church and state, yet requiring religious hospitals to dispense a drug they oppose due to religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable and does not violate either the separation of church and state or relgious freedom?

    I think it’s very bad that the federal government uses this tactic to force religious universities to allow military recruiters on campus, but I uphold their right to do so.

    The federal government (and all other government) doesn’t have any rights. Rights belong to individuals.

  12. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    So why is it that leftists think that a nativity scene in a park or a Ten Commandments monument at a courthouse is an intolerable violation of the separation of church and state, yet requiring religious hospitals to dispense a drug they oppose due to religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable and does not violate either the separation of church and state or relgious freedom?

    Quite simple. The religious display is a violation of the Establishment Clause and is an endorsement of religion. Requiring Catholic hospitals to provide a standard of care to rape victims is an exercise of the state’s power of regulating public health. Moreover, it prevents the hospital from imposing its religious views on a patient who may not share them in a situation where doing so can cause that patient real harm. If the state allowed that to happen, it would be tacitly endorsing the Catholic view and elevating the hospital’s religious beliefs over those of the patient.

    Of course, if Catholic hospitals don’t want to follow along with accepted standards of medical care, the government can do what it does in the case of universities, even religious ones, that refuse to allow military recruiters on campus and cut their federal funding. I suspect they wouldn’t like that very much.

  13. evil_fizz
    May 5, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    yet requiring religious hospitals to dispense a drug they oppose due to religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable and does not violate either the separation of church and state or relgious freedom?

    States have legitmate interests in making sure that hospitals provide appropriate care and do so in lots of different ways (licensing, tort law, Medicare/Medicaid dollars, etc). If you’re going to hold yourself out as a provider of emergency services and accept federal money to do so, then you actually have to do so. You can’t hide behind “it’s my religion!” when the issue is someone else’s well being (which you have assumed a legal duty to protect) in question.

    And Andrew? You’re trollling when you say “so why is it that leftists think…” Knock it off.

  14. May 5, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    Andrew – if Catholic hospitals are not willing to provide appropriate care to rape victims – including Plan B if wanted – they should not be treating rape victims. The Church suffers no irreperable harm by not displaying a creche on public property. The same cannot be said for someone with a rape-induced pregnancy.

    They seem more than willing to accept rape victims in their emergency rooms, but are then unwilling to treat them in accordance with the victim’s wishes. That is what’s intolerable. If they find the prospect of providing an acceptable level of care is beyond them, then they should stop pretending to provide true emergency care.

  15. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    The religious display is a violation of the Establishment Clause and is an endorsement of religion.

    The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It was written to prevent the United States Congress from establishing a federal state religion. It doesn’t even mention municipalities and states and certainly does not prohibit them from displaying religious symbols in parks or courthouses.

    Requiring Catholic hospitals to provide a standard of care to rape victims is an exercise of the state’s power of regulating public health. Moreover, it prevents the hospital from imposing its religious views on a patient who may not share them in a situation where doing so can cause that patient real harm. If the state allowed that to happen, it would be tacitly endorsing the Catholic view and elevating the hospital’s religious beliefs over those of the patient.

    If a patient doesn’t like the services they recieve at a certain hospital, then they should go elsewhere (they have freedom of association, after all). If feminists and socialists (or do I repeat myself) don’t like the fact that certain hospitals don’t dispense certain drugs, then perhaps they should start their own hospitals to offer those services.

    Of course, if Catholic hospitals don’t want to follow along with accepted standards of medical care, the government can do what it does in the case of universities, even religious ones, that refuse to allow military recruiters on campus and cut their federal funding. I suspect they wouldn’t like that very much.

    I agree with you on this. The federal government shouldn’t provide funding for Catholic hospitals. In fact, it shouldn’t fund any hospitals (except military and veterans’ hospitals).

    States have legitmate interests in making sure that hospitals provide appropriate care and do so in lots of different ways (licensing, tort law, Medicare/Medicaid dollars, etc).

    The only legitimate interest the state has is the protection individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property. By forcing hospitals to dispense drugs that violate the owners’ religious beliefs, the state is not protecting these rights, but is trampling on them by violating the hospital owners’ property rights and freedom of religion.

    And Andrew? You’re trollling when you say “so why is it that leftists think…” Knock it off.

    How is that trolling? Most of the bloggers and commenters on this site support feminism and socialism, both of which are considered “left” by most, so I was merely asking them to explain their hypocritical views on freedom of religion.

    Andrew – if Catholic hospitals are not willing to provide appropriate care to rape victims – including Plan B if wanted – they should not be treating rape victims.

    It’s common knowledge that Catholic hospitals don’t dispense emergency contraception. If a rape victim wants emergency contraception, she should go to a non-Catholic hospital or go to a Catholic hospital and have some other doctor prescribe the EC for her.

  16. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It was written to prevent the United States Congress from establishing a federal state religion. It doesn’t even mention municipalities and states and certainly does not prohibit them from displaying religious symbols in parks or courthouses.

    Bone up on your Supreme Court cases, Andrew. Some are fine, some are not.

    The only legitimate interest the state has is the protection individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property. By forcing hospitals to dispense drugs that violate the owners’ religious beliefs, the state is not protecting these rights, but is trampling on them by violating the hospital owners’ property rights and freedom of religion.

    Sorry, but I’m a little more concerned about the rape victim whose rights to life, liberty and bodily autonomy are being compromised here. Not to mention her religious beliefs if she does not agree with the Church’s.

    Again, the hospital has the option to stop accepting emergency cases and the funds that come with them. They want it both ways — they want to get the money for treating rape victims AND they want to impose their religious beliefs in contravention of accepted standards of care. If they don’t want to be in the medicine game, they should stay out of it.

