Sovereign Anatomy

Who makes decisions about your body? New laws give physicians and hospitals the right to deny the best care…even in emergencies. A recent poll conducted by Self.com resulted in nearly 1 in 20 respondents noting an incident in which their doctor had refused to treat them for moral, ethical, or religious reasons.

“Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care,” says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program. At the forefront of this controversy is woman’s health care.

Lori Boyer was trembling after being sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. Bruised and shaken, she drove straight to Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. After speaking to a rape counselor, she met with Martin Gish, M.D. for a pelvic exam and inquired to the doctor about the morning-after pill, which the counselor had mentioned earlier. She was mid-cycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. “No,” replied Dr. Gish. “It’s against my religion.” Emergency contraception is most effective within ideally 72 hours. She now had to look for another doctor who was willing to put religious beliefs aside in order to prevent a forced pregnancy. “I was so vulnerable,” laments Lori. “I felt victimized all over again. First the rape and then the doctor making me feel powerless.” Luckily Boyer was able to find a physician in enough time to prescribe her EC.

“What person who has been raped would really welcome a pregnancy from that?” asks James Trussell, Ph.D., director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. “Even if you oppose abortion, what could be better than preventing the pregnancy in the first place?”

In the absence of any local laws, it is up to individual hospitals to decide whether a rape victim will be given – or even told about – emergency contraception. (Glamour, May 2006) In The New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. Eight percent might not seem to be a high percentage but imagine you being one of the numerous patients to a doctor that falls in that 8%. “Especially in a crisis situation, like a rape, you often don’t think to question your care. But unfortunately, now we can’t even trust doctors to tell us what we need to know,” Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center points out.

There have been highly publicized articles and discussions about pharmacists who have refused to dispense birth control and emergency contraception. But more and more incidents like Lori Boyer’s are being noticed.

Cheryl Bray, a single 41-year-old, had decided to adopt a baby from Mexico. Where woman are dying because they are poor and having unsafe abortions since it is illegal. Those that do go through with a pregnancy often cannot afford to raise the child and put he/she up for adoption. Being a well-respected realtor in California, Cheryl decided to open her home and her heart to one of these children. She had already gone through a long and arduous application process along with various inspections, background checks, etc. One of the last requirements was to undergo a routine physical. “So, your husband is in agreement with your decision to adopt?” inquires Fred Salley, M.D. “I’m not married,” Bray told him. “You’re not?” He calmly put down his pen Bray recalls. “Then I’m not comfortable continuing this exam.” He later stated that his “decision to refer Ms. Bray was not because she was unmarried; rather, it was based on my moral belief that a child should have two parental units. Such religious beliefs are a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”

So by Dr. Salley’s statement and belief that a child should have two parental units, then widows should never be allowed to raise their own children unless they immediately get remarried. Interesting! As for the second part of his statement about religious rights, Bray has a right to her beliefs just as much as Salley. “Apparently it is ok to discriminate against somebody, as long as it’s for religious reasons,” Bray surmises.

Besides the doctor’s beliefs to content with, nearly one in five hospital beds is in a religiously owned institution, according to the nonprofit group MergerWatch. Often times, mergers take place at hospitals. As a result, the name of the hospital might not change but its philosophy does. Every Catholic hospital is bound by the ethical directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which forbid abortion and sterilization (unless they are lifesaving), in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, some prenatal genetic testing, all artificial forms of birth control and the use of condoms for HIV prevention. (“Is Your Doctor Playing Judge?” Self, June 2007)

At just 14 weeks pregnant, Kathleen Hutchins had her water break. Because there wasn’t enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would miscarry in a matter of weeks but in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Hutchins chose to go to local Elliot Hospital but Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center – and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions. “I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life,” Dr. Goldner remembers. “They said, ‘Why don’t you wait until she has an infection, or she gets a fever?’ They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy.” (Self, June 2007)

South Dakota Governor Michael Rounds, signed into law the nation’s most sweeping state abortion ban in March 2006. The law makes it a felony to perform any abortion except in a case of a pregnant woman’s life being in jeopardy. (“South Dakota Bans Abortion, Setting Up A Battle”, The New York Times, 3/7/2006) But who decides when a woman’s life is in jeopardy? For Kathleen Hutchins, it was the local hospital. Isn’t it her body? Shouldn’t she ultimately make that decision? Not when doctors and hospitals are given the right to refuse care. They are making your decisions.

Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights – much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. (Self, June 2007) “It’s written so broadly, there’s virtually no protection for patients,” says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group.

