Religious Regime Where?
The Taliban takes many forms in many countries and among many cultures and does not necessarily have to be Muslim in nature. The Taliban mindset: a bunch of old men with beards and guns and shriveled testicles telling the rest of the world how it “has to be” has caused more anguish and pain and bloodshed than any group mindset in history.
We don’t have to listen.
These bitter old men are not the answer to the world’s problems and if any of us bother to read our Holy Books rather than believing someone else’s skewed interpretation of those books, then most of us would see (and understand) that these old men are nothing more than the false prophets that our holiest ones have warned us about throughout the centuries of human culture.
The religious right of America is every bit as narrow-minded and controlling as the Taliban, and as likely to take up followers and guns in order to enforce the philosophies of angry old men down the throats of the rest of us—especially as regards the behaviors of women.
These old men are hateful and resentful for never having enjoyed the freely given love and support of women and nothing on this earth will prevent their self-hatred from tainting this world and the young men and women in it.
Nothing on this earth will change the influence of these old men except the turning of the young and influenced away from them and the denial of respect which these old bastards deserve.
This is a new century. If we are going to carry the ideals of the old century with us into the future, then let those ideals favor freedom and liberty for all people, and a joining of the world’s people instead of the driving of wedges into the love and joy of which the human race is capable.
Down with Old Men and their control of our youth and down with any group which exists solely to deny rights to the majority of people.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Women of Gaza fear for their freedoms under new religious regime
By Donald Macintyre
Published: 30 January 2006
Naila Ayesh, a secular married woman who frequently goes about Gaza in Western clothes, has already noticed a subtle change since Hamas's election victory last Wednesday.
"You will hear even kids saying to you, 'your head isn't covered now but it will be. You can drive now but you won't be able to later." She relates, too, how a woman friend described telling a neighbour that her child attended Gaza City's American school. "What, you send her to the crusader school?" the shocked neighbour replied. "Why don't you send her to the Sheikh Ahmed Yassin school [named after the late Hamas founder] where she can learn languages as well as the Koran?" Ms Ayesh added: "All this happened before but it's been happening more since the election."
Ms Ayesh is a staunch Palestinian nationalist - both she and her husband have served severe terms in Israeli prisons for their politics. But her worries about the rippling internal effects of Hamas's victory go further than these relatively trivial omens.
For Ms Ayesh runs the Women's Affairs Centre, a brave oasis of progressive feminism in fiercely conservative Gaza. The Islamic faction and its allies in the mosques do not warm to many of its causes; the centre has campaigned for a shelter for battered women here, but its campaign has been in vain because of fears that a shelter would encourage women to leave their husbands.
Its work ranges from an experimental programme introducing Islamic University women students to the law, human rights and job opportunities, to campaigning for a family law which would protect women from abuse and safeguard their custody rights after divorce. It fears this would notbe a priority for Hamas. "I am not worried about the laws already in place because that requires a two-thirds majority, but I am worried about the legislation which has not yet gone through," Ms Ayesh says.
Hamas is far from being the Taliban. It strongly supports women's education, is generally opposed to "honour killing", and some of its candidates supported women's shelters. Its spokesmen have also been at pains to stress that it does not intend in the foreseeable future to impose its religious ideology - including its long-term commitment to sharia (Islamic law) - on the parliament.
But Ms Ayesh is concerned that the more congenial public message sometimes conflicts with the deeply held belief of its new PLC members. For example, she notes that Mariam Farhat, the "Mother of Martyrs" whose election video showed her helping her own 17-year-old son to prepare explosives which killed him and five Israelis, said in an interview that her first parliamentary campaign would be for a law requiring all Palestinian women to wear the hejab. To Ms Ayesh, Mrs Farhat's later disavowal of the interview was unconvincing. But, in any case, she expects the change to be cultural and gradual rather than legislative. "Hamas will not do this directly but they will use other respected figures, for example in the mosques."
Ms Ayesh is the first to acknowledge that the huge vote for Hamas reflected a deep desire to "punish" Fatah for its failures over the past decade. And while she has heard accusations that Hamas deployed 200-shekel enticements to more ill-informed voters to back its candidates in what was in fact an admirably secret ballot, she says that there are at least as many reports of Fatah doing the same. But she also said that women she encountered in her work reported another potent message on the doorsteps from Hamas campaigners, who were often themselves women. "The women said they were told, 'if you do not vote Hamas, God will punish you at the end'."
Naila Ayesh, a secular married woman who frequently goes about Gaza in Western clothes, has already noticed a subtle change since Hamas's election victory last Wednesday.
"You will hear even kids saying to you, 'your head isn't covered now but it will be. You can drive now but you won't be able to later." She relates, too, how a woman friend described telling a neighbour that her child attended Gaza City's American school. "What, you send her to the crusader school?" the shocked neighbour replied. "Why don't you send her to the Sheikh Ahmed Yassin school [named after the late Hamas founder] where she can learn languages as well as the Koran?" Ms Ayesh added: "All this happened before but it's been happening more since the election."
Ms Ayesh is a staunch Palestinian nationalist - both she and her husband have served severe terms in Israeli prisons for their politics. But her worries about the rippling internal effects of Hamas's victory go further than these relatively trivial omens.
For Ms Ayesh runs the Women's Affairs Centre, a brave oasis of progressive feminism in fiercely conservative Gaza. The Islamic faction and its allies in the mosques do not warm to many of its causes; the centre has campaigned for a shelter for battered women here, but its campaign has been in vain because of fears that a shelter would encourage women to leave their husbands.
Its work ranges from an experimental programme introducing Islamic University women students to the law, human rights and job opportunities, to campaigning for a family law which would protect women from abuse and safeguard their custody rights after divorce. It fears this would notbe a priority for Hamas. "I am not worried about the laws already in place because that requires a two-thirds majority, but I am worried about the legislation which has not yet gone through," Ms Ayesh says.
Hamas is far from being the Taliban. It strongly supports women's education, is generally opposed to "honour killing", and some of its candidates supported women's shelters. Its spokesmen have also been at pains to stress that it does not intend in the foreseeable future to impose its religious ideology - including its long-term commitment to sharia (Islamic law) - on the parliament.
But Ms Ayesh is concerned that the more congenial public message sometimes conflicts with the deeply held belief of its new PLC members. For example, she notes that Mariam Farhat, the "Mother of Martyrs" whose election video showed her helping her own 17-year-old son to prepare explosives which killed him and five Israelis, said in an interview that her first parliamentary campaign would be for a law requiring all Palestinian women to wear the hejab. To Ms Ayesh, Mrs Farhat's later disavowal of the interview was unconvincing. But, in any case, she expects the change to be cultural and gradual rather than legislative. "Hamas will not do this directly but they will use other respected figures, for example in the mosques."
Ms Ayesh is the first to acknowledge that the huge vote for Hamas reflected a deep desire to "punish" Fatah for its failures over the past decade. And while she has heard accusations that Hamas deployed 200-shekel enticements to more ill-informed voters to back its candidates in what was in fact an admirably secret ballot, she says that there are at least as many reports of Fatah doing the same. But she also said that women she encountered in her work reported another potent message on the doorsteps from Hamas campaigners, who were often themselves women. "The women said they were told, 'if you do not vote Hamas, God will punish you at the end'."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
___________________________________________________________________________________
5 States Consider Bans On Protests at Funerals
Proposals Aimed at Anti-Gay Demonstrations
By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006; A09
CHICAGO -- At least five Midwestern states are considering legislation to ban protests at funerals in response to demonstrations by the Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, who have been protesting at funerals of Iraq war casualties because they say the deaths are God's punishment for U.S. tolerance toward gays.
Though the soldiers were not gay, the protesters say the deaths, as well as Hurricane Katrina, recent mining disasters and other tragedies are God's signs of displeasure. They also protested at the memorial service for the 12 West Virginia miners who died in the Sago Mine.
"The families weren't able to bury their loved ones in peace," said Kansas state Sen. Jean Schodorf, who has proposed legislation. "We felt pretty strongly that we needed to do something about it."
Kansas already has a law banning demonstrations at funerals, but Schodorf said the existing law is vague and hard to enforce. The proposed bill would keep protesters 300 feet away from any funeral or memorial service and ban demonstrations within one hour before or two hours after a service.
Legislators in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Oklahoma are looking at similar bills. Proposed legislation in Indiana would keep protesters 500 feet from funerals, and make a violation a felony punishable by a three-year prison term and a $10,000 fine.
State Sen. Anita Bowser said she thinks the demonstrators are hoping to provoke a physical attack so they can file a lawsuit.
