LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

Selections from the article:

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., ever-controversial president of Kentucky's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has stirred debate by asserting that it's "an absolute revolt against God's design" if husbands and wives purposely avoid bearing children.

The Rev. B.E. Anderson, pastor of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Jackson[, TN]... said the bigger issue is the number of "unwanted and undesired pregnancies that are aborted. Those are the real crimes and sins," said the pastor, whose African-American congregation is affiliated with the National Baptist Convention.

Wendell C. Lang, senior pastor at West Jackson Baptist Church, agrees that married couples are called to be fruitful. "I believe that we have a mandate to reproduce godly seed in the world," Lang said.

A bitter response was written for ethicsdaily.com by Miguel De La Torre, a fellow Southern Baptist minister. He protested that whether Mohler realizes it or not, his... theology is "white-supremacy code language advocating for the increase of white babies."

De La Torre also thought Mohler's viewpoint would forbid birth control, since if children are a blessing, then "the best that humans can do is have as many children as possible." However, Mohler didn't oppose contraception, nor did he define the number of children a Bible-based couple should have.

Full Article

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY exotic_princess)

*headdesk* The time is ripe, people! What with Roberts and probably Alito soon to be on the bench, it's time to overturn Roe v. Wade!!

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45410

In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime.

A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days.

The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.

And the lawmaker who's introducing the bill says he thinks now is the right time to try and over-turn Roe vs Wade.

Rep. Roger Hunt says, "Abortion should be banned."
( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY gairid)

The anecdotes on this site show very clearly the level of denial these people are capable of.


The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur Copyright © September, 2000

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

Read more here:

http://www.womensservices.com/Information/tabid/61/Default.aspx

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

From MedPage:

Abstinence-only education programs are not turning out to be a panacea for the problems inherent in adolescent and premarital sex. Indeed, they may deprive adolescents and young adults of critical sexual health information that could protect them from potentially life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases, researchers here reported in a literature review in the January issue of Journal of Adolescent Health...

Abstinence-only sex education programs have been increasing in popularity, and federal funding for these programs has jumped significantly over the past decade, from $60 million in 1998 to $168 in 2005...

While parents appear supportive of teaching their children both abstinence and ways to protect against STDs and pregnancy, current government policies appear to suggest that there is no room for sexual health information in abstinence-only education. They also noted that many faith-based organizations are receiving increased funding to promote an abstinence-only message.

Full Article

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

From The New York Times

Ever year, about 500,000 women throughout the world develop cervical cancer. In the United States alone, the disease kills about 3,700 women annually. This year, scientists developed a vaccine against human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease that is the primary cause of cervical cancer. The vaccine produced 100 percent immunity in the 6,000 women who received it as part of a multinational trial. As soon as the vaccine is licensed, some health officials say, it should be administered to all girls at age 12. But the Family Research Council and other social conservative groups vowed to fight that plan, even though it could virtually eliminate cervical cancer. Vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted disease, they say, would reduce their incentive to abstain from premarital sex.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- A group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson is suing to stop Illinois from requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, saying the rule violates a druggist's right to refuse on religious and moral grounds.

The Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Illinois.

The lawsuit, mirroring some claims in state lawsuits challenging the rule, names Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the heads of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and its Division of Professional Regulation as defendants.

Full Story

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY lihan161051)

After finding out here that the class action suits over the Dalkon Shield IUD were largely dominionist-driven, I started paying attention when lawyers broadcast TV ads looking for product-liability and medical-malpractice business.

Well, it turns out Ortho-Evra is drawing some heat .. and I have to wonder how much of it is genuine concern for safety and how much of it is that OE is a contraceptive product that might be seen as a little more "convenient" than daily pills .. and I have to remember that the doms are known for fighting little battles like this when they think they can get in under the radar. No proof, but I sure have to wonder.

Per http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20051212/cr_ct/lesbiandoctorsdeniedartificialinseminationbecauseofreligion the "moral refusal" movement in dominionist circles is now targeting reproductive services for gay/les/bi folks:

A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.

A California appeals court last week sided with the doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, saying they can claim religious liberty in refusing to treat a patient who was gay because it was against their Christian beliefs.

Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women's clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.

Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.

Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she "would not be treated fairly" or "get timely care" at the clinic because of Dr. Brody's and other staff members' religious beliefs.

The doctors' lawyer, Carlo Coppo, said his clients were committed to fair treatment of Benitez — from fertilization to pregnancy and birth — but that aiding the actual act of conception compromised their religious views.

"[Brody] believes that participating in the [fertilization procedure], she is acting as the male," Coppo said. "It is an elective, invasive procedure, and to be there for the moment of conception, she religiously can't participate."

Benitez's attorney, Jennifer Pizer, said the appeals court ruling was troubling because it opened the door to all kinds of discrimination.

"It certainly is a social problem and a legal problem if someone enters a commercial business and can be told they will not receive the same services that another person can," Pizer said.

Both attorneys agree the case is the first of its kind and tests whether a doctor can choose who to treat based on religious beliefs.

