Oklahoma Rape Victim Denied Emergency Contraceptives. Doctor Cites Religious Objection As Reason

reply to post by igor_ats


You make it sound like the law is so clear? The law is anything but clear!

There is the suicide thread up on ATS at this very moment. It would have been perfectly legal for the woman to abort the baby, but since she attempted suicide and accidentally lost the baby, it becomes homicide? If a woman is on her way to the abortion clinic, but she gets sideswiped by a drunk driver and loses the baby, it is homicide or manslaughter, even though the woman was about to end the baby anyway?

What is "viable?" A zygot is viable. It can be grown in a lab. My baby spent 3 months on breathing machines and medications, and then had to have a heart surgery before he came home. He wouldn't have survived on a bathroom floor. Was he viable?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I agree that the mother's life is more valuable than the fetuses. But, I also think a cops life is more valuable than a criminals, so where does that get us? I also think the morning after pill should be readily available, but I think late-term abortions are an atrocity! I don't believe it is only the woman's choice. A father may grieve the rest of his life over the loss of a baby. What if they go many months, the father becomes emotionally attached, and then one day the mother gets mad at him and aborts the baby? That is certainly not acceptable!!

I'm just saying the situation is never as simple as you are trying to portray.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by igor_ats

 

You make it sound like the law is so clear? The law is anything but clear!

It is clear.

The factor that allows a state to proscribe abortion is fetal viability, which is a medical determination not a moral or philospohical one - which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
There is the suicide thread up on ATS at this very moment. It would have been perfectly legal for the woman to abort the baby, but since she attempted suicide and accidentally lost the baby, it becomes homicide?

As far as I know a woman cannot be charged with murder/manslaughter for accidentally self-aborting or inducing a miscarriage on herself.

www.wnd.com...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If a woman is on her way to the abortion clinic, but she gets sideswiped by a drunk driver and loses the baby, it is homicide or manslaughter, even though the woman was about to end the baby anyway?

Seems incongruous at first, yet at the same time it isn't. People other than the mother who cause the death of an unborn child can face prosecution for the unborns demise.

Any act you commit which the state legislature defines as murder is murder, whether that act involves killing a person or not. For example:

"
The applicable statute is 187 of the California Penal Code 187.
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
"

It's quite clever really. Women who choose to have an abortion are legally free to do so, and woman who do not want one are legally protected from having one forced upon them. It still quite effectively protects the reproductive rights of all women. Fetus is still not a person despite ruling. Fetus is distinguished from human being. At no time was the legal status of a fetus changed in any way by this verdict.

Fetal homicide laws in general contain clauses that specifically exclude consideration of:

- Abortion procedures,

- Medical treatment, such as the removal of a uterine cancer or termination of a ectopic pregnancy which kills the embryo or fetus as an unintended side-effect, or

- Any action by the mother herself.

The fact that a mother didn't want to carry to term anyway doesn't change anything other than intent which she is legally allowed to carry out anyway.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
What is "viable?" A zygot is viable.

Fetal viability. A zygote will not survive outside the womb.

In a test tube in a freezer doesn't classify it as viable - but then an actual baby in a freezer won't be able to thawed out either since it's much more complex. Says alot about their differences Yet some ppl think they're the same thing.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
My baby spent 3 months on breathing machines and medications, and then had to have a heart surgery before he came home. He wouldn't have survived on a bathroom floor. Was he viable?

Viability is defined as being able to survive outside the womb with or without artificial assistance.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I also think a cops life is more valuable than a criminals, so where does that get us?

You simply argue it out and make determinations. Roe V Wade settled this.

Anti-abortionists' moral objection to abortion relies on the belief that the z/e/f is a person and should be offered new legal protection. This position has consistently failed to win support and undermine the legal provision of abortion. The right to privacy trumps any imaginary right to life.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I also think the morning after pill should be readily available, but I think late-term abortions are an atrocity!

