'Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned

[kpete]

Source: Los Angeles Times

'Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned
The Obama administration wants to clarify a Bush policy that lets healthcare workers deny services because of moral beliefs.
By Noam N. Levey
February 27, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

The new administration's action seems certain to stoke ideological battles between supporters and opponents of abortion rights over the responsibilities of doctors, nurses and other medical workers to their patients.

Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, and two family-planning groups have filed lawsuits challenging the Bush rule. They argue that it sacrifices the health of patients to the religious beliefs of medical providers.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conscience27-2009feb27,0,6549166.story

[Scout]

1. excellent; a chage i voted for. k&r. n/t

[tandot]

2. Great news! K & R

[MaineDem]

3. Oh please let this hapen!

Great news.

I hope it applies to dispensing BC meds and the "morning after" pill, as well.

[DirtyJersey]

4. I don't know how I feel about this

First of all, it's a slippery slope. What other personal or moral views might people be forced to abandoned? Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Secondly, I feel like this sets a precedent that can be turned against us. If freedom can be ignored in the name of health, then what happens if the fundies get back in power and declare abortion a health threat? Thirdly, if we want pro-lifers to respect the idea of choice, that needs to be a two-way street. This is the kind of thing that gives them ammo in calling us "pro-abortion".

[msongs]

5. well I guess you will have to die because treating you violates my religion. sorry 'bout that nt

[DirtyJersey]

9. There's no reason to be a jerk

Of course I see the good part of this, but sometimes things have unintended consequences.

[pasto76]

13. no, as a healthcare provider, you have a duty to act

and to practice to a standard of care. If you dont want your beliefs to be violated re: abortion, then take up another profession. Doctors, nurses, medics, emts, and even folks liek school teachers are all people in this society that should be approachable by anyone for help, without fearing that you may be rejected.

The constitution provides for freedom to practice without persecution.

[customerserviceguy]

31. Would you force

a plastic surgeon to do a boob job on a trophy wife, so that her pig husband might not leave her?

[prostock69]

37. Boob jobs are not "healthcare". n/t

[customerserviceguy]

117. They're most certainly covered under the practice of medicine

and to a woman who has lost a breast due to disease or injury, plastic surgery could well be therapeutic.

If a plastic surgeon limited her practice to only the treatment of conditions caused by disease, injury, or congenital defect, who here would force her to perform treatments on people who had simple vanity or psychologically unsound reasons for a requested bodily modification?

Does a doctor have to leave their moral/philosophical/religious beliefs at the door when serving the public?

[No Elephants]

136. And the number of plastic surgeons who have religious objections to boob jobs is?

[fascisthunter]

56. So You Think Cosmetic Surgery is the Same as an Abortion?

okeedokee

[Pavulon]

82. Generally both are elective..

I am not aware of any lack of resources that would require a doctor who generally does not perform a procedure to begin performing them now.

Abortion is outpatient and not performed in a hospital. At least it is in this area.

The only abortion you would have in a hospital here would be due to trauma or other ER related complication that require it. In that situation a doctor is not performing elective procedure and would handle it.

Having an E medicine doc performing ad hoc abortions is a bad idea anyway.

[No Elephants]

137. Depends upon how you define elective. Health of the mother is a reason for abortion.

[frylock]

58. would you force a plastic surgeon to perform a boobjob on your trophy strawman?

[customerserviceguy]

120. Strawman = "argument of yours I don't have a real response for"

Or am I missing something?

[No Elephants]

138. Strawman = a total non-issue.

[frylock]

148. and now you've learned something..

now go back and try to form a proper response to the OP.

[AlbertCat]

70. Would you force

a plastic surgeon to do a boob job on a trophy wife, so that her pig husband might not leave her?
****************


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! You're jokin', right?.....right?

"Boob Jobs" are not medicine and "her pig husband" leaving her is not a medical problem.....but may be beneficial.

What a joke!

[customerserviceguy]

119. Ok,

so if the pig husband wanted his trophy wife to abort a girl fetus, because he has some idea of the superiority of his own gender, and that came out while she's being evaluated for the procedure, you'd be OK with that, right?

And if breast enhancement surgery is not the practice of medicine, then just about anybody should have the right to do it out of their garage, do I understand you correctly?

[bluesmail]

118. First Do No Harm. No slippery slope. eom

[No Elephants]

139. You are assuming refusing an abortion does no harm. Bad assumption.

[Somawas]

122. There is no reason to be a jerk.

And for some reason it seems that jerks have abounded at DU since the first of the year. It really makes me wonder how many are poser freepers, here to attempt to make Democrats look like fascists.

