Thursday, July 31, 2008

"I'm sorry. Providing you with adequate health care goes against my religious beliefs."

The Department of Health and Human Services Considers Denying Funding to Entities Refusing Opt-Out Plan.

This scares me not only because of it's option to opt-out of abortive procedures, but it's redefinition of what an abortive procedure is. Under this, people are allowed to refuse to provide the morning-after pill; that's gotta be a fun discovery when you're getting a rape kit. It also includes all birth-control procedures that run counter to someone's personal convictions. I'm trying to think about what this will mean for women who opt to get voluntary sterilization; "Sorry, I can't perform the tubal ligation because my religion tells me that you're supposed to have lots of babies. Yeah, I know it's not your religion, but I've gotta do what I think is right here."

It's probably more of a superficial political battle to impress pro-lifers than anything else; that said, pharmacists have been fighting (and winning) the battle to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their moral code for awhile now. While I don't think anyone should ever be forced to do something that violates his/her religious code, demanding that health care providers give their employees the right to refuse patients services is not the way to provide greater religious freedom in this country.


One of the biggest arguments I've seen in favor of plans like this is, "Religious freedom is important and besides, patients who want those services can just go somewhere else." Wrong. Many insurance providers specify a specific clinic or doctor, and patients cannot go elsewhere without a referral and still have their insurance cover treatment. There's also the fact that not everyone has the option of going somewhere else. There are 3 hospitals within a 15 minute drive of my house, but I'm lucky enough to live in a decently sized city. People who live further out in the county don't have as many choices. If I need an abortion and someone at the nearest hospital refuses to perform the procedure or give me a referral (fairly likely, given that I live in Alabama), there's a Planned Parenthood in my town. But what about all the people who don't have that option? What about the people living in rural areas where there aren't a lot of hospitals and clinics? Where do they go to get what they need?

The "get someone else to do it" argument only works if you live in a city; if you live in an isolated rural or mountain area, you probably only have access to the one clinic, and if the workers at that clinic refuse to prescribe birth control or perform an abortion, you aren't exactly flush with options.

What about getting the doctors and nurses to go somewhere else? If you're so opposed to abortion and birth control, then don't work for a company that is supposed to provide them. Start your own clinic, with your religious objection to abortive acts in the mission statement. Express your religion to your heart's content, but don't do it in a public hospital.

````````````````````````````````

My other big problem with this is obvious: people using their religious freedom to push their values onto others. Just because you believe something does not mean you can enact that belief upon my body. Religious freedom gives your the ability to practice, but it should not give people the right to force that practice upon others, because that action infringes upon my freedoms, specifically my freedom to not participate in someone else's religion.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Parole Board, what the fuck?

O.k., I'm not the world's hugest advocate for parolee's rights or anything, but this is ridiculous.

Paroled parents not allowed to live together.

For the linkaphobic: Parolees were placed together in a shelter, fell in love, she got pregnant, their parole officers found out, he was jailed for parole violation, and now they're not allowed to associate with one another. The article states that he helps to take care of the baby, which probably means that his parole officer is looking the other way on that, but not allowing them to live together? When convicts are released from jail and put on parole, they're supposed to be easing back into normal lives as productive members of society. But when these two people have a child and try to do the right thing and raise it together, they're not allowed? In addition to extending their parole, let's put them under the financial strain of raising a family in two separate households; that's an absolutely brilliant idea. It won't cripple their reintegration into society at all.

I understand the reasoning behind the rules forbidding convicts to associate with one another. After all, why take the chance of people banding together, enabling criminal habits and backsliding into their old ways. But if the parole board is going to enforce that rule, then getting more housing and spreading the parolees out a bit more thinly would be a good idea. However, there probably isn't enough money for that, so let's look at punishment for the violation. In this case, separating these two individuals isn't going to do anything good because the kid's already been conceived. In this case, separation is probably worse for rehabilitation than anything else; it's putting them under unnecessary financial strain and diminishing their support network. How is the mother supposed to work if the father's not allowed to come over and watch the child?

I'm just going to whistle and ignore the fact that consenting adults should have the freedom to date each other and form romantic relationships if they so choose, because the initial relationship was a violation of the parole, but once there's a kid in the picture, I think allowances should be made on a case-by-case basis. If they're obeying their paroles in every other way, perhaps allow the couple to live together for a probationary period; if there are no domestic disturbances or calls to social services, let 'em shack up. This is one tale of the prison system that could have a happy ending, if only people would let it.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

An Introduction

I have a LiveJournal for personal bitchings and a group blog for sharing the tales of my summer, but I've nowhere for political rants or serious discussion of issues that matter to me, from network television's fall line-up to sexism and racism. At least, I didn't until now. This is the place where I talk about the things I find interesting and the things that bug me. I'll talk television, race, gender, politics, education, and a boatload of other things, possibly all at the same time.

A brief description of me: I'm a 21 year-old African-American female from the Southeast, currently enrolled in university, pursuing a Bachelor's in English with a Certificate in Theater. I love television and am currently addicted to crime shows and science fiction, though hardcore sci-fi fans would probably scorn me for preferring Stargate Atlantis to Battlestar Galactica. I also have a bit of a soft spot for teen shows; I was addicted to the first few seasons of Dawson's Creek when they originally aired, and I won't even get into my irrational love for Degrassi: The Next Generation.

There are many more things I could say, but most of them are not relevant to this blog at the moment, so I shall sign off for now, and hope to return with interesting tidbits at a later date.