    It’s common knowledge that Catholic hospitals don’t dispense emergency contraception. If a rape victim wants emergency contraception, she should go to a non-Catholic hospital or go to a Catholic hospital and have some other doctor prescribe the EC for her.

    Andrew, what part of “You don’t get to choose where the ambulance takes your unconscious body” do you *not* get?

  17. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    How is that trolling? Most of the bloggers and commenters on this site support feminism and socialism, both of which are considered “left” by most, so I was merely asking them to explain their hypocritical views on freedom of religion.

    Look up “strawman.”

  18. Rachel
    May 5, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    It’s common knowledge that Catholic hospitals don’t dispense emergency contraception. If a rape victim wants emergency contraception, she should go to a non-Catholic hospital or go to a Catholic hospital and have some other doctor prescribe the EC for her.

    No. No, it isn’t. I say this as an alumna of a Catholic institution – go on, guess which one! – that scrupulously hides the fact that it does not provide EC or, for that matter, rape kits, to sexual assault patients. I would estimate that of the students I told, probably 70% were unaware that EC wasn’t available, and fully 100% were unaware that rape kits were unavailable.

    Also, I don’t know which marvelous fantasyland you live in, but all women who have been raped most certainly do not have a choice of which hospital the ambulance takes them to. Or of where they are raped and which hospital is nearby.

  19. kate
    May 5, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    I want to say upfront, that I think it is disgusting that anyone would deny a rape victim emergency contraception. Nonetheless, I don’t think that forcing Catholic hospitals to provide plan-B will work. They still wouldn’t come out and offer it; might pressure woman not to take it; give misinformation (like it causes abortions); have “problems keeping it in stock,” and so on. It might be better to instuct emt’s not to bring rape victims to hospitals that don’t provide plan B unless the victim specifically requests otherwise. That should keep the most severely injured victims out of Catholic hospitals. Also, hospitals that don’t offer emergency contraception could be required to post that fact clearly at the entrance and to provide cab service (or ambulance service if needed), at hospital expense, in a timely fasion to the nearest hospital that does. It’s not ideal, particularly in areas where the nearest hospital is far away, but I think that for me a cab ride, even a long one, would be less traumatic than fighting with hospital workers who think I’m an evil slut.

  20. evil_fizz
    May 5, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    The federal government shouldn’t provide funding for Catholic hospitals. In fact, it shouldn’t fund any hospitals (except military and veterans’ hospitals).

    Well, I will wish you luck in your plans to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid.

    The only legitimate interest the state has is the protection individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property. By forcing hospitals to dispense drugs that violate the owners’ religious beliefs, the state is not protecting these rights, but is trampling on them by violating the hospital owners’ property rights and freedom of religion.

    Actually, I’d argue that “life” is broad enough to encompass public health and providing victims of sexual assault with EC is within the realm of public health.

    How is that trolling? Most of the bloggers and commenters on this site support feminism and socialism, both of which are considered “left” by most, so I was merely asking them to explain their hypocritical views on freedom of religion.

    Asking for a defense of socialist theory is thread drift, a common form of trolling. So is sneering. (Also, if you’re going to accuse us of anything, it’s inconsistency, not hypocrisy.)

    It’s common knowledge that Catholic hospitals don’t dispense emergency contraception. If a rape victim wants emergency contraception, she should go to a non-Catholic hospital or go to a Catholic hospital and have some other doctor prescribe the EC for her.

    \

    Dude, did you read the original post? And you know that if you’re in an ambulance, you have no choice about where they take you, right?

  21. May 5, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Andrew – even if given a choice, many people may not know which hospitals in their area are Catholic and which are not. If your two closest hospitals are Clark and Floyd, how is the poor patient supposed to know which is a Catholic hospital? (Both are sattelite facilities). That’s even supposing a choice is given. If I’m raped at my house, I’ll be given a choice, but there’s only a small overlapping area. Outside of that, you go where they take you.

    The government has a legitimate interest and concern in having available emergency care to its populace. The standard of emergency care for rape victims includes an option of emergency contraception. Catholic Hospitals should not be involved in the emergency care of rape victims if they are not willing to meet the standard of care.

  22. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    I’m wondering if the fighting the Catholic Church’s hospital policy is even worth the bother. Why aren’t we, as women, asking the state to require emergency response personnel to carry Plan B and for all responding officers to carry Plan B. I realize that, right now, it’s a prescription only medication, but surely there’s a way around that during an on-site emergency situation – emergency response teams on ambulances are not necessarily doctors but can dispense all kinds of treatment on site.

    Or, perhaps, we should recommend that women go to their personal doctors and get a prescription for Plan B and keep it in a safe place, just in case.

    It’s incredibly wrong for Catholic hospitals to accept rape victims and then refuse to help prevent pregnancy. It is, essentially, a second rape. If helping a raped woman prevent a possible pregnancy is so morally abhorrant to them, then need to take themselves out of the arena. If they are being evasive about what kinds of care they can provide to a rape victim and yet encourage rape victims to be brought to them, then they are essentially acting as rapists themselves. They are manipulating and deceiving a woman in the hopes that they can take advantage of her body. That’s not any different than the act the rapist has already perpetrated against the victim – he’s manipulated her (physically) and taken her body from her. Not to mention her emotional and mental well-being. If a hospital refused to treat a rape victim properly, then they are also tampering with her body, her emotional well-being and her mental state.

    It’s really quite sick to advertise yourself as a safe harbor for rape victims and then refuse to give them something that can prevent a possible pregnancy. It’s quite deeply sick.

  23. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Bone up on your Supreme Court cases, Andrew. Some are fine, some are not.

    I don’t really care what the Supreme Court says. With the exception of United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and a handful of other cases, they haven’t made a decision consistent with the original intent of the Constitution since the 1930s. They are a gang of totalitarian socialists and neocons who only care about finding ways to expand powers of the federal government.