[No Elephants]

140. You are correct. A lot of posts here do not come from Democrats. Gotta wonder how moronic you have

to be to spend time posing as something you aren't, on a message board, no less.

The quintessential computer in mom and dad's basement mentality. And too thick to realize that they fool no one.

[T Wolf]

10. Exactly. If you do not want to do your job as defined by your licensing board, GET ANOTHER JOB!

The slipperier slope in allowing this travesty to continue to exist is that the personal beliefs/prejudices/bigotry of the HEALTH CARE provider can then be applied to any situation.

How anyone can justify allowing medical personal to withhold care based on their personal prejudices is beyond me.

[defendandprotect]

25. Actually, this is becoming an real issue as hospitals fearing

repercussions seem to be shying away from taking in women suffering miscarriages . . .

because they may have self-induced them! We had one story like this posted at DU not

so long ago!

And they are no longer teaching how to perform abortions in the main --

PLUS there will always be instances of females actually inducing abortion and needing

medical treatment. Shall we let them die?

Religious beliefs are in large part insane --- disconnecting from them is sanity!

[Robb]

6. There are workarounds that would not sacrifice public health

...If you want to go to a doctor who is limited by his religion, he can advertise himself as such. There. Choice.

[DirtyJersey]

11. That sounds reasonable

But it doesn't sound like this bill would allow that.

[orleans]

54. and then there is the asshole who voted against testing

pregnant women for hiv

"Schultheis cast the only vote Wednesday against a bill requiring HIV testing for expectant mothers, a bill aimed at providing protection against HIV for the unborn.

"He explained his vote by saying HIV-positive babies would teach society about the evils of promiscuity.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/right_48973___article.html/hiv_vote.html

look--either we do the right thing or we don't.

[defendandprotect]

28. Pharmacies could also do that --- !!

However, hospitals are another matter -- where emergency treatment is required,

for instance in cases of rape.

In fact, pharmacies are refusing "emergency contraception"!!

Great idea!

[puebloknot]

83. Some pharmacies are refusing contraception, in general.

There are pharmacies that will allow their pharmacists to selectively decide, on a personal basis, whether to fill a prescription for the pill. So you walk in, and you get the luck of the draw and someone says, in front of others standing around, "I won't fill this prescription." Maybe there's no other pharmacist there. And the customer has to go through having anyone in earshot privy to the fact they are trying to get a prescription for birth control filled.

I think a resounding effort to boycott a pharmacy chain that caters to this religious madness might cause them to take a look at their bottom line and decide to change their policies. Maybe!

I'd think there might be some way to sue based on privacy laws. Glad to see the Adults Back in Charge are looking into this outrage.

There are certain things about modern life that the Amish don't wish to participate in. So they live quietly and with dignity, without trying to force their "horse and buggy" lifestyle on everyone else. Until we find a cure for religious mania, we need to isolate those who would do harm to others -- and causing embarrassment and inconvenience to adults trying to fill prescriptions is harmful.

[defendandprotect]

93. "Until we find a cure for religious mania . . . " -- Love it--!!!

[puebloknot]

100. A votre sante!

:toast:

[moggie]

34. And if you live in a one-horse town?

If you live in the city, you probably have a choice of doctors. If one pharmacy won't sell you contraceptives, there'll be another a few blocks away. But if you live out in the boonies, you may not have such a choice.

[Robb]

63. True enough

Having lived in a half-horse town (we shared our horse with another nearby burg), I can see that as a problem.

[T Wolf]

65. This policy, if retained, would drive up the illegimacy rate in the "boonies" to an even

higher level than now.

[puebloknot]

75. But he must openly and enthusiastically advertise himself as such ...

... rather than springing his religion on a patient in dire straits, in an emergency.

I propose a new law: Those who would attempt to force their religious beliefs on the public, under the rubric of giving medical care, must wear a scarlet R, prominently displayed! But let's not use "RN" (for Religious Nut) because it would do a grave disservice to the many nurses who do their jobs with heart, every day!

Kidding, of course. (But not kidding.)

[No Elephants]

141. What a great way to get out of the potential danger of treating AID's patients!

(In case any fool missed it, I don't think refusing to treat AID's patients is the least bit great.)

In the hospital, I got TRE, one of those infections that hospital personnel tend give people--absolutely nothing to do with STD's. That was the last time my water pitcher got filled by the woman paid to go from room to room doing just that. Every time I wanted a damn sip of water, I had to ring for the nurse, who was already way overworked. I can only begin to imagine what AID's patients have to suffer.

