EnMasse Forum Index EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   TATToday's Active Topics 
 ProfileProfile   Voting CentreVoting Centre   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  Front PageFront Page Front Page SubmissionsFront Page Submissions LinksLinks Acceptable Use PolicyAcceptable Use Policy  DonateDonate 

 

 


Bill C537

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    EnMasse Forum Index -> Feminism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Willow
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 264
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:06 pm    Post subject: Bill C537 Reply with quote

I found this on Creative Revolution site.
C-537
_________________
There is a wisdom of the head, and....a wisdom of the heart. Charles Dickens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4747
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the summary:
Quote:
This enactment protects the right of health care practitioners and other persons to refuse, without fear of reprisal or other discriminatory coercion, to participate in medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is inviolable.

This is a very very bad idea...
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you serious. If tax payers are paying their salaries, and our society has deemed a procedure safe and legal, then if you are hired to perform that procedure as part of your job/contract, you should do it, otherwise you should get fired! It's not like the procedures aren't spelled out to medical practitioners before they choose to work in a particular establishment, heck they train for years at various procedures. "IF you don't want to stare at people's cavities and gingivitis all day, don't be a dentist!"

This is complete nonsense this bill.
And thus the firefighter said, "I don't to that procedure, y'know the whole dousing the flames with water thing, as it's against my religion and personal beliefs...."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gunnar gunnarson
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 549
Location: The Arena of the Unwell

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look who's behind it: Maurice Vellacott. Big fucking surprise there. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gary027
*BANNED*


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diane Demorney wrote:
Here's the summary:
Quote:
This enactment protects the right of health care practitioners and other persons to refuse, without fear of reprisal or other discriminatory coercion, to participate in medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is inviolable.

This is a very very bad idea...


Why is it a bad idea? If a certain procedure is in conflict with their religious beliefs, then I feel they have every right to refuse to perform the procedure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4747
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gary027 wrote:
Why is it a bad idea? If a certain procedure is in conflict with their religious beliefs, then I feel they have every right to refuse to perform the procedure.

Why? Okay, I'll give you a fer instance...
Say I live in a wee tiny town in rural Alberta. There is one pharmacist. He refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills because it's "against his religious beliefs". What do I do? Drive all over hell's half acre trying to find another pharmacist to DO HIS FUCKING JOB?!!!? And that's just a taste of what this bill will allow.

There have been instances in the states where a similar bill has been passed, and pharmacists have refused to return the prescriptions! WTF?

I could go on and on about the implications of such a bill, but hopefully, you've got the gist of it...
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gary027
*BANNED*


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAHL wrote:
Are you serious. If tax payers are paying their salaries, and our society has deemed a procedure safe and legal, then if you are hired to perform that procedure as part of your job/contract, you should do it, otherwise you should get fired! It's not like the procedures aren't spelled out to medical practitioners before they choose to work in a particular establishment, heck they train for years at various procedures. "IF you don't want to stare at people's cavities and gingivitis all day, don't be a dentist!"

This is complete nonsense this bill.
And thus the firefighter said, "I don't to that procedure, y'know the whole dousing the flames with water thing, as it's against my religion and personal beliefs...."


Rather then submit a silly and ridiculous example of a firefighter refusing to dousing a fire, why not use a real life example such as a religion refusing to wear a helmet in a work place or on a motorcycle. How about a religion being allowed to wear a concealed weapon, because they claim it is a religious item, or how about a religion refusing to do their job in a grocery store as a cashier because they refuse to touch certain meats, or how about the taxi drivers who refused to transport people who have liquor in their luggage. Also how about the accommodation that was made in some buildings so that people had a praying room and a place to wash their feet because these are religious beliefs. Fortunately some of the above situations were not implemented, but some were. So why is it so wrong for a person of another religion who finds certain procedures to be against their religious beliefs, not also acceptable?

