He vetoed a bill that would make hospitals tell RAPE VICTIMS about POSSIBLE EMERGENCY contraceptives in Colorado so that they do not have to bear the child. It says nothing about going about the process, it's still the choice of the victim if they want the contraceptive. it isn't an abortion. it's a pill


now, he says his veto is based on offending religious churches. how much longer can we allow them to withold information that is crucial for our society and bury us in ignorance? Please email him (if you agree that the veto was bad) and tell him. It's important because this man wants to try for Presidency and he is revered by President Bush.

governorowens@state.co.us

Thank you.

When are women going to stand up and walk out of churches and say, "ENOUGH! No one here is doing God's work! You're playing a fucking game, and you're trampling on me in the process! Fuck you, everyone one of us is leaving and finding God on our own!"

Are hospitals forbidden from telling them about this in the first place? Shouldn't doctors make what they feel are the best medical recommendations to their patients?

Unless there's some extra information I'm missing, I'd probably do the same thing Owens did (minus the whole religion thing). Posting some links to the bill or news articles about it might help.

So much for seperation of church and state. Many elelcted officials now specifically cater to the church.

well, the bill would make it a law to tell victims their options. im sure they do already, but there are many that dont. its ridiculous when a doctor says 'well, all you can do is have the child'. He vetoed it because if a Christian or Catholic doctor had to say that in their hospital it might be offensive and a sin for them. Owens has always been completley blatant in his merging of religion and politics and this is taking it way too far. I'm not even a women, but I just can't handle seeing women who may not be informed be denied their right as human. Especially since he's being looked at as a probable candidate.

Hospitals shouldn't be forced into reccomending anything that they don't want to. It is ridiculous to tell them how they should run themselves, and he was right to veto the bill. If I was a Dr. I would probably tell them about safe emergency contraception myself, but it isn't the governments place to force it on people.

It pisses me off that there are doctors practicing who have decided to use their position to push their beliefs onto brutalized women, but I agree with you, the government shouldn't be able to tell PRIVATE hopsitals what to do. I think governments should require mentioning this pill (not necessarily recommending it, but mentioning it) of all public hospitals. As for private hospitals, any one that doesn't make it hospital policy to require doctors to mention this should be pelted with rocks by every woman in the community.

I think it's also important for people to choose their doctor carefully. Treat it like a job interview. Ask questions like, "Do you have any personal/religious beliefs that would keep you from prescribing certain treatments/procedures?"

I support that, but the likelihood that a rape victim gets to choose where she goes and who treats her is probably very low. Well, it depends on a lot of factors, but still ... low.

Most hospitals in Colorado do tell victims about the pill. But several of the religious hospitals like St. Mary's ... or St. Peter's ... do not tell the victims of this choice. This bill has been in the legislature for the past number of years and this was the first time it passed both houses and went to the Governor for signature. It will pass as soon as the lame duck leaves office.

A lot of people view that as a slipperly slope, though. Once you mandate that a publicly-funded medical institution inform patients of their options for abortions or any means that would lead to the cessation of the life of the baby, people deem that an indirect state-funded abortion. As you know, taxes are not required to fund abortions.

I don't even want them to give them the pill. If they aren't at least mentioning it as a possibility, they aren't providing the full continuum of care as a doctor. I have no problem with the state saying, "if you want me to pay you to be a doctor, you're going to be a fucking doctor, not a missionary." If the state doesn't do anything about that, I hope to hell the AMA comes down like a hammer on them.

But the AMA hasn't. You and I were just talking about this last week with pharmacists and doctors refusing to fill prescriptions or perform emergency abortions when necessary because of religious beliefs. The AMA has been silent on this issue.

The point I was trying to make is not whether it is right or wrong for a doctor not to tell them, but whether it is right or wrong to require doctors in state/county-run hospitals to tell them. People see this as a form of abortion and, hence, condoning state-funded abortions.