"These people are not gainfully employed, so they're waiting for someone to do battle with them so they can go to court and win," said Bowser. "They want a big liability case to pursue. I don't think they actually give a diddly wink about the arguments they're making, but they're clever individuals trying to make a fast buck."
Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps's daughter and an attorney for the church, said if legislation passes, the group will challenge it in court. "Whatever they do would be unconstitutional," she said. "These aren't private funerals; these are patriotic pep rallies. Our goal is to call America an abomination, to help the nation connect the dots. You turn this nation over to the fags and our soldiers come home in body bags."
A motorcycle group called the Patriot Guard, made up mostly of veterans, has started attending funerals to act as a buffer between the protesters and family members.
"They'll chant and make snide remarks, they have all these signs that say 'Thank God for dead soldiers,' 'Thank God for body bags,' " said Patriot Guard member Rich "Stretch" Strothman, a Wichita resident. "They'll throw the flag on the floor and wipe their feet on it. . . . We go under request from the families, we're not counter-protesters."
Ed Yohnka, communications director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the bills are troubling from a free speech perspective. "We have some concerns about the vagueness of the language," Yohnka said about the proposed Illinois bill. ". . . One of the things that concerns us very much is the degree to which the bill blocks access to people engaged in political expression on public sidewalks. We think a 300-foot bubble is excessive."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
_________________________________________________________________________________
Health Workers' Choice Debated
Proposals Back Right Not to Treat
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006; A01
More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.
About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.
Because many legislatures have just convened, advocates on both sides are predicting that the number debating such proposals will increase. At least 18 states are already considering 36 bills.
"It's already a very hot issue," said Edward R. Martin Jr. of the Americans United for Life, who is advising legislators around the country pushing such bills. "I think it's going to get even hotter, for lots of reasons and in lots of places."
The flurry of political activity is being welcomed by conservative groups that consider it crucial to prevent health workers from being coerced into participating in care they find morally repugnant -- protecting their "right of conscience" or "right of refusal."
"This goes to the core of what it means to be an American," said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences."
The swell of propositions is raising alarm among advocates for abortion rights, family planning, AIDS prevention, the right to die, gays and lesbians, and others who see the push as the latest manifestation of the growing political power of social conservatives.
"This is a very significant threat to patients' rights in the United States," said Lois Uttley of the MergerWatch project, who is helping organize a conference in New York to plot a counterstrategy. "We need to protect the patient's right to use their own religious or ethical values to make medical decisions."
Both sides agree that the struggle between personal beliefs and professional medical responsibilities is likely to escalate as more states consider approving physician-assisted suicide, as embryonic stem cell research speeds forward and as other advances open more ethical fault lines.
"We are moving into a brave new world of cloning, cyborgs, sex selection, genetic testing of embryos," Stevens said. "The list of difficult ethical issues involving nurses, physicians, research scientists, pharmacists and other health care workers is just continuing to increase."
Most states have long had laws to protect doctors and nurses who do not want to perform abortions from being fired, disciplined or sued, or from facing other legal action. Conflicts over other health care workers emerged after the morning-after pill was approved and pharmacists began refusing to fill prescriptions for it. As a result, some lost their jobs, were reprimanded or were sanctioned by state licensing boards.
That prompted a number of states to consider laws last year that would explicitly protect pharmacists or, alternately, require them to fill such prescriptions.
The issue is gaining new prominence this year because of a confluence of factors. They include the heightened attention to pharmacists amid a host of controversial medical issues, such as the possible over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill, embryonic research and testing, and debates over physician-assisted suicide and end-of-life care after the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case.
"There's an awful lot of dry kindling in the room," Martin said.
At least seven states are considering laws that would specifically protect pharmacists or pharmacies.
"Every other day, I hear from pharmacists who are being threatened or told they have to sign something that says they are willing to go along with government mandates," said Francis J. Manion of the American Center for Law & Justice, which is fighting an Illinois regulation implemented last year requiring pharmacies to fill all prescriptions, which led to a number of pharmacists being fired. "The right to not be required to do something that violates your core beliefs is fundamental in our society."
Opponents say such laws endanger patients by denying them access to legal drugs, particularly morning-after pills, which must be taken quickly. They say women often must go from pharmacy to pharmacy to get those prescriptions filled.
