Michigan's Cruel Rule Denying Medical Insurance To Rape Victims

I don't usually re-post articles from elsewhere but this action by Republicans in the Michigan Legislature is so unreasonably cruel and anti-women that it needs to be broadcast widely. Reprinted from Daily Kos. Emphasis mine.  AGB

MICHIGAN'S NEW RAPE INSURANCE LAW 

by Gretchen Whitmer, Democratic Leader Michigan Senate

I wanted to share a speech I intended on delivering to my Republican colleagues on the floor of the Michigan Senate today as the offensive new "rape insurance" law they passed has now taken effect. Unfortunately, they adjourned the Senate today without giving me my constitutional right to give this statement, but while they may not have wanted to hear it, I wanted to share exactly what I had planned on saying to them.

--
I rise today to remind my Republican colleagues of what today is.

As of today, your rape insurance proposal is now the law of the land in Michigan.

Thanks to what every single one of you on that side of the aisle did, rape victims in Michigan that become pregnant from their attack will now be told by their doctor - and their private insurance company - that they’re on their own.

Yes, a victim of a sexual assault in Michigan will now have to face the reality that their Republican legislators – those who decry government involvement in health care on a daily basis - passed a law that does exactly that. Except it only applies to women, so apparently that doesn’t count.

And if taking away the rights of rape victims weren’t enough, thanks to what you did, Michigan women with wanted pregnancies who are told by their doctors that something has gone horribly wrong and their pregnancy must be terminated will be told that their government doesn’t think that’s necessary medical care.

They too will now face a reality that you have prevented their private insurance company from covering the exact care that’s needed, that their doctor recommends, and is in the best interest of their own health.

In short, it’s a whole new era of unequal health care you’ve created here today, an era in which women are treated as second class citizens and told their male dominated legislature and a the extremist special interest group that funds their election campaigns know far better about the types of health care coverage they should have than their own doctor does.

So I have to ask, why aren’t you speaking out proudly about this today?

Is this not exactly what you wanted?

Is this not exactly what your vote was in favor of?

Or is it because, god forbid, you actually know what you did is wrong? That you know your vote that created this disgusting law was the absolute wrong vote to make? That if you could go back in time, maybe you’d put the health and the rights of your wives and your daughters ahead of what Right to Life told you to do that day?

I know that’s true for at least some of you.

Some of you told me yourselves in private shortly after the vote was taken that you wished you had the courage to vote against this disgusting bill.

You know who you are. I don’t need to name any names here today. But if you came to me that day seeking absolution for what you did, I’m here to tell you that on behalf of the millions of women and young girls you belittled that day and whose lives you’ve hurt as a result, the answer is no.

The people of Michigan asked you not to create this law. You didn’t listen.

My colleagues and I shared deeply personal stories - stories that none of us should have had to speak about publicly but felt compelled to in an effort to get you to actually think about what you were about to do.

We tried in vain to show you that your actions would have very real and very serious consequences on countless women throughout our state, including some of us right here in this very building.

But you didn’t care. You didn’t even have the courage to stand up and respond, or utter a single word out loud as to why you were about to pass this terrible law.

You instead sat silent, content to push your voting buttons and cash the campaign check you’d soon be receiving from those who were telling you to do this.

And so, here we are today. Rape insurance is now the law of the land, and not a single one of you wants to mark the occasion. So I’m doing it for you.

As this horrible law takes effect today, I want you to remember what you did.

The next time you read a story in the news about a woman being raped, remember that you turned your back on her and told her that she doesn’t deserve every available medical option that’s available to her.

When you hear of a woman facing a difficult pregnancy, one that may sadly end prematurely, remember that you told her that her health and well-being is less important than your ability to get the endorsement of a radical special-interest group.

And when women from across the state ask you why you would do something so offensive, remember that you had a chance to stand up for them and put their interests ahead of the absolute worst of what politics can be, and you chose not to.

I’m proud to know that I come here every day and fight to make Michigan a better place for my 2 daughters. But I’m disgusted to know that they’re now growing up in a state in which this kind of misogyny is now the law of the land.

I had to agree when I heard Rachel Maddow say this about our legislature just last night: “Over the last few years, Michigan state government has become way more insane than anyone nationally gives them credit for.”

Well, you may not be getting enough credit for it nationally, but across our state, the people know this exact kind of insanity happening here at their Capitol all too well.

I’m going to keep fighting on their behalf, and I can promise you that there are a whole lot of people out there ready to keep on fighting with me.

I haven’t forgotten what today means. Nor have the people of Michigan.

And you better believe we’re going to remember it November as well.    