    Sorry, but I’m a little more concerned about the rape victim whose rights to life, liberty and bodily autonomy are being compromised here. Not to mention her religious beliefs if she does not agree with the Church’s.

    The hospital is not compromising her right to life, liberty, or bodily autonomy. If she wants emergency contraception, she can simply go to another hospital or doctor to get a prescription for the drug after recieving treatment at the Catholic hospital.

    Also, I’m sure someone is going to accuse me of being a “fundie” or opposing emergency contraception so I will address that now. I’m not a Christian conservative and I’m not really a conservative at all (though I have a lot in common with paleocons). I’m a libertarian who supports property rights, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. I don’t oppose the use of emergency contraception, I just don’t think the government should force anyone to dispense drugs that they find immoral or that violate their religious beliefs.

    Actually, I’d argue that “life” is broad enough to encompass public health and providing victims of sexual assault with EC is within the realm of public health.

    Property rights are the foundation of all other rights, including the right to life and right to liberty. If the government forces hospitals to provide certain drugs, the government is violating the owners’ property rights.

    This thread has been really amusing to read. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of modern “liberals”, feminists, and other socialists. You talk about how you love the separation of church and state, religious freedom, freedom of choice, diversity, and tolerance, yet when Catholics are involved, you suddenly oppose all of that.

  24. ian
    May 5, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    What’s “sick” is the attempt to demonize religious belief that is going on in this thread. Liberty of conscience includes decisions about medical treatment that will and will not be offered, and I think it’s shocking to see the anti-Catholicism on display in this thread.

    Saying that the “emotional and mental well-being” of rape victims is hampered by this policy is a quintessentially moral judgment. That is a fine one to make, but using the threat of state sanction to impose it is tunnel vision. In the views of the doctors who staff these hospitals, the administration of birth control is a moral wrong, and does not benefit anyone’s “well-being.”

    If you dispute the deeply held religious beliefs of these doctors, good for you. Exercise the liberty of your conscience however you may. But it’s disgusting to see the full-scale demonization that’s going on here.

  25. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    Uh, Ian, please note that I began my comment by saying fighting this policy is pretty futile and the better way to go would be to push for EC being available to a rape victim through emergency response personnel.

    But – if the Catholic Church is aware that pregnancy is a possibility in rape situations and their religion-based policy is to not impede such a pregnancy from occurring, then it is immoral for them to encourage rape victims to come to their emergency rooms or to be brought their by emergency response personnel. They would be more honest and forthright to say we will not handle rape victims and that all rape victims should be brought to another venue. If no other venue is available, then let the police, fire and other government-supported emergency services have access to all the treatments available to rape victims and let them dispense them.

    The Catholic Church has made it clear that the possibility of a life being conceived from a rape is more important to them than the rape victim. They won’t say that outright, but that’s what their policy is – to refuse women a treatment that would greatly lessen the chances that conception might occur from the rape. This is not “full-scale demonization”. This is calling a spade a spade. These people are so full of themselves and so superior and so cold and uncaring that they would rather a rape victim be further traumatized and victimized by a preventable pregnancy – by a preventableconception – that they would refuse her standard treatment. There’s something deeply, deeply disturbed and deeply, deeply wrong about that. Only someone who hates women would do that. Sorry, but that’s the truth.

    The hospital is not compromising her right to life, liberty, or bodily autonomy. If she wants emergency contraception, she can simply go to another hospital or doctor to get a prescription for the drug after recieving treatment at the Catholic hospital.

    She can simply go to another hospital or doctor to get a prescription…??

    Yes, because she’s already mentally and emotionally traumatized, maybe physically incapable of running around town finding alternate care, maybe alternate care isn’t available, etc., etc., etc.

    Political positions are all well and good on paper. When real people are badly hurt and in need of genuine care and treatment, they tend to fall apart. A society that doesn’t give a shit about individual members and only cares about rights and rules and regulations on paper isn’t going to last long.

    I think every mother with daughters old enough to get pregnant and every woman who is legally old enough to obtain a prescription should get one for EC and keep it updated and keep it accessible. If you’ve been raped, someone has already stolen your autonomy from you. Don’t put yourself in a position where someone can steal it from you again.

  26. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Oh, and Ian, when a male doctor who thinks EC is “morally wrong” can get raped and impregnated against his will, then he gets a say.

    And spare me the conscience bullshit. If you’re morally opposed to dispensing EC, then you shouldn’t be treating people who need it. That means you call up your police department, fire departmen, sheriff’s office and emergency response team and tell them that rape victims need to be treated elsewhere. It’s hypocritical to claim that you think EC is immoral and then to advertise yourself as a place where the people who need it the most can feel safe. That’s a lie. That’s dishonest. And dishonest is wrong. To be dishonest in such a situation is sick. Selfish, selfish, selfish and sick, sick, sick.

  27. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    I don’t really care what the Supreme Court says.

    Well, then you’re SOL, since they’re the ones who issue the opinions on this.

    What’s “sick” is the attempt to demonize religious belief that is going on in this thread.

    Please, give us some quotes here. Because there’s no attempt to “demonize” religious belief in general.

    What there is, is criticism of a particular religious stance that has harmful real-world consequences. Like, say, female genital mutilation or human sacrifice — or are you okay with things like that?

    That is a fine one to make, but using the threat of state sanction to impose it is tunnel vision. In the views of the doctors who staff these hospitals, the administration of birth control is a moral wrong, and does not benefit anyone’s “well-being.”

    Hey, Catholic hospitals do not need to accept federal and state funds for emergency treatment, but if they do, they should play by the rules of medical care.

    And once again, with feeling: nobody is discussing their larger views on birth control or abortion or sterilization — we’re talking about the provision of time-sensitive emergency care to rape victims who may not have had a choice as to where they were brought for care. Moreover, Catholic hospitals are not very up-front about their refusal to provide this care so that people who do have a choice do not waste their time and money at a facility that will give them substandard care for standard prices.