Taking care of people, no matter what, is the job description. If you don't want to fill it, you have no right to the job.

[Mz Pip]

8. I don't think any Dr.

will be forced to perform abortions. But it doesn't seem to be at all unreasonable for a Dr.who doesn't believe in abortion to refer a patient for counseling to a place that provides comprehensive services.

I do have a problem with pharmacists who won't dispense birth control pills or condoms, though. Seems preventing unwanted pregnancies should be a top priority for people who are opposed to abortion.

[heliarc]

105. Except that some of these wackos...

Think that birth control pills are just as bad as an abortion because they prevent the egg from implanting...

They must not know about menstruation, or miscarriage which also prevents an egg from implanting, but I digress.

[spoony]

128. Agreed.

[No Elephants]

142. Why would a doctor who truly does not believe in abortion refer a

patient for abortion info? Isn't that the ultimate in Pontius Pilate style hypocrisy?

[ladywnch]

14. the conscience rule is also a slippery slope

so what happens when transplants go against religious beliefs (I believe Christian Scientist don't believe in transplants)or transfusions (which go against somebody, I forget who)or resuscitation (could be argued that resuscitation is going against god's will). This is a VERY slippery slope - allowing religion to dictate health care. The conscience rule can also keep treatments from stem cell research being used if they object. Right now it's just abortion but it gives opening for all kinds of treatments to these folks who literally hold your life in their hands.

If they have such strong religious beliefs that would affect the care they provide then they should have to post their 'beliefs' before taking on patients and patients should have the right to have different health care worker provided upon request (at the providing facility's cost)if a providers beliefs jeopardize their care because are the 'people of conscience'. These 'people of conscience' are holding people with differing beliefs hostage - in fact imposing their religion on non believers or differing believers?

[DirtyJersey]

21. I support the idea of requring doctors to disclose such beliefs in advance

That way there are no nasty surprises for the patient, and health care doesn't need to suffer.

[defendandprotect]

46. There is still the question of hospital/emergency care . . .

should a female's life be subjected to someone else's religious beliefs?

[jmowreader]

57. Jehovah's Witnesses are anti-transfusion

My parents had friends ("had" being the operative word here) who converted to JW. They came to our home to try to recruit us to their church, and the subject of transfusions came up.

My mom: "If your child needed a transfusion or he'd die, you wouldn't allow it?"

JW: 'Oh, he wouldn't die. He'd live forever in the Holy Spirit.'

That's the point my parents threw them out of the house and told them not to come back until they renounced this false religion.

[NashVegas]

68. People Must Be Allowed the Right To Refuse Elective Operations Of All Kinds

Even - or perhaps, especially - for irrational reasons.

When we allow rationalizations and ruthless efficiency to dictate actions on every level, we will be living in a totalitarian nightmare. We're almost there, already.

[ladywnch]

132. I don't get your point. No one is forcing a patient to have any procedure

what I'm saying is the health care PROVIDER shouldn't be allowed to refuse to provide a medically proven therapy/procedure. A patient should be allowed birth control pills even if the pharmacist doesn't 'believe' in birth control. It shouldn't be the pharmacist's decision.

[Deep13]

16. Patients are free to ignore their health in favor of religion.

Should they be subjected to the religion of the doctor, nurse or pharmacist against their will? Please note that the Constitutional right to freedom of religion means that government will not inferfer with it. There is no right to commit malpractice in the name of religion after voluntarily entering a scientific profession.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. A slippery slope indeed.

Sorry, no transfusion. The ER doc is a Jehovah's Witness.

Sorry, no surgery. Doc is a Christian Scientist. He will, however, be praying for you.

[customerserviceguy]

123. Bad example

I don't know any practicing JW doctors, transfusion is a common occurence in the ER, I cannot imagine that Jehovah Witnesses would even undergo medical training that would present the question.

Same can be said about Christian Science practicioners, they go to their own schools, and do not serve in ERs of non-CS treatment facilities.

[wickerwoman]

150. Exactly. JW's have the sense not to take jobs that will cause them non-stop ethical problems.

So why become a pharmacist if you know you have a problem distributing birth control? Why become an OB-GYN if you know you could never perform an abortion?

I hate kids. If I become a kindergarten teacher can I bitch to the school district that it's against my religion to educate the young but then still expect to draw a pay check when I'm not doing my job? Should my belief that public education is for suckers and that it's better for kids to be home-schooled allow me to take a job where that belief will be constantly under fire and then bitch that it's the system that needs to change, not me?

[rebecca_herman]

153. well for starters

there are different fields in OB-GYN, not all specialize in the same thing or perform all procedures. This is the case in other medical fields as well. For example, all oncologists don't treat every type of cancer.

an OB-GYN who wouldn't perform a medically neccesary abortion (or arrange for one elsewhere if it's a very complicated procedure that should be performed by someone specializing in them) seems wrong, but going into one of the speciality fields in OB-GYN that doesn't involve performing elective abortions... I don't see the problem with that and these specialists provide essential services to those who need them. For example a doctor might chose to become an obstetrician so he can practice in the maternal-fetal medicine branch of obstetrics, which involves managing high-risk pregnancies and births. Should I be allowed to force an oncologist who has chosen to specialize in say, breast cancer, to treat my other type of cancer or he loses the right to practice medicine? For the same reason, I don't think I have the right to force a doctor who has chosen to focus their practice on another speciality in OB-GYN to give me an elective abortion.

[wickerwoman]

157. But if you're the only oncologist in five hundred miles

and refuse to treat my breast cancer because you specialized in pancreatic cancer and then refuse to refer me to a specialist in breast cancer because you believe it's a punishment from Satan because I use birth control, then yeah. I think I have a right to sue.

[Terran]

18. The slippery slope issue

There's a far bigger slippery slope in *allowing* this to continue. If we're talking in 'what ifs', what if the government were to extend this rule to allowing people to deny services based on the sexual orientation of the person seeking service. It would be easy for, say, a firefighter to refuse to fight a fire at a gay person's home because "Based on my religious views, being gay is wrong, and therefore I'm not going to enter or touch that person's home."

Personal views may enter into one's work life in many ways, but many professions simply don't have room for that. And the provision of healthcare is certainly one of them. If you're against abortion but work in a field where abortions are performed, then you need to make the personal choice of getting out of that field rather than imposing your private views on everyone else.

(I don't mean you personally by the above, I mean the general 'you'.)

[DirtyJersey]

22. This is a good point also

I think most would agree that for a life-saving event like putting out a fire, there's no excuses, but it's tougher for something like providing birth control or abortion services. It's a tough balancing act, and I don't claim to have the answer. Everyone seems more intent on jumping down my throat for raising a potential issue than discussing it. Thanks for taking the time to respond rationally.

[Terran]

92. Well hell, forget the firefighter example

and just put the person who's got a problem with gays in a healthcare setting, and it becomes exactly the same situation. Religious people can potentially come up with a reason to refuse medical treatment to almost anyone because something about that person offends the other person's sense of what's moral. Jewish? Muslim? Gambler? Overweight? Cigarette smoker? Drug user? All minefields for the delicate psyches of conservative Christians. So, I don't really see it as "tough" at all to see the essential wrongness of this proposition.

I know you're trying to see both sides, and that's good, but to me this is like a person who abhors gambling on religious grounds getting a job as a croupier in Las Vegas. And that person should expect to keep that job how long? Is this any different? There's an essential quality of selfishness in this idea that, if taken to extremes and everyone practiced it, we'd have no civilization left. No one could perform any service, paid or otherwise, for anyone with whom they disagreed about anything.

[customerserviceguy]

121. The problem with your croupier example

is that 100% of the Las Vegas croupier job is to facilitate gambling. Doctors and pharmacists spend much more of their time doing things that are not related to abortion or conception control.

This is more along the lines of forcing every market that sells meat to sell all kinds of meat. That's going to be a moral problem for the kosher or halal butcher shop down the street. I know that when I go into their shops, I'm not going to get any bacon or pork chops. Now, I think it's delusional of Jews and Muslims to find pig meat "unclean", but why would I have the right to force them to sell an animal that they are not even allowed to touch?

[Peace Patriot]

144. Because YOU have a choice...

"...but why would I have the right to force them to sell an animal that they are not even allowed to touch?"

You can go to other markets. You could also put consumer pressure on them, and, if you succeed, drive them out of business, so that a full meat market will take its place.

So, how does a woman seeking medical help for family planning know that her doctor's or other medical professional's religion is limiting their advice and her options? And, say, she gets a real doctor--not one with mental reservations and lack of objectivity--receives a prescription for birth control pills, goes to a pharmacy and can't get it filled, due to the pharmacist's bigotry? You would say, fine, she can then go to another pharmacy. But what if that one is also bigoted? How often does she have to walk, drive or take public transportation around town, just to get the goddamned prescription filled, which--I should add--is a necessity not a luxury like eating the particular meat you like?

And what about a poor woman, who has no choices? She has to go to a government medical clinic of some kind, because it is low cost. She does not have the choice to shop for doctors or pharmacists. Nor does she have the money and the time to go shopping for them.

You also make the mistake of viewing medical care as a market. That is probably the result of our corp/fascist takeover of the medical system, here in the U.S., and your acceptance of that view. The medical profession--unique among all professions--has a code of ethics--an oath--that goes all the way back to Hippocrites. For about a thousand years, in the western world, medical care was considered a "corporal work of mercy" and was provided free as a charity. This is a common view in most of the civilized world today. It is certainly a main tenet of socialism. It is only with predatory corporatization that anybody could use an analogy to a meat market, to describe a patient's medical care choices.

[kenichol]

55. Or what if I, a health-care provider, thinks gluttons are sinners

So I won't treat fat people for diabetes or heart-conditions?

[Terran]

94. Yes, same thing.

And consider how very far that analogy can be extended...

"I'm a Republican so I'm not going to serve you food because you're a Democrat!"

"I'm white and I believe that your dark skin is a sign of the taint of the Devil, so I'm not going to let you come through my grocery check-out line!"

The abortion thing is a government indulgence of religious belief, so why not indulge these other beliefs too?

[MissMarple]

95. I know of a doctor that did that. He didn't want to treat smokers or fat people.

This was in a rural area with a LOT of smokers and overweight people with horrible diets. He didn't last very long. Why he was there in the first place...I have no idea.

[Towlie]

20. Twisted view, DirtyJersy. Your "freedom" is the freedom to infringe on the freedom of others.

[DirtyJersey]

24. There's the freedom of the doctor and the freedom of the patient

Who wins? It shouldn't have to come down a situation like that, with a "winner". I'm just pointing out that we have to be careful about restricting any kind of freedom, or that can be twisted into something we don't like. I'm not sure what the solution is here; I've heard some suggest that doctors must disclose any religious beliefs that will effect their treatments, and I support that idea.

[Deep13]

35. Under current law, the patient loses.

Again, doctors voluntarily enter a scientific profession. It is unethical and immoral for a doctor, nurse or pharmacist to impose beliefs that have no basis in fact onto unwilling patients. If that professional cannot do his or her job without such beliefs interfering with it, then s/he should go become a faith healer and leave the real medicine to real professionals.

The law is nuetral on religion (non-establishment/non-interference) but reality is not. For the Federal govt. to but its nose into medical practice to this degree and to subject patients to the religious ideas of the professional is a violation of establishment. I am frankly sick of tiptoeing around bizarre, baseless and harmful ideas simply because they can be labeled religion. We would not tolerate blood-letting, septic surgery, lobotomy or any other disproven ideas in modern medicine. Why does this kind of medievalism get a pass?

[whopis01]

39. The patient should win.

When it is a matter of health and life vs. employment, health should win.

The doctor can always seek other employment. The patient is the one with the condition that needs to be treated.

[Seldona]

154. Agreed. Someone I know went in for abdominal pains,

was told she was pregnant at the same time she was told she needed her appendix out. She was also told there was a very good chance she would lose the babies, which she did, and had to have a procedure performed for that.

What if that surgeon wouldn't have treated her? This was in a small town. She could have literally died waiting for someone from out of town to arrive. That is unconscionable.

[defendandprotect]

48. No -- you are talking about religion over personal conscience . .. discrimination . . .

No religion has the right to override secular conscience --

YOU, as an individual, certainly have the right to not have an abortion, to not

use birth control. YOU do not, however, have the right to prevent another individual

from using their own personal conscience to make a different decision.

The right to "freedom of religion" is RESTRICTED . . . TO NON-INTERFERENCE WITH STATE

AFFAIRS.


There's the freedom of the doctor and the freedom of the patient
Who wins? It shouldn't have to come down a situation like that, with a "winner". I'm just pointing out that we have to be careful about restricting any kind of freedom, or that can be twisted into something we don't like. I'm not sure what the solution is here; I've heard some suggest that doctors must disclose any religious beliefs that will effect their treatments, and I support that idea.

Certainly, no one's practice of their religion is dependent upon preventing someone else from

chosing to use birth control nor emergency birth control. Anymore than it is a Christian's

right to prevent Jews from worshiping a different "god." !!!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. The practice of medicine is not a freedom - it is a responsibility. nt

[puebloknot]

85. I have a right to freedom from having to hear that a doctor has certain ...

...religious beliefs that might affect the way he/she treats me. "First, do no harm" includes not withholding any treatment needed to protect the health of a patient.

What if in a busy emergency room there are only two doctors? One won't administer a blood transfusion for personal religious reasons; the other is busy with other patients. Somewhere along the way, there is going to be a murder charge against a doctor who let's someone die over personal religious choices.

