Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Abortion Wars Get Technical (health-care workers can deny procedures due to religion/morality)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cash_thatswhatiwant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:16 AM
Original message
The Abortion Wars Get Technical (health-care workers can deny procedures due to religion/morality)
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 02:20 AM by Cash_thatswhatiwant
Under a new regulation poised to become law any day now, any health-care worker may refuse to perform procedures, offer advice or dispense prescriptions--like the morning after pills pictured here--if doing so would offend their 'religious beliefs or moral convictions'

What does it tell us about the state of the abortion wars, that battles once waged over the dignity and autonomy of pregnant women have morphed into disputes over the dignity and autonomy of their health-care providers? Two of the most pitched battles over reproductive rights in America today turn on whether health workers can be forced to provide medical services or information to which they ethically object. But as we learn from these fights, our solicitude for the beliefs of medical workers is selective: abortion opponents will soon enjoy broader legal protections than ever. Those willing to provide abortions, on the other hand, will enjoy far fewer. And women seeking reproductive services will be more caught up than ever in the tangle between the two.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/172593?from=rss MORE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Because it's not about abortion, it's not about "life". It's about stopping non-procreative fucking.
That's what it's always been about.

Anyone who doesn't understand that the major anti-choice groups want to outlaw the birth control pill just as badly as they want to outlaw abortion...

hasn't been paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. No, I disagree
It's about controlling women's bodies. They don't really care what the results are - or whether men indulge in said fucking. That's just men being men, don't you know?

It's about women, and women's bodies, and that completely unacceptable idea that women might be able to control their own bodies and their own reproduction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I see it as part of a larger agenda to institute "Biblical Law"
but, whatever, the end result is the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. End is the same, I suppose
I guess I just see controlling women at the center of it all! And not being any sort of fundamentalist, the bible part doesn't have the same scary power, IYKWIM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. If this is the case then the patient should be able to sue the
practioner for breach of duty and take away their ability to work in the medical field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Yup.
Let the practicioner take the hit for malpractice if their morals are so important.

Playing with women's medical health is not a game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. I do believe that this is yet another 50 State Strategy
The Texas Medical Board and the releated agencies of the other 49 States need to curtail this bullshit now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'd like to see the day that someone's "conscience" prohibits them dispensing Viagra
Not gonna happen, is it?

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Excellent point
It's all about controlling women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. DING DING DING..............n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. They need to think about the downside of this
This law is very broad. I'm a healthcare provider and being a Republican offends my moral convictions. Can I deny them lifesaving treatment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes! Please do!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. I know medical providers who find expensive, elective (non necessary)
medical procedues to be ethically wrong as those eat up diminishing available medical dollars/resources. Would those providers, under this broad ruling, be able to opt out of providing services on those grounds?

Sounds like the Nebraska safe haven law - allowing for a lot more than what the writers of the regs intend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Where I work
I find many are biased against people on Medicaid, poor people, Hispanic, etc.
This is ripe for discrimination cloaked in moral objections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. That sword is going to cut in so many different ways that it will be like
death by many many small paper cuts by many many different beliefs that people have. It will cause problems for years to come. Many lives will be lost during the time it takes for someone to find another doctor to perform what may be time sensitive life saving treatment. It will go deeper than abortion.

Will you be unfortunate enough to need a blood transfusion in a life or death situation while a Jehovah's Witness is in charge at the ER?

That sword cuts in every single direction possible. Talk about an abomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connonym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. I'm pro choice and I think doctors have a right to choose what services they provide
They otherwise pick and choose -- my GYN no longer delivers babies for example. When it comes to giving medical information they all have a moral responsibility to provide patients with all the facts, even those they disapprove of but when it comes down to providing the services I think that except in the case of emergency they should have the right to decide what procedures they choose to perform. Granted I live in a relatively liberal state but I think a lot more doctors are pro choice than pro life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Then you need to re-read this law
It has a loophole that they don't even have to present the options that THEY find distasteful--therefore limiting information to the patient on the options available to them.
You realize that while intended for controlling womens choices--it is cloaked in very general terms.
In other words--a fat patient presents to the ER. You have a physician that hates fat people. That fat person needs a bypass surgery--instead, the only option he presents them is a diet. The patient dies because they did not get the treatment they needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. Does that mean a hospital can ask during an interview about someone's
beliefs about abortion without directly asking about religion and not hire staff who would refuse to perform their duties? Discrimination not on religious beliefs but due to their unwillingness to do their jobs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
15. But by denying me such care and services
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 07:01 AM by rocknation
are they not violating MY religious beliefs and moral convictions? Are they not doing EXACTLY what they accuse me of doing by "forcing" them to help me?

Good thing pro-choicers are in the majority.

:shrug:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
16. This is way too much thrown into one pot.
Dispensing a birth control pill is light years away from performing an abortion. I can understand a person who cannot terminate a pregnancy. I don't understand a person who refuses to stop one from occurring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC