seeing things clearly, and persuading is still the same. They require facts.

While it may be a fair assumption that the religious right has a role in the bill, and might benefit from it, it is not at all clear to me that this is in fact the case from any info I have seen.  

The corrupt business wing of the party represented by Taft is not necessarily the same as the religious right. In fact, I would wager that in this election cycle they will be running, in some respects, against it.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's actually going to be the next major push (and in some areas IS starting to be the next major push already) with dominionists--extending "conscience clauses" (that in many states legally allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense any medication--mostly birth control, but scattered reports of refusal to give antiherpetic drugs as well--and in two states are so broad as to potentially allow an EMT to refuse lifesaving treatment to someone who was gay or pagan) to end-of-life directives.

Specifically, they want to make it where a doctor, nurse, or even hospital can legally and without any penalty whatsoever refuse to carry out instructions in a living will or power of attorney agreement that would "conflict with their moral choices"--in other words, if you had a condition in your living will or had instructed the person you named in your power-of-attorney document that stated if you were ever in a hopeless vegetative state (a la Terri Schiavo) they could legally disregard any instructions to "pull the plug".

This worries me a great deal, as I am a walkaway from a dominionist group that is right in the middle of the "pro-life" movement in Kentucky and has been fighting to extend "conscience clauses" far beyond where they are in the state (right now they only extend to doctors, nurses and the Catholic hospital system and only for surgical abortion).  

I live in legitmate fear that my family may try to actively subvert my wishes were I ever in a persistent vegetative state.  I even live in legitimate fear that if I am in hospital they will try to prosyletise to me against my will (my mother has had a habit of "inviting" the head pastor to the deathbeds or sickbeds of each and every one of my relatives who has been either hospitalised or terminally ill to "pray over them" and try to browbeat them into a deathbed conversion, and has even forced relatives into having the pastor of her (large, dominionist, with aspirations of worldwide televangelism empires) church giving the funeral services when it would have been against the wishes of the person who died.  (Yes, I am now researching what I can do legally to prevent this, and I am aware with certain aspects I may have to draw up an agreement with a lawyer.)

Right now (from the best of what I have been able to gather) my best shot of avoiding Dominionist Interference with both my wishes should I end up in hospital, and my dying and after-death wishes, are threefold:

a) set up an affiliation with a Unitarian Universalist church in my area re my "religious preferences" if I am in hospital (I am actually going to contact a lawyer to see if there's anything further that can be done, like "Nobody from X church is to pester me if I am in hospital")

b) Living will or power of attorney agreement, with PoA or executrix power with husband and in event of his death lawyer, not only denoting my end-of-life directives but specifically prohibiting any interference or involvement by members of the dominionist group I walked away from or any other group they are affiliated with

c) Last will and testament, including prepaid funeral, giving specific directives and again specifically prohibiting involvement by members of the dominionist group I walked away from at any stage

Right now, legally, I might be able to (hopefully!) prevent the dominionists in my family--or in the church my family attends--from going against my wishes.

If "conscience clauses" are expanded to include being able to disregard living wills, power-of-attorney agreements, et al and/or they are expanded to people beyond doctors and nurses (judges, for example), all bets are off.  I may as well mail myself in a box to Belgium and declare political asylum if I end up with a terminal illness. :P

by dogemperor on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ohio is a frustrating place to live in these days. We've already been invaded by the dominionists. I was poll-watching for the '04 election when suburban voters experienced virtually no lines while polls in minority and college areas had lines that took hours to navigate, etc., etc.

The dominionist leaders' organization is awesome. They mentor the fundamentalist pastors who mentor their flocks and get them out to vote for the "right" candidates. The politicians reward them and keep them happy for the next election by pushing their social agenda. There's no accountability anywhere when the Secretary of State ("Katherine" Blackwell, we call him) controls the elections and the AG who would normally prosecute election and non-profit fraud are part of the system. Two of the reform issues that were "voted" down would have taken election control and redistricting away from elected officials and given them to bipartisan appointees. The new bill would further erode oversight.  

by Psyche on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 01:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]