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

"This is a case where someone fucked up, big time, and she needs to deal with the consequences.
I'm sorry if it's a huge inconvenience, but that's life.
Maybe she'll think things through more thoroughly next time."

She did. She went to get EC, which is a legal method of preventing pregnancy. She was prevented, however, by other people who wished to impose their moral beliefs onto another person.

People like you are what make the term "compassionate conservative" a laughable fallacy.

Here's a crazy thought. Don't have sex unless you are prepared for what could happen. How about actually taking responsibility for your own actions. The pharmacist didn't force you too have sex. Sometimes in life you have to take responsibility for your actions. The key word is "RESPONSIBILITY". Think about it. You only have yourself to blame.

Steve,

Climb down off your high horse a moment and read a verse with me.

"You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

Or how about this gem?

"Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself."

...a brood of vipers, indeed.

Enough!

ENOUGH, you fucking trolls!

EC is LEGAL. She was denied a legal means of taking responsibility.

Now she's going to use another legal means of taking responsibility, one which you assholes claim to oppose and yet have NO PROBLEM with blocking preventive measures, i.e. EC.

You WANT abortions. You NEED abortions. If EC were widely available, you wouldn't have people like BB - women in relationships, with kids, who can't afford and/or just don't want more - to hold up as some sort of irresponsible boogeyperson.

You WORSHIP abortions. If you didn't, you'd be desperately trying to legalize and disseminate every method of preventing them, including emergency contraception.

Sick, sick fucks.

ENOUGH!

If only there were a way to force each of these anti-choice fuckers to bear a child to term every time they had sex, there would be justice.

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.

If she had more genuine love in her life and knew what that was she might feel differently.

Maybe God will be more merciful with her than she wanted to be with her own baby. I pray so. It saddens me to see another human being more interested in sex and death than the other things that really count. The book of Romans are her only hope.

First of all, she could have gone to the ER but she was too ashamed to give her personal history. Second, she'll get an abortion. She doesn't care as long as the parasite is cleaned out.

You can pull as many quotes from the bible as you wish, it doesn't mean you understand them. Your first one referes to gaining entrance to the kingdom of heaven (not applicable in this case) and the second would mean that we could have nocourt of law. It's a reminder to remina humble because we are all sinners and broken. If you understood the word of God (not just able to repeat it back or type it out after Googling it), you would be encouraging her to repent from her sinful desire.

I am not as surprised these days when a woman talks about murder costing $100 but at least that's cheaper than having a kid. Jesus was betrayed and killed for 5 pieces of silver. We all are truly not worthy of His saving grace.

Here's a thought: how about abstaining from sex or having sex, knowing full well that sex was created for reproduction, not just it feels good. If you like it to do it because it turns you on, then be prepared to have children.

If Brendan is correct in his analysis, then she should have no problem with the activist judicial lower courts and be able to sue and win.

Jesus weeps at the sight of what we all do to each other. What will he do when he shows her, gleefully flushing a life down the toilet?

First of all, she could have gone to the ER but she was too ashamed to give her personal history. Second, she'll get an abortion. She doesn't care as long as the parasite is cleaned out.

You can pull as many quotes from the bible as you wish, it doesn't mean you understand them. Your first one referes to gaining entrance to the kingdom of heaven (not applicable in this case) and the second would mean that we could have nocourt of law. It's a reminder to remina humble because we are all sinners and broken. If you understood the word of God (not just able to repeat it back or type it out after Googling it), you would be encouraging her to repent from her sinful desire.

I am not as surprised these days when a woman talks about murder costing $100 but at least that's cheaper than having a kid. Jesus was betrayed and killed for 5 pieces of silver. We all are truly not worthy of His saving grace.

Here's a thought: how about abstaining from sex or having sex, knowing full well that sex was created for reproduction, not just it feels good. If you like it to do it because it turns you on, then be prepared to have children.

If Brendan is correct in his analysis, then she should have no problem with the activist judicial lower courts and be able to sue and win.

Jesus weeps at the sight of what we all do to each other. What will he do when he shows her, gleefully flushing a life down the toilet?

Speaking as an extremely pro-choice male, this comment thread is very revealing on a number of levels. What it reveals to me, mostly, is how many trolls here, especially the religious ones, equate "responsibility" with abstinence.

There's pretty much no way to talk rationally to these people, as they are blinded by their faith. You are perfectly entitled to say that I, for instance, am blinded by my lack of it; however, you are not entitled in any way to discriminate against people because of it. And that's what this whole mess is really about.