    So, perhaps instead of forcing Catholic hospitals to provide this care, they should be forced to provide truth in advertising and post prominent signs that they will not provide PlanB (or rape kits) and the ambulance companies and EMS services should be told not to bring rape victims to Catholic hospitals.

    Or is that “demonizing” them as well?

  28. kate
    May 5, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    The only legitimate interest the state has is the protection individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property.

    The verbiage is ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ not property. Property is the empty, soulless god liberatarians put up for worship. Oh how I love liberatarians! Simplistic like a 5 year old stomping his feet because he has to share in the household chores. Oh the pain they feel! They enjoy the fruits of publicly funded protections and infrastucture whilst decrying every peice of the funding that doesn’t have some immediate effect for themselves.

    I don’t really care what the Supreme Court says…. They are a gang of totalitarian socialists and neocons who only care about finding ways to expand powers of the federal government.

    Hide Andrew, hide they’re comin’ ta get ya!

    If you dispute the deeply held religious beliefs of these doctors, good for you. Exercise the liberty of your conscience however you may. But it’s disgusting to see the full-scale demonization that’s going on here.

    Oh for the love of you know who! Doctors and hospitals, fundies and pro-life nutbags have no right to use a woman’s body as a tool to express their religious convictions and gain points at the pearly gates.

    What is it about a woman being a human being who deserves bodily autonomy that you people don’t get?

    When someone uses someone else’s body and life as a tool for their own motives with no regard whatever for the consequences or the consent of the one they use, then I would say their behavior is that of a demon. Indeed, a body snatching demon if you will.

    Go tell your religious leaders to stop demonizing themselves by their selfish ungodly, unmerciful behavior.

    And by the way, why is Andrew the libertarian having such a hard time wrapping his mind around how these hospitals are robbing an individual of her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by deciding for her what constitutes emergency care?

  29. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 8:11 pm

    She can simply go to another hospital or doctor to get a prescription…??

    This must be some landmark in meta-ness. The whole impetus for this post was Joe Lieberman’s statement of exactly the same thing.

  30. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    I should also point out that these policies are a reflection of the beliefs of the hospital administration, not necessarily of the doctors and nurses who work there.

  31. May 5, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    It’s been my experience in discussions such as this that the skeleton holding together the anti-emergency-bc arguments (and many of the anti-choice arguments), is the underlying belief that rape doesn’t really happen; that feminists make up these numbers to slander men, and the majority of women claiming to be raped are really just trying to get back at some boyfriend for not buying her roses, or whatever sick scenario they’ve fixated on.

    Give ’em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves on this.

  32. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    Someone oughta remind Joe that Connecticut is bigger than Fairfield County.

  33. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    Joe is actually from New Haven, so he is aware of that.

    Of course, New Haven is also home to both St. Raphael’s and Yale-New Haven, so the whole “short ride” thing is true there.

    I do remember, dimly, that 10-15 years or so ago, there used to be three hospitals in Hartford — Hartford Hospital, a Jewish hospital, and a Catholic hospital. Eventually, the Jewish and Catholic hospitals merged and reproductive services were one of the issues in the merger. I don’t recall how that turned out.

  34. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    It’s been my experience in discussions such as this that the skeleton holding together the anti-emergency-bc arguments (and many of the anti-choice arguments), is the underlying belief that rape doesn’t really happen; that feminists make up these numbers to slander men, and the majority of women claiming to be raped are really just trying to get back at some boyfriend for not buying her roses, or whatever sick scenario they’ve fixated on.

    Or only really happens to someone who fits this definition of a geniune rape victim:

    “A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

    Hey, we’re Catholic! No sodomy, no EC! Sorry, honey, you’ll have to drag your beaten, bloody, raped body fifty miles down the road for EC because you haven’t been brutalized enough for us and you’re not religious enough!

    You know, when men with obviously dark and twisted fantasy lives like this guy are getting to decide who needs compassionate care or not, we’ve got a problem. And his statement is merely an extreme example of the same attitude the Church is taking on EC in rape situations. That statement is what’s running through the minds of the oh-so-moral Catholics who would deny rape victims EC in the ER.

  35. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    zuzu, well, okay…but there are some remote areas of Connecticut. And even if New Haven isn’t technically Fairfield County, it’s the last stop on the commuter train through Greenwich and Southport and all that, isn’t it?

  36. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 8:28 pm

    I’ll have to look it up, but I don’t think any of the more rural/remote hospitals are Catholic. I’m familiar with the hospitals in Manchester, Willimantic and Middletown, which are all municipals. Plus UConn Health Center in Farmington, but if you live there, you have choices.

  37. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Looks like there are only the four Catholic hospitals — in New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport and Waterbury. All of which are not exactly wealthy places, and are pretty much the only cities with more than one hospital.

    That doesn’t mean, of course, that the public hospitals reliably offer Plan B, but at least they’re subject to state regulation without trying to get out of it via religious exemptions.

  38. May 5, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    I have an idea. Why don’t they just pray over her body?

  39. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    I hope not.

    I’m lucky – I live in a liberal, wealthy, almost solidly Jewish suburb of NYC. We have great hospital options within a few minutes driving distance, plus we have access to all of NYC’s better hospitals – not necessarily for emergencies, of course, but for other health care issues.

    And, while Joe Lieberman (a guy I usually like, btw) may just be speaking for his state, there are girls who will be raped in South Dakota, or who will be stuck on a stormy winter night, and who won’t have options. Catholics aren’t even close to a religious majority here in this country, yet they’re allowed to make these kinds of personal, intimate decisions about other people’s lives – the very same people whose tax dollars are at least partially supporting the emergency rooms set up to treat them in, hello, emergencies. It’s not right. If your religion and your moral code preempt you from offering a full range of treatment options to a traumatized, emergency care patient, then you need to take yourself out of the business of offering emergency care. It’s the only honest thing to do.