The relationship between patient and his/her doctor should be ‘sacrosanct’, and the moral condemnation of a doctor’s faith on a patient has caused patients to retreat from seeing and vocalizing their health in fear of being judged. As upsetting and discouraging as these changes might be, we must always be in control of our own body and health.

In 2002, I was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, a hereditary autoimmune disease. After years of arguing with doctor’s that I knew something was not right, it was a gastroenterologist that finally looked into it. Blood tests confirmed my assumptions and he referred me to an endocrinologist for further medical attention.

After being under the endocrinologist’s care for a year and taking the prescribed Levoxyl, I still did not feel any better. Being concerned about my health care, I read articles and studies on various medications and treatments. When I confronted my doctor, he responded “You shouldn’t read so much!” Needless to say, that was my last visit with him. I found a new endocrinologist who listened to my concerns and wound up changing the brand of medication. Although the main difference is just the fillers in the medication, sometimes it is even something that small that can make a difference. Luckily I had enough gumption to not accept substandard care but many people do not.

Doctor’s seem to forget that EVERYONE is different. We can all have a different reaction to the same treatment and as a doctor, you should always look to finding what is best for your patient.

Door-to-Door Soul Service

Trying to close my eyes before takeoff, a man sitting behind is shouting into his cell phone. Impossible to drown out his overbearing voice, I soon gather from the conversation that he is a religious man and speaking to a police officer somewhere about missionaries for his church. Praying a flight attendant would insist he turn his phone off, he continued arguing about their rights to solicit religious information and pamphlets door-to-door in this particular neighborhood. “It is part of our first amendment right,” he demanded. I wish there was a right to peace and quiet!

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled for a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witness and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, a nonprofit publisher of church literature, in striking down the ordinance regulating uninvited peddling and solicitation. The ordinance had required Jehovah’s Witnesses or other door-to-door advocates for religious or political causes to get a permit. The Jehovah’s Witnesses countered that the ordinance restricts an array of First Amendment freedoms, including of freedom of speech, press, association and religion.

The court had granted certiorari to decide the question: “Does a municipal ordinance that requires one to obtain a permit prior to engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause and to display upon demand, the permit, which contains one’s name, violate the First Amendment protection accorded to anonymous pamphleteering or discourse?”

Ruling in an 8-1 decision, the court looked to pass precedent in Murdock v Pennsylvania when then Court noted that “hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism-as old as the history of printing presses. This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits.” First, just because it is “age-old” does not make it right. Second, printing presses and therefore, newspapers, are optional. You CHOOSE to have a newspaper delivered to your door. Third, going to someone’s door and basically putting that person in a position of discourse is completely different from that person choosing to go to a church and engage in the discussion. Plus, this ordinance does not restrict public areas like stores, street corners, restaurants and parks.

Although the petitioners (Watchtower Bible, et al) did not challenge the procedure by which a resident my prohibit solicitation, it still puts the burden on the resident. In order to bar people from door-to-your-door canvassing, you must file a “No Solicitation Registration Form” with the mayor AND post a “No Solicitation” sign on your property. Not to mention, having to do this defaces their property. Although not a permanent structure, an unsightly one at best. And what is the solicitor is blind? Does the “No Solicitation” still apply to them? After all, the law states “and” which means a property owner needs to do both.

The lone high court dissenter was Chief Justice Rehnquist. I always knew I liked this guy! In the decision, he affirmed, “The town had little reason to suspect that the negligible burden of having to obtain a permit runs afoul of the First Amendment. For over 60 years, we have categorically stated that a permit requirement for door-to-door canvassers, which gives no discretion to the issuing authority, is constitutional. The District Court and Court of Appeals, relying on our cases, upheld the ordinance. The Court today, however, abruptly changes course and invalidates the ordinance. It is not clear what test the Court is applying, or under which part of that indeterminate test the ordinance fails. Under a straightforward application of the applicable First Amendment framework, however, the ordinance easily passes muster.”

The ordinance does not bar people from canvassing but simply allows a bit more security and accountability. Rehnquist also looked to this point, “More than half a century ago we recognized that canvassers, “whether selling pots or distributing leaflets, may lessen the peaceful enjoyment of a home,” and that “burglars frequently pose as canvassers, either in order that they may have a pretense to discover whether a house is empty and hence ripe for burglary, or for the purpose of spying out the premises in order that they may return later.” Martin v. City of Struthers.”

In striking the Struthers ordinance down, Justice Hugo Black wrote: “While door to door distributors of literature may be either a nuisance or a blind for criminal activities, they may also be useful members of society engaged in the dissemination of ideas in accordance with the best tradition of free discussion.” And what if you do not want to be a part of the discussion? I know you can just not answer your door but what if you were outside in your front yard when a canvasser stopped in? Are you forced to go into your house in order to not be bothered? The question arises of were does private domain start?