"...we have to be careful about restricting any kind of freedom ..." We have our freedoms restricted every moment of our lives. We can't drive the wrong way on the freeway because it would harm not only ourselves, but others, as well.

We've had eight years of religious types screaming their rights are being denied because they can't be as "in your face" as they want to be in the public square. Certain kinds of religious practitioners ply their trade privately, in their own offices or through healing centers. In those instances, it's known in advance what their offerings are. In a hospital or pharmacy, no right exists -- until very recently and under bogus "law" -- for a medical practitioner to refuse services, based on personal sensitivities. If they can't stand the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen.

[noiretextatique]

112. the patient should win

the so-called freedom the horrible rule created for health care professionals just confuses what is a very simple principle. if your religious view prevent you from acting in the best interest of your patients, aka, doing your job, then you are in the wrong profession.
patients should not be burdened with the "beliefs" of health care professionals.

[Zhade]

162. The patient. Can't do the job? Get another one.

NT!

[defendandprotect]

23. There is no Constitutional right to override someone else's conscience . . .

especially in health issues --

These people aren't only anti-abortion they are anti-birth control --

and anti-emergency birth control--!!

This is not a "slippery slope," but simply another religious issue which says

"my book is better than your book" -- or my religious beliefs are of a higher

value than your beliefs.

Health and medical issues are not subject to religious beliefs --

they are subject to secular trust.

Nor does "freedom of religion" depend upon exerting your religious conscience

over someone else's personal conscience!

Finally, I see no basis for your second point . . .

This is also a Separatation of Church & State issue --

Working in the health care industry is a choice -- not something like being called

to enlist in the military where we would expect a "conscience" issue to arise and where,

in fact, in that regard it is becoming more and more difficult to assert conscience over

military.

If these religious fanatics don't want to administer to the health needs of all, they

should seek other employment.

[LanternWaste]

27. Just so you know...

Just so you know, "slippery slope" arguments are a logical fallacy.

[Towlie]

124. Not necessarily! A slippery slope argument CAN be a fallacy under certain conditions.

If no justification is given in the argument that one thing can be expected to lead to another, then the argument is a slippery slope fallacy because of that, but legitimate slippery slope arguments do exist. It's not true that a slippery slope argument is always a fallacy.

For example, we can legitimately argue that relatively minor violations of our Bill of Rights that go unchallenged can lead to more bold violations in the future. We know that's true because we've just seen eight years of it.

[LanternWaste]

129. Edit-- waste of time.

Edit-- waste of time. Look up the word "implicit", and apply that contextually.

[customerserviceguy]

30. I certainly see your point

what if Charlie Rangel gets the draft back, will they do away with consciencious objector status?

Also, there is a difference between standing behind a counter dispensing a pill, and actively performing an abortion, will the law recognize that?

Or are we prepared to see doctors quit their practices, and religious-affilliated hospitals close their doors?

[DirtyJersey]

38. This is all I'm trying to get across

Thank you for understanding. I don't necessarily oppose this change in policy, but I worry about some of its potential future ramifications. The conscientious objector is a good analogy, though, as others have pointed out, nobody is forced to become a doctor or pharmacist. I just wish people would stop pretending it's such a simple issue, and dismissing anyone who is pro-life as being stuck in medieval times.

[defendandprotect]

50. No, "conscientious objector" is not the same --- military is not entirely voluntary . . .

the health care industry is voluntary --

If you want to serve consumers, you must do it without discrimination.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. "Pro-life" is a lie.

The correct term is 'anti-choice'.

I am pro-life. I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty, and believe that war and abortion should both be a matter of 'no other choice'. But when the choice must be made, I would choose the living woman over a fetus any day. She, too, has a life.

[DirtyJersey]

73. As adopted by the Republicans, it is

But there's a lot of people who are sincerely pro-life and truly believe that abortion is murder. I don't agree with that, and I think that every woman has a right to control her own body, but I know enough good people that believe it's a human life, and they're not all right-wing wackos.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

76. Yeah. There's a lot of people.

:eyes:

[DirtyJersey]

77. Why does everyone have to be such an asshole?

Seriously...I've made it clear that I'm pro-choice, and I've never even stated I was opposed to this policy. I have a legitimate concern here. Some people have made some good points in response, but a lot of people just seem hell-bent on insulting me. As you can see, I've been a member here for a few years, but rarely post. That's because every time I come out of my shell to do something other than just join the chorus, I end up with my feelings hurt. Thanks for providing a real sense of community...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. ...

