McIlheran Study Guide

McIlheran has been displaying a lot of angst about Plan B. Now, in today's paper and on his blog he has been using an adoptive agency to continue his arguments about abortion.

To help the gentle reader understand the source of McIlheran's angst, Whallah! offers a visual study guide:

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.

Paging Dr. McIlheran, Paging Dr. McIlheran

Father PaddyMac is back on his bully pulpit, preaching of the sins of Plan B. What caused Father Paddy to get all worked up was when State Representative Terry Musser (R-Melrose) and State Representative Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) wrote a rebuttal to all of Father Paddy's previous sermons.

Oh, how he is pontificating and proselytizing, but not saying anything. Of course, he doesn't have the same qualification as Representative Wasserman who is an OB-GYN. McIlheran on the other hand, is a precocious hack who only incites the moral pose when it is convenient, and forgets it when its not.

When my car is need of repair, I consult a mechanic. When I am sick, I see my doctor. If I were to wonder about the female reproductive system, I would rely on the OB-GYN.

If I ever want to learn to be hypocritical, then I will consult with Father PaddyMac.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that McIlheran proves that he knows he's losing by attacking Pundit Nation, not on the merits of the issue, but for the wording of this post. Typical conservative maneuver, if you can't win on the merits, attack the opponent.

You've Come A Long Way, Zygote

We've seen Father PaddyMac sermonize about the sins of letting a rape victim be informed on her choices of treatments, and picking the option she feels is right for her.

Illusory Tenant lets us see what McIlheran is fighting for, in a rather graphic way.

All we know, is that iT had better hope that McBride was honest for a change when she said that she doesn't bother to read lefty blogs, or else she will be accusing him of child pornography.

SIDENOTE: Pay attention to iT's banner for a great irreverent look at the holiday season.

They're Not Buying Into His Sermon

We have spoken before about Father PaddyMac and his irrational rationale for why doctors shouldn't be allowed to inform rape victims of their medical options. It seems like more people also don't buy into what he is preaching.

Jay Folkbum (aka Jay Bullock to you an me) has this to say:

Maybe it was a failed attempt at snark, maybe Patrick McIlheran really believes this deep down in the cockles of his being, I don't know. But in the two-plus years I've been doing the McIlheran Watch, this is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ead from the guy...

And his post spurred Emily Mills at The Lost Albatross to also express her feelings:

If an organization is getting most of its funding from public, governmental sources, then it ought to be beholden to the rules and mores codified in state and federal law. Otherwise all the arguments for "separation of church and state" being thrown around by opponents to the Plan B laws are rendered the hideously hypocritical bleats we've long suspected they were.

A hospital wishing to turn their noses up at the law should cease accepting public funding, period. Otherwise, there is simply no excuse for forcing a rape victim to jump through a series of hoops to get EC. It's about as uncharitable and uncaring as you can get.

Father PaddyMac

McIlheran, like an obsessed Captain Ahab, is still ranting about Plan B:

In my more-stuff post on emergency contraception the other day, I mentioned that
Catholic Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison had just this week come out in opposition to the bill that would order hospitals to pass out Plan B.

As was mentioned before, hospitals and doctors would not be ordered to pass out Plan B. They would be ordered to inform the patient of the options for medical treatment, which would be the ethical thing to do.

That means the patient would then be allowed to consult with the doctor and determine what course of treatment they would prefer. I guess freedom is just a liberal thing and Father McIlheran doesn't get it. But he should feel reassured by the bill, because the next time he gets raped and becomes impregnated, he can make the choice to keep the baby.

Our friend Kay has a few thoughts to share as well:

Also, any invasive surgery or medical treatment should not be forced or denied to any person. There are always two sides to every coin and when you start talking about denying medical treatment based on anything other than medical science then you have to look at the move towards forced medical procedures. A case in point would be my sister-in-law who had to have a planned pregnancy terminated due to both the inability of the fetus to survive as well as her own health. She had this done at a Catholic hospital in Milwaukee,( I won't post the name because of medical confidentiality). Now, what if the doctors would have thought that there was a chance of the survival of the baby at the risk of her life?

You can read the rest of the post here. For some reason, I think a woman would have a stronger understanding and argument in this matter than McIlheran.