Andrew Sullivan writes in a recent posting about an initiative in Michigan to allow doctors to refuse treating people they disapprove of. He fears, quite rightly, that this will be used against gays. (It certainly violates the hypocratic oath, I would think.) I'm with him on this — what a terrible, terrible idea.
Then he loses me with this sentence: "I can see why some doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds (except I doubt that any doctors are routinely put in that position)." Why can you see that, Andrew? Why should doctors be allowed to deprive women of treatment? Where do you draw the line?
At the end, he asks a relevant question:
"Why should it always be up to gay people to point this out? Are there no straight people prepared to stand up against this kind of thing in the G.O.P.?"
Well, Andrew, I'll tell you why.
Us liberals get accused of a lot of things, but let me tell you: we're imaginative. We ask "What if?" We picture ourselves in other people's shoes. "What if I lost my job? What if I couldn't find another one? What if I needed food stamps? What if I needed to go on welfare? What if I got sick? What if I got pregnant?" I'm not gay, but I know that if I were, I'd still want to be in a relationship and settle down, and darn it, I'd want my full rights. So naturally, I want people who are gay to get those things too. I've never been faced with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy in my own life, but I know that deciding whether to carry the child or have an abortion would be hard. I'd take it seriously, and I'd want good medical care either way.
Conservatives, on the other hand, often seem to judge others by their own standards (even if they can't live up to them themselves.) "I've never needed welfare, so why can't those people just get a job!??!" No compassion for "deadbeats." They didn't need help, so why should anybody else get it? Angry white men yelling at women walking into Planned Parenthood clinics. Hell, they didn't get pregnant, and maybe nobody they know did either (or at least didn't tell them about it), so those women who did "just made bad decisions." Christians who think it's their right to impose their religion on nonbelievers in public situations. They can't understand why people don't share their views or experiences. Surely everybody needs Jesus in their lives!
See, I suspect that if Andrew Sullivan wasn't gay, he wouldn't be so sensitive to the ramifications of the policies conservatives are trying to foist on us, because it wouldn't affect him personally. As a conservative himself, he just lacks imagination. Since he'll never need an abortion, it's easy for him to brush that issue off. And his fellow G.O.P. members who are straight don't have to worry about a doctor disapproving of their lifestyles, so should they rush to comment on an issue that doesn't apply to them?
They can't imagine why they should.
Updated to add: Michael asked me if I would want to force somebody to do something they believe is wrong. No, of course I don't. I believe people should only do work they believe is ethical. I also believe women have a right to get medical care that reflects what is best for them, not just the doctor's beliefs. Maybe there's a clash between the two, and it's certainly not a simple issue. I stand by my point that Andrew seems to have trouble imagining all the ramifications of his casual statement, and that his straight buddies have trouble imagining the problems with laws that won't impact them directly, no matter how much they may hurt somebody else.
