Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Jay Inslee Calls Judge's Plan B Decision "Beyond Reason"

Posted by on Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The lawyer-turned-Congressman-turned-gubernatorial candidate has come out swinging in response to yesterday's news that some Washington State pharmacists will be allowed to decline Plan B requests because of their religious beliefs. In a statement, Inslee says:

It is beyond reason that women are still forced to battle for something as basic as contraception in the year 2012. We just witnessed the Republican Party’s attack on women in the recent House hearing on copay-free contraception, and now this federal ruling that would allow physicians to deny contraception to women in crisis. This is not a battle over religious freedom – it’s a battle to let science guide our discourse instead of ideology. This ruling must be aggressively challenged and women’s full access to contraception restored and protected.

Republican Rob McKenna's reaction to the Plan B ruling? Silence.

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
It's about the economy stupid.
Posted by Inslee is running like it's 1992 on February 23, 2012 at 9:23 AM
2
PPP poll yesterday shows Inslee even with McKenna.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/…
Posted by ratcityreprobate on February 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Rob in Baltimore 3
I work in a medical field, and one thing that is stressed over and over is that you don't allow your own religious views dictate the care you give to patients with different beliefs. If a doctor is a Jehovah's Witness, he cannot deny a blood transfusion, or anti-venom (often made with horse or goat blood) to a non-Jehovah's Witness patient.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 23, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Sargon Bighorn 4
#3 You work in the medical field! I have this ache in my elbow and...
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 23, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Allyn 5
Right there, where he elevates knowledge over belief, that’s where he’s won my vote.

And lost a hundred others.
Posted by Allyn on February 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM
watchout5 6
@5 hey make that at least 2 to one hundred. McKenna says nothing because his belief wins over knowledge, he must be afraid of the voters like on so many issues. I can't see how he wins.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on February 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM
7
I also work in health care & cannot believe this nonsense. I have college degrees in my field & had to pass a state licensing exam to be licensed to practice. Nowhere in my license does it say I can pick & chose to whom I will provide health care! To do so is considered, at the least, negligence and, at the highest definition, malpractice. I may not have been BFF with everyone I cared for in over 30 years of practice but every person was given the best care I could deliver regardless of my personal feelings. Suck it up AND DO YOUR JOB or quit! These people are simpletons & should lose their licenses!
Posted by rn_nyc on February 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM
8
I really don't know what "science" would have to say about medical professionals providing this treatment. Science is amoral. Why is this framed as ideology vs. science? It's ideology vs. ideology, but politicians are too afraid to make any feminist arguments, so they hide behind nice, clean "science". This is cowardice.
Posted by ams_ on February 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM
9
@8,

This isn't just ideology. These pharmacists refuse to dispense Plan B because they falsely believe that Plan B terminates a pregnancy. It doesn't. It does what all hormonal birth control does, prevent ovulation in the first place.

These people aren't just religious nutcases; they're anti-science morons as well.
Posted by keshmeshi on February 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM
10
@8 "I really don't know what "science" would have to say..."

"Science" would talk about things like safety and efficacy. It would predict the outcome of actions. It would use words the Florida state legislature, and I imagine others, would remove from the record and "polite" discourse.

While we're anthropomorphizing, "Law" would probably chime in with some precedents.

While this could be framed as an ideological debate, I think that gives some these arguments far too much credence. Simply put, this is legal and desired medical care, who are these supposed professionals to deny, limit or complicate access to it?
Posted by Someone should sue for "damages" (18 years of support) on February 23, 2012 at 11:02 AM
11
I definitely want a Governor who will stand up for women and see this so-called religious argument for what it is - the attempt to control others' lives - especially women's lives - in the name of God. I appreciate Jay's willingness to be a leader in this area AND his plans for creating jobs and improving education. He gets my vote!
Posted by barbara hersey on February 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM
merry 12
"This is not a battle over religious freedom – it’s a battle to let science guide our discourse instead of ideology.

Yes indeed. And you could go further than this one pharmaceutical example, and make the claim that this, in a nutshell, is the basis of the battle currently being waged (the "culture wars") for the very heart and soul of America.
Posted by merry on February 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 13
Yet another outrage against women seeking basic healthcare: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health…
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on February 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM
14
And yet Jay is doing nothing to contrast himself to McKenna. He needs to grow a pair and shop with the positive campaign nonsense. Jay needs to go negative on McKenna's ass and stay that way. Otherwise he's gonna lose and so will the citizens of the state.
Posted by I Got Nuthin' on February 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM
OutInBumF 15
Inslee's got my vote after this latest McKenna stunt with R-74's ballot title/description. Keep your religion out of the workplace, Rob.
Posted by OutInBumF on February 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM
16
What about licensed pharmacists who hold a sincere religious belief that all lifeforms are sacred and of equal worth in the eyes of God? Would this decision's reasoning absolve them from having to "actively participate in the taking of life" by filling prescriptions for antibiotics? Because if I've read it correctly, I believe it would.

In France, pharmacists may not refuse to stock or sell medications on personal grounds, including religious beliefs. The pharmacists' public duties as licensed professionals in open commerce trump their personal religious beliefs. In some US states, parents may with impunity allow their children to die by withholding medical care on religious grounds. The parents' personal religious beliefs trump their otherwise legally sanctioned duty to prevent their children from dying. I know which country's conception of religious freedom I think is more evolved.
Posted by PCM on February 23, 2012 at 2:11 PM
17
@13: I've read elsewhere that the National Health Service has been diverting a lot of abortion work to private, for-profit clinics -- all part of the Tory/Lib-Dem dismantling and "marketization" of the NHS. Also, regarding the Daily Telegraph, I think this clip is still reasonably accurate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW…
Posted by PCM on February 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM
18
@ 9, 10, 12
Science doesn't tell us what to do. It gives us information with which to make these decisions. For instance, if a study came out saying that having children raised women's life expectancies 10 years, we wouldn't all blindly follow "science" and outlaw all birth control/abortion/etc. This is because our belief that women should have autonomy over their own bodies is not a scientific belief. It is a moral or political belief. Some science supports this belief as being good for women's health, a lot of science tells us HOW to give women autonomy over their own bodies. But make no mistake, science does not tell us what to do, and if we believe that it does tell us what to do, we are dangerously overlooking our own motivations.

@9 I wasn't aware that the basic facts about EC were under debate! oy. But I don't really think that's the crux of the issue. Rather it was the pharmacist's ability to refuse treatment if religiously opposed, and that would include birth control and other products.
Posted by ams_ on February 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM
19
So I for one am sending more $$ to the Inslee campaign.
Posted by Fire Chief on February 23, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy