Palin Against Abortion Even if Daughter were Raped

It’s a horrible hypothetical, especially considering Palin’s daughter was 14-years-old when she said this, and Alaska’s rape rate was more than twice the national average.

In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.

Granting exceptions only if the mother’s life was in danger, Palin said that when it came to her daughter, “I would choose life.” (HuffPo)

Her position is even more extreme than John McCain’s. Both of them appear to be clueless when it comes to contraception and the role of education in preventing unplanned pregnancies.

While Palin’s positions have drawn the ire and concern of the pro-choice and progressive community, they are largely — save abortions in the case of rape — in line with John McCain’s own stances. The Senator is against federal funding of birth control and sex education. He has called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and received a zero rating from NARAL. Once, aboard the Straight Talk Express, McCain was asked if he supported the use of contraception or President Bush’s abstinence-only education program to stem the spreading of AIDS.

“After a long pause, he said, ‘I think I support the president’s policy.’ Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, “You’ve stumped me.“

We cannot afford continued attacks on our reproductive freedoms and assistance to rape survivors. Abstinance-only education does not work to prevent pregnancies and STDs. If you don’t want women to end their pregnancies through abortion, you should support educating them at how to prevent them in the first place. These policies are obviously not about women’s health; they’re about controlling women’s bodies and the decisions we make regarding our lives.

Read more here and here.

 

Docs Can’t Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples…

…but Bush wants them to be able to discriminate against women and girls.

The CA Supreme Court just ruled that doctors cannot deny medical care to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs. This is great news in a series of good news lately in California.

The unanimous decision came in the case of an Oceanside lesbian couple who are suing two doctors at a North County clinic. They claim the doctors would not perform a certain artificial insemination procedure because their strong Christian beliefs prevented them from impregnating a lesbian couple.

Hopefully, this decision will help defeat Proposition 8 on November’s ballot, the movement to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The result of this case supports the argument that discrimination has no place in the doctor’s office. Clearly. Yet the Bush administration is currently trying to allow medical professionals to cite religious beliefs when denying reproductive rights, including emergency contraception and abortion services, to women and girls. They even propose to redefine abortion to include contraception. Many members of Congress have spoken out against this attack, yet the battle rages on under the radar of most mainstream media.

Where do we draw the line? If medical professionals are allowed to choose whom they want to treat, what is to stop them from refusing treatment to an entire race, or members of a religion they do not agree with? The government has no place encouraging such discrimination.

Hooray for California’s Supreme Court! Let’s keep fighting to assure that doctors can’t discriminate against women seeking reproductive health services as well.