I don't believe that the procedure was found to be safe and legal, since I think the actual procedure has not officially been declared legal. This bill protects the rights of peoples religious beliefs, and as such should trump the performance of a procedure. Being paid with taxpayer money does NOT somehow subvert a persons religious beliefs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4747
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, looky what I found!
Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care
Quote:
Lori Boyer couldn't stop trembling as she sat on the examining table, hugging her hospital gown around her. Her mind was reeling. She'd been raped hours earlier by a man she knew a man who had assured Boyer, 35, that he only wanted to hang out at his place and talk. Instead, he had thrown her onto his bed and assaulted her. "I'm done with you," he'd tonelessly told her afterward. Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she'd had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. "No," Boyer says he replied abruptly. "I can't do that." He turned back to his writing.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

rest at link.

So, gary027, I think we're done here. Yeah. We're done.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gary027
*BANNED*


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diane Demorney wrote:
gary027 wrote:
Why is it a bad idea? If a certain procedure is in conflict with their religious beliefs, then I feel they have every right to refuse to perform the procedure.

Why? Okay, I'll give you a fer instance...
Say I live in a wee tiny town in rural Alberta. There is one pharmacist. He refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills because it's "against his religious beliefs". What do I do? Drive all over hell's half acre trying to find another pharmacist to DO HIS FUCKING JOB?!!!? And that's just a taste of what this bill will allow.

There have been instances in the states where a similar bill has been passed, and pharmacists have refused to return the prescriptions! WTF?

I could go on and on about the implications of such a bill, but hopefully, you've got the gist of it...


I had the gist of it from the outset. In the case of a pharmacist who works in a privately owned store, and prescriptions are not paid for with taxpayer money, then just as a business has the right to refuse service to a customer, so to does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to fill the prescription.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gary027 wrote:
Diane Demorney wrote:
gary027 wrote:
Why is it a bad idea? If a certain procedure is in conflict with their religious beliefs, then I feel they have every right to refuse to perform the procedure.

Why? Okay, I'll give you a fer instance...
Say I live in a wee tiny town in rural Alberta. There is one pharmacist. He refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills because it's "against his religious beliefs". What do I do? Drive all over hell's half acre trying to find another pharmacist to DO HIS FUCKING JOB?!!!? And that's just a taste of what this bill will allow.

There have been instances in the states where a similar bill has been passed, and pharmacists have refused to return the prescriptions! WTF?

I could go on and on about the implications of such a bill, but hopefully, you've got the gist of it...


I had the gist of it from the outset. In the case of a pharmacist who works in a privately owned store, and prescriptions are not paid for with taxpayer money, then just as a business has the right to refuse service to a customer, so to does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to fill the prescription.

But pharmacists are publicly regulated, and provide a medically necessary service. They don't have the right to refuse a medically necessary service simply because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Lets take a publicly funded example. Suppose doctors refuse to provide abortions, which is a publicly funded service because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Women are then de fact denied access to a medical procedure that the SCC has ruled the government cannot deny women in law. That is, ultimately, what this bill is intended to do. Just as Erp's bill (forget the number at the moment) is intended to lay the ground work for declaring abortion to be murder.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gary027
*BANNED*


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diane Demorney wrote:
Oh, looky what I found!
Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care
Quote:
Lori Boyer couldn't stop trembling as she sat on the examining table, hugging her hospital gown around her. Her mind was reeling. She'd been raped hours earlier by a man she knew a man who had assured Boyer, 35, that he only wanted to hang out at his place and talk. Instead, he had thrown her onto his bed and assaulted her. "I'm done with you," he'd tonelessly told her afterward. Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she'd had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. "No," Boyer says he replied abruptly. "I can't do that." He turned back to his writing.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

rest at link.

So, gary027, I think we're done here. Yeah. We're done.


In the case of such an emergency as you posted above, I feel it should be the exception, whereby she should have received the morning after pill. As with any law there will always be some instances where the law has to be fine tuned in order to accommodate some situations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gary027
*BANNED*


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TS. wrote:
gary027 wrote:
Diane Demorney wrote:
gary027 wrote:
Why is it a bad idea? If a certain procedure is in conflict with their religious beliefs, then I feel they have every right to refuse to perform the procedure.

Why? Okay, I'll give you a fer instance...
Say I live in a wee tiny town in rural Alberta. There is one pharmacist. He refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills because it's "against his religious beliefs". What do I do? Drive all over hell's half acre trying to find another pharmacist to DO HIS FUCKING JOB?!!!? And that's just a taste of what this bill will allow.

