Seething

From The New York Times: Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers

What disgusts me most is knowing that this is being pandered as something good and protective for the persecuted Christian majority. *sigh*

Well, it's not. It doesn't "protect" anyone or anything. It ridicules the laws against religious discrimination already in place and opens the door to further restriction and bastardization of women's rights.

The uber-patriarchal subcultures may insist otherwise, but make no mistake: Women's Rights are an essential Family Value. The nuclear family unit trumpeted so loudly and repeatedly by the religious right usually includes at least one female and therefore necessitates that restrictions on the female become restrictions for the whole family. And no, that's NOT a good thing.

Somehow they've been able to market the idea that Women's Healthcare = Baby Killing. It just ain't so. Even if one is not comfortable with the ins and outs of abortion, consider how abortion numbers could be decreased with proper education, healthcare (BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS!) and increased value of women in positions other than sex object (and really - how is woman-as-breeding-machine anything other than the ultimate sex object?). I would think that the anti-abortionists would embrace sex education and promote access to bc! Unless their agenda has little to do with fetal rights and everything to do with controlling women and their sexuality.

Women without access to birth control have almost no ability, in this society, to work in any but the most menial professions. And no - I'm not talking about the "welfare queens" the right concocted to spit upon. I'm talking about all of us... even (especially?) your average, happily married, decently educated woman. Right now it would be very difficult for me to work outside the home because I elected to have three children. Any job I could get would provide little more than the reimbursement of childcare costs it necessitated (assuming I used competent, certified childcare resources). I've been in the very fortunate situation where I can "choose" to stay home with the kids, and that's a reassuring thought - except that there's not much choice to be made. It's just much more enjoyable because I want to be home.

So women (occassionally men, but more often women) have to choose whether they want financial security or children.

That is - they choose (at somewhere around 99% certainty) if they have birth control. No birth control? Barefoot and pregnant.

Abstinence you say? That would do great things for the divorce rate. Rhythm method? *sigh* Yes, when done perfectly it is more effective than having sex all willy-nilly... possibly.

I know it ultimately comes down to the fundamental notion that sex must have consequences (for women). I'm afraid I'll never understand why that could be beyond deeply rooted misogyny. I totally get the idea of considering sex a sacred thing... All that oxytocin and the endorphin fireworks... well, if that isn't a recipe for a beyond-the-mundane experience, I don't know what is. It doesn't mean that other people's lives should be controlled by rules about how/when/where/how often some unrelated party decreed it should be.

And here's an idea for pharmacists who don't believe in dispensing birth control: get a new job. A pharmacist's role is to dispense meds according to physician instruction. Want more input into what is prescribed? Become a doctor. Or get out of healthcare. Be a janitor. Or underwater basketweaver. Whatever. Just pick a job you're willing to do. I'm unaware of doctors being coerced into providing abortions or birth control. They bear the onus of determining the best care for the health and well-being of their patients. So let them do their job.

Meanwhile, let's stop the legislation that restricts our loves and lives and roles. Stop it. Don't support bigotry like this. Or proposition 8. (Aside - oh my LDS brothers and sisters (I'm talking to all y'all - not just my biological siblings)... I may no longer be numbered among you, but I am very much a product of that upbringing - I just have to say, what is up with the huge outpouring of support for proposition 8? I don't care if you consider homosexuality a sin (OK, that's not true, I do care, but that's beside my point, right now), how can you possibly justify such money and efforts from The LDS CHURCH going to restrict marriage for anyone else? Even from the versions of history offered from within the church, you have to know that's hugely hypocritical? I would hope that you, as a people, would understand that the right thing to do is to get the government OUT OF marriages, so people would be free to solemnize partnerships according to their own consciences. Think how your own lives might be different if The Saints hadn't been forced to alter their own sacred practices to appease the laws of the U.S. and attain statehood. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman? Oh - and I don't want to get any comments from other flavors of Christianity bashing Mormons, here. If your favorite books involve Abram/Abraham/Ibrahim, your god isn't into monogamy, either.)