But you've got people saying "If she had more genuine love in her life", as if you know what her life away from the blog is actually like.

And you've got people telling her to learn about "responsibility".

By most rational definitions, BB was responsible. She was using a contraceptive method. It failed. She went looking for another. At which point she got Ye Bigge Olde Moralistic Runaround.

Whatever relationship she has with whatever she worships has nothing to do with it. Whatever relationship she has with whomever you worship has nothing to do with it. And you yutzes who apparently think we live in The Handmaid's Tale have no say whatever in whatever her choice may be.

Moreover, I'd find it laughable how many of you still believe that Gawd doesn't want people having sex, given that [a] he supposedly told you all to "be fruitful and multiply" and [b] gave the species incredibly powerful hard-wired instincts for it, except you keep pushing asinine legislation based on it.

If you find sex so scaaaary, don't have any. Really. But leave other people alone. That's really all there is to it.

He did tell us to multiply, but the problem is that some people want to kill what comes next. I wouldn't expect you to understand that point. Your logic is too superficial.

You can mock God and chose not to believe. I hope that you really do enjoy your time here. Remember, it's never too late.

He did tell us to multiply, but the problem is that some people want to kill what comes next. I wouldn't expect you to understand that point. Your logic is too superficial.

You can mock God and chose not to believe. I hope that you really do enjoy your time here. Remember, it's never too late.

With respect to the descussion of medical or moral decisions upthread I can add this: A decision based on medical reasons takes into account the patient and the patient's situation. A decision based on moral reasons takes into accout the doctor's situation. Therein lies the difference. The when deciding to withhold medication, a procedure, information, etc. for moral reasons the doctor is making their situation / beliefs more important than the patient's situation. I believe this to be just pain wrong. Thanks for letting me participate.

LM Wanderer

Is there a way to ban Steve Tempest's IP? Stupid energy creatures.

You know, I can't believe that in this day and age, actual real life doctors and med providers pull this stuff.

I just encourage people to ignore the trolls, or take out their frustrations on them. Whatever works...

My admittedly eccentric theory is that banning trolls is like over-using antibiotics. You get rid of some, but you also attract resistant trolls.

Yeah, there is a way to ban his IP, censoring unapproved opinions.

I am not as surprised these days when a woman talks about murder costing $100 but at least that's cheaper than having a kid.

I am not as surprised these days when anyone talks about murder costing whatever the going rate for bugkillers is these days, but at least that's cheaper than letting roaches run all over your place.

I've never waded into a blog this hot, but I figure, why not. Nobody knows I'm a dog, right? Here's to angering everyone...

I am a Christian and I do believe that abortion is a sin.

But let's take a look at the problems going on during the time that Jesus walked the earth. We had prostitutes, we had thieves, we had murderers. All of these elements that were degrading the fabric of their society, that were causing people to fall into sin.

What did Jesus do about all this? He ate with them, he allowed himself to be bathed by them, he forgave them.

Who did Jesus have the biggest problem with? Who did he have his harshest words towards? It was towards the most vocal critics, those who considered themselves more righteous and more worthy, who sought to kill the sinners. It is towards those people that the words "do not judge" were issued, those people that needed to remember that they have all sinned and that all their righteousness was as dirty rags.

I nearly cried when reading the stories set down here, cried that the same people that should have befriended her, should have eaten with her, have instead chose to stone her, until she describes herself as "ground into the dust". You speak of encouragement, but no encouragement is possible without trust and friendship, and you have neither.

I recognize that this comment has little value, but I hope that it can cast some sunshine somewhere into what is becoming a very dark pit. I am sorry that the most despicable acts seem to be done in the name of the One who would never want them to happen.

Thanks, Odysseus.

There are ways of banning IP addresses. I use them for actual spammers, with mixed success. Most people don't use the same IP every time they go online. So, IP banning often just pisses off people who then make a point of having tantrums in future threads. Better to just ignore the disruptive people.

Lindsay,

The law of torts makes a very strong distinction between a legal requirement to act and a legal requirement not to act in a way that is negligent. The former is a relatively rare bird; the latter as common as can be. As a hotel owner, I can turn you away, even if you lack lodgings and will suffer in the storm, without civil liability; if I take you in, then my dwellings had better be maintained adequately, or I will be subject to liability up the wazoo.

Everyone here seems to be insisting on the idea that just because it is unconscionable that the doctor didn't prescribe EC, that means that the doctor violated a legal duty of care. But that idea is just false. I can watch you walk into an open manhole, knowing that a faint 'you're about to walk into an open manhole' would save you from serious injury. But I have zero civil liability for failing to warn.