  40. Andrew
    May 5, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Well, then you’re SOL, since they’re the ones who issue the opinions on this.

    Yeah, I realize that I’m SOL for now. But SCOTUS has no method of enforcing its ludicrious decrees. Sooner or later states will realize this and begin ignoring the nine black-robed tyrants.

    Political positions are all well and good on paper. When real people are badly hurt and in need of genuine care and treatment, they tend to fall apart. A society that doesn’t give a shit about individual members and only cares about rights and rules and regulations on paper isn’t going to last long.

    Countries that value individualism last much longer and are more successful than countries that value society over the rights of the individual (such as the Soviet Union). America valued individualism for most of its existance and became the most powerful and successful country in the world. But since individualism was rejected in the 1930s, America has been plagued with problems caused by the socialism of FDR and his successors.

    The verbiage is ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ not property. Property is the empty, soulless god liberatarians put up for worship. Oh how I love liberatarians! Simplistic like a 5 year old stomping his feet because he has to share in the household chores.

    Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that the Declaration of Independence states “pursuit of happiness” instead of “property.” But you and other socialists seem to ignore the fact that it guarantees “pursuit of happiness”, not “happiness.” It does not guarantee someone the right to steal from others so they can be “happy”. And libertarians don’t worship property as a god. Many of libertarians just view the right to property as the most important of and foundation of our inalienable rights.

    Oh the pain they feel! They enjoy the fruits of publicly funded protections and infrastucture whilst decrying every peice of the funding that doesn’t have some immediate effect for themselves.

    I (and most libertarians) don’t enjoy any of the fruits of publicly funded protection, with the exception of the police and military, both of which are necessary for governments to have to carry out their duty of protecting life, liberty, and property. The only people who enjoy the fruits of publicly funded infastructure are parasites like politicians, welfare queens, and defense contractors.

  41. zuzu
    May 5, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    Andrew, you’ve now officially crossed into the territory of “complete nutjob.”

    Your comments will no longer be cleared from the moderation queue. The only reason I allowed this one through is to have a metaphorical head on a pike.

    There’s no sense arguing or reasoning with you. I refuse to burn up any bandwidth giving you a forum for your ravings.

    Ta.

  42. ian
    May 5, 2006 at 9:45 pm

    If anyone wants examples of “demonization,” consider “PHLAF”‘s numerous quotations: “These people [meaning, the world’s billion Catholics] are so full of themselves and so superior and so cold and uncaring that they would rather a rape victim be further traumatized and victimized by a preventable pregnancy – by a preventableconception – that they would refuse her standard treatment. There’s something deeply, deeply disturbed and deeply, deeply wrong about that. Only someone who hates women would do that. Sorry, but that’s the truth.”

    Congratulations. You just concluded that an entire faith, many of whom are committed Democrats and feminists, “hate women.” Your position is total bullshit, and you are no different from the religious fundamentalists in the Republican Party who demonize Islam as a religion of terrorists. You make me sick and I’m not going to bother to engage the non-arguments of a bigot like yourself.

    Except this:

    “Oh, and Ian, when a male doctor who thinks EC is “morally wrong” can get raped and impregnated against his will, then he gets a say.”

    many catholics are women. not that you would know anything about that. It’s sad that there are still people in the world like you. sad, sad, sad, ’cause you are sick, sick, sick.

    Luckily, anti-sectarian crusaders such as yourself will never have any meaningful power. Probably because we reproduce faster. :)

    kate says: “Oh for the love of you know who! Doctors and hospitals, fundies and pro-life nutbags have no right to use a woman’s body as a tool to express their religious convictions and gain points at the pearly gates.”

    religious people are not “nutbags” or “fundamentalists.” it’s too bad you don’t get that. The struggle to build a lasting progressive coalition, a struggle of which I am a part, will never succeed if the only people allowed into the tent are the irreligious. religious folks elected FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton–you’d be best not to turn your back and be nasty.

    from your “solidly jewish suburb of NYC,” the issues may appear quite clear cut. for those of us not so bizarrely insular, it’s far less clear.

  43. ian
    May 5, 2006 at 9:49 pm

    oh, also:

    “Catholics aren’t even close to a religious majority here in this country, yet they’re allowed to make these kinds of personal, intimate decisions about other people’s lives – the very same people whose tax dollars are at least partially supporting the emergency rooms set up to treat them in”

    1) we are only making decisions about how to run our own hospitals, which we run for no profit. i realize gratitude for that is beneath your snotty attitude, but we’re not arguing that other hospitals shouldn’t be able to offer Plan B. it would simply violate the mandates of our conscience. that is a perfectly respectable, liberal idea–that one’s conscience should govern their conduct.

    i support the same for our friends the quakers, not to fight in wars; the same for our friends, the lukumi babalu aye, to engage in ritual (animal) sacrifice even though I am a committed vegetarian and way squeamish when it comes to killing stuff; the same for our friends the sikhs to carry a small dagger at work. religious freedom is not a controversial idea

    2) the largest single religious denomination in the country is catholicism. so just as a point of fact, you’re wrong. :)

  44. Nobody
    May 5, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    Why isn’t emergency contraception (or the other birth control pills, for that matter) available OTC? Wouldn’t that be an easier fight than beating the Catholics into submission?

    I’m curious, also, how often rape victims are taken to hospitals by ambulance. Is there any statistical basis for thinking this happens often? I’m sure it happens too often, and it doesn’t change the philosophical point, no matter what the number is. But I’d like to know what we’re talking about.

  45. ian
    May 5, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    for what it’s worth I’m 100% behind OTC BC in all its forms. given that you do have 24 hours before loss of peak effectiveness, that should be more than enough time to visit one of our Dark Age hospitals, get out, and go to the pharmacy. :)

  46. DMar
    May 5, 2006 at 10:13 pm

    In the county I live in all rape survivors are brought to one site, and all rape exams take place in this set of rooms, with one of several nurses trained in the task. I was a volunteer rape advocate here, and they had PlanB on site and gave it to the women right away.

    This made things easier for a couple of reasons: first, the exams were all consistent, which made things easier evidence wise; second, the nurses were extra sensitive and there were no religious overtones; and third, a lot of the women who were date raped delayed reporting the crime, often because they knew the assailant (sp?) and thus they received plan B as quickly as possible, as well as some serious doses of antibiotics to try and stop and STDs. Of course, if a woman (or man, I’m not mentioning them here because they don’t need plan b) were so brutalized by the rape that they needed emergency care they went to a proper ER first.

    I don’t want to speak for anyone but myself, but it seems from reading the comments that most people don’t mind that the catholic hospitals don’t provide plan B, it’s that they shouldn’t be offered up as providing proper care for rape survivors if they don’t.

  47. May 5, 2006 at 10:13 pm

    BTW, I don’t know if this is a policy of all Catholic hospitals and/or Drs. who are admitted to them.

    The US Catholic bishops have stated that Catholic hospitals should offer EC only in case of rape and only after checking to make sure that the woman hasn’t ovulated.

    Actual policy probably differs from one Catholic hospital to another. This page at the Catholics 4 Choice site contains, among other things, a report on EC availability at Catholic hospitals.

  48. PHLAF
    May 5, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    “These people [meaning, the world’s billion Catholics]

    Nope, didn’t mean that at all. Meant these Catholics working in these emergency rooms in these Catholic hospitals and these Catholics who make these policies. That’s who I meant. ‘

    Hey, so don’t argue with me! I’m not going to cry if you don’t respond. But to begin an argument with me based on a lot of over-the-top, dishonest insinuations about what I meant when I said something and then to claim you won’t pay attention to my response kinda makes you the idiot, not me.

    I know many Catholics are women. But male doctors (not even just the Catholic ones, but they’re the ones we’re talking about here) really don’t get to decide that violently forcing pregnancy on women is “moral”. If it can never, ever happen to you, your voice isn’t worth as much as that of someone it can happen to.

    Uh, I’m Catholic, and have four kids. Not a huge lot, but probably more than you. So please stop with the “we’ll reproduce faster” crap. Rabbits and welfare queens reproduce pretty damned quick, too. Hardly an accomplishment to be proud of.

    we are only making decisions about how to run our own hospitals, which we run for no profit. i realize gratitude for that is beneath your snotty attitude, but we’re not arguing that other hospitals shouldn’t be able to offer Plan B. it would simply violate the mandates of our conscience. that is a perfectly respectable, liberal idea–that one’s conscience should govern their conduct.

    Again, since you seem to be incredibly mentally impaired, I didn’t suggest that we force Catholic hospitals to offer Plan B. I said that we should allow first responders to carry and dispense Plan B. I also believe that Catholic hospitals should remove themselves from the position of offering emergency care to rape victims since they can’t provide a full range of treatment.

    And you have a hell of a nerve calling me snotty. Your parents ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way they raised you.

    Um, no, I’m not wrong at all. Catholics make up less than a quarter of the population. They are not a religious majority at all. They’re merely a small group of Christians. Protestants make up the vast majority of Christians in this country. Now, if you want to try and trick the grownups by playing numbers games with the statistics, go ahead. Just don’t think anyone is going to buy it.

    And I’m not anti-Catholic. I take serious issue with some of the Church’s doctrine and I take serious issue with some Catholic groups and organizations’ polices (such as this one). I am just as appalled by conservative Christians who are not Catholic but who also pull the bullshit conscience clause excuse when they’re denying women their prescriptions at the counter.

    It is disturbing for a person who is emergency room care to refuse to give a rape victim treatment that may prevent conception. Why would someone do such a thing? The only possible answer is that they have a deep-seated hatred and disrespect for women.

    I, not Kate, btw, am from the solidly Jewish, wealthy, liberal NYC suburb. It’s really not all that insular. And things are never that clear cut for me. On this issue, however, they are. If you can’t offer the full range of treatment available to a rape victim, then you must stop claiming you can. Every Catholic hospital who can’t offer EC and proper rape counselling and proper acquisition of a rape kit (absolutely necessary for prosecution – why they wouldn’t offer this is bizarre – why they would want to allow a rapist to continue to rape is really pretty sick, IMO) should be required by law to notify all first responders and the communities they serve that rape victims will not be able to get these things at their facility. It’s called honesty, Ian. That’s all I’m asking for. Be honest and forthright. Say what you are and let the community know what your policy is. Why are you so afraid of doing that? Why don’t you want women to know the truth? What’s the motivation behind that?

  49. ian
    May 5, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    Compare:

    “since you seem to be incredibly mentally impaired…”

    to

    “your parents ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way they raised you.”

    And then a bunch of slams on folks on welfare. (Welfare queens? Honestly, hon–live in the post-’96 now, you sound like you’re reading the Contract With America.) Looks like I hit a sore spot. Imagine that.

    Determinations of what count as the “full range of treatment” for a rape victim involve questions of reproductive morality; you continue to reason circularly in this respect. the disagreement is about what, precisely, the “range of treatment” includes.

