Don't Let Go

McIlheran has a hard time letting some things go (Is this a trait common among right wingers or what?). He is still at the whole Plan B thing, again. Yeah, yeah, Patrick, we get it. Catholics are against Plan B. Unfortunately for you, the rest of the world isn't tied down to that dogma. Or how about citing a non-Catholic authority?

McIlheran writes:

I had heard that another blogger was trying to argue with me about the bill to require every hospital in the state to hand out Plan B on demand.

I thought I'd argue back, but as it turns out, Michael J. Mathias doesn't actually make any counterarguments that one can debate. He mainly just says he can't decide which unpleasant adjectives to use on me. Then he links to some other blog that promotes me to the priesthood. Whatever.

Not only does he apparently have some sort of man-crush on Mathias, since he is always trying to pick a fight with him, he doesn't even have the nerve to name Whallah! "Some other blog" indeed. Harrumph!

Anyway, there are two comments worth noting:

So Mr. Mcllheran, you believe Physicians and other health care professionals who swear to serve the interests of their patients should be able to refuse to give medication which society at large deems is acceptable for their patients. Yes, there is a possibility that EC prevents a blastocyst (ok a tiny person) from emplanting in the womb. My response is so what! When the medical community can prove that EC actually does this, then I might be sympathetic to the cries of pro-life health care workers. Until then, they should be required to dispense the drug on the same basis as any other drug. As far as I am concerned, until it is actually confirmed that EC acts as an abortificient, it should be treated as birth control. When the existence of a pre-embryo can be established, then a pro-life doctor can assert its interest. Until then, I have no sympathy for them.

I would like to add that the woman, as owner of her womb has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to make her womb hostile to any nascent life which she does not wish to carry or be burdened with. Her right to reject the embyo overides ALL STATE AND SOCIETAL INTERESTS including: protecting the integrity of the medical profession, protecting the right to life of the not yet emplanted embyo (the embryo being a human being can no more rights then you or me, we do not have the right to use anothers body to stay alive, therefore the embryo does not have this right), and protecting the interests of innocent third parties. The medical community is correct in defining pregnancy as beginning with implantation, NOT CONCEPTION! The rights we have to our own bodies lies at the heart of our concept of liberty. Without these rights, we are little more then slaves.

Decisions of our courts dating back to the nineteenth century express the rights we have to control our own bodies in the strongest of terms. See Scholendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125 (1914), "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body." See also Bouvia v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. Bouvia dealt with the issue of a patient refusing medical treatment. Here the court found that doctors could not impose medical treatment over a patients objections for any reason. If the right to refuse medical care is this strong, then the right to demand medical care is just as strong (as long as funds exist to pay for it).

To summarize, until Plan B is ACTUALLY found to be an abortificient , it must be treated as a contraceptive. Heath care professionals and hospitals should not be permitted to refuse to despence medications based on theories and conjecture. In any event, the right of the rape victim, or any women to control her own womb trumps any interests which society may have (including protecting a pre-embryo which has a 50 percent chance of being destroyed anyway). Our society losese nothing by the destruction of pre-embryos. Plenty of babies are being born in the united states. We should be worrying about those already born, rather then those newly conceived.

In my prior post I asserted that the laws protecting conscience were a lie. I base this on the fact that only the rights of pro-life health care workers are protected. Health care workers wishing to provide birth control and abortion are routinely blocked by their employers from doing so. In fact any pro-birth control or pro abortion health care worker working for a catholic hospital will be fired for violating hospital policy. If we are going to protect the rights of health care workers to practice in accordance with their beliefs, then lets protect the rights of ALL health care workers (not just those whose beliefs match that of the state). Anything else is a lie. Of course, if my proposal were adopted, then the rights of private health care entities serving the public to control what goes on inside their doors would be destroyed. Then again, I question the concept that any entity licensed by the state should be the sole arbiter as to what treatments they will provide. Corporations, LLC's, and charitable organizations exist solely at the suferance of the state. They are not persons in the full sense of the word. They are not entitled to the same degree of protection as natural persons. That is you and I.

How about you respond this post. I bet you cannot.

And here's a shorter one:

From the looks of it, you're rather obsessed with this issue. You must have been up half the night on this one. As a wise man who does a bit on AM radio in Milwaukee famously said, "Get over it."

My question to you is, if this bill is unnecessary on the basis that this treatment is already available statewide, why do you continue to fuss over it? There's plenty of needless legislation coming out of committee every day, so why focus on this bill? Your current fixation is making me nostalgic for the light rail, MPS and property tax screeds of yore.