The cases of wrongful pregnancy mentioned above by the Happy Feminist are built on malpractice -- negligent action by doctors. You would need a different theory for a refusal to act. Utilitarians don't like the action/omission distinction, but the law sure does.

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.

Odysseus, it's true that Jesus did those things. But he also did not condone those behaviors. I would encourage BB to do those same things that Jesus wanted the lost to do - think beyond themselves and love God and one another with all their heart. If she did either of those things then she would not have had the reaction she did to the consequences of her actions.

Her reaction is the same that those who do not believe in and love God on the day of judgement - surprise at the fact that the way they lived their lives have ramifications on their afterlives.

If you ban me, I'll have no such tantrum on this or any other thread. I'll simply find someplace else where their is a need for a Christian to help others see that God loves them.

I love BB and all on this thread - criticism is not a sign of anger or hate. That's why this society is as apostastic as it is today. If you tell someone they shouldn't do anything they want, they feel that they are being repressed.

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.

Odysseus, it's true that Jesus did those things. But he also did not condone those behaviors. I would encourage BB to do those same things that Jesus wanted the lost to do - think beyond themselves and love God and one another with all their heart. If she did either of those things then she would not have had the reaction she did to the consequences of her actions.

Her reaction is the same that those who do not believe in and love God on the day of judgement - surprise at the fact that the way they lived their lives have ramifications on their afterlives.

If you ban me, I'll have no such tantrum on this or any other thread. I'll simply find someplace else where their is a need for a Christian to help others see that God loves them.

I love BB and all on this thread - criticism is not a sign of anger or hate. That's why this society is as apostastic as it is today. If you tell someone they shouldn't do anything they want, they feel that they are being repressed.

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.

Odysseus, it's true that Jesus did those things. But he also did not condone those behaviors. I would encourage BB to do those same things that Jesus wanted the lost to do - think beyond themselves and love God and one another with all their heart. If she did either of those things then she would not have had the reaction she did to the consequences of her actions.

Her reaction is the same that those who do not believe in and love God on the day of judgement - surprise at the fact that the way they lived their lives have ramifications on their afterlives.

If you ban me, I'll have no such tantrum on this or any other thread. I'll simply find someplace else where their is a need for a Christian to help others see that God loves them.

I love BB and all on this thread - criticism is not a sign of anger or hate. That's why this society is as apostastic as it is today. If you tell someone they shouldn't do anything they want, they feel that they are being repressed.

Sorry for the multiple posts.

First : Steve, why do you assume everyone is of a Christian faith and needs your help? It's one thing if they're of your faith and request it, it's another to judge others on your own moral opinions. Should a Muslim man judge you and preach to you about your Christian imperfections? How about a Hindi? Or a Buddist?

On her right to sue. She should. Though his doctor's creed could be taken into account, it wasn't applicable since the doctor had no way of knowing whether she was pregnant or not. The reasoning behind the doctor's refusal of treatment was based on innoquous questions that had nothing to do with her condition. Whether she is married or not shouldn't change whether the medicine can be prescribed or distributed to a person, which in itself is discriminatory. Also, the doctor at no point stated that giving BB the medication would violate his creed. Her case is similar to that of a criminal negligance case where a 'faith healer' denied/improperly administered care due to religous reasons, something that happens quite often with Christian Scientists.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-2234(190503)3%3A5%3C389%3ALOCSHF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

Jesus has commanded us to spread the word. Again, you bring up judging. That's not the same as giving my opinion on the correct way to behave. 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.

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.

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?

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.

"I can watch you walk into an open manhole, knowing that a faint 'you're about to walk into an open manhole' would save you from serious injury. But I have zero civil liability for failing to warn."

Actually, if they could prove that you knowingly watched someone injure/kill themselves, and didn't provide addequate warning, you may have violated the Good Samaritan Law of some states, or even could be guilty of criminal negligence. By omission of a warning, which could seriously injure or kill, you could be found liable. What you said would be similar to saying "well I saw someone poison the food, but since I'm not liable, it's not my duty to warn the customers of the restaurant." If it can be proven that you knew of the danger, which by your statement you did, were there at the manhole for a lengthy amount of time, and could reasonably have stopped it from occuring, you could be found liable. You had mens rea, meaning you knew what was about to occur was dangerous but chose to be willfully blind.

The comments to this entry are closed.