An interesting side note: In Justice Stevens opinion, he notes that “Although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves to be “solicitors” because they make no charge for their literature or their teaching…They also explained at trial that they did not apply for a permit because they derive their authority to preach from Scripture. “For us to seek a permit from a municipality to preach we feel would almost be an insult to God…””

When you need an answer, just say it in the name of “God”.

Immigration: Part III-The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that, the passing there,
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence;
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

-Robert Frost


On May 25th, the Senate approved a wide-ranging overhaul of immigration laws to bolster security at the Mexican border and to grant many illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship. With approximately 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, action has been long overdue, but is this the best path?

On the legalization part of the bill provisions divides the currently illegal immigrant populace into three groups:

1. Illegal immigrants here for more than five years could gain their citizenship after working for six years, learning English and paying a penalty and back taxes? How much in penalties? Most immigrants’ work for less than minimum wage (minimum wage being a whole other rant), and once on a “path”, you MUST learn English. How? Are we setting up a free program to teach the English to the different languages that are spoken in America? Or do we leave that to the immigrant to figure out?
2. Illegal immigrants here from two to five years would have to return to an entry point and apply for a guest-worker program. And what if they don’t? And if they do, how much will it cost? How long will it take?
3. Workers here less than two years would have to return to their countries of origin. And how are you planning to enforce this? How many taxpayers’ dollars will this cost? Even President Bush said in his address to the nation that the Catch and Release program who initiated because the government did not have enough space for detainees. Bush asserted that this program will end and asking Funding from Congress. (No! You are asking the taxpayers to pay and not just pocket change but $1.9 BILLION. Why not tax the businesses that have been found to hire illegal immigrants? These are not just small construction businesses, but multi-million dollar corporations like Target and Walmart. The new plan will punish employers who hire illegal immigrants with a fine up to $20,000 and three years in prison after an electronic verification system is established. Ummm…who from Walmart is going to prison? The door greeter?

Security! The bill provisions also authorize enhanced border security measures, including the addition of 370-mile, triple-layer fence along the border. Authorizes President Bush’s plan to send 6,000 National Guardsman to the U.S.-Mexican border. To do what? Oh, provide intelligence and surveillance support to U.S. Border Patrol agents for they cannot catch and detain illegal immigrants (CNN.com, 5/17/06). "Border State Governors expressed concern that diverting troops to the border would exhaust Guard members already drained by war deployments…and would not have troops available to deal with forest fires or other natural diseases.” (New York Times, 5/17/06) How fast can you say Hurricane Katrina? Shouldn’t a change in border security have been top priority immediately following 9/11? Oh, I am sorry…too many photo ops, too little time.

Using a bulldozer to create a new path and then leaving all the broken trees and shrubs to navigate through is not a better way to get to our destination. For the sake of diverting issues President Bush speaks to the American people like Rameses in The Ten Commandments… "So let it be written, so let it be done," with no guidance or forethought.

This President took a hard line against Iraq. A country thousands of miles and an ocean away-waged war against this country, overthrew its government…killing its people who opposed these outside forces and putting our Americans in danger and yet continues soft policy against the corrupt government right next to us. “The rich are richer and the poor, we are poorer,” said Arturo Sierra, 38, an electrician in Mexico. “The government has taken it upon itself to deliver the country to foreign governments and to the rich Mexicans, who continue exploiting workers with miserable salaries.”

Sending the National Guard “will not stop the flow of migrants. To the contrary, it will probably go up,” as people try to get into the U.S. with hopes of applying for a possible amnesty program, said Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, the local representative of Mexico’s National Immigration Institute. Immigrant support groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. (CNN.com, 5/17/06) One Mexican migrant commented, “Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle. My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it.”

This new path is sure to take more lives needlessly for the sake of salvaging corrupt relationships in the maze of money.

Separation of Church and State Part 3

Today we look into part three of the Separation of Church and State debate by asking the question…do current standards impose on one’s religious practice?

A press release sent by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue’s office on the afternoon of December 2nd, announced plans for a “holiday tree” lighting ceremony at the governor’s mansion. Thirty minutes later, a second release went out reading: “It is, in fact, a Christmas tree.” Religious conservatives have objected to the use of the term “holiday tree,” saying it seeks to minimize the Christian origins of Christmas. (The Daytona Beach News-Journal, 12/4/2005) I am not religious, nor conservative, and yet I agree that changing a “Christmas Tree” to a “Holiday Tree” is politically INcorrect. Christmas is a religious holiday, not an American holiday like Thanksgiving. Unfortunately it has become such a commercialized holiday that many non-Christians celebrate Christmas in one form or another.

The next point this brings to fruition is the question of company’s giving everyone off for a religious holiday. I will probably kick myself for saying this, but I do not think any company should give off for a religious holiday, including Christmas. However, company’s should give more available days off that people can use as floating holidays so whatever their religion, they can take those days off without penalty. Although a company’s employee base may be predominantly one religion, and therefore most people will not be working there on a particular day, employees who do not observe that day should not be penalized by having to take that day off and not a day that they do observe or having to use their personal/vacation time in its place.

Being conscience and considerate of all people’s views and beliefs is key. “If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other”-Carl Schurz (1829-1906)

Separation of Church and State...next argument!

Continuing off of the last rant about Separation of Church and State...Today’s Rant will focus on the debate between historical preservation and current standards. With numerous lawsuits arguing the validity of the word “God” in our government, let us look at the history of this addition.

The motto ‘In God We Trust’ was placed on certain United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the ‘Deity’ on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
But the motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription.

It wasn’t until July 11, 1955 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust." The following year, Public Law 851 was enacted and signed, which officially replaced the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust’. All of this occurred at the height of cold war tension, when political divisions between the Soviet and western block was simplistically portrayed as a confrontation between Judeo-Christian civilization and the "godless" menace of communism. On June 14, 1954, Congress unanimously ordered the inclusion of the words "Under God" into the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. By this time, other laws mandating public religiosity had also been enacted, including a statute for all federal justices and judges to swear an oath concluding with "So help me God." All paper currency issued after October 1, 1957 included the ‘In God We Trust’ motto. (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm) So “God” was not always on US Currency and NOT the national motto!

Even if you agree that America was founded on Christian beliefs, that doesn’t mean our laws and ideals should still follow those beliefs but rather change and progress into a more universal standard to encompass the current diversity, should items like money, and government buildings with religious statements on them change? Shockingly enough, I say no. The idea is not to take down what is already part of history (even if that history does not tread as far back as we thought), but to build up new history around us…a history that reflects 2005. Unfortunately, my ‘2005 Utopia’ is not my ideal society. With ‘our’ President recently saying, “You are either with us or against us,”(commenting on the war in Iraq) being a prime example of the limited and one-track mindset our nation still follows. I choose rather to embrace those lovely shades of gray where diversity lies.

Separation of Church and State

Today's Rant is about Separation of Church and State. What exactly was the intent of this concept and how big is the gray area that divides this issue?

First off, Separation of Church and State is not found in the Constitution. Supposedly, the earliest person in North America to advocate the separation of church and state appears to have been Roger Williams, a religious reformer who founded not only the first Baptist Church on this continent, but also the colony of Rhode Island, where he hoped to find greater religious freedom than among the Puritans he left behind in Boston. Contrary to what many believe, we even owe to him the words "wall of separation," rather than to Thomas Jefferson (http://www.about.com):

When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World. ("Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, Volume 1, page 108 (1644))

This statement (whoever said it.some say Jefferson, others say Williams) speaks about the "wall" not necessarily in both directions. Many argue that it was put this way to be one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. With this, they argue that the church, however, was free to teach the people Biblical values. (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html) I disagree with this statement because it does not speak of changing the wilderness or expanding, in essence, the garden of the church.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.

While those that argue that the people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion are those people who state that, "The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government." (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html). Well if that is true, then what about Muslims, Buddhists, etc. that are Americans? What about those who believe the 'holy book' is the Koran, The Analects, Veda, etc.? How can you truly have freedom of religion if the religion that embeds our government in based on one particular faith?

Without a doubt, the religious undertones found in our government today are Christian-based. Considering the founders of the Constitution were mainly Christian, it is reasonable to understand why we see this in our government. However, times have changed significantly over the centuries. America has become an amazing 'melting pot' of cultures and religion. Should we not take it upon ourselves to respect everyone's beliefs and conform to a universal standard? And what about atheists? Do we not respect their beliefs? Some would say we'll they are not a religion and therefore dismiss them, but nonetheless, that is discrimination and hypocracy at its 'ugliest.'

Note: No matter your beliefs, we as a society should learn to be excepting of other beliefs. If we still thought like our "Founding Fathers" then blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus and women would still be home barefoot and pregnant. I live in Florida so I still see a lot of this.

There is so much more to this topic that I plan to touch upon in the next rant so stay tuned...