Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Russian journalist critical of Putin murdered in Moscow | Main | Jailed Duke Cunningham: "I hurt more than anyone could imagine" »

October 07, 2006

Feminist blogger denied emergency contraception, gets pregnant (Can she sue, hivemind?)

Last month, feminist blogger Biting Beaver wrote about a nightmarish experience she'd had with a broken condom and a callous medical system that refused to give her emergency contraception over the counter or by prescription.

Instead of getting medical care during the critical 72-hour window of opportunity, BB was stalled, humiliated, scorned, quizzed, and deceived. A nurse tried to tell her that EC was "the abortion pill," and other health care providers grilled her about her sexual history and her marital status. Her pharmacy wouldn't sell it to her OTC, her doctor wouldn't call in a prescription, and the local emergency rooms wouldn't give her a 'scrip because she wasn't raped or married.

Pat yourself on the back, culture of life, Biting Beaver is pregnant and she's getting death threats.

The question on everyone's mind tonight is whether a woman could sue a doctor for denying her EC. BB never got to see a doctor because she got the hermetically sealed medical run-around: Her family doctor told her to go to the ER, but when she called the ERs the nurses discouraged her from coming in to see the doctor. No doubt the entire process was engineered so that no one would be held responsible if BB should end up with a serious medial problem (i.e., pregnacy). BB never got to see a doctor, so no doctor was ever in the position to say "I know you have no contraindications, but I won't give you the medicine."

But suppose a doctor examined a patient and ascertained that she had no contraindications and still denied her EC. Could that woman sue if she got pregnant?

Here's BB's email if anyone wants to help out through PayPal.

[Via Amanda.]

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d83431254253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feminist blogger denied emergency contraception, gets pregnant (Can she sue, hivemind?):

Comments

Seifeld got tossed in jail for the same reason.

Count Zero, are you a lawyer? It's not a flame but a genuine question.

Jesus has commanded us to spread the word.

Jesus has been dead 2000+ years, unless he has returned and made you his Prophet, he hasn't commanded anything. You've interpreted meaning based on your reading of the Bible. Saying that he commanded you is in fact false and very egocentric.

"Again, you bring up judging. That's not the same as giving my opinion on the correct way to behave."

Example #1:

You can pull as many quotes from the bible as you wish, it doesn't mean you understand them."

Example #2:

I think that BB is full of self-hate at the root of her feelings. However, she had sex and got pregnant. Wow. What a surprise. The only way to not get pregnant is to keep her legs closed. Otherwise, she just comes of as lost and not really understanding life and how it works beyond her world of blogs and 3 babies who got "lucky" that mom wanted them at the time.


Here you have this assumption that your interpretation is the correct one, that everyone else couldn't possibly understand the Bible and the word of God the way you do. Already you are commiting sin in the guise of spreading the word of God and are blind to your own ignorance. You commited the very first deadly sin, that of Pride. The sin of vanity is the sin from which all others arise. I suggest you reexamine yourself and how you choose to spread your faith.


If a Hindu, Buddhist or anyone else wants to talk to me about their faith, I have no problem with that. As long as they'll give me the benefit of their ear when I speak. That seems to be a common theme on here - you give your opinion and if it's not the popular one then there are calls for banning and shutting up.

Speaking with someone doesn't mean flinging accusations, judgements and condemnations. It's one thing to persuade people through argument to your viewpoint, and quite another to persuade them through coersion. It's not very Christian, though neither are you.

If she sues and wins, so what? Who really loses in all this? That potential human being and herself. I do not and would expect most Christians to not expect justice from the courts of man. That's the point you might be missing. You can expect to receive a judgement in court but justice? I think not. Every day the courts let criminals go free and immoral acts to be rewarded.

The zygote is nothing but cells, it has no consciousness, and so therfore is not a human being or potential human being. The cells have no differentiation and could not exist on their own, as a human being could. We're talking basic biology, something everyone past eighth grade should know by now.

I'm sorry but this is murder we're talking about. Plain and simple. The unjustified act of homicide. Unless someone on here can show me unrefutable proof that life does not begin at conecption, then why are we not deciding to err on the side of caution? All because someone might be inconvenienced?

Again, you're being judgemental. It's not murder, and is not even close. Study cellular biology, read about when cell differention and sentience occurs, and you will have your unrefutable proof.

On the topic of parenting being an inconvienience, you're assuming again that you're in a place to judge someone elses position from the superior position of your own. Very egotistical and pridefull. Parenting is a responsibility. If a couple chooses not to have that responsibilty, they have that right. Other peoples bodily health and functions are not for you to decide. Would Jesus go around calling people murders, whores, telling them to keep their legs closed? So what right do you think you have to? You are not Jesus. Nor God. You have no right to cast judgement over others, only yourself. If you think they're commiting sin, let them. They're forgiven, even if they are doing wrong in your eyes, so let God deal with it.

Note that I am not posting on her website and tearing her down for what she has done. It's not going to change her heart if I show her hate - that's not a true Christian's desire. I would hope that one day (sooner the better), her heart will feel conviction over what she desired to do.

So far, that's all you have done, minus posting on her website. Repeatedly.

The bible is the eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life. He said so and I'm following what he said to do. So your assertion is wrong. Sharing a message of love with others is as far from egocentrism as it gets. He commanded us ALL to do what I said.

Can a two-week old survive on their own? By your definition, that infant isn't alive. Maybe your basic biology is more advacned than mine but if not, then that's another wrong assertion.

The bible is the eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life.
Yes, life 2000+ yearrs ago, not now.

He said so and I'm following what he said to do.

He said what exactly? Go to Majikthise and harass people with your own personal religious dogma? Somehow, I doubt he said that.

So your assertion is wrong.

Actually, no my assertions were correct, yet your ego will utterly prevail every time.

Sharing a message of love with others is as far from egocentrism as it gets. He commanded us ALL to do what I said.

So sharing love is telling people to keep their legs closed? How is that sharing love? That's being rude. And no, he didn't command us ALL to do what he said, he commanded his followers to do what he said. Notice everyone in the Bible he gives commands to is a follower? If you don't follow him or believe in him, then there is no need to follow. That is your choice.

Can a two-week old survive on their own? By your definition, that infant isn't alive. Maybe your basic biology is more advacned than mine but if not, then that's another wrong assertion.

Can the infant disattached from the body of the mother survive?
Yes it can. A baby in no way needs to be attached to the mother to live. A cellular mass does. You're argument is linking two separate, incomparable organisms, one living and sentient to one not living and not sentient. By my argument you are still incorrect. Blood outside your body isn't living is it? Does it continue to live? How about your liver? Or a cancer? Is cancer a living organism as well? Cancer has the potential for cellular differentiation just like a zygote, but I haven't heard anyone question the morality of chemotherapy.

Seeing as how I was neither vulgar, profane or any number of other things, I'm assuming that you would rather clap your hands over your ears than listen to someone else's opinion that doesn't happen to share yours.

Seeing as how I was neither vulgar nor profane when I explained why abortion is as moral as squashing a bug or rubbing your eyes, I'm assuming that you would rather continue preaching as if nobody else is talking than listen to someone else's opinion that happens to be different from yours.

Some of the exchanges here between Lindsay and Anthony, and Sam as well, are circling issues that have been discussed in some detail on much earlier threads.

BAD on all the pharmacists and docs who have unenlightened views regarding the right of women to control their own bodies. BADDER still on the political hacks at the FDA who don't respect the difference between science and personal morality.

Nonetheless, it matters when defining the role obligations of health care professionals whether the services being requested are medically indicated.

Steve T:

The only one here mocking God is you, with your mindless misunderstanding of Him. Your faith is weak, so you tear others down with the judgements of a fallible man (you) in order to make yourself feel stronger.

I will not pray for your elightenment. God will not impose on you what you do not want, no matter how many of us wish it to be. That is the nature of the free will He gave us. God leaves you free to remain an ignorant, judgemental reactionary. Only you can pray for your own enlightenment.

"Unless someone on here can show me unrefutable proof that life does not begin at conecption, then why are we not deciding to err on the side of caution?"

Just my two cents, but EC _PREVENTS_ conception. It doesn't cause an abortion. If you're concerned about the soul or whatever of the aborted child, you should want people to be able to prevent conception so as to keep unwanted life from forming.

By the way, in Jesus' day, unwanted babies were left by the wayside to die. They weren't valued as "souled humans" until they became preteens. Odd that Jesus never set the Christians straight as they continued the practice after his death. You'd think Jesus would have mentioned that life begins at conception since it's so important?

Totally forgot to add:

Odysseus, thanks for being the coolest Christian I've ever met online. It's sad to say, but in my experience, Christian = Troll every day of the week (and, of course, twice on Sundays ;) ). You are definitely a refreshing breath of air.

Yeah, traditions tend to have a lot less time-depth than people think. Before the mid-19th century, the Western standard was for personhood to begin at quickening. The Catholic Church didn't even declare pre-quickening abortion a grave sin until 1869.

I'm sorry that the birth control didn't work. I'm sorry that some pro-lifers are making death threats. Main-line pro-lifers don't make death threats, just a few radicals on the fringes. Please don't judge the bushel because of a few bad apples.

Well, on to the matter at hand....the deal is done, you are pregnant. Take care of yourself and most likely the pregnancy will be safe for you and produce a healthy baby. You can look at this as a "problem" or as a gift that God wanted to give you so badly that no matter how hard you tried, you weren't able to prevent. Think of it that way for a little while. This child is a gift created just for you. God thinks you are that special! If you decide that you still don't want this baby, give him or her up for adoption! There are plenty of couples' dreams you can make come true.

The Godless slut should have keepn her legs shut then there wouldn't have been a problem!

The comments to this entry are closed.