Let's just hope it never happens in your family.
Last November, forty-eight percent of female voters supported George W. They overlooked the war, the economy, and the special interests. So how has he thanked them?
The Justice Department has, for the first time, issued medical guidelines for treating sexual assault victims. The protocol, which was three years in the making, is supposed to provide national standards of care and treatment to be followed by all hospitals and clinics.
The purpose is to ensure that evidence is properly preserved for use in prosecutions, and all victims everywhere are given high quality medical attention, regardless of the political or religious leanings of the facilities or doctors.
The trouble is, somewhere along the line, those same political or religious interests, who this legislation was aimed at, performed some skillful surgery of their own. They found that it was much easier to doctor the guidelines than doctor the patients.
It seems that the language concerning use of the "morning-after" pill, which is the standard treatment to prevent pregnancy from rape, disappeared from the draft of the protocol. In its place is a suggestion to "discuss treatment options".
The problem is, emergency contraception is only effective if used within 72 hours of an assault. Many victims delay seeking help, or are in no psychological condition to "discuss treatment options". Without the heretofore standard morning-after pill treatment as part of the protocol, a woman will be at the mercy of the politics and religious beliefs of her caregiver, whether or not she actually chose that place. Especially if she is not able to make the decision herself.
According to research at three universities: 25,000 pregnancies resulted from rapes in 1998; 22,000 could have been prevented; nationally, only 21 percent of sexual-assault victims in emergency rooms were given the pill. And 12 out of 27 urban Catholic hospitals had rules against informing rape victims about the pill, regardless of their personal beliefs.
At this point, discussion can devolve into the usual start-of-life and biblical-interpretation debates, and end up nowhere. A rather small segment of the population still holds out for a total ban on "abortion" in any form, at any time, for any reason. And the omission of the morning-after pill from the protocol sure has those far-right-hand fingerprints all over it.
So, since my background is more legal than medical (and certainly not biblical), let's look at the potential consequences to the victim if she is not allowed the pill, and does get pregnant from the rape.
The obvious monumental result is a child. Hopefully, a healthy one, because I don't even have the room here to discuss the implications of a sickly or deformed offspring to a mother perhaps lacking adequate health insurance. A life of involuntary servitude to treat the unwanted result of a heinous act.
The mother could give up the child for adoption. Maybe . Especially a married woman, whose family might be uncomfortable with different answers to "who's your daddy?" Maybe .
The Maybes are because our legal system has, in its infinite wisdom, allowed some rather questionable rights to some rather questionable people. If a woman is raped, it might be far better for her if the attacker is never caught. Or, at least never convicted. Because, a conviction carries with it that new name for the guilty man - daddy .
And even unwanted daddies have rights in many states. Visitation, input into schooling, religion, and medical decisions. If daddy is in prison, he might be granted the right to visit with his child, and since he can't very well go to mommy, guess who brings baby to him? If mom can't afford regular travel, she might not even be able to leave the area.
And while daddy is in the joint, he suddenly gets religion and gets religious. Perhaps - probably - not the same old-time religion as mom and her family. And dad now opposes the first holy communion, or confirmation, or bar mitzvah. In fact, since he has lots of time on his hands, and wants a little diversion, he goes to court, maybe even with a prisoner's-rights attorney, to fight the idea. He may not win, but mom and family must spend thousands of dollars to battle the man yet again.
And then there's the issue of mom's marriage (if she isn't already). It might make some men squeamish to spend a lifetime with a woman whose child has a rapist for a father. Some day daddy will be out of the slammer, and may seek joint custody. Mom would be forced to share the child, and important decisions, with the man who raped her. Kind of puts a damper on those holiday family celebrations.
Even in Pennsylvania, and other states that allow the termination of parental rights of rapists, that termination is not automatic. The mother must seek court approval, an expensive process, especially if daddy has that prisoner's-rights attorney.
Or, here's the worst case scenario in any state: Rapist is caught, admits paternity, claims sex was consensual, and is acquitted . He is now the legal father, with full parental rights!!!
These consequences seem to be of little interest to the single-minded agendists who have wormed their way into W's Washington politics. But there are many groups working to have the morning-after pill language added back. Among them is the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is collecting signatures on a petition.
You might never have imagined yourself supporting the ACLU, but it is your wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters at risk here. Just a little inauguration present from your president.