Coppo says denying doctors their religious rights is also a form of discrimination, and that the law allows doctors to choose who they treat consistent with their religious convictions as long as they offer alternative means for care.

Pizer says a doctor's religious freedoms should not come at the expense of a patient's care.

If the courts rule in favour of the clinic, this could open the floodgates to dominionist doctors flat out refusing to render any medical treatment--even lifesaving treatment--to people simply because they think they are gay or disagree with "lifestyle" of the person they're treating (even more so than they are open already--Mississippi's law, and proposed laws in two other states, are *already* so broad as to allow any medical professional to refuse to treat you simply because you may be gay or pagan and they feel treating you would "violate their morals").

I've posted a summary of the various threads on "Moral refusal clauses" that I've done here on Dark Christianity in past. Dominionists will *not* be satisfied unless and until they not only can completely control people's reproductive (and other) destinies but they also hope to establish a sort of "medical apartheid" in which people will have to submit to dominionist rule or else. Convert or die, literally. They literally want to have the legal choice to allow someone to die because they are not a dominionist. They've admitted this to their own.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

Justice House of Prayer (JHOP)

( Excerpts direct from the JHOP site )

ABC Nightline Report on JHOP

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY theonides)

( US court rules against lesbian fertility patient )

Hi, I've been lurking. I don't recall if this original story was posted before, but this is an update in any case. Article source here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1657878,00.html

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ellid)

Courtesy of xochiquetzl

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/index.php?pSetup=heraldpalladium&curDate=20051201&pageToLoad=showFreeArticle.php&type=art&index=02

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY lizzypaul)

I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Bill Gothard and his Institute in Basic Life Principles. While he’s not as popular as he was during the 70’s and 80’s, he’s still a very big deal in some Christian circles. The church I grew up in was dominated by Gothard’s followers, which eventually lead to a church split.

Personally, I have an intense fear and loathing of the whole organization. A good friend of mine attempted suicide at 13 because of Gothard. One of his main teachings is that any feelings for a member of the opposite sex (who hasn't been approved by your parents as a someone you can marry), beyond “benevolent Christian brotherhood/sisterhood” is sinful. As my friend was a normal, healthy teen girl, she couldn’t get over her attraction to one of the boys in our church. She had already been cut off from any support (her parents felt that her friends were too “worldly”, and she was home-schooled). So, already vulnerable and feeling dirty and incurably sinful, she tried to kill herself.

( Links, cut for length. )
( The Point: Dominionism and Gothard )

Edit: Tried to clarify second paragraph, see comments for details.

Not only are pharmacists refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for Plan B and even monthly birth control (based on urban legends in the dominionist community promoted by groups like Pharmacists for Life International claiming they are a form of abortion), not only is approval of a vaccine for HPV (which, incidentially, would be the first effective vaccine for cancer, as 99 percent of all cervical and penile cancer is caused by HPV) being fought by dominionist groups even as it has completed phase III trials (because HPV is a cause of genital warts)...

...but per this livejournal entry there are now reports that dominionist pharmacists are refusing to fill scripts for (and occasionally destroying the scripts for) *any* prescriptions they feel may be for an STD (in this case, this was for Valtrex, a medication that is used for herpesviruses in general).

In this case, this can be lifethreatening--antivirals of the same class are used for herpesviruses besides herpes simplex II (which is genital herpes).

Genital herpes (herpes simplex II) is one of a family of anywhere between nine and twelve human herpesviruses, which include herpes simplex I (oral herpes--cold sores), herpes zoster aka varicella (cause of chickenpox and shingles when the varicella virus reactivates in adults), Epstein-Barr virus (aka mononucleosis--which has also been linked to Wilms tumour and Burkitt's lymphoma), cytomegalovirus (a common complication in HIV patients which can cause blindness), etc.

A very common reason for prescription of drugs like Valtrex *besides* genital herpes is for kids who are leukemic or have depressed immune systems to prevent complications from exposure to chickenpox--most of those kids also *cannot* have the chickenpox shot, as it's a live vaccine, and exposure to chickenpox can be life threatening; even adults who have never had the chickenpox who are exposed are typically given a course of varicella antiglobulin *along* with a course of Valtrex--in the hope that the VAB will prevent infection, the latter will hopefully make it less severe. (Chickenpox *reactivating* in adults can cause shingles, which is quite painful (and another reason why Valtrex is prescribed); in adults full blown chickenpox commonly hospitalises people and even kills them--Hawaii state legislature representative Patsy Mink died from chickenpox pneumonia as a result of catching it as an adult.)

Another reason that Valtrex is prescribed is--interestingly--cancer. (Yes, seriously.) As it turns out, Kaposi's sarcoma is (much like cervical cancer and penile cancer) one of the few cancers definitely linked to a virus--specifically, human herpesvirus 8. Ironically, it was partly because of so many HIV patients getting Kaposi's sarcoma that doctors realised it was a virally caused cancer, and we can now treat it using drugs that attack other herpesviruses (including Valtrex).

Valtrex is also prescribed to patients with particularly severe cases of mono or who are subject to severe complications from mono (for example, people who have had to have their spleens surgically removed).

