For those of you who thought it was only about saving babies. . .

UPDATE: Shaula Evans at BOP News has a post about this, and links where you can take action. I'll paraphrase what she said--it's time to raise holy hell over this.

Think again.

Julee Lacey, a mother of two, had used the Pill for nine years when a pharmacist at her local chemist in Texas refused her prescription.

"She [the pharmacist] began to tell me she personally does not believe in birth control," says Ms Lacey.

"I was a little caught off-guard and shocked... I asked her again. She said: 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'...

"I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me," she adds.

These pharmacists are using a conscience clause to get around doing their jobs. Problem is, they are discriminating against a population of people (women) when they do that. What if someone's conscience dictated that interracial couples were immoral and they should therefore not be served? What if a teacher's conscience dictated that divorce was wrong, or single parenthood was wrong, and they refused to teach a child from a divorced or single parent family?

Gosh, I wonder what the reaction would be if a pharmacist who didn't believe in Viagra refused to fill a man's prescription for it? Or what if someone didn't believe in pain medication refused to fill someone's prescription for it?

Via Lucia at Alas, A Blog.

And if that isn't enough, the conscience clause is harming and traumatizing women who miscarry. Thanks to their oh-so-righteous indignation on behalf of fetuses, or their fear of getting shot, or the lack of training (pick one or more), fewer and fewer doctors know how to do a dilation and evacuation (D&E), the procedure used after a miscarriage or after a fetus dies in the womb between 13 and 19 weeks of gestation. Well, it used to be a common procedure--it was safe. D & E's cut down on the chance of the woman developing infections that required an IV of antibiotics, sustaining organ injuries requiring surgery, or cervical laceration requiring surgery and hospital readmission.

It's safer than the alternative which is to induce birth to get the dead fetus out--which can take several days. Oh, that sounds healthy. And I'm sure that someone who was looking forward to having a baby would just love to go through labor to birth a dead fetus. I'm sure she'd really appreciate the potential organ damage and cervical lacerations. I'm sure the possibility of going septic after a miscarriage is no big deal to her.

Because, you know, we have to think of the babies.

I could feel my baby’s dead body inside of mine. This baby had thrilled me with kicks and flutters, those first soft tickles of life bringing a smile to my face and my hand to my rounding belly. Now this baby floated, limp and heavy, from one side to the other, as I rolled in my bed.

And within a day, I started to bleed. My body, with or without a doctor’s help, was starting to expel the fetus. Technically, I was threatening a spontaneous abortion, the least safe of the available options.

I did what any pregnant patient would do. I called my doctor. And she advised me to wait.

I lay in my bed, not sleeping day or night, trying not to lose this little baby’s body that my own womb was working to expel. Wait, I told myself. Just hold on. Let a doctor take this out.

I was scared. Was it going to fall out of my body when I rose, in the middle of the night, to check on my toddler? Would it come apart on its own and double me over, knock me to the floor, as I stood at the stove scrambling eggs for my boys?

On my fourth morning, with the bleeding and cramping increasing, I couldn’t wait any more. I called my doctor and was told that since I wasn’t hemorrhaging, I should not come in. Her partner, on call, pedantically explained that women can safely lose a lot of blood, even during a routine period.

And for all the blathering by the pro-life movement about how "abortion hurts women" I don't see them tripping over themselves with concern to right the wrongs women who go through this face. Wrongs they have endured thanks to the so-called "pro-life" movement. A dead fetus in the womb for four days? These "pro-lifers" are okay with this? They think that's safe? They think that's no big deal?

After several unsuccessful attempts to get medical treatment, she was advised to "[f]ind a hotel within a few blocks from a hospital. Rest, monitor the bleeding. Don’t go home — the 45-minute drive might be too far."

Woman? What woman?

Via Mouse Words.

Comments

[mythago]

If your core values oppose certain procedures, you shouldn't be forced to provide them.

So if you're an OB and you believe two children is plenty, you should be allowed to refuse to do an emergency C-section on a woman having her third child. If you're a pharmacist ditto, you should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for fertility drugs.

Let's not pretend we're talking about anything other than "Good on her for being pro-life," shall we?

[delia]

if you read the Refusal Bill carefully, you'll see that they've also built in language that actually prevents legal recourse if someone is refused care. it needs a serious challenge.

