Because Every Sperm is Sacred...

My, my, my. It just seems that George W. Bush feels as if his administration hasn’t wreaked enough havoc in the lives of his fellow Americans. If things weren’t bad enough, what with the economy tanking and the pointless war in Iraq continuing to drain lives and resources (for starters), Georgie boy has decided that the world is such a gosh-darned-great place that women should be denied access to contraception if it suits their doctor or pharmacist.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, George W. Bush has done such a bang up job taking care of his already-born constituents that his administration has the time and resources to turn their attention towards the unicellular, future Americans. This Reuters article provides details about a proposed rule that it being discussed within the Department of Health and Human Services Department that would strip federal funding for any facility that requires its doctors and/or pharmacists to provide “abortion” procedures. And the definition of abortion is encompassing enough to cover birth control pills, intra-uterine devices (IUDs), as well as the morning-after pill.

According to the article, the memo reads: "The Department proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.’” See, this is what happens when you have cronies making rules, instead of experts or even, you know, people who have taken biology. Because if someone with half a brain had perused the document before sending it out, he or she might have pointed out the birth control pills are designed to keep a woman from ovulating. So, birth control pills (unless taken as Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill) couldn’t be considered a form of abortion, even by DHHS’ twisted logic.

Also from the article: “Health and Human Services officials declined to confirm the proposal, but noted their responsibility to protect against discrimination of doctors and pharmacists who object to abortion or birth control on religious or moral grounds.” Excuse me? Look, far be it from me to tell somebody else how to live his or her life and how to choose a profession, but if you have a moral or ethical problem with a large part of your job duties, maybe it’s time to choose a different profession. I would have loved to have been a veterinarian, you know, except for the whole having to put animals to sleep thing. Probably a good thing I didn’t follow that vocation, because I’m sure some pet owner would be thrilled to hear me, as a vet, say to them, “I am so sorry Mr. Schmo that your beloved dog Trixie got hit by a car and is suffering horribly from irreparable internal bleeding, but it’s against my beliefs to put her to sleep. At least you can take solace in the fact that I’m not being discriminated against, right?” The idea that a pharmacist – someone who is not my doctor and is not privy to my medical history – can pretty much make a medical decision for me by refusing to fill a prescription because it is against his or her beliefs is insane. What’s next? Scientologist pharmacists don’t have to fill prescriptions for psychotropic medications? The only people being discriminated against are those who are not in a position to take their prescriptions or themselves elsewhere because of geographic or financial reasons.

This just disgusts me. What happened to government trying to make the lives of its citizens better? What about equality? Will the Bush administration also go to bat for pharmacists who refuse to dispense Viagra or Cialis? How about doctors who refuse to administer vaccinations, seeing as how many contain the cells of aborted fetuses? Where does it end? And could someone please explain why the bodies and choices of women were deemed to be a good starting place for this exercise in paternalistic hogwash?