Elective late term abortions are already illegal.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I don't believe it is only the woman's choice. A father may grieve the rest of his life over the loss of a baby.

A woman is perfectly free to listen to what someone else wants but is not compelled to act upon it. That is the law I'm afraid and I agree that's the way it should be.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
What if they go many months, the father becomes emotionally attached, and then one day the mother gets mad at him and aborts the baby? That is certainly not acceptable!!

The law cannot cover every diverse situations humans get themselves into. Roe simply says she has final say pre-viability.

Conversely what if he threatens to leave her if she doesn't carry to term an accidental pregnancy. That's unnacceptable too.

Yeh, sure sounds like left wing propaganda dovetailed right in to the POTUS' recent attack on the Catholic Church. I have noticed there is a spate of anti-Christian and especially anti-Catholic threads around here lately. I checked that site again and it is actively promoting Barack.

reply to post by igor_ats


Great responses!

I am leaving work, and I may not be back on much this weekend, but I wanted to at least say I appreciate your thorough response.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by blend57
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I was a little confused as well. I work in a pharmacy and the morning after pill doesn't require a prescription. All you have to do is ask for it at the counter. I was thinking maybe the rule varies from state to state? Or is there a more potent one that the doctor can give?

Thanks,
Blend57

Found an article from March of this year.

1 in 6 pharmacies hinders teen access to morning after pill

That means 5 out of 6 are giving it to teens, and everybody is giving it to adults. Seems like pretty easy access to me. When I searched for an article, a million other advertisements came up for Planned Parenthood and the like. So you don't even have to go to a pharmacy, there are plenty of clinics willing to administer it in Oklahoma as well.

|'m guessing a rape victim would rather go to a hospital than some pharmacy.

At a hospital you get the proper medical treatment and is the only logical legal choice as it covers alot of things such as injuries, rape-kit, police called etc. Going to a pharmacy - used against you in a court of a law that it wasn't as as bad as the woman claims - after all they'll ask the jury "who goes to a pharmacy after being raped like it was just a cough medicine"?

Seems like this hospital wasn't very good. No rape-kit, no staff to treat rape, not even courteous enough to refer a rape victim to a hospital that does.

Many hospitals don't have rape kits. And when you get discharged from a hospital for ANY reason you get a prescription to be filled LATER AT A PHARMACY. Sometimes you can get the prescription filled at the hospital pharmacy but birth control pills are not usually something a hospital considers as necessary to keep in their facility.

Of course you go to a hospital instead of a pharmacy if you've been assaulted but if they transfer you to another hospital, be thankful that there's someplace that can deal with your problem. No matter how tragic your story, you don't have a right to never be inconvenienced. And how much of an inconvenience is it to have someone pick up your prescription for you on the way home?

Okies may be in the Bible belt but "country don't mean dumb". Some of us can spot a propaganda piece such as this and we're not budged.

I'm rather astonished that any emergency room even at a 75 bed hospital would'nt have a few rape kits available. Not having specially trained staff at a rural hospital i get, but no rape kits? I guess women don't get raped very often in the sticks.

Originally posted by whitewave
Of course you go to a hospital instead of a pharmacy if you've been assaulted but if they transfer you to another hospital, be thankful that there's someplace that can deal with your problem.

Hospitals should cover something like rape. Ppl shouldn't be thanking their lucky stars there is treatment for something like that when they go to a hospital. "Glad this isn't a Catholic hospital! Phew."

Originally posted by whitewave
No matter how tragic your story, you don't have a right to never be inconvenienced.

Sorry I just got raped, sorry to be an inconvenience, got treatment? no? awww shucks, well thanks anyway.

Originally posted by whitewave
And how much of an inconvenience is it to have someone pick up your prescription for you on the way home?

This shouldn't be way of thinking for treating the most vulnerable, especially from people who proclaim to look up to someone who was supposedly all about love and compassion.