XX Blog has more about the language in the bill here: http://xxblog.com/index.php/archives/2004/09/20/right-to-refuse/trackback/

[MC]

I don't think I completely missed the point, Asstarte. Maybe you'd like to elaborate. I just disagree with where total blame should be thrown. There are ethical decisions to be made in the medical profession as well as others. If your core values oppose certain procedures, you shouldn't be forced to provide them. Beyond those extreme oppositions, I don't know what to think about medical schools refusing to teach procedures (non-abortive esp.) for the sake of CY(T)As. I need to research before commenting on that. Sheelzebub does have a good point, though. If the same procedures are used for abortions, I can see both why schools/doctors are sometimes unwilling to teach/learn and how helpful it would be to those who miscarry or have other complications. I say helpful b/c it doesn't at this point seem to be life-saving, which is to some degree implied every time someone (i.e, NARAL, Barbara .A) uses the word "dangerous" to describe pending limitations/bans on abortion and this contraversial procedures. It's absolutely not what you want and in your eyes not fair but that doesn't make it necessarily "dangerous."

mrs mcmuffin, maybe the ignorance has less to do with them being republicans and more to do with them being your family members. Kidding, but see how it feels to have a baseless low blow punched in your direction? (Sorry Sheelz - I'll play nice)

Patricia - I'm sorry your view from this is that we live in a mad and woman hating country. I'm not sure how you jumped all the way to that conclusion. Or was that actually the point of this and I completely missed it?

[donna]

The correct response to a pharmacist or doctor who refuses to dispense drugs or provide treatment is, "Well, then get someone out here that can do their damn job!" followed by a phone call to your lawyer, the pharmacist association or the AMA, the Associated Press, and the ACLU.

This kind of shit cannot be allowed to continue. A pharmacist or doctor who refuses to do their job, for whatever reason, should lose it. And we have to start demanding that it happens.

[delia]

and when are we going to raise hell? i'm totally frustrated with stories like this. these things should *not* be happening. i'm tired of writing letters, sending faxes and writing checks. (on a less ranty note: great post and i'll keep coming back)

[Shaula Evans]

The Federal Refusal Clause is an attempt to make an end run around the constitution and is a dangerous assault on Roe v. Wade. And, because it was hidden as an amendment to a budget bill, the chances are that it will pass the Senate unless we raise hell.

[Marina Voz]

Gee, whenever I ask my Republican family members about these kinds of things, they always say. Don't be ridiculous, that could NEVER happen in America!

[mrs mcmuffin]

I am shocked by what happened to Angela Carder, Julee Lacey and the other woman. I am sorry that you live in such a mad and woman hating country. I just can't think of anything else to say.

[pissed off patricia]

Damned excellent post!
Love your site and site name too!
I'll be back to visit often.

[Astarte]

Clearly, MC completely fails to get the point.

[Sheelzebub]

The pro-life movement has exerted a lot of pressure on medical schools and doctors. Although the ban doesn't include cases like hers, the fear of legal trouble has kept many hospitals and doctors from performing it. In addition, the D&E procedure is taught in very few places (it's used for later term abortions, controversial, and schools face a lot of pressure and problems for including it), and a dwindling number of doctors know how to do this. This is couched as their "choice"--that few doctors don't want to know how to perform abortions. The problem is, a lot of medical students *would* learn the procedure if they could.

This fear has permeated hospitals in all kinds of cases involving pregnant women, including the case of Angela Carder:

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/angela.htm

There already have been lawsuits against hospitals for the death or disablement of pregnant women who were victimized in similar cases:

http://www.crlp.org/pr_99_0311lahospital.html

[MC]

Now, I'm confused. I started writing this asking "This woman wanted an abortion but couldn't get one? Or is it that after the miscarriage, pro-choice people are saying an abortion would have been safer than this natural (albeit, horrifying!) experience? Abortion doctors were unavailable to her? How can this be - it's legal and happening thousands of times a day?" Then I read the actual article and saw that blaming George Bush and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was not her problem at all. The ban does not prevent the procedure in situations where the baby is already dead. She was not in "limbo" as she called it, based on the ban.

I don't mean to sound ignorant, I'm just not seeing how you can say it's the fault of pro-lifers that this happened. I mean, she wanted the baby too, right? I don't know enough about late term miscarriages and her doctor, etc. to judge, but I can probably agree that this woman should have been better served by people who claim to care about life. But how many "pro-lifers" actually knew of her problem and failed to help? What did pro-choicers do about it? Alot of the fear physicians face in performing certain procedures comes from people like John Edwards suing the crap out of them. Let's not forget that.