If Medical Practitioners can refuse emergency contraception for sexual violence, we should be able to identify those Moral Bigots on an online register

3
586

Wait, what?

Select committee recommends allowing medical practitioners to refuse contraception

The select committee tasked with examining New Zealand’s abortion laws has recommended enshrining the right of medical practitioners to refuse emergency contraception in cases of sexual violence.

This has angered campaigners who say it obstructs access to effective contraception, and sidelines the rights of sexual assault survivors.

The proposed changes would require medical practitioners to declare a conscientious objection to providing emergency contraception “at the earliest opportunity”, and provide the contact details of someone else who can provide contraception.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

FFS.

Ok, if some Moral Bigot masquerading as a health practitioner wants the right to refuse emergency contraception FOR ANY REASON, they should be identified on a widely distributed online ‘Moral Bigot’ list warning people NOT to go to their business in case of emergency contraception pills and it is the State’s obligation to fund a medical practitioner in that area who will give emergency contraception.

So fine, give these Moral Bigots pretending to be health practitioners their ‘right’ to turn away desperate women, but it is our ‘right’ to identify to everyone that they are a Moral Bigot and save the desperate woman time by allowing them to bypass such toxic conscientious objection and gain the medicine they want directly from a state funded provider whose focus is on public health and not the narcissism of petty morality.

 

3 COMMENTS

  1. The machine-like USA states tightening up on women’s ability to control their fertility showed how far these distanced class and religion-ridden people will go in blocking individual decision. There have been some excellent cartoons around women’s reproductive issues. Google these keywords ‘sharon murdoch cartoon control a uterus’ for that one and others. That is the easiest pathway as I can’t access PressReader without signing in and other rigmarole. (Trademe is now demanding a password to just view it – what is this obsession? What fools we are to allow companies to persuade us to use a machine to facilitate every aspect of our lives.)

  2. Seriously good stuff, Martyn and as a long-time pro-choice campaigner myself, thanks for the support. However, there may be a supplementary order paper devised to insure women who have been sexually assaulted do have the right to access EMC. Will we see you on one of the Marches for Reproductive Rights tomorrow? There are three of ’em occurring in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

  3. https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2020/02/17/if-medical-practitioners-can-refuse-emergency-contraception-for-sexual-violence-we-should-be-able-to-identify-those-moral-bigots-on-an-online-register/

    I agree. Also, at the very least these ‘at least DO harm’, practitioners must provide another nearby support to get the contraception.
    American hospitals have been steadily privatised by Catholic interests over decades, and rape survivors and others have been turned away. Is that to be expected here?

    Women won’t be ‘saved’ by this immoral behaviour from doctors meant to at least do NO harm. They’ll just achieve their end result by more damaging actions. Girls and women won’t suddenly not have sex. Men and boys aren’t going to just stop pressuring these women and girls to have abortions, if its made more difficult. Those males without thought for those females won’t care how the abortion is procured. This is historic fact. This abortion law reform is supposed to ensure women and girls can make their decision without pressure on either side, supposedly with the help of a knowledgable, caring GP.
    This current mealymouthed nonsense over a piece of flesh is just so sexist.

Comments are closed.