There have been instances in the states where a similar bill has been passed, and pharmacists have refused to return the prescriptions! WTF?

I could go on and on about the implications of such a bill, but hopefully, you've got the gist of it...


I had the gist of it from the outset. In the case of a pharmacist who works in a privately owned store, and prescriptions are not paid for with taxpayer money, then just as a business has the right to refuse service to a customer, so to does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to fill the prescription.

But pharmacists are publicly regulated, and provide a medically necessary service. They don't have the right to refuse a medically necessary service simply because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Lets take a publicly funded example. Suppose doctors refuse to provide abortions, which is a publicly funded service because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Women are then de fact denied access to a medical procedure that the SCC has ruled the government cannot deny women in law. That is, ultimately, what this bill is intended to do. Just as Erp's bill (forget the number at the moment) is intended to lay the ground work for declaring abortion to be murder.


The answer is for the person to go to another doctor who will perform the abortion. Doctors are NOT legally obliged to perform a procedure. Neither are pharmacists obliged to fill a prescription. In the case of birth control pills, they are not medically necessary, but rather usually a choice by the woman to use to prevent a pregnancy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4747
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gary027: But this law does not do that... and as it is mainly aimed at women's health concerns, I consider it to be misogynist in the extreme. And as this is the Feminist Forum, and thus first principles of feminism apply, I'm telling you (as a mod) to stay out.

Post anymore of your paternalistic crap again, and you will be banned for good. Now we're done.

edited to add: that last post of your's is the final straw. I am banning you for good (pending consultation with the other mods).
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparqui
Dog tired


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5273
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If one's religious beliefs prohibit them from offering certain services, then they shouldn't be in that profession. A person whose religion prohibits blood transfusions should never be hired as an emergency doctor.
_________________
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.

-- Gilles Duceppe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4747
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

we move to canada has an excellent blog post about this issue:
C-537 - another threat to choice and equality
Quote:
Hard on the heels of C-484, the fetal homicide bill, another stealth anti-choice private member's bill is before the House of Commons.

<snip>

This bill is anti-woman, anti-equality, anti-personal liberty, anti-choice and anti-common sense.

Health care providers cannot be allowed to pick and choose what legal procedures they want to perform or assist with. If a person cannot in good conscience have anything to do with abortion, or any other legal medical procedure, that person shouldn't be working in health care.


go. read.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparqui wrote:
If one's religious beliefs prohibit them from offering certain services, then they shouldn't be in that profession. A person whose religion prohibits blood transfusions should never be hired as an emergency doctor.


I agree completely, and that is what I was trying to get across with my dentist and firefighter example. When a democratically elected government through consultation with its professionals deems a certain procedure part of a particular profession, be it an accountant's requirement to follow certain financial reporting methods, be it a driver's responsibility to wear a helmet when riding a motorbike, it doesn't matter what the religious or personal belief is. IF you take the job/contract/profession are trained on certain procedures and expected in your hiring mandate to perform them, then refusal would be bordering on criminal negligence.

Hospitals schedule and hire professionals to perform services, and they assume that an individual with the qualifications for a certain procedure will perform it when required. Our medical system cannot afford to have 22 professionals with the same skills/contractual obligations on staff at any given instant because each one of those same refuses to perform any particular procedure.

And yes the slippery slope is valid gary, because, essentially, there are as many belief systems as there are humans, and if we accept one individual's refusal to perform a specific procedure, we can only, in good conscience accept the same for anyone else,; elsewise we would be hypocrites. Therefore, if your job description says you are hired for x and it might include performing y (depending on the situation), for which you are trained (otherwise you wouldn't have been hired in the first place) refusal to do so is negligent.

So your position on top of being discriminatory, insenstitive, callous and mean spirited is in fact fallacious leads us to a slippery slope situation of innumerable potential refusials in any possible profession.

If you don't want to get wet, don't jump in the water.


A caveat: So long as the procedure in question has been agreed upon by an open demcoratic, emancipated, informed society and is not in contravention of fundamental human rights, in which case it is an individual's choice to pursue such a profession or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willow
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 264
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAHL, DD, Sparqui Clap, Clap

I wonder what gary would think if he took a dying family member into emergency and the person said "sorry I don't believe in medical intervention" I would hope that people who feel so strongly about their religious beliefs, would put a lot of thought into their intended career to see if it conflicts.