    I have no problem with information acquisition stuff you suggest. I doubt first responders are ignorant of the policies of their local hospitals, but sure, if some people are unaware, publish a list. my problem with this thread was the snotty (darn! I said it again) attitude taken towards people (men and women, believe it or not) who are acting in good faith on deeply held beliefs–just as deeply held as yours.

    our statistical disagreement about populations doesn’t really matter. you’re still wrong, because “Protestant” isn’t a meaningful sectarian identifier (any more than “not white” is a “race”), but I don’t really care that much. (oh, and also, “trick the grownups?” cute. congratulations on all the kids and everything, but please don’t presume to know anything about me, other than the fact that I am much smarter and cuter than you, which is obvious).

  50. May 6, 2006 at 2:10 am

    Determinations of what count as the “full range of treatment” for a rape victim involve questions of reproductive morality; you continue to reason circularly in this respect. the disagreement is about what, precisely, the “range of treatment” includes.

    Ian, No. Wrong. Absolutely, dead wrong.

    Determinations of whether Plan B is part of rape care is up to the victim. It is not the role of the health care provider to force his or her reproductive morality onto a brutalized woman. You cannot pretend that this doesn’t or won’t happen if a Catholic hospital routinely provides emergency care for rape victims, yet does not allow for Plan B, or other emergency contraception. I happen to think centralized rape processing areas with standardized care is a fabulous idea because it provides the rape victim with what they need (which is care that conforms to their own reproductive morality), and still allows the Catholic hospitals to follow their own consciences.

    In the absence of those, the Catholic hospitals either need to provide all options of post-rape care – or stop accepting rape victims as patients. It is simply not part of the mandate of an emergency care provider to imprint his or her morality on the patient. Patients are allowed to refuse care that the doctor feels morally obligated to provide – they should also be allowed to have legal, medically reasonable care even if their doctor feels morally wrong about it. It’s not the doctor’s morals, nor the doctor’s soul, and definitely not the doctor’s life, at stake.

  51. PHLAF
    May 6, 2006 at 6:12 am

    Ian, I thought you weren’t going to respond to me.

    And since I had already stated my position several times and you were continuing to misunderstand it, then the assumption is indeed that you have some kind of impediment.

    Your tone is obnoxious, arrogant, and rude. Your parents damned well ought to be ashamed of themselves. Or perhaps you ought to be ashamed for embarrassing them by your behavior. Either way, your behavior is shameful. For both you and your parents.

    What Tapetum said about who the decision about treatment belongs to. Refusing a standard treatment to a rape victim because of your personal religious beliefs is wrong. If your personal religious beliefs include the belief that women ought to be impregnated against their will and any attempt to hinder such a pregnancy is immoral, then you don’t belong in a position where you treat rape victims. If you can’t handle a world where other people get to make choices you don’t like, then go be a hermit or a sheepherder or something that takes you away from contact with the rest of humanity for most of your life.

    You can’t force others to make living your beliefs easier by insisting that they bow to your conscience or beliefs or whatever wacky fantasy you’ve cooked up in your head. The onus is on you to remove yourself from situations that pose a moral dilemma, not to remove the other people from those situations.

    No, Ian, you didn’t touch a sore spot, and I’m hardly on welfare, and I live very much in reality. I live next to one of the poorest cities in America. Welfare queens exist. And, like you, they use their mindless ability to breed like rabbits as a way to bully other people.

    As for those men and women who are acting on deeply held beliefs – I have no problem with that (that would be at least the fourth time I’ve said I have no problem with these hospitals that want to refuse EC – get it now?). I do have a problem with them encouraging rape victims to be brought to them and then refusing them treatment. If they want to hold the belief that rape victims shouldn’t be allowed access to EC, then they shouldn’t position themselves as a safe haven for rape victims. That’s a lie. You can’t go on about your deeply-held beliefs and your moral high road and then lie and use those beliefs to bully and domineer an already brutalized and traumatized woman. That’s wrong. It’s as bad as what the rapist has already done to her.

    Okay, Ian, that last bit? Please. I’m an adult. I merely roll my eyes and shake my head at pathetic little comebacks like that. Grow up. And stop embarrassing your parents and your Church.

  52. May 6, 2006 at 7:25 am

    [I should point out here that I personally have no moral objections to birth control or to pre-karyogamic (i.e. before the fusion of the sperm and ovum nuclei) emergency contraception.]

    Moreover, it prevents the hospital from imposing its religious views on a patient who may not share them in a situation where doing so can cause that patient real harm.

    No one is imposing their views on emergency contraception. They are simply saying that they won’t be a party to its use.

    When arguing this issue, people with a libertarianish mindset ought to realize two things:

    Most people on the left do not really believe in the separation of church and state. They only want the separation to go one way. What they believe in is that the church not interfere with the state, but that the state take great pains to force the church to accomodate their views.

    As for the comparison with ROTC:

    The military has other avenues to raise an army; rape victims loaded into an ambulance do not have the option of choosing where to go for treatment, nor do they have time to futz around going from hospital to hospital.

    I think in the end what it really comes down to is that people on the left take objections to the military more seriously than objections to birth control, and so are much more willing to see freedom of conscience superceded in the latter case than the former. It’s simply an issue of whose ox is being gored.

  53. zuzu
    May 6, 2006 at 9:06 am

    Congratulations. You just concluded that an entire faith, many of whom are committed Democrats and feminists, “hate women.” Your position is total bullshit, and you are no different from the religious fundamentalists in the Republican Party who demonize Islam as a religion of terrorists. You make me sick and I’m not going to bother to engage the non-arguments of a bigot like yourself.

    Good. Then you and your smug attitude will be more than happy to be sent to the moderation queue. You want to tell people they’re disgusting and that they’re “sick, sick, sick” for questioning a religious-based health-care policy by a hospital that opens its doors to all? Do it elsewhere.

  54. Sally
    May 6, 2006 at 9:13 am

    No, Ian, you didn’t touch a sore spot, and I’m hardly on welfare, and I live very much in reality. I live next to one of the poorest cities in America. Welfare queens exist. And, like you, they use their mindless ability to breed like rabbits as a way to bully other people.