"Women all over the country are being turned away from obtaining valid and legal prescriptions," said Jackie Payne of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "These kinds of laws would only make the situation worse. It's shameful." Planned Parenthood is supporting efforts in at least six states to pass laws requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions.
At least nine states are considering "right of refusal" bills that are far broader. Some would protect virtually any worker involved in health care; others would extend protection to hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Some would protect only workers who refuse to provide certain health services, but many would be far more expansive.
At least five of the broad bills would allow insurance companies to opt out of covering services they find objectionable for religious reasons. A sixth state, Pennsylvania, is considering a bill designed for insurers.
"These represent a major expansion of this notion of right of refusal," said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies reproductive health issues and is tracking the legislation.
"You're seeing it broadening to many types of workers -- even into the world of social workers -- and for any service for which you have a moral or religious belief."
Supporters say the laws are necessary, given the rapidly changing nature of medical research and care.
"We live in a culture where more and more people are on opposite sides of these basic issues," said Manion, who has represented an ambulance driver who was fired after she refused to take a patient to a hospital for an abortion, a health department secretary who was not promoted after she objected to providing abortion information, and a nurse who was transferred after she refused to provide morning-after pills.
Opponents fear the laws are often so broad that they could be used to withhold health services far beyond those related to abortion and embryos.
"The so-called right-to-life movement in the United States has expanded its agenda way beyond the original focus on abortion," Uttley said. "Given the political power of religious conservatives, the impact of a whole range of patient services could be in danger."
Doctors opposed to fetal tissue research, for example, could refuse to notify parents that their child was due for a chicken pox inoculation because the vaccine was originally produced using fetal tissue cell cultures, said R. Alto Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin.
"That physician would be immunized from medical malpractice claims and state disciplinary action," Charo said.
Advocates for end-of-life care are alarmed that the laws would allow health care workers and institutions to disregard terminally ill patients' decisions to refuse resuscitation, feeding tubes and other invasive measures.
"Patients have a right to say no to CPR, to being put on a ventilator, to getting feeding tubes," said Kathryn Tucker of Compassion and Choice, which advocates better end-of-life care and physician-assisted suicide.
Others worry that health care workers could refuse to provide sex education because they believe in abstinence instead, or deny care to gays and lesbians.
"I already get calls all the time from people who have been turned away by their doctors," said Jennifer C. Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who is representing a California lesbian whose doctor refused her artificial insemination. "This is a very grave concern."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
We don’t have to listen.
These bitter old men are not the answer to the world’s problems and if any of us bother to read our Holy Books rather than believing someone else’s skewed interpretation of those books, then most of us would see (and understand) that these old men are nothing more than the false prophets that our holiest ones have warned us about throughout the centuries of human culture.
The religious right of America is every bit as narrow-minded and controlling as the Taliban, and as likely to take up followers and guns in order to enforce the philosophies of angry old men down the throats of the rest of us—especially as regards the behaviors of women.
These old men are hateful and resentful for never having enjoyed the freely given love and support of women and nothing on this earth will prevent their self-hatred from tainting this world and the young men and women in it.
Nothing on this earth will change the influence of these old men except the turning of the young and influenced away from them and the denial of respect which these old bastards deserve.
This is a new century. If we are going to carry the ideals of the old century with us into the future, then let those ideals favor freedom and liberty for all people, and a joining of the world’s people instead of the driving of wedges into the love and joy of which the human race is capable.
Down with Old Men and their control of our youth and down with any group which exists solely to deny rights to the majority of people.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Women of Gaza fear for their freedoms under new religious regime
By Donald Macintyre
Published: 30 January 2006
Naila Ayesh, a secular married woman who frequently goes about Gaza in Western clothes, has already noticed a subtle change since Hamas's election victory last Wednesday.
"You will hear even kids saying to you, 'your head isn't covered now but it will be. You can drive now but you won't be able to later." She relates, too, how a woman friend described telling a neighbour that her child attended Gaza City's American school. "What, you send her to the crusader school?" the shocked neighbour replied. "Why don't you send her to the Sheikh Ahmed Yassin school [named after the late Hamas founder] where she can learn languages as well as the Koran?" Ms Ayesh added: "All this happened before but it's been happening more since the election."
Ms Ayesh is a staunch Palestinian nationalist - both she and her husband have served severe terms in Israeli prisons for their politics. But her worries about the rippling internal effects of Hamas's victory go further than these relatively trivial omens.
For Ms Ayesh runs the Women's Affairs Centre, a brave oasis of progressive feminism in fiercely conservative Gaza. The Islamic faction and its allies in the mosques do not warm to many of its causes; the centre has campaigned for a shelter for battered women here, but its campaign has been in vain because of fears that a shelter would encourage women to leave their husbands.
Its work ranges from an experimental programme introducing Islamic University women students to the law, human rights and job opportunities, to campaigning for a family law which would protect women from abuse and safeguard their custody rights after divorce. It fears this would notbe a priority for Hamas. "I am not worried about the laws already in place because that requires a two-thirds majority, but I am worried about the legislation which has not yet gone through," Ms Ayesh says.
Hamas is far from being the Taliban. It strongly supports women's education, is generally opposed to "honour killing", and some of its candidates supported women's shelters. Its spokesmen have also been at pains to stress that it does not intend in the foreseeable future to impose its religious ideology - including its long-term commitment to sharia (Islamic law) - on the parliament.
But Ms Ayesh is concerned that the more congenial public message sometimes conflicts with the deeply held belief of its new PLC members. For example, she notes that Mariam Farhat, the "Mother of Martyrs" whose election video showed her helping her own 17-year-old son to prepare explosives which killed him and five Israelis, said in an interview that her first parliamentary campaign would be for a law requiring all Palestinian women to wear the hejab. To Ms Ayesh, Mrs Farhat's later disavowal of the interview was unconvincing. But, in any case, she expects the change to be cultural and gradual rather than legislative. "Hamas will not do this directly but they will use other respected figures, for example in the mosques."
Ms Ayesh is the first to acknowledge that the huge vote for Hamas reflected a deep desire to "punish" Fatah for its failures over the past decade. And while she has heard accusations that Hamas deployed 200-shekel enticements to more ill-informed voters to back its candidates in what was in fact an admirably secret ballot, she says that there are at least as many reports of Fatah doing the same. But she also said that women she encountered in her work reported another potent message on the doorsteps from Hamas campaigners, who were often themselves women. "The women said they were told, 'if you do not vote Hamas, God will punish you at the end'."
Naila Ayesh, a secular married woman who frequently goes about Gaza in Western clothes, has already noticed a subtle change since Hamas's election victory last Wednesday.
"You will hear even kids saying to you, 'your head isn't covered now but it will be. You can drive now but you won't be able to later." She relates, too, how a woman friend described telling a neighbour that her child attended Gaza City's American school. "What, you send her to the crusader school?" the shocked neighbour replied. "Why don't you send her to the Sheikh Ahmed Yassin school [named after the late Hamas founder] where she can learn languages as well as the Koran?" Ms Ayesh added: "All this happened before but it's been happening more since the election."
Ms Ayesh is a staunch Palestinian nationalist - both she and her husband have served severe terms in Israeli prisons for their politics. But her worries about the rippling internal effects of Hamas's victory go further than these relatively trivial omens.
For Ms Ayesh runs the Women's Affairs Centre, a brave oasis of progressive feminism in fiercely conservative Gaza. The Islamic faction and its allies in the mosques do not warm to many of its causes; the centre has campaigned for a shelter for battered women here, but its campaign has been in vain because of fears that a shelter would encourage women to leave their husbands.
Its work ranges from an experimental programme introducing Islamic University women students to the law, human rights and job opportunities, to campaigning for a family law which would protect women from abuse and safeguard their custody rights after divorce. It fears this would notbe a priority for Hamas. "I am not worried about the laws already in place because that requires a two-thirds majority, but I am worried about the legislation which has not yet gone through," Ms Ayesh says.
Hamas is far from being the Taliban. It strongly supports women's education, is generally opposed to "honour killing", and some of its candidates supported women's shelters. Its spokesmen have also been at pains to stress that it does not intend in the foreseeable future to impose its religious ideology - including its long-term commitment to sharia (Islamic law) - on the parliament.
But Ms Ayesh is concerned that the more congenial public message sometimes conflicts with the deeply held belief of its new PLC members. For example, she notes that Mariam Farhat, the "Mother of Martyrs" whose election video showed her helping her own 17-year-old son to prepare explosives which killed him and five Israelis, said in an interview that her first parliamentary campaign would be for a law requiring all Palestinian women to wear the hejab. To Ms Ayesh, Mrs Farhat's later disavowal of the interview was unconvincing. But, in any case, she expects the change to be cultural and gradual rather than legislative. "Hamas will not do this directly but they will use other respected figures, for example in the mosques."