Anti-abortion Terrorists and the Absurdity of the Roeder Argument

Abortion doctor murderer Scott Roeder admitted on the witness stand that he killed Dr. Tiller who engaged in lawful medical procedures that he objects to. He also said that only god can give or take life. So, in order to prevent what he (wrongly) believes is the taking of human life, he asserts the right to take a human life, in effect putting himself in the place of god and thereby nullifying his argument.

The law has spoken. Roeder was sentenced yesterday to life in prison and won’t be eligible for parole for 50 years — the maximum allowed by law. Under the circumstances, that is the proper result and the best we could hope for. Regrettably this decision is unlikely to have much deterrent effect, given the convoluted and absurd views of extreme anti-abortionists, who seem to be able to convince themselves that murder is the appropriate response for them to take in what they believe is the greater evil of abortion.

Leave aside for another discussion whether aborting a fetus is “killing a child,” an assertion that is specious on both Christian religious grounds and on common sense (an argument that I made in an earlier posting). Also leave aside for another discussion whether it is morally acceptable to take any life or any reason, or what circumstances would make it appropriate to take the life when a third person is in imminent danger of harm or death. In the case of Roeder we are left with his argument that murdering an individual person can be justified if the perpetrator (Roeder) believes (rightly or wrongly) that his action will prevent the future speculative but lawful killing of other persons who do not yet exist. Fortunately the court did not buy into this argument.

I can think of a number of instances in which the absurdity of Mr. Roeder’s argument becomes apparent. Soldiers are engaged in lawful killing. Is a pacifist justified in killing a soldier on his way to Iraq because killing him/her may prevent the lawful killing of enemy combatants? Criminal court judges sentence some persons convicted of serious crimes to be executed by hanging or lethal injection. Is an opponent of capital punishment justified in killing judges who have lawfully sentenced criminals to death in order to prevent the judge from sentencing more criminals to die? I could go on, but I think the point is so obvious as to not need any further elucidation.

Here is an article in The Guardian that points out the fear that terrorists like Scott Roeder create in the medical community. Scott Roeder and others like him are domestic terrorists. If we are serious about getting rid of terrorists and terrorism we have to start with convicting our domestic terrorists as well as Islamic jihadists. Both operate with the same twisted logic that justifies killing and terrorizing others for reasons arising out of their fundamentalist religious views.

Humanist Perspectives On The Abortion Debate

The abortion debate can and should be held without reference to Christian belief [which I think humanists would prefer] but it rarely is because most of the anti-abortion advocates base their argument in religion. So I will comment from the Christian Humanist perspective by reminding readers that not all religions or even all Christian churches and denominations are part of the anti-abortion movement. The religion-based anti-abortion crowd is pretty much limited to the Roman Catholic Church and various evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant groups that make common cause with them.

Among the various Christian denominations, churches and advocacy groups there are three fundamentally different approaches to the controversial issue of abortion and abortion right.

The anti-abortion Christians largely consist of the Roman Catholic Church and the extreme right of Protestant Christianity (the fundamentalists and the evangelicals), including Southern Baptists.

The middle group consists of some denominations that take a “nuanced” stance, neither supporting nor opposing abortion but stressing the duty of Christians to recognize that there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue and that each Christian must make his own decision on the specific facts and circumstances and in the light of his or her faith conviction. This middle group includes most Lutheran denominations, the American Baptist Association, and southern Presbyterians.

The third group supports abortion rights. This latter group consists of the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Lutheran Women’s Caucus.

A check with the web sites of these various denominations and groups will provide the specifics of each group’s position. However, individual Christians within each of these denominations often differ from their denomination’s position. For example, there are groups of pro-choice Catholics and anti-abortion Lutherans.

When I was a student in theological school in the late 1950s abortion was not an issue. Curiously until 1980 the Southern Baptists, a conservative evangelical denomination with a history of supporting individual rights, took the position that the right to abortion was a matter of individual freedom. Everything changed with the culture wars that began in the 1980s when the Republicans wanted a foothold among southern conservative Democrats and allied themselves with religious conservatives, using abortion as a wedge issue. It worked. The South is now largely Republican and anti-abortion rights.

The majority of Protestants do not accept the argument of the anti-abortion religionists that a fetus is a human being, or an “unborn baby.” Anti-abortionists have been trying to argue the point (unsuccessfully I think) that terminating a fetus is the same thing as killing a child. We beg to differ on that point for a number of common sense reasons and, for those whose beliefs are presumed to be Christian, for theological reasons as well. We affirm strongly that a fetus is not a child.