Let's not stock anything and just tell them to get it on your way home.

If it's so easily available then it should be available in Hospitals as part of the procedure including rape-kit etc. Hospitals should not be an extension of religious principle instead of helping people.

NO:

- abortion, including to save the life of the mother
- contraception, including information and referral
- emergency contraception for rape victims, including information and referral
- infertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization
- sterilization, including tubal ligation after childbirth
- condom distribution and information for HIV/AIDS prevention

When the only hospitals near you are Catholic then there is no one to serve to public's needs. Perhaps a position in the clergy is more suitable for these people, but they take up roles where they get to tell ppl to go away.

Originally posted by popsmayhem
Go to another doctor..

Simple as that, if it was true
she would not be debating
with this crazy doctor she would
be getting her ass in gear to find
one who would.. Time is
of the essence, it would be silly
to stay there and argue.
Surely this was NOT the ONLY
doctor...

,” you can actually use any type of emergency contraceptive pill for up to 5 days (120 hours) and still significantly reduce the chance that you’ll get pregnant.


In the United States, there are two different kinds of emergency contraceptive pills available: ulipristal acetate (ella) and progestin-only (Plan B One-Step, Next Choice and Levonorgestrel Tablets).



ella is a prescription-only product. It is more effective than progestin-only EC, particularly on the 4th and 5th days after sex. It is more likely to work when taken closer to ovulation than progestin-only pills; this is important because women have the highest chance of getting pregnant, and are most likely to be having sex, immediately before the egg is released. ella is approved for use up to 5 days after unprotected intercourse, with no decrease in effectiveness (this is important because sperm can only live in the body for 5 days).

ec.princeton.edu...

You got five days, go to another doctor
and the police to make sure the ass hole
who raped you goes to prison.

There may have been some kind of agenda behind this,
I sure hope the girl got the help she needed.

Did the nurse and doctor in question
actually say they even said this?

edit on 31-5-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

No...it's not as simple as just "find another doctor". This sort of thing sets a precedent where a Dr.'s personal sense of "morality" can override their legal obligations to their patients AND IT IS VERY, VERY, DANGEROUS.

What if I'm a Dr. and my own sense of "morality" tells me that a world with less Baby Boomers in it is a world which is better off? Do I get to deny you access to perfectly legal prescription drugs based solely upon my convictions that the earth is overpopulated and Baby Boomers as a whole are wasteful, selfish, and irresponsible?

What if I'm an ER Dr. and I just don't believe in pain medicine for whatever kooky reasons some TV Evangelist dreamed up? Is it OK to amputate your leg after a car accident cold turkey just because some clown in a bad suit told me that morphine is the work of the "devil" last Sunday?

What if my preacher tells me that Jesus want's all of my patients to have a computer chip implanted in them? If I can WITHOLD treatment based upon my religious whims...can I also ADMINISTER it that way? After all...the Constitution provides for freedom of religious expression but it no where says you have the right to be micro-chip free...right?

The moral argument's are largely the same in that the Dr. who denied birth control is choosing their and their church's utopian vision for the world over the rights of the patient to simply get what they are PAYING for from the Dr. Namely, honest and ethical practices and access to perfectly legal prescription drugs being administered appropriately. It's the classic "rights of the many" vs. "the rights of the few" argument.

This is dangerous territory and regardless of your position on the issue of birth control/abortion we ought to be mighty, mighty, careful about how much leeway we allow people's nuttery to affect the rights of a patient.

Originally posted by lokdog
I'm rather astonished that any emergency room even at a 75 bed hospital would'nt have a few rape kits available. Not having specially trained staff at a rural hospital i get, but no rape kits? I guess women don't get raped very often in the sticks.

Oh...they get raped plenty I would imagine. Unfortunately, in many places such as Alabama "she had a purdy mouth" is considered a legal defense of rape so long as the victim was a sibling or first cousin. Hence, the absence of rape kits amongst the hill-folk.