Is it time for another campaign of letter writing?!!! This is absolutely ridiculous. They must think that eventually someone won't be watching and they can just sneak these odious bills through.
_________________
There is a wisdom of the head, and....a wisdom of the heart. Charles Dickens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have the link handy, but apparently Canada is at least considering making a "morning after" available over the counter.

Which would mean that the delicate Xtian pharmacists who couldn't sully themselves with counting out Satanic pills could then shut the fuck up. Nobody would need their all-important service of putting a bottle of pills in a bag. And nobody would need their then-irrelevant opinion on the matter.

Quote:
wonder what gary would think if he took a dying family member into emergency and the person said "sorry I don't believe in medical intervention"


Go one better. "Sorry, but I can't help anyone who's wearing a cross. You'll need to wear that cross upside down and loudly denounce your God if you want me to help your child. And no, I'm not joking. My conscience can be just as fucked up as yours can."
_________________
`,_,`,_,,_,,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:22 pm    Post subject: Conservatives Continue Efforts to Roll Back Women's Rights Reply with quote

I wrote this up for the Front Page:

Another private members bill that would set the stage to radically roll back a woman's right to choose and to control her own body has been proposed by a Conservative member of parliament, Maurice Vellacott, MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin. Bill C-537 would allow health care practitioners to refuse to participate in a medical procedure that "offends a tenet of their religion."

If a person's religious beliefs prohibit them from offering a certain service, then that person should not get into a profession where they might be required to provide that service. If a person feels that their religion prevents them from giving out the 'morning after' pill, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. If they can't perform an abortion, or prescribe emergency contraception, then the person shouldn't be a physician. If they can't perform a blood transfusion, they shouldn't practice emergency medicine. This really isn't that complex.

This bill is framed in the context of protecting religious rights, but it should tell you something that Vellacott is the chair of the "Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus" which includes both Conservative and Liberal MPs (but thankfully no New Democrats). This nonsense would allow doctors, who are being paid by the state, to refuse to provide abortions, in effect banning a practice that the Supreme Court of Canada (in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988) said the government could not use the law to ban, because doing that violated the right of women to "security of the person" under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the same philosophy that has seen women left without pharmacists willing to dispense emergency contraceptives in various parts of the United States. It is the philosophy that says that a doctor's dogmatic beliefs are more important that a woman's right to control her body. That is utter garbage and nonsense.

Furthermore, this bill follows hard on the heels of Bill C-484, which would impose extra penalties for killing a pregnant woman since the assault also terminates the fetus. That bill deems the fetus to be a person, since only a person is legally capable of being murdered, setting us back on the road to banning abortion as murder.

The Conservatives are being cagey on how they push this radical patriarchal and misogynist agenda. It is being done through private members bills, not government bills, so in the next election campaign Harper can claim his government had nothing to do with it. This is very important, because the majority of Canadians think this issue is settled, and that a woman has a right to choose. The Cons want to roll back a woman's rights, and want to take our society back to some twisted 1950s ideal, where everyone is white, everyone is straight, everyone is Christian, people don't have sex until they are thirty and a woman stays in the home, with a martini for her husband at the end of the day. That's not my Canada, and I sure as hell know it isn't any Canada I want to see. We have to remember that women's rights are human rights. If the Cons take rights away from one group, it is only a matter of time until they are taking them away from everyone else.

To everyone reading this in Canada, I encourage you to get in touch with your MP and let them know that you oppose this bill and bill C-484, and that you want them to vote against both bills. Tell your friends, make noise, be heard. Don't let the Conservatives take rights away in the dark and in silence.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sparqui
Dog tired


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5273
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bravo TS! Clap, Clap
_________________
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.

-- Gilles Duceppe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fork
Utensil


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1457
Location: Left . . . of the plate

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willow wrote:
Is it time for another campaign of letter writing?!!!

I think so. Since you first posted this, I've been waiting for all the cogent arguments against the bill, like with C-484. To that end, we have TS's contribution . . .