Some Christians (including your non-theistic writer!) hold that a human life comes into being at birth when the “breath of life” enters the child and it begins breathing. Traditionally it has been understood that a human being becomes such at birth when it is independent of the mother and breathing on its own and is then considered a child or a baby. Prior to birth it is a fetus, not a child. Consider that a fertilized egg is not a chicken, and we could extend that analogy to note that tadpoles are not frogs, larvae are not grasshoppers, and pine cones are not pine trees.

Traditionally the reason that a human being becomes recognized as such at birth goes back to the Genesis birth stories and is an element of Christian theology. In the Genesis story a human being was born when god breathed the “spirit of life” or “breath” into the new human being. Traditionally this is the point in theology that the “soul” (which is another name for the spirit of life, or ruach in Hebrew) enters the body and a new living human being is born. The issue of when a new human being comes into existence becomes complicated to the point of absurdity by the theological issue of the “soul” and whether the soul comes into being at the birth of a human child, or whether it is pre-existing and enters the body at birth, and how the “soul” relates to the fetus.

I do not understand why fundamentalist Christians, who say they believe quite literally in the Bible, seem to be unaware of this concept, which is a very traditional part of Christian theology. [This is not my belief, but is noted for those who hold that belief. I am a humanist, who happens to believe that the teachings of Jesus are worth taking seriously as an ethical guide, thus a Christian Humanist.]

Anti-abortion supporters have a right to their views, to abstain from abortion if they believe it is morally wrong, and to try to persuade others of the legitimacy of their position. They do not have a right to force their beliefs on the rest of us, to compel others to act or not act in accordance with their values, or to deprive the rest of us of our right to act in accordance with our beliefs. In a pluralistic society it has to be that way. Both the pro-choice and the anti-abortion positions are religious interpretations that have support from Christian believers, but they are religious beliefs and the secular laws of the land should not interfere with the religious rights of either side.

Those who believe that abortion is wrong and wish to abstain from abortion are free to refrain, and those who believe differently (for whom it is a private and often painful decision) should also be able to act on their beliefs without interference from the law. We live in a secular democracy. We do not believe, as do the Taliban whose views we are fighting, that religious views of one group should be written into law.

We should make the point here that because we support the right of women to have an abortion if their personal circumstances make that decision desirable or necessary, that does not mean we are “pro abortion” any more than we are “pro appendectomy” or “pro heart surgery.” Abortion is a medical procedure. Sometimes it is advisable. It needs to be available, as any other medical procedure is available.

Planned Parenthood Is The Wrong Target

A local politician, former county councilwoman, current chairperson of the Republican Party's anti-abortion committee, and prominent member of a Catholic parish is promoting a weekly protest march against Planned Parenthood. She says she is "pro life" – but in my opinion that is an inaccurate and meaningless statement. I don't know many people who are not in favor of life, but of course that is not really her position. Her statements establish that she is actually anti-abortion, anti-family planning, anti-birth control, anti-contraceptive, anti-family planning, and anti-sex education, the very programs that are necessary to increase the quality of life for our communities, reduce unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce the need for many prospective abortions. Planned Parenthood is the wrong target. They promote family planning and sex education and ultimately reduce the need for abortion as a response to unwanted and unplanned pregnancy.

I find it curious that those who say they are pro-life are not consistent in that regard. If they were really pro-life they would oppose the death penalty [because the innocent are condemned more often than most realize, oppose war [because the innocent are often collateral damage], oppose manufacturers who poison our environment, etc.

Anti-abortion folks have a right to their views, and they have a right to try to convince women to keep fetuses rather than abort them. They also have the duty, having taken that position, to provide the means for taking care of the unwanted children that would otherwise be aborted [although that raises another problem, over population].

Instead of protesting abortion and trying to eliminate abortion rights, the anti-abortion folks, who are largely associated with fundamentalist Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, would do well to create and sponsor orphanages adjoining their churches and then say to women who are pregnant, we will give you an option, we will take your baby, we will take care of your maternity health needs, we will pay the expense of delivery, we will take the baby once it is born and raise it through childhood, we will not come after the father for child support, and we will not burden the community with the unwanted child or its expense. Then they might be taken seriously. That might eliminate the need for some but clearly not all abortions.

But these anti-abortion folks, who have a religious based viewpoint, should not seek to convert their religious views into legal prohibitions. Many of us are not convinced by their religious views and the supporters of abortion rights should not be infringed upon by religious zealots.

Many Christians do not believe that abortion should be outlawed and they support the abortion rights of women. Anti-abortionists must respect the rights of those who disagree with them. Freedom and democracy require it.

http://www.ChristianHumanist.net