Originally posted by igor_ats
Except there has never been a reported picket outside an IVF clinic. Ever. The truth is what they say and their actions are completely different. They don't really care about the little "babies" in IVF clinics.

The truth is .. you don't know what you are talking about.

Naperville Right to Life Activists Protest IVF Clinic
IVF Kids are Manufactured Commodities -
Anti-Abortion group expands protests to Fertility Clinic
Families Against Planned Parenthood protest IVF clinic
IVF and Genetics Center protested
Left wing site - protesting the anti-IVF protesters in Albury
A Pastors Letter to his church and newspaper on why IVF is wrong - and he specifies the IVF lab in Naperville
British Fertility Clinic raffles human IVF egg ... gets protested
Pro English IVF doctor website bemoans protests against the doctor
England - secular criticism of human life industry (IVF)

The Catholic Catechism on IVF - which is supposed to be followed by Catholics worldwide (it isn't .. but it's supposed to be)

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

There are MORE protests at abortion clinics because people don't understand how many children die in the IVF process. But the fact is that it is forbidden to Catholics (who make up 1/2 of the 2 billion Christians in the world). Other Christian groups have recently started to understand that the IVF process kills many, many more preborn children than it creates.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by igor_ats
Except there has never been a reported picket outside an IVF clinic. Ever. The truth is what they say and their actions are completely different. They don't really care about the little "babies" in IVF clinics.

The truth is .. you don't know what you are talking about.

Naperville Right to Life Activists Protest IVF Clinic
IVF Kids are Manufactured Commodities -
Anti-Abortion group expands protests to Fertility Clinic
Families Against Planned Parenthood protest IVF clinic
A Pastors Letter to his church and newspaper on why IVF is wrong - and he specifies the IVF lab in Naperville

Did you just link to the same story multiple times from different sources?

Also:

"
Feesler says he’s concerned about potential protests, similar to those at the Planned Parenthood facility in Aurora.
"

Left wing site - protesting the anti-IVF protesters in Albury

Nice try.

That's an abortion clinic:

www.aussieweb.com.au...

British Fertility Clinic raffles human IVF egg ... gets protested

Nice try. There was no protest by Pro-lifers. The word pro-life doesn't even appear. Or protest for that matter.

Pro English IVF doctor website bemoans protests against the doctor

Read story - nice try. There was no protest by Pro-lifers.

"
The Panorama show had claimed Mr Taranissi offered an unproven treatment called reproductive immunology.

Mr Taranissi was accused of failing to keep medical records, carrying out inappropriate test and acting in an insensitive manner. Mr Taranissi vehemently denied these charges.
"

Which is why who got raided. There was no protest by Pro-lifers outside his clinic. The word pro-life doesn't appear once in any of the articles I read about this.

How many times are you going to continue to bear false witness. . . lets see shall we:

England - secular criticism of human life industry (IVF)

Did you just link to the same story above? The word pro-life doesn't appear once.

The Catholic Catechism on IVF - which is supposed to be followed by Catholics worldwide (it isn't .. but it's supposed to be)

Is that supposed to prove pro-life groups have protested outside IVF clinics? I already know about the Catechism of the Church.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There are MORE protests at abortion clinics because people don't understand how many children die in the IVF process.

You haven't shown any protests OUTSIDE ANY IVF Clinic! In fact you have linked to some things that have nothing to do with pro-life!

And to forestall "Yeah, well they're obviously against it in theory." - changing the goalposts! The point was that they ignore IVF clinics when their logic dictates they shouldn't. And being so ignorant of their own philosophy to not know about IVF just goes to show the type of ppl who believe in such dogma.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

IVF and Genetics Center protested

Looks at entire youtube video.

OMG did. . . did you just type in pro-life + protest + IVF and didn't even watch the video? It has nothing to do with pro-life or protests!