I don't know if doctors should be required to provide abortions, but they should be required to talk to their patients about the possibilities of abortion or morning after pills. To not do so, is to be a poor doctor. I have no problem with the state requiring doctors to meet a minimum level of care, or for that matter, requiring them to be doctors. The state should make sure that if someone says they are a doctor, that they aren't, in fact, an auto mechanic, a house painter, or a minister.


Not that it would help emergency rape patients, but such doctors should be required to hang a sign on their doors, "Providers in this practice are more concerned with spreading their religious beliefs than actually treating patients. If you would like the full continuum of care, please see the following referral list of reputable health care providers."

So we revert to the same questions...

How do abortions for rape victims advance their state of affairs? What does it assuage? Does it create nice warm thoughts for the victim? What good is brought about it?

In the name of seperation of church and state, we will tread over peoples religious rights?

But I forgot, the left really doesn't understand or appreciate the fact that religion has different value to different people.

The world doesn't cater to you, and you have no valid argument to demand that it does. Just say their not doctors, and call them monsters. But don't for a moment look at the big picture.

Fun fact: Planned Parenthood recieves Federal funding. I was ignorant of this till a raving libertarian showed me the light. Anyhoo, I don't know if its directly used to help offset the costs of abortions, but I hardly see the distinction as hey, that and birth control are what Planned Parenthood is all about. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about the funding) So, as far as I'm aware there already are federally funded abortions.

Wouldn't it be nice if it created nice warm thoughts for the rape victim. No, what we're going for here is allowing a patient to maintain their rights to control their own medical decisions and their own bodies without having those decisions made by someone else.

I'm sorry that the doctor feels that he or she has a religious purpose to force his beliefs on his patients, but when a doctor agrees to take something as important as a life in his or her hands, they have to agree to respect the rights of those patients and allow them to make their own decisions, be they Christian, Jewish, athiest, or Wiccan. If they aren't sharing knowledge of a pill that could prevent the fertilization of an egg with scum-bag rapist sperm, they aren't expressing their values, they're focing those values onto someone else.

Do I respect different religious values? Absolutely. Do I support people in power relationships over others using such a relationship to change other people's religious values? No. If the doctor is uncomfortable being forced to provide full and complete medical care, may I suggest a career in the clergy?

while the way you wrote it seems cut and dried, and simple, I wonder if anything else was tacked onto the bill, that could be a reason it was vetoed.

I don't really get this because it would seem that those types of emergency contraception would help avoid pregnancy and therefore negate the possibility or need of an abortion in that case.


The whole point of contraceptives is to avoid unwanted pregnancy right?


Then again if I was a doctor I wouldn't need a law for me to inform victims of rape about emergency contraception available to them.

If one is against abortion, it would seem that they would favor contraception because that stops pregnancy before it starts.

- just_b

No, no, no. Take a step out of your beliefs, and become a human being for just a second. You didn't answer my question. Let's take abortion as an option, and let's say it is legal, and let's for a moment say that it was law that doctors HAD to tell women about abortive options. Let's say all that is true. My question would still stand: What good does the act itself do? You're so wrapped in having the option that I dare say you've lost sight of the human part of it.

- just_b

Yes, you're right in one regard; rape is bad. I doubt you will find any takers to argue that. That isn't the issue, nor does it address my main concern here. What good, what help, what beneficiance to the zygote, to the mother, and to humanity does that action of wiping the slate clean create? How does that assuage anything? How can you put the choice itself above the action...

- just_b

Well gosh. For someone who is so tolerant, and so open minded, this sure does sound like a advocation for discrimination against ones religion. Sounds like another way for you to further your morals and impress them upon other people.
[/i]

Little Wing, the argument isn't about whether it's the best choice or not. What "good" it does depends on the individuals making the decision. And everyone deserves the right to decided, is an abortion and/or morning after pill better for me than having a rapists baby. Doctors don't have the right to make that decision for their patients.