Beyond Abortion

More from the frontlines on Dubya's last ditch efforts to leave his mark on our country. You mean the scorched earth so far isn't enough?

For about 30 years, medical workers have had the option to refuse to perform abortions. Dubya and the gang would like to extend that "option" to include healthcare workers having the right to refuse to provide information or advice to any patient who might be getting an abortion.

Those who think this expanded "right of conscience" medical refusal effort is a load of BS say that the new option could open a whole can of worms that would allow healthcare folk to refuse much more than just abortion, including birth control and artificial insemination. Don't believe them? Check out these actual instances of people being denied care or information that the LA Times compiled:

In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.

Nice legacy Bush. Forty eight days is way too much time left for this jackass to be monkeying around with our rights.

Estate Planning

I am sure you are all aware of the results from yesterday's primaries in my little neck of the woods as well as northwards in Indiana. Clinton did not fare well and even though she eked out a win in Indiana, it was not the decisive one she needed. Now I don't anticipate her pulling out until after the remaining contests have come and gone, but my opinion now is that she is just staying in to keep things feisty. More power to her, but I think it might be time to start practicing saying "President Obama."

Meanwhile I saw something that intrigued me today, the Los Angeles City Council has approved restrictions on the size of homes in the city's flatlands. (Having only been to LA once or twice, I admittedly am not familiar with which part of the city this is.) You can read the whole deal online at the LA Times. The general gist though is that these enormous McMansions are being built and causing neighborhoods to resemble fields of monopoly boards, just stucco box after box. Even still, the house size limit will be 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. Now I know I live in a Cracker Jack box, but seriously people! That is like three times the size of my house, unless you have a gazillion kids, what do you need all that space for?

Some of you may be aware of my "disinterest" in newer style homes. I prefer older homes with all the neat quirks of personality, good and bad, that they offer (i.e. non-existent closet space—bad; really cool moldings and archways—good). I don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks that are building these oversized nightmares. I think of them as squatting, permanent Hummers, if you will. But the think that I think is most interesting about this article is the neighbors of these yea-whoos who talked to the city council about how these monstrosities have impaired their lives and communities, dwarfing their homes and taking away their privacy.

A man (or woman's!) home is his/her castle, but I mean that metaphorically.