Given the other links it is just obvious to everyone you're throwing as many random word combination's in google against the wall and hoping something would stick. Then presenting the link as "IVF and Genetics Center protested".

Bearing false witness much?

igor: sorry to be so late getting back to this thread but, frankly, I lost interest. Besides, I saw a windmill that needs tilting on another thread. Best of luck.

reply to post by getreadyalready


But no one is pregnant. Basically the doctor is selecting that this particular egg is now a life form.

emergency contraception is just a high dose birth dcontrol pill. The high dose of hormones prevents ovulation.

There is no life to kill.

and no, the puppy is nnot even remotely a rape situation. if i were to get pregnant right now, both me and the baby would be put at serious risk. that puppy made it and is already ok. it is a silly comparison. not to mention dogs live 14 years and don't require obscene amounts of money.

you are comparing a conceived and fully matured infant canine to an embryo that doesn't even exist.

They are both wrong.


The hospital is right that if they are not trained to handle rape, they need to go to a hospital that is.
Trying to force the doctor to do it is like trying to force your pcp to do surgery.

the nurses are highly trained in evidence collection. And there are other issues such as STD to deal with as well, not just pregnancy risk.

The hospital should of been more concerned and told them exactly where they can go to get a full rape kit.

A hospital of that size should have staff on hand taht can do this, that is concerning.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

But no one is pregnant. Basically the doctor is selecting that this particular egg is now a life form.

emergency contraception is just a high dose birth dcontrol pill. The high dose of hormones prevents ovulation.

There is no life to kill.

and no, the puppy is nnot even remotely a rape situation. if i were to get pregnant right now, both me and the baby would be put at serious risk. that puppy made it and is already ok. it is a silly comparison. not to mention dogs live 14 years and don't require obscene amounts of money.

you are comparing a conceived and fully matured infant canine to an embryo that doesn't even exist.

I'm not arguing about what is or isn't a life form. I mean, I have my opinion on the matter, and I mostly disagree with abortions, but I do see some important exceptions, but that isn't my point.

My point is the Doctor has the right to choose what services he will or won't supply. We don't make every doctor do breast implants, and we don't make every doctor be a podiatrist, and we shouldn't make every doctor provide birth control.

Now, if the doctor actively prevented her from getting the medication somewhere else, then I believe that is a major problem, but just refusing to supply certain drugs or treatments is acceptable in my opinion. Here in Florida, we have doctors refusing to prescribe pain meds, because of all the abuse. They are still good doctors, they just don't provide pain management. It is what it is, they are entitled to their own choices and prerogatives.

Originally posted by grey580
You sir have the compassion of dirt.

And you're not thinking. At all. You're operating on a basis of pure, uncontrolled emotion, here.

Here's a question for you. See if you can answer it rationally, without simply raging about how I supposedly lack compassion.

These medications are labelled, "emergency," contraceptives. Can you explain to me what the emergency is? Is this woman's life in danger?

Again; don't foam at the mouth. Don't scream at me about how evil I supposedly am.

Just answer the question.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by grey580
You sir have the compassion of dirt.

And you're not thinking. At all. You're operating on a basis of pure, uncontrolled emotion, here.

Here's a question for you. See if you can answer it rationally, without simply raging about how I supposedly lack compassion.

These medications are labelled, "emergency," contraceptives. Can you explain to me what the emergency is? Is this woman's life in danger?

Again; don't foam at the mouth. Don't scream at me about how evil I supposedly am.

Just answer the question.

Very cynical.

It's called emergency contraception because becoming pregnant against your will is a pretty big deal.

1 It could damage your health. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is much more dangerous than abortion, an an abortion is much more dangerous than taking emergency contraception.

2 Will cost you lots more money. Later forms of termination (RU-486, surgical abortion) cost much more money than a pill that is often free in some circumstances.

3 Will cost you time as you cannot continue work/education if you're pregnant.

There is nothing wrong with the word Emergency Contraception at all unless you have an agenda against it.