(no subject)

[vyvyanx]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm?csp=1%22

Jesus. By the same argument, I could take a job in a supermarket and refuse to sell people meat on moral grounds...

Comments

[nassus.livejournal.com]

Aargh! I'd say "only in the USA" but with what's happening around the world I'm not convinced anywhere is safe from this twisted version of thrusting your views into effecting peoples lives. GRRR!

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't normally comment on spelling mistakes, but `effecting peoples lives' is really quite apposite here.

(S)

[nassus.livejournal.com]

;-P couldnt be bothered spell checking - pedant.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

That's mad!

[deborah_c]

And you know something? It's actually worse than that.

In a number of states, the equivalent laws are much more general, and say essentially that health professionals need not do something against their religious beliefs. While in general what the lawmakers were meaning was "you don't have to be involved in abortions", I believe there have already been cases of paramedics refusing to treat LGBT people, and being entirely legally within their rights to do so.

And it's not that such things couldn't happen here. Only a mild example, I know, but an amendment was proposed to the Civil Partnerships bill that's just going through Parliament to say that registrars needn't carry them out if it offended against their beliefs. To their (slight) credit, the current government weren't having any of it. (Setting a principle in law that civil servants don't have to implement government policies they disagree with might not be entirely in their interests, of course :) However, who knows, after another election or two?

[grahamb.livejournal.com]

Happy birthday!

[grahamb.livejournal.com]

Dammit, but of course it's not actually today. Now if I'd read grahamH's comment properly...

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Never mind! I shall bear your good wishes in mind on Wednesday :-)

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Yeah, as you say, this isn't really new; there have been state laws like this for a while.

The context of all this, however, is that the fundamentalist Christians are against the contraceptive pill, but not, ostensibly, for the obvious reason.

AIUI, from reading some links about this a while ago, there is a general belief that, in addition to preventing ovulation, the pill also reduces the chances of implantation of the egg in the uterus should ovulation (and fertilisation) occur. Though it appears that this belief is largely based on marketing claims made by the manufacturers, and has never really been substantiated.

However, the fundamentalist Christians regard preventing implantation of the egg as abortion, and hence object to any use of the pill on the grounds of the risk of an aborted pregnancy.