I'd add that it's even more outrageous than this:
Quote:
This is the same philosophy that has seen women left without pharmacists willing to dispense emergency contraceptives in various parts of the United States.


It's not just EC in the US, but regular birth control:
Quote:
Neil Noesen, a relief pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., was the only person on duty one day in 2002 when a woman came in to refill her prescription for the contraceptive Loestrin FE. According to a complaint filed by the Wisconsin department of regulation and licensing, Noesen refused because of his religious opposition to birth control.

And while locking up condoms was supposedly an anti-theft measure:
Quote:
Citizens for Community Values, a group that supports abstinence to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies, "applaud[s] adding steps to buying condoms," . . .

I have my suspicions when I read shit like this:
Quote:
According to a recent article in The Washington Post, nearly half of the Washington area CVS stores keep condoms in a locked cabinet. Customers must push a buzzer and request their items from a store employee.

The Post interviewed 17-year-old Sindy Dominguez. She and her boyfriend went to one CVS, where they pushed the buzzer several times, waiting for assistance, and no one responded. Feeling awkward and embarrassed, the couple (who are already parents of a young child) left the store, . . .
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington (PPMW) reports that many young women have had unfortunate experiences with locked-up condoms. Some, after asking for help, reported receiving dirty looks from the employees or lectures on being too young for sex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gunnar gunnarson
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 549
Location: The Arena of the Unwell

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All together now: Say "fetus-fetishizing fundie fuckheads" five times, fast.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sparqui
Dog tired


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 5273
Location: Winnipeg

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi gunnar!

If I were in Washington, I think it would be great to stand outside the doors of those CVS drug stores and pass out free condoms. I bet if it wasn't for those "fetus-fetishizing fundie fuckheads", some pharmaceutical company (if not more) would have come up with a perfectly safe over-the-counter morning after pill decades ago.

Did RU486 ever get legalized in Canada or the US? I remember the "fetus-fetishizing fundie fuckheads" mounting huge campaigns to boycott products of the pharmaceutical company that had the patent, back in the mid-1980s.

Those "fetus-fetishizing fundie fuckheads" are so emboldened lately that I wouldn't be surprised if some other retrograde "fetus-fetishizing fundie fuckheads" MP introduced a private member's bill to allow families to claim Harper's baby bonus for "pre-born" children.
_________________
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.

-- Gilles Duceppe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gunnar gunnarson
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 549
Location: The Arena of the Unwell

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No go, sparqui. You can't just use the phrase in conversation, you have to say it five times, one time after another, as fast as you can.

Honestly. It only takes one to spoil the fun for everyone. Fool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willow
Fulltime enMasse Member


Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 264
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent write up TS. I was going to post a comment under your article on the front page but it says the post does not exist????

I will be writing letters again - although I have not got a response back yet from Dion, Ducette, or Harper regarding Bill C484.
_________________
There is a wisdom of the head, and....a wisdom of the heart. Charles Dickens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 14585
Location: Toronto, ON

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Willow! As for the comments thing, that was because of a goof I made putting it on the Front Page. I forgot to include a link to this thread, and so I had to merge it from the new thread it appeared in to this one, which broke the comments link and I don't know how to fix it.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tehanu
More or less, more or less


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17934
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparqui wrote:
Did RU486 ever get legalized in Canada or the US? I remember the "fetus-fetishizing fundie fuckheads" mounting huge campaigns to boycott products of the pharmaceutical company that had the patent, back in the mid-1980s.

Quick follow up: No. Never approved in Canada as Health Canada still appears to be studying it. Although the FDA did approve its use in the United States.

Quote:
In Canada, most abortions are done through the manual vacuum aspiration method or by dilation and evacuation. While there are also other surgical abortion options, medical abortions can be used to terminate early pregnancies. Medical abortion is when drugs are used to empty the contents of the uterus, without surgery.

The most common form of medical abortion is called RU-486 (or Mifepristone). The name RU-486 comes from the French pharmaceutical company Roussel-Uclaf who invented the drug. RU-486 can be used within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. To date, RU-486 has not been approved for use in Canada.