Ms Ayesh is the first to acknowledge that the huge vote for Hamas reflected a deep desire to "punish" Fatah for its failures over the past decade. And while she has heard accusations that Hamas deployed 200-shekel enticements to more ill-informed voters to back its candidates in what was in fact an admirably secret ballot, she says that there are at least as many reports of Fatah doing the same. But she also said that women she encountered in her work reported another potent message on the doorsteps from Hamas campaigners, who were often themselves women. "The women said they were told, 'if you do not vote Hamas, God will punish you at the end'."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
___________________________________________________________________________________
5 States Consider Bans On Protests at Funerals
Proposals Aimed at Anti-Gay Demonstrations
By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006; A09
CHICAGO -- At least five Midwestern states are considering legislation to ban protests at funerals in response to demonstrations by the Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, who have been protesting at funerals of Iraq war casualties because they say the deaths are God's punishment for U.S. tolerance toward gays.
Though the soldiers were not gay, the protesters say the deaths, as well as Hurricane Katrina, recent mining disasters and other tragedies are God's signs of displeasure. They also protested at the memorial service for the 12 West Virginia miners who died in the Sago Mine.
"The families weren't able to bury their loved ones in peace," said Kansas state Sen. Jean Schodorf, who has proposed legislation. "We felt pretty strongly that we needed to do something about it."
Kansas already has a law banning demonstrations at funerals, but Schodorf said the existing law is vague and hard to enforce. The proposed bill would keep protesters 300 feet away from any funeral or memorial service and ban demonstrations within one hour before or two hours after a service.
Legislators in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Oklahoma are looking at similar bills. Proposed legislation in Indiana would keep protesters 500 feet from funerals, and make a violation a felony punishable by a three-year prison term and a $10,000 fine.
State Sen. Anita Bowser said she thinks the demonstrators are hoping to provoke a physical attack so they can file a lawsuit.
"These people are not gainfully employed, so they're waiting for someone to do battle with them so they can go to court and win," said Bowser. "They want a big liability case to pursue. I don't think they actually give a diddly wink about the arguments they're making, but they're clever individuals trying to make a fast buck."
Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps's daughter and an attorney for the church, said if legislation passes, the group will challenge it in court. "Whatever they do would be unconstitutional," she said. "These aren't private funerals; these are patriotic pep rallies. Our goal is to call America an abomination, to help the nation connect the dots. You turn this nation over to the fags and our soldiers come home in body bags."
A motorcycle group called the Patriot Guard, made up mostly of veterans, has started attending funerals to act as a buffer between the protesters and family members.
"They'll chant and make snide remarks, they have all these signs that say 'Thank God for dead soldiers,' 'Thank God for body bags,' " said Patriot Guard member Rich "Stretch" Strothman, a Wichita resident. "They'll throw the flag on the floor and wipe their feet on it. . . . We go under request from the families, we're not counter-protesters."
Ed Yohnka, communications director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the bills are troubling from a free speech perspective. "We have some concerns about the vagueness of the language," Yohnka said about the proposed Illinois bill. ". . . One of the things that concerns us very much is the degree to which the bill blocks access to people engaged in political expression on public sidewalks. We think a 300-foot bubble is excessive."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
_________________________________________________________________________________
Health Workers' Choice Debated
Proposals Back Right Not to Treat
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006; A01
More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.
About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.
Because many legislatures have just convened, advocates on both sides are predicting that the number debating such proposals will increase. At least 18 states are already considering 36 bills.
"It's already a very hot issue," said Edward R. Martin Jr. of the Americans United for Life, who is advising legislators around the country pushing such bills. "I think it's going to get even hotter, for lots of reasons and in lots of places."
The flurry of political activity is being welcomed by conservative groups that consider it crucial to prevent health workers from being coerced into participating in care they find morally repugnant -- protecting their "right of conscience" or "right of refusal."
"This goes to the core of what it means to be an American," said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences."
The swell of propositions is raising alarm among advocates for abortion rights, family planning, AIDS prevention, the right to die, gays and lesbians, and others who see the push as the latest manifestation of the growing political power of social conservatives.
"This is a very significant threat to patients' rights in the United States," said Lois Uttley of the MergerWatch project, who is helping organize a conference in New York to plot a counterstrategy. "We need to protect the patient's right to use their own religious or ethical values to make medical decisions."
