Misogynistic assholes alert
Jul. 16th, 2008 07:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richYou know I can't even make this shit up. Welcome to America.
Now, here is the letter I plan to fax a few times tomorrow to the DHHS secretary. See if you find any mistakes to correct, or suggestions for changes. (And yes, it may be a tidge personal, but I tried to keep the "I" factor down as much as possible, and I tried to stick with facts even in the persuasive parts.) Feel free to write your own missive and steal whatever you like from this, if nobody puts forth obvious inaccuracies.
Hon. Mike Leavitt, Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Via facsimile: 202-690-7203
RE: Health care worker protections; redefining contraception
Dear Mr. Leavitt:
Regarding an article in today’s Los Angeles Times about the recent proposal to protect the jobs of health care workers who refuse to provide certain medical services to patients – notably, refusal to perform, prescribe, or dispense requested contraception – I would respectfully point out that the very definition of doing one’s job is in doing one’s job. Should that job become distasteful or run counter to one’s principles, I would expect such a person to seek alternative employment, not to petition their management to essentially continue to pay them for not doing their job.
Refusing to provide information to women about their reproductive choices is criminal; it is a clear violation of their civil rights, and to encourage such behavior will place at least a share of the burden of liability on your agency. (Lest the defense in this matter be that the Department has the unqualified backing of The White House, it would be wise to remember that the Supreme Court has hardly been fully supportive of this lame duck administration’s other questionably legal policies of late.)
Besides the simple biological fact that contraception – by its definition – is not the same as abortion in the prevention of pregnancy, there are other medical benefits many women derive from various forms of contraception. These include, most notably, regulation of menstrual cycles, inhibiting formation of cysts, and protection against some disease. There are women – who are, by the way, more than half the U.S. population and a significant contributor to the workforce and the U.S. public treasury – for whom contraception is literally a lifesaver and insurance they do not suffer needlessly for a week every month from a condition they could not control (being born female).
Adopting any policy or regulation which would allow a health care worker to escape their primary duty – their patient’s physical and mental welfare – is unconscionable. I urge you and your department to carefully reconsider this.
Thank you,
Veronica Rich
cc: Congresscritters (no, don’t write that! Replace with your own)
By the by, if you need to find your Congresscritters, try this site.
Now, here is the letter I plan to fax a few times tomorrow to the DHHS secretary. See if you find any mistakes to correct, or suggestions for changes. (And yes, it may be a tidge personal, but I tried to keep the "I" factor down as much as possible, and I tried to stick with facts even in the persuasive parts.) Feel free to write your own missive and steal whatever you like from this, if nobody puts forth obvious inaccuracies.
Hon. Mike Leavitt, Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Via facsimile: 202-690-7203
RE: Health care worker protections; redefining contraception
Dear Mr. Leavitt:
Regarding an article in today’s Los Angeles Times about the recent proposal to protect the jobs of health care workers who refuse to provide certain medical services to patients – notably, refusal to perform, prescribe, or dispense requested contraception – I would respectfully point out that the very definition of doing one’s job is in doing one’s job. Should that job become distasteful or run counter to one’s principles, I would expect such a person to seek alternative employment, not to petition their management to essentially continue to pay them for not doing their job.
Refusing to provide information to women about their reproductive choices is criminal; it is a clear violation of their civil rights, and to encourage such behavior will place at least a share of the burden of liability on your agency. (Lest the defense in this matter be that the Department has the unqualified backing of The White House, it would be wise to remember that the Supreme Court has hardly been fully supportive of this lame duck administration’s other questionably legal policies of late.)
Besides the simple biological fact that contraception – by its definition – is not the same as abortion in the prevention of pregnancy, there are other medical benefits many women derive from various forms of contraception. These include, most notably, regulation of menstrual cycles, inhibiting formation of cysts, and protection against some disease. There are women – who are, by the way, more than half the U.S. population and a significant contributor to the workforce and the U.S. public treasury – for whom contraception is literally a lifesaver and insurance they do not suffer needlessly for a week every month from a condition they could not control (being born female).
Adopting any policy or regulation which would allow a health care worker to escape their primary duty – their patient’s physical and mental welfare – is unconscionable. I urge you and your department to carefully reconsider this.
Thank you,
Veronica Rich
cc: Congresscritters (no, don’t write that! Replace with your own)
By the by, if you need to find your Congresscritters, try this site.