The most common form of medical abortion combines two medications, mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, which is needed to maintain the pregnancy. Without progesterone the lining of the uterus breaks down and sheds (as it does in a regular menstrual cycle). The second medication, misoprostol, contracts the uterus to expel the pregnancy usually within 6 to 8 hours, in the privacy of the home. A follow-up exam is scheduled for two weeks later to make sure the process is complete. Most of the side effects when using this early abortion option are caused by the second medication, misoprostol. Side-effects may include heavy bleeding, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and heavy cramping.

The abortion pill is safe. According to Dr. Ellen Wiebe's clinical trials, fewer than one percent of women who take the drug combination experience heavy bleeding that requires further treatment*. In clinical studies, incomplete abortion only occurred in 2-3% of cases. If pregnancy is continued after taking these medications, there is a high risk of fetal deformities. Therefore, most doctors will require that a woman sign an agreement that if the medical abortion does not occur, she will have a surgical abortion. However, the need for this is quite low since medical abortions work in almost every case. According to studies of the American Food and Drug Administration and the National Abortion Federation (based in the USA) there are no long-term risks associated with having used mifepristone and misoprostol. After using the Abortion Pill, women may pursue another pregnancy whenever they feel the time is right.

In July 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) included the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol on its list of medicines that are essential to good health because it is a safe way to terminate an unintended pregnancy and to save womens lives. In developing countries, access to medical abortion has saved many women from having to access unsafe and clandestine surgical abortions.

RU-486 is available in all countries of the European Union except Portugal, Italy and Ireland. It is also available in the United States, China, India, Russia, Australia and South Africa, among others. Unfortunately, RU-486 is not legal in Canada. Many opponents raised concerns about its safety because of the possibility to cause Clostridium sordellii infections and septic shock. Four women passed away from septic shock after taking Mefiprex in 2004. All four women were in California and investigators are looking into common conditions that link these four womens experiences together. It is important to note that C sordellii infections do not only happen with medical abortion. The infections can occur in other situations such as following childbirth (vaginal delivery and caesarean section) and after pelvic or abdominal surgery. Other known cases of C. sordellii have occurred in males and females of varying ages and under non-obstetric conditions. Other conditions that have been known to cause this infection include umbilical infection, deep skin infection, tendon transplant surgery, orthopedic surgery and infection following motor vehicle accidents. This proves that the infections are not a direct consequence of medical abortion alone.

Research done by Gynuity Health Projects show that serious infection following medical abortion is rare. Approximately 460,000 women in the U.S. have used mifepristone for medical abortion since the year 2000. The proportion of all reported infections among women during the first 18 months following their use of mifepristone was low at only 0.013%. RU-486 has been used in France since 1988 and there has been no evidence of complications. Overall, it is recognized as a safe option for women who want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The only form of medical abortion that is available in Canada is a conjunction of methotrexate and misoprostol. Methotrexate is usually given by injection. Misoprostol tablets are placed in the vagina five to seven days after the methotrexate injection is given. It causes the muscles of the uterus to contract, pushing out the contents. In most cases the uterus will be emptied within 24 hours but in about 35 percent of cases, it can take several days or weeks. Pain medication can be used to ease the pain of the cramps, which occur when the pregnancy tissue comes out of the uterus.

If the medical abortion does not cause the body to expel the pregnancy tissue, birth defects are likely to result. Therefore, a woman who takes these drugs must be prepared to have a surgical abortion if the medical abortion is unsuccessful. A follow-up exam is done one or two weeks after the methotrexate injection to make sure that the abortion has happened.

Medical abortion is available from only a few abortion clinics and should be taken in the first 7 weeks of pregnancy.


Canadians for Choice.

Here's the story about it being approved in the USA in 2000, one of the last things that happened under Clinton/Gore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No. Never approved in Canada as Health Canada still appears to be studying it. Although the FDA did approve its use in the United States.


Golly, they seem to be Johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to pooh-poohing the need for any further study of Frankenfoods before they force it on us with minimal study and no labelling. Whatever could be the hold-up in this case?
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tehanu
More or less, more or less


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17934
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed. Especially because it's something one would ingest voluntarily, unlike GM foods which are hard to avoid. But safety first! No other agenda with the federals Libs or Cons around women's health and reproductive rights. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    EnMasse Forum Index -> Feminism All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
TATToday's Active Topics


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group