    FWIW, I find this paragraph pretty repulsive.

  55. zuzu
    May 6, 2006 at 9:22 am

    I agree, Sally.

  56. ian
    May 6, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    i dunno what being “sent to the moderation queue” means–if it means I can’t post anymore here, that’s cool I guess. i dunno why it’s cool to call women on welfare “mindess” and that’s not “queue-worthy” or whatever, but hey, it’s your site, thanks for, uh, temporarily entertaining dissent

    seeya

  57. Let
    May 6, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    Frankly, I’m very much pro-choice but to choose to go to a Catholic hospital to get Plan B makes as much sense as joining the Republican party in order to help the poor and downtrodden. Obviously in the case of a rape victim, there is no choice as to what hospital, but even if she is initially taken to a Catholic hospital she can advise the rape counselor she wishes to be taken to a hospital that will accomodate her decision. If the hospital interferes, then it’s a different ballgame.

    As long as Lieberman doesn’t infect his stupidity via his vote to eliminate Plan B from all hospitals, I have no issues with his decision to not support it at a hospital that is religiously-inclined. While a rape victim may not have the presence of mind to request a hospital that will provide her with the emergency contraception that she needs, the state can require the hospital to arrange for transport to another hospital if they choose to waive the option of offering it.

  58. May 6, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    i dunno what being “sent to the moderation queue” means–if it means I can’t post anymore here, that’s cool I guess. i dunno why it’s cool to call women on welfare “mindess” and that’s not “queue-worthy” or whatever, but hey, it’s your site, thanks for, uh, temporarily entertaining dissent

    this site does entertain dissent. dissent does not include the right to generalize smugly about what ‘the left’ believes or does not believe. it also does not include the right to make half a dozen strawman arguments with impunity while ignoring actual arguments made.

  59. zuzu
    May 6, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    Ian, “being annoying after being called on it” will get you moderated.

    PHLAF has been called on her statement and has not responded to it.

    So don’t imagine you’ve been punished for a thoughtcrime. No, you’ve just been an unrepentant asswipe.

  60. zuzu
    May 6, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Oh, and just so we’re all clear:

    This isn’t an unfettered free-speech zone. If you’re disruptive or a troll, you’ll be warned, and if you refuse to change your behavior, you’ll be banned.

    Think of this as our living room. You’d fully expect to be kicked out of someone’s living room (or someone’s bar) if you abused others. So why not here?

  61. May 6, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Think of this as our living room. You’d fully expect to be kicked out of someone’s living room (or someone’s bar) if you abused others. So why not here?

    heh. you should have this warning visible right above the comment box. there has been a rash of commenters who don’t seem to understand this.

  62. hp
    May 6, 2006 at 9:39 pm

    It’s common knowledge that Catholic hospitals don’t dispense emergency contraception. If a rape victim wants emergency contraception, she should go to a non-Catholic hospital or go to a Catholic hospital and have some other doctor prescribe the EC for her.

    Actually, it’s not true that all Catholic hospitals refuse to carry/prescribe EC. I know of one extensive Catholic hospital network (multiple hospitals under one religious branch) in my area that offers EC.

    I find it interesting that it’s a hospital network run by nuns, rather than brothers/priests.

  63. PHLAF
    May 7, 2006 at 7:24 am

    You know, women (and men) who take advantage of the welfare system exist. It’s not even close to all people on welfare. But,in the context in which Ian made his statement in which he used the ability to reproduce and have more children in order to get something (a majority that will vote the way he does – although why he thinks all kids will grow up to think exactly like their parents is beyond me). In Ian’s case, and in the case of people who have padded their welfare checks by having more children, or who have continued to be irresponsible about birth control and had more children than they can support because they assume the state will pick up the tab, this is mindless breeding.

    “Nyah-nyah, I’ll just make more babies than you” is hardly an intelligent argument for anything, nor is it even much of a threat.

    Let, the state might require that the Catholic hospital immediately transport the rape victim to an accomodating facility, but that doens’t necessarily mean they’ll comply – and time is a factor, as is compassionate, efficient, discreet care – starting to shuttle an already pretty shaken up woman who might also require immediate care for serious physical injury from hospital to hospital isn’t good care. Look at the pharmacists who’ve refused to return prescriptions for BC, or have refused to hand them over or transfer them to someone who will fill them out. A minority of cases, to be sure, but when you’re the person it’s happening to, the statistics don’t mean much.

    After a while, it’s a trust issue – can women reasonably trust that a Catholic hospital will be able to offer proper care for rape victims? The answer would seem to be no.

  64. May 7, 2006 at 9:08 am

    I find it interesting that it’s a hospital network run by nuns, rather than brothers/priests.

    watch out or someone will accuse you of demonizing religion. because, apparently, pointing out that the RC church is sexist and calling denial of EC to a rape victim evidence of misogyny is ‘demonizing’ religion and religious people.

  65. hp
    May 7, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    Ah, emily1, I’m a lapsed Catholic. I’m lapsed specifically because my Catholic all-girls HS–run by another group of nuns–encouraged liberal values and female empowerment. Part of that was an encouragement to think for ourselves and know God on our own terms and within our own understanding. They also stressed learning about the “gentler” parts of the Catholic faith, and how many policies in the United States (being in HS when Clinton & co were dismantling welfare) were anti-Christian and anti-Jesus. Find your own morality, and accept that others will find theirs–and that others may find theirs to be different. Judge not, so not to be judged. The golden rule and all that good stuff.

    The real outcome of all this was to encourage us to recognize the sexism in the RC Church, and to encourage the development of lapsed Catholics. Few of the females I graduated with are still active Catholics. And I graduated with a class of 520.

Comments are closed.