Category: Women’s Issues

Categories
Action Contraception Population Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Smash Amendment 62

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

Imagine this scenario. Anne, a young mother of three small children, recently noted low abdominal discomfort and bloating. She is horrified to learn that she may have ovarian cancer—but even more horrified to learn that the necessary surgery cannot be performed in Colorado.
If Amendment 62 passes it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: “Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of “persons”.
A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible. A lawyer—or even a physician—could have done better!
This proposed amendment is laughable. It is unclear, it is unsupportable, it is misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.
Let’s look at the problem of implementation. The word “person” appears in over 20,000 laws in our state. One current legal definition of “person” is “an autonomous being”. This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado’s lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.
You will remember that just two years ago a similar amendment was put forward. Proposed amendment 48 was a real loser! It lost in all Colorado counties. It lost by a huge margin—73 percent of voters were against it. Why did the Colorado Right to Life people do this again? Apparently they have received a message from God that this is their calling. This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person’s religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The proposed amendment would establish one set of religious beliefs as the law of the state. Doesn’t our Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibit this?
The supporters of this proposed amendment don’t stop with facts. View their incredible misrepresentation of truth at: youtube.com/user/PersonhoodUSA.
Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even “the pill” work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado. Furthermore, miscarriages would have to be investigated (to be sure that the woman hadn’t caused the pregnancy loss intentionally), adding to the parents’ emotional pain.
Oh, what about abortion? There is no provision for cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal—including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. This would not be possible under Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62. Aborting a pregnancy for a woman who had been a victim of rape or of incest would also be punished as first-degree murder.
Proposed Amendment 62 is stupid. It is poorly written and therefore would tie up lawyers and the court system. If passed, 62 would endanger women’s health care. It would make it difficult for couples to plan their families, and the already high undesired pregnancy rate would skyrocket.
Please vote in this midterm election. And please vote NO on proposed Amendment 62. To do anything else would be irresponsible!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Categories
Hope Medical Women's Issues

Feminize Medical Care

Feminize Medical Care—4-2010

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

May God bless you with discomfort at easy answers, half truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart;

May God bless you with anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace;

May God bless you with tears to shed for those who suffer pain, rejection, starvation, war and loss, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and turn their pain into joy;

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you can do what others claim cannot be done;

May God bless you with God’s comforting presence now and in your journeys through each day.

Franciscan blessing

Read by Reverend Ginny Brown at Dr. Leanne Jordan’s memorial service

My first year medical school class had 125 students in it; only six were women. Now half of medical students are women.

I did my specialty training at the University of New Mexico and was surprised that several other residents in obstetrics and gynecology came from medical school in Denver. The former chair of the OB-GYN department excluded women from his program. Imagine not letting women learn to care for women! Fortunately that has changed; now only two of thirty-six OB-GYN residents at the University of Colorado are male.

A friend studied the culture of operating rooms for his doctorate in sociology. He noted a huge change from the 1960s to the present. Men initially dominated—both figuratively and literally—and many OR nurses lived in terror of the behavior of surgeons. As more women became surgeons the ethos improved. The OR became a kinder, gentler place, and patients benefited as well as the staff. Worldwide, empowerment of women is one of the most important steps we can take to slow population growth.

Women in medicine often take off time to have children and to raise their family, so female doctors may take longer to finish their training. I am proud of our daughter-in-law, Dr. Stephanie Shrago, for excelling in med school and family practice residency and having two wonderful daughters. Of course, I also have to thank our son Dave who does a lot of our granddaughters’ care.

Another remarkable physician with whom I practiced for almost twelve years just died. Dr. Leanne Jordan’s memorial service was held earlier this month with an overflow crowd of admirers. Speakers at the service recalled Leanne’s talents: an amazing athlete, empathetic friend and an outstanding doctor. When we worked together in the operating room I felt as though I were energized with a second cup of coffee, because she was always so quick—but careful—during surgery.

One friend said that Leanne’s smile would light up a whole room. I knew about many of her accomplishments and numerous athletic skills that were mentioned during the service. I will never forget the story of her skinny-dipping with a friend after rowing practice when some guys moved their clothes away from the river’s bank.

Leanne died of the breast cancer that she fought valiantly for years. I admire her for being the “poster child” for cancer treatment. She did not hide the fact that she was battling the disease. This openness was a source of solace for others with serious illnesses, and an encouragement to get screened for cancer.

Early detection of breast cancer is key to its cure, as with many other diseases. Breast self exam is good, but mammograms can detect disease long before it can be felt.

Mercy has just opened its state-of-the-art Breast Care Center. It has the latest equipment for the diagnosis of breast problems. In addition, it is beautiful. Stunning art, a fireplace and the dragonfly motif help to soften the usual medical atmosphere.

In the past I heard complaints about pain caused by mammograms, but I don’t any more. That may be because the new digital machines are faster. They are safer, too, since they use less radiation.

Regrettably, not all women have health insurance to cover mammography. There are programs to help women older than 40, so finances shouldn’t be a reason to avoid this important test. The criteria are confusing for the different programs, so it is best to call B.J. Boucher at the American Cancer Society local office, 259-3527.

We have benefitted from more women participating in medical care. It is sad that we recently lost one of the finest, Dr. Leanne Jordan.

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.