Monday, March 28, 2005

Waiting For The Rapture , Part II

If you're in Schiavo Overload, fear not - this has nothing to do with the freak show still going on in Florida. Those poor fundie nutjobs almost have my sympathy at this point - almost.

I've read four separate stories today which outline the Christofascists' agenda for legalizing their hate; primarily - but certainly not exclusively - against GLBT folks, and I'm feeling a little nauseous right now.

Let's start in the state which The Oxycontin Kid used to deride as a Bastion of Liberalism - Wisconsin. More specifically, the U of W, Donna Shalala's old stomping grounds.
Karen Ryker is a star theater professor who wins praise for her teaching of Shakespeare's plays.

Larry Wu is a professor of sociology who generates millions of dollars in research funding. And Christine Saulnier is a talented academic administrator.

All three openly gay scholars left the University of Wisconsin for other schools in recent years, each citing the state's policy to refuse health insurance coverage for domestic partners.

Warning that UW-Madison is at a competitive disadvantage for recruiting and retaining gay faculty, Gov. Jim Doyle has asked lawmakers for $1 million over the next two years to fund domestic partner benefits for system employees.

"This demonstrates exactly why we have to offer them," Doyle told The Associated Press. "It isn't only about doing the right thing. It's also about our ability to make sure that we can recruit and attract and maintain the best faculty possible."

UW-Madison last year became the only Big Ten school that does not offer such coverage when Penn State changed its policy. But Republicans who control the Legislature said Doyle's plan faces opposition from members who say it is too costly and part of a liberal social agenda.

"I'm not looking to tailor our budgeting policy to make sure we retain left-wing social activists," said Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin. "I'm not losing sleep over those folks choosing to go somewhere else."

....

The debate comes at a time when the Legislature is weighing a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The amendment also would prohibit the state from recognizing any legal status "identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals."

Critics say the amendment would render illegal the domestic partner benefits offered by companies and cities and erase the state's progressive image.

Gundrum said the amendment would have no effect on benefits, simply maintaining the status quo by guaranteeing a judge could not legalize gay marriage or civil unions. Approval this session could set up a statewide referendum in 2006.

Next door, in another Blue State, the Michigan Legislature has just passed the Conscientious Objector Policy Act. Sounds almost noble, doesn't it? With a name like that, you'd think that it was written to help facilitate a quick exit into Canada for potential draftees.

Not exactly. It's a bill which will allow physicians and other healthcare workers to refuse treatment to gays and others on moral or religious grounds. Let me say that again. It will allow physicians and other healthcare workers to refuse treatment to gays and others on moral or religious grounds. Not surprisingly, it's being shepherded through by the Michigan Catholic Conference. Apparently, it's okay for them to dick little boys and threaten eternal hellfire if they tell, but adults who choose to bump uglies with similarly plumbed, consenting adults deserve to die in the streets. The bill has already passed the State House and is expected to clear the Senate soon.

Another bill they just passed Wednesday "would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement."

From the same article:
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

It seems pretty simple to me. Health care providers have an obligation to provide care to *all* members of the community. Anyone who avails him/herself of this law should have his/her license snatched on the spot. Anyone who plans to enter the field should probably give serious thought to the possibility that they may, at some time, be required to treat someone with whose lifestyle they disagree - if they can't handle it, maybe they should reevaluate their career goals.

(now, a couple links for the ladies) This most definitely applies to pharmacists, as well. A patient goes to the doctor, who diagnoses the condition and prescribes the medically necessary treatment. The pharmacist fills the prescription, as ordered by the physician. It is not a requirement of the pharmacist's job to know why a patient was given a certain drug, nor is it the pharmacist's job to second guess the physician and refuse to fill what the physician determines to be the appropriate prescription. There Is No Right Of Refusal.

And finally, the Catholics are also busy in South Dakota, where the State just enacted a law which requires women seeking abortions to sign a waiver acknowledging that the life they are ending is ''a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Now, maybe I'm missing some nuance, but wouldn't signing a form which states that you want to end the life of "a whole, separate, unique, living human being" basically the same as confessing to premeditated murder? How can this possibly end well?


People, the shit is getting deeper by the day. These Christofascist thugs are hell-bent on turning a pretty damn good country into another Third World theocracy, and it has to stop.