Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Don't let faith influence health care

Denise Hewitt
Opinion Columnist 

On Monday, a full-scale abortion ban was signed into law in South Dakota, with an effective date of June 1. Exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother were voted down emphatically by the legislature. Mississippi is quickly following suit to enact a similar law. 

Neither law is expected to go into effect, as the lower courts will almost certainly block them. This is what the legislatures want. They wish to force the court to reconsider Roe v. Wade, one of the weakest decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. It relies on a very shaky precedent (Griswold v. Connecticut), which sought to prove the existence of an implicit "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights. The intent of the decision was good -- to ensure only a doctor and a patient decide if an abortion was appropriate. The hope was to keep legislature out of the medical decision making process. 

Before the passing of South Dakota's ban, it was almost impossible to get an abortion in South Dakota. There is only one clinic in the state, and no local doctors will perform the procedure. A retired doctor from another state flies in once a week. There is a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, requiring some patients to make the five-hour-plus drive twice. When one of the legislators of the abortion ban was asked if he could ever see an exception for rape to allow an abortion, he said:

"A real-life description for me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up physically and psychologically that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Bill Napoli considers this to be a "real world" situation. What it sounds more like is the over-idealization of Southern white women that is reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. The use of the descriptors "virgin" and "religious" and the description of the potential victim as "saving herself for marriage" evoke a dangerous view of womanhood, one that justified many miscarriages of justice in the South. 

The image could reflect the ramblings of a father describing the pedestal many fathers wish they could place their daughters on. Either way, his rhetoric is disturbing, given his responsibility as a legislator and representative of the people of South Dakota. His empathy and sympathy are limited to those who have to meet his minimum standard of moral decency. Someone needs to remind Napoli that even prostitutes can be raped.

While the abortion ban will go to the courts for review, South Dakota's legislature isn't done yet. It has introduced another bill, which will affect men and women alike, and that may very well pass given the current climate. If it does, it may well change the face of health care forever. 

Referred to as House Bill 1184, it will allow anyone involved in the health care provider industry -- doctors, nurses, pharmacists, receptionists, lab technicians, administrative staff -- to refuse to be involved with any medical procedure that they find morally objectionable.

Originally formulated to deal with the Plan B controversy, this little bill will allow a receptionist who objects to a blood transfusion needed for a cancer patient to refuse to make the appointment or necessary referral because his or her religious beliefs ban the use of blood products. Worse, the institution that employs said staff member will not be allowed to discipline him or her in any way, including transferring him or her to an equivalent position where he or she will no longer have patient contact. This will hold true for gene therapy, therapies based on stem cells and therapies and medicines based on products tested on or created from animals (think insulin for diabetics).

This is what a slippery slope looks like. When we allow the legislation of medical decisions in one area, all medical decisions become vulnerable. This isn't just legislation South Dakota is proposing; a similar bill was proposed in Texas last year. 

This year the debate focuses around abortion and the Plan B pill. Next year it may well be fertility treatments or measures to limit the amounts of end of life medical care for the elderly and indigent. This is the new Roe v. Wade -- the right to make medical decisions with your doctor and have full and free access to appropriate medical treatment in the United States. 

Hewitt, an opinion columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at denise.smith@usa.net.