Related drugs to Valtrex, and occasionally Valtrex itself, are also used in people who are exposed to non-human herpesviruses. (Generally herpesviruses that are not fatal to other primates are fatal to humans and vice versa; herpesvirus B, which occurs in macacques, is almost invariably fatal in humans without *immediate* treatment with anti-herpetic antivirals like Valtrex and ganciclovir. In fact, in many zoos and research facilities, it is standard procedure that if more than one monkey dies in a 24 hour period or if monkeys die after seeming ill *all* workers who worked with them go on *immediate* preventive courses of Valtrex in case the monkey had herpesvirus B. It's considered that dangerous to people.)

I'll be writing up a larger article for Talk2Action on the whole medical refusal thing tonight.

UPDATES:

a) Per discussion on the thread, apparently the case involves a pharmacy in Tennessee--a state where it *is* apparently legal for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription but must post a warning in writing at the counter at the start of their shift.

b) Below is a list of states (per Fill My Pills Now) who have proposed moral refusal clauses that are so broad as to allow denial of any medication for reasons as simple as the pharmacist disagreeing with "the prescribee's lifestyle". Some have proposed moral refusal clauses so broad as to include emergency personnel and to allow refusals for almost any reason (theoretically, an EMT could refuse to provide life support to a gay person because they "disagreed with their lifestyle"). Two states, Mississippi and Georgia, *already* have loose "moral refusal" statues which would legally allow this:
( States with proposed broad moral refusal clauses that would allow refusing Valtrex )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

"Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

"The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

"A rule imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule.

Ed Martin, an attorney for the pharmacists, on Tuesday called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said they would consider legal action if Walgreen doesn't reconsider."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY yatpundit)

( more )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nocturnalseraph)

I just joined this group a couple days ago, and I must say this is by far the most active and interesting LJ community I've seen to date. From what I've read so far, it seems the hot topic right now is the ID vs. evolution battle taking place in certain schools. Here's my question, and granted I haven't perused the entire community archive, so please forgive me if it's been covered: what about the issue with certain pharmacists refusing birth control and the "morning after" pills based on either moral convictions or religious beliefs? Has this one been talked about yet?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY neadods)

There are a couple of communities where I think this would be of interest, but I don't want to spam LJ. So this is a link to my long post about how "social conservatives" want to limit access to the anti-cervical-cancer vaccine because 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,'" said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations... "There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,'" Rudd said.

Original newspaper article available here, here and here.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This AmericaBlog article talks about an interesting interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Target reinterprets 1964 Civil Rights Act to give religious bigots full rights against YOU
by John in DC - 10/24/2005 02:52:00 PM

Target has just done what 40 years of religious right advocacy couldn't. They've now reinterpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include permitting individual religious right bigots to discriminate against YOU in public accommodations so long as they claim that discrimination is based on their religion.

What that means? Target is claiming the 1964 Civil Rights Act gives their employees the right to do whatever they want to any customer so long as the employee claims their actions are motivated by their religion. Funny, but when we studied civil rights in law school, I don't remember that section of the Civil Rights Act.

Here's what Target is saying, then read my analysis below:( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kiji_kat)

If this article is to be believed, women's rights could soon take a flying leap back to the 1950s.

Personally, I don't know if I could go through with an abortion unless it was an extreme circumstance. However, I think it is vital that women have access to safe, professional abortions if they feel they must make that choice. It's worrisome that someone could let their religious views cloud their judgement and deny women a right to health, privacy, and proper medical care.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY siliconalleycat)

Some of the dominionists want to boycott the American Girl line of dolls and books because the company supports Girls, Inc.

I Can campaign

As one blogger whined: This company is popular among young girls, selling everything from dolls to books with reading curriculums. That's why I was shocked to learn that this company has teamed up with the charity Girls Inc. and is selling "I Can" bracelets to benefit the liberal organization. Unfortunately, Girls Inc. supports abortion and believes that young girls should be able to develop "sexual identities" and be given birth control. Keep in mind that girls as young as toddlers all the way to teens are the target audience of the American Girl company. I don't think my 5-year-old needs to learn about "sexual empowerment" when all she's worried about is learning fancy ballet moves.

Hello, folks. If the company donates money to Girls, Inc., does that mean that the dolls and books are going to carry messages in favor of lesbianism, or abortion, or even (gasp) birth control?

The Pro-Life Action League is urging parents, grandparents and other family members to write and call American Girl President Ellen L. Brothers to object to the company's support for Girls Inc. Letters, phone calls and e-mails should be directed to:
Ellen L. Brothers, President
American Girl
8400 Fairway Place
Middleton, WI 53562
Tel: 1-800-845-0005
Fax: 608-828-4790
E-Mail: ellen.brothers@americangirl.com

Let's write - but in SUPPORT of American Girl's support of Girls, Inc. - and let's buy some "I Can" bands!

Edited to add Sad to say, some people are taking this "boycott" seriously, as note here: "No more American Girl dolls. No more American Girl books." *sigh*