Both sides agree that the struggle between personal beliefs and professional medical responsibilities is likely to escalate as more states consider approving physician-assisted suicide, as embryonic stem cell research speeds forward and as other advances open more ethical fault lines.
"We are moving into a brave new world of cloning, cyborgs, sex selection, genetic testing of embryos," Stevens said. "The list of difficult ethical issues involving nurses, physicians, research scientists, pharmacists and other health care workers is just continuing to increase."
Most states have long had laws to protect doctors and nurses who do not want to perform abortions from being fired, disciplined or sued, or from facing other legal action. Conflicts over other health care workers emerged after the morning-after pill was approved and pharmacists began refusing to fill prescriptions for it. As a result, some lost their jobs, were reprimanded or were sanctioned by state licensing boards.
That prompted a number of states to consider laws last year that would explicitly protect pharmacists or, alternately, require them to fill such prescriptions.
The issue is gaining new prominence this year because of a confluence of factors. They include the heightened attention to pharmacists amid a host of controversial medical issues, such as the possible over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill, embryonic research and testing, and debates over physician-assisted suicide and end-of-life care after the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case.
"There's an awful lot of dry kindling in the room," Martin said.
At least seven states are considering laws that would specifically protect pharmacists or pharmacies.
"Every other day, I hear from pharmacists who are being threatened or told they have to sign something that says they are willing to go along with government mandates," said Francis J. Manion of the American Center for Law & Justice, which is fighting an Illinois regulation implemented last year requiring pharmacies to fill all prescriptions, which led to a number of pharmacists being fired. "The right to not be required to do something that violates your core beliefs is fundamental in our society."
Opponents say such laws endanger patients by denying them access to legal drugs, particularly morning-after pills, which must be taken quickly. They say women often must go from pharmacy to pharmacy to get those prescriptions filled.
"Women all over the country are being turned away from obtaining valid and legal prescriptions," said Jackie Payne of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "These kinds of laws would only make the situation worse. It's shameful." Planned Parenthood is supporting efforts in at least six states to pass laws requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions.
At least nine states are considering "right of refusal" bills that are far broader. Some would protect virtually any worker involved in health care; others would extend protection to hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Some would protect only workers who refuse to provide certain health services, but many would be far more expansive.
At least five of the broad bills would allow insurance companies to opt out of covering services they find objectionable for religious reasons. A sixth state, Pennsylvania, is considering a bill designed for insurers.
"These represent a major expansion of this notion of right of refusal," said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies reproductive health issues and is tracking the legislation.
"You're seeing it broadening to many types of workers -- even into the world of social workers -- and for any service for which you have a moral or religious belief."
Supporters say the laws are necessary, given the rapidly changing nature of medical research and care.
"We live in a culture where more and more people are on opposite sides of these basic issues," said Manion, who has represented an ambulance driver who was fired after she refused to take a patient to a hospital for an abortion, a health department secretary who was not promoted after she objected to providing abortion information, and a nurse who was transferred after she refused to provide morning-after pills.
Opponents fear the laws are often so broad that they could be used to withhold health services far beyond those related to abortion and embryos.
"The so-called right-to-life movement in the United States has expanded its agenda way beyond the original focus on abortion," Uttley said. "Given the political power of religious conservatives, the impact of a whole range of patient services could be in danger."
Doctors opposed to fetal tissue research, for example, could refuse to notify parents that their child was due for a chicken pox inoculation because the vaccine was originally produced using fetal tissue cell cultures, said R. Alto Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin.
"That physician would be immunized from medical malpractice claims and state disciplinary action," Charo said.
Advocates for end-of-life care are alarmed that the laws would allow health care workers and institutions to disregard terminally ill patients' decisions to refuse resuscitation, feeding tubes and other invasive measures.
"Patients have a right to say no to CPR, to being put on a ventilator, to getting feeding tubes," said Kathryn Tucker of Compassion and Choice, which advocates better end-of-life care and physician-assisted suicide.
Others worry that health care workers could refuse to provide sex education because they believe in abstinence instead, or deny care to gays and lesbians.
"I already get calls all the time from people who have been turned away by their doctors," said Jennifer C. Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who is representing a California lesbian whose doctor refused her artificial insemination. "This is a very grave concern."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
posted by FancyRage at 9:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home