-Obama administration is working to repeal DHHS regulation that prevents health care organizations that receive federal funds from firing or refusing to hire health care workers who refuse to dispense medical care for "moral" reasons. Still wishy-washy on actual "conscience" clauses which allow health care workers to refuse medical care in the first place. Important distinction: what is being repealed is the idea that a clinic that provides family planning services could fire someone who refuses to dispense birth control for their refusal. What is not being repealed is their supposed right to refuse care. This concept of conscience clauses and right to refuse care can and does apply to much more than reproductive health. Doctors could refuse to see or touch gay or trans patients, pharmacists could refuse to dispense medications to people who are transitioning, EMTs could withhold lifesaving measures from someone they found "repulsive" and claim conscience.

What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience?

(rest of the rant is here
...and i have been avoiding it lately during this campaign because blogs all over the place have been screaming about these things for months. however, i have found that i miss it. there was also the inspiration of a particularly...unpleasant to me conversation that i had with one of my family members about the democratic presidential primary.

my dear aunt and i were discussing this historic moment where the choices were a man of color and a woman both hoping to run for president. both are historic, both are amazing and both make me so very excited to be able to participate in this election. What i have found disappointing in the extreme was how instead of rising above all of the incredible pain of this country's history (thank you Ani!) this entire discussion has devolved into the Oppression Olympics. Instead of examining their platforms and promises and honestly evaluating which candidate we would prefer based on their qualifications and acheivements, the vast majority of debates have been arguing over which is worse: sexism or racism.

I mainly stayed out of it until i talked with the aforementioned aunt, because i find them both to be reprehensible and that comparing them is pointless. they have different contexts, and have effected everyone differently. I have also avoided these discussions because they tend to exclude women of color completely, or they are called traitors if they vote for either because no matter what they are voting "against" one of their identities. bell hooks made a point once, in the context of critiquing 2nd wave feminism, that it was foolish to expect a person to choose between identities, that the identity politics of feminist movement had been that women=good and men=evil and had been entirely dictated by the experience of middle class white women. this does not make the perspectives of those middle class women invalid, only limited. it meant that movements and decisions and plans of action did not account for the intersectionality of being both a woman and/or a person of color and/or poor/working class and how these intersections will effect what actions actually have an impact on the status quo.

anyway, im rambling. back to the conversation with my aunt. she got very upset when i told her that i supported obama (despite the fact that clinton won my state's primary, but then again, obama ended up with more delegates.) She went on to say that she has always, because of her experiences with extreme sexism, voted for any woman on the ballot regardless of party affiliation or platform. her rationale is that since women have been so attrotiously foirced into a position of second class in this country, that its "our turn" and that a woman in office represents gains and opportunities for all women. she said she had always supported "the brown man"(direct quote) but that it was women's turn first. Please remeber, this aunt is one of the most accepting people i know, and the most liberal. this is why i was so shocked not only at this blatant (to me) racial polemic coming from her but with how she was completely oblivious to the racism of it.

this thought train and these discussions are the reason that i have this article and will proceed to tear it apart via commentary :) the article is in italics, my comments are in bold.

Clinton's female fans wonder what if — and when
cut because this entry is long enough already )

I guess at the end of it all the only thing that i may actually be satisfied with is a woman of color running for president, with a male-identified queer person as VP. that would be friggen awesome :)
( Apr. 28th, 2008 07:46 pm)
So, im debating skipping Anthrocon this year.

its not that i cant afford it... I can.
Its not that i have no way to get to Pittsburgh...I do.

what i dont have is two things that i think i kinda need to actually attend.

one: motivation. )

two: crash space. or rather, my lack thereof.

im still debating going, and if anyone has any suggestions, im all ears




RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags