Oh bloody hell this is bad
So yesterday, the Bush administration yesterday granted sweeping new protections to health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs. Jill at Feministe has pointed out that while this undoubtedly chiefly aimed at women’s reproductive freedoms, this is actually not about abortion–which depressingly already has this exception–but easy access to contraception.
One point I want to make about that, which I’ve stolen from Lee Edelman’s No Future, is that America is being organised around the figure of The Child. Not actual children, let alone the adults those children grow into, but a rhetorical child who must be protected at all costs–from the corrupting influence of gay marriages, porn on the internet etc and who must always be allowed to exist.
The rights of the Child, who is figured as a full person and not as a body of cells or ffs an egg and a sperm, supercedes the rights of adult women to have control over their bodies. Never mind that people (and I want to make the point that it’s not just women, eg some trans men use birth control too. Seriously, pay attention cis feminists and stop making the normative assumption that reproductive health equals het cis woman) use the pill primarily for other health reasons–to regulate their periods, to moderate PMS and PMDD etc etc. And needless to say, The Child does not grow up to be queer, or trans, or sexually active outside the sanctity of marriage. And The Child is clearly normatively white.
But whilst it is clearly aimed at heterosexual cis women, it will have a massive impact on other groups–especially trans men and women.
From the Washington Post:
“The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable.”
Ok, let that sink in a bit. Care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. Now, where is that going to leave trans people? Sex workers? People they think are drug users (a highly racialized image after all)? People with disabilities?
Like queerness, being trans has been framed by many on the Religious Right as a moral issue. To be trans is to be, by definition, immoral. By situating health care as a “conscience” issue, this law allows transphobic health care workers–not just doctors, but pharmacists, emergency medics etc etc–full license to indulge their bigotry and to not treat us. So, even if you can get through the knife lined obstacle course that is the gatekeeper process and get through to a hormone prescription, the bloody pharmacist might not even give them to you.
We all know health care for trans people is already shitty, let alone giving health care providers carte blanche to treat us worse. Remember Tyra Hunter, who died because firefighters decided not to perform emergency resuscitation on her when they discovered she was trans, and then a doctor at Washington General decided not to treat her. Because she was trans, because she was a woman of color, because she was not a person, she was an “it.” And, because some people consider that our existence is immoral and must be squashed out.
This is a nightmare of a ruling that potentially allows any person in the health-care business to rule that treating trans people goes against their conscience, and when something serious is occuring, you don’t have the time to shop around for someone who will treat you.
And the intersection between transness and race here will be even more deadly. Medicine has a long history of being used against people of color in the US, and this gives health care people legal protections to further that. As Kristin “the mean one on Feministe” just said to me, making the horrid implications of this explicitly clear:
“I didn’t quite make the connection as to why doctors would want to refuse anyone treatment in the context of a miscarriage at first. It just clicked. Why would they want to do that other than to refuse treatment to people they judge to be the “cause” of the miscarriage? You know, people like, say, possible drug users. Or people otherwise marked as “unworthy” of care. Say, homeless people, immigrants… Fuck. I mean, why else would anyone demand that kind of “right”? Fuck fuck fuck… I think this is going to be even more evil in practice than it looks on the surface. If that kind of “protection” becomes a fucking protocol, oh my god… If this becomes widespread… Organized against a specific group, that’s genocidal.”
This is nightmarish. I am honestly just stunned. Not to mention… What more surprise regulations might we have to look forward to over the next month? Fucking hell…
Kristin
18 Dec 08 at 10:55 pm
I’m trying to think of how this abomination of a decision by this remnant of a “president” has an impact on the Hippocratic Oath — or does this just not count any more?
z
18 Dec 08 at 11:15 pm
Kristin: Yeah. This shit better be repealed.
Z: Hippocratic oath, no I’m guessing it doesn’t count anymore. Or perhaps there’s a neo-con remix that goes “Do no harm.. except to women, gays, trans people, people with disabilities, sex workers, homeless people, immigrants, people of color and any combination thereof…”
queenemily
18 Dec 08 at 11:22 pm
Hah, yeah.
Interesting side note: it’s not actually in the Oath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
z
18 Dec 08 at 11:24 pm
Huh, learn something new every day. I keep thinking of that Simpsons quote – “what about your hippopotamus oath?”
Perhaps this is what Bush thought they were changing.
queenemily
18 Dec 08 at 11:31 pm
What are the chances this will get reversed quickly when Obama takes office?
Sarah Brown
19 Dec 08 at 3:53 am
Bush has been doing similar things with the environment. He has set out a whole raft of regulations to allow oil drilling without challenge.
New Scientist reported this at George Bush’s parting swipe at the environment You may not be able to view the whole article if you don’t subscribe to NS. The relevant part for us is:
“New rules can be reversed, but this must be done within either 30 or 60 days of being issued, depending on how major the change is. The shale decision will have been in effect for 64 days when Barack Obama takes over on 20 January.”
(The 64 days refers to the environment regs) What a system!!!!!
Paula Thomas
19 Dec 08 at 4:18 am
Sarah Brown: Yeah, this looks to be one of those end-of-term changes that will be incredibly difficult for incoming administrations to overturn. Jill has more details on this over at the end of her post at feministe.
Kristin
19 Dec 08 at 4:48 am
I knew the last gasps of the Bush administration wouldn’t be too lovely… but this absolutely beggars belief.
And how minuscule is the group that WON’T be adversely affected by this?
You have to PAY for your healthcare, and can STILL be refused it! Hello, Mr Baker, I would like to buy a pie. Here is my money. Oh, because you think I am too fat, I cannot have the pie. Money back, then? No? OK.
Oliver FP
19 Dec 08 at 8:08 am
Anyone got Tom Daschle’s contact info? As the next HHS head, I think he’s the best bet we have for overturning this
Politicalguineapig
19 Dec 08 at 10:09 am
Note to self: Don’t get in any car accidents or other situations requiring emergency medical care.
eastsidekate
19 Dec 08 at 10:49 am
Precious few people seem to even be aware that this has happened, so thank you so much for posting it. I’ve copied it to my blog – with credit and a link to your original post – to try and get the word out. If that’s not okay, let me know and I’ll delete it. I’d like to post it to a couple of relevant LJ communities too, if that’s okay?
Michael
19 Dec 08 at 2:29 pm
That’s fine Michael
queenemily
19 Dec 08 at 6:05 pm
This can also cause a problem for people who want to refuse certain medications or treatments, especially when it relates to mental health. So, what if a doc has a, say, bipolar patient who is tired of how that medicine makes them feel and stops taking it? Will they now have the right to either: a) physically FORCE them to take it?; or b) order them to be committed to a mental facility, against their will, to be monitored?
What about people who want to refuse pharmaceuticals for homeopathic treatment? Like, oh, say HIV/AIDS or cancer patients? This legislation casts a net so wide it boggles the mind.
aspasialibertine
20 Dec 08 at 2:27 pm
[...] “Oh bloody hell this is bad,” at Questioning Transphobia” [...]
Some shit just defies belief! | Zo-Babble
20 Dec 08 at 7:02 pm
[...] Links Washington Post Jill@Feministe QueenEmily@QuestioningTransphobia [...]
Dreaming of Butterflies » Blog Archive » What the fuck is wrong with these people
21 Dec 08 at 1:35 am
[...] are not the only ones who will be affected by this. Queenemily at Questioning Transphobiatouches on how this will affect transpeople, or the downtrodden and unfortunate, or anyone someone [...]
Women, it’s now legal to let you die « The Words on What…
21 Dec 08 at 2:05 am
aspasialibertine: It looks like it’s more about doctors being about to refuse–and not enforce–certain treatments. But, yeah, it opens up a whole new realm of medical authority that’s pretty frightening.
Kristin
21 Dec 08 at 8:47 am
Using government funding to force religious views on the public? Wasn’t the Intelligent Design case lost over this?
Drew
21 Dec 08 at 5:45 pm
I wonder how much this will affect us, since really we already have to search out trans friendly doctors to begin with. I’m pretty sure this won’t change anything with my doc.
Mireille
21 Dec 08 at 11:15 pm
Mirielle, right, and the more I think about it, that’s true mostly cos we deal with so much shit as is.
Still, I think it’ll exacerbate a bad situation – what if you need to go to the emergency room, what if you had an accident and needed urgent treatment? That’s when it gets really dicey, when you have to find alternatives to your regular doctors. You don’t have time to trans 101 even if the doctor’s ok. This thing will really make the dodgy medical people that much braver about refusing to treatment us in those situations…
queenemily
22 Dec 08 at 3:01 am
Queenemily, you’re right. I didn’t think of emergency situations. Of course, when paramedics can laugh and leave a woman dying in the street because of her genitals, I still don’t think this changes much. But yes, it’s because we already expect to be marginalized and discriminated against. And it’s sad that I expect it. Maybe by bringing more people to the level of care we receive, they’ll understand our plight and find common cause.
Mireille
22 Dec 08 at 2:19 pm
[...] 23, 2008 · No Comments … that’s the heading on Questioning Transphobia for a piece on the new protections President Bush has signed in to allow healthcare professionals in the USA to [...]
Oh bloody hell this is bad … « Stop Transphobia
23 Dec 08 at 10:47 am
This regulation blows my mind. The potential for abuse it opens up is enormous. If a doctor personally believes that divorce is wrong, can he use that belief to justify refusing to treat divorcees? Will LDS doctors refuse to treat anyone who isn’t a Church member in good standing? Where will this end? Certainly, the threat this poses to the entire GLBT community is massive, and scary. Clearly this policy needs to be repealed in its entirity ASAP via Executive Order.
Sarahmarie
23 Dec 08 at 2:36 pm