[IdaBriggs]

111. Because you are spouting the opinions of 'the other side" on a

board that promotes reproductive choice. You provided a 'slippery slope' analogy straight out of the Family Fundie textbook.

It is hard to take you seriously as a 'pro-choicer' when you use the wrong words -- 'pro-life' meaning 'anti-abortion'.

I am not trying to be mean to you. I am letting you know that 'good people can disagree' doesn't cut it when public humiliation/denial of service is involved in medical decision making.

You can be as pro-choice as you want; I think the best answer is a simple one: if your license depends on a medical board, then you had better be prepared to provide the services your board says you provide. If you choose not to, then get out of the field.

For example, if you are a gyno, then you'd better know how to perform a D&C level 'abortion' and do it well. I say this as a woman who experienced a miscarriage that needed to be scraped before it killed me with infection (which some ignorant assholes would have very easily confused with an abortion). Thank heavens my medical provider was trained and skilled in a necessary medical procedure, and I didn't have to play games with 'saving your life is against my religion' or run all over town trying to find someone who wasn't afraid to save my life. I also didn't have any scarring or other problems (I had two other miscarriages later, but fortunately (!) they weren't as bad as the first one), and was able to have my beautiful twins without any problems from my earlier tragedy. (Disclaimed: I did have problems with my pregnancy, but not related to my D&C.)

Ignorance and religion in medicine can kill. Its why we make our health care folks jump through hoops to prove they are competent. If you get religion afterwards, that's fine, but you'll need to find another line of work.

These are non-negotiable points. Patients can make their own decisions; health care professionals provide information to assist in that process and support once the decisions are made. End discussion.

[DirtyJersey]

125. I'm not interested in joining an echo chamber

It accomplishes nothing. Thread that just have 50 people kicking and recommending are totally useless. I'm raising points for discussion; I'm on the fence. Some people have made the effort to explain why those points either don't matter or are less important than another concern, but others have just been mocking. I don't see how my argument is at all out of the fundie textbook, when the very thing I'm concerned about is the fundies taking power again someday and using this as a precedent to say that health concerns trump all other rights, and then declaring homosexuality a "health risk". Maybe that's crazy of me, but they are master of twisting things completely around, and they're not going away. A frightening number of people are fanatically devoted to their religious beliefs, and if we trample on their rights, what stops them from trampling on ours? That's a discussion that goes well beyond this issue.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

149. Tough shit. Can't stand the heat, get ou of the kitchen. -nt

[Psephos]

155. Moo moo n/t

[Psephos]

156. There are more supporters of civil, non-herd-driven discussions here than you might think

Glad to hear you defending independent thinking. We need more of that around here. The amount of lockstep thinking on some threads can be astonishing - ditto for the nastiness that these intolerant "progressives" rain down on strays from the herd.
:yourock:


Meanwhile, consider this delicious irony: the enforcers and sermonists here display identical behavior to the other religious true believers of the world when dealing with an apostate. Which gives you a good idea about the source of those behaviors.

:eyes:

[spoony]

126. Because there are an inordinate amount of assholes here.

[awoke_in_2003]

147. And if they are sincerely pro-life...

than THEY shouldn't have abortions, not dictate what others can and cannot do. Bet these "good people" support the death penalty.

[puebloknot]

97. And who decides there is no other choice? nt

[puebloknot]

96. Being "pro-life" on a personal basis is anyone's right. Trying to force ...

...personal beliefs on others is not. And while perhaps not "medieval," it is pre-Constitution. Despite much protest to the contrary, we are a secular state, and the attempts in recent times to insert religion (read that "Christianity") into the private affairs of men is anathema to the principles on which this nation was founded.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion. If you're willing to die rather than have a blood transfusion, go your way and sin no more. If you believe using marijuana for medical reasons is a sin, don't use medical marijuana. Just don't try to force those choices on anyone else. (The general "you" here.)

A fundamental problem in all this is that the fundamentalist Christians who have held sway in this country over the last eight years are brain-washed from their first breath that they have a duty to proselytize for "The Lord." They are not content to simply practice their own beliefs in quiet solitude. They have a mission to try to remake the world in their own image, and they are willing to embrace draconian means to do it. The late, great Constitution of the United States of America has served well to protect us from religious fanaticism for a long time now. Obama seems to intend to bring it back!

Alexandra Pelosi's new film on this general subject is informative.

[noiretextatique]

113. they are in the business of providing healthcare

if they need their religious beliefs affirmed constantly, they can also visit the chapel.

[awoke_in_2003]

146. I am willing to see doctors...

who VOLUNTARILY entered a scientific field, then let their religious beliefs dictate their actions, quit their practices. I am not slamming religious beliefs, but they have no place in a scientific field.

on edit: religiously established hospitals are located in large towns, where other facilities can be obtained.

[shraby]

33. When people study medicine, they do it because they

want to..it's not an easy subject to master. They then take an oath to the medical profession. If they feel their religion takes top billing to their chosen profession, then they have no business being in the field of medicine.
There are no restrictions on their choice or practice of religion, but there damn well should be a separation between their medical practice and religion.
If there isn't, what's to stop them from performing an exorcism to rid us of our disease? Bush is nuts to think the whole concept of not treating because of religious beliefs should be legal.

[defendandprotect]

51. "If there isn't, what's to stop them from performing an exorcism to rid us of our disease?"

Yes, we're lucky Gov. Jendl -- can't remember how to spell it -- didn't become

a doctor!!! Understand he and friends performed exorcism on his girlfriend who

was having convulsions!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Fer real?

Instead of dialing 911 and getting her to a fucking hospital?

He was setting himself up for a charge of negligent homicide.

[defendandprotect]

67. That's what Coomsby on AAR said yesterday . . .

I don't listen to radio much in the car anymore cause the static is terrible --

and AAR doesn't have much to offer without Randi Rhodes.

But, I do hear a bit of Coombsy every now and then. IMO, he was much more right-wing

at one time but decidedly more liberal now. ????

Anyway he was talkin' about the Gov Jendl/? and that he was a Muslim but converted to

Catholicism at Brown U -- and think he got in with Opus Dei folks.

Supposedly he had a girlfriend with convulsions and he called in friends to perform an

exorcism. Don't know what happened from there but agree with you!

Someone probably has more info on this story -- and I suspect there are others!

How in the hell did he get elected in Lousiana???

Oh, yeah, they drowned all the Democrats!!!

[Gormy Cuss]

36. How does freedom of religion matter at all here?

Nothing about this change forces the health care providers to change their beliefs. If they can't put the patient's rights first then maybe they should change professions.

The slippery slope was the Bush action to allow this because it put the paid health care provider's beliefs ahead of the patient's beliefs even when that may have put the patient at increased risk because a legal medical option was not presented.

[defendandprotect]

52. True . . . Bush did everything he could to make religion primary in state affairs!!!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. This policy was just put in place by Bush

As the article says, several states are testing the constitutionality of the policy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Hey, nobody's restricting anybody's freedom of choice -

They are free to do their job, or find another job. Their decision. Nobody will be forced to perform abortions, or forced to give contraception advice, or forced to fill prescriptions.

They can always quit.

[renate]

60. I can understand allowing doctors to refuse to do abortions

Hospitals have ethics boards because whether or not to give treatment, or what kind of treatment to give, is innately not a black-and-white kind of thing. Performing an abortion is taking an active role in administering a treatment that a doctor may genuinely feel is wrong. Some doctors truly feel, not out of goose-step blind obedience to a church or political party but in their hearts, that abortion is wrong. Others may feel that forcing their Terry-Schiavo-type patients to remain on life support is wrong. People may disagree with each other, but these are valid topics for debate. Hence, ethics boards.

I also don't think that nurses etc should be forced to be present during abortions. Some people genuinely believe that abortion is murder, so that's like asking them to stand by at a murder. (For the record, I definitely disagree with that position, but I realize that these views are deeply and sincerely held by some people.)

I don't think pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to dispense anything that a physician has prescribed, though. That's absolutely wrong. The pharmacist is there solely to make sure the the physician's instructions are followed safely and accurately, and then to dispense a medication that a doctor feels is best for the patient--refusing to give that medication is inserting himself or herself directly into the patient's medical treatment, and a pharmacist doesn't have a license to practice medicine.

[DirtyJersey]

74. This sounds pretty much identical to my position (n/t)

[puebloknot]

98. "...license to practice medicine ..." Good point which goes to the heart of the matter! nt

[noiretextatique]

114. a woman needs an emergency abortion

and the only person available to do the abortion is morally opposed, blah, blah, blah. the fetus is not viable, and if the women doesn't have an abortion, she will die. let's say no one else is available to perform the procedure. so...according to your view, the physician could let the woman die so as not to offend his delicate sense of morality. that would be really moral.

[AlbertCat]

66. If freedom can be ignored in the name of health,

Oh fer Christ sake!

If you are so against birth control you could not dispense it to someone who wanted or needed it, then you shouldn't be in a field where that might happen. Y'know, if you are against abortions, then don't become a doctor who performs them. If you are Amish, don't get a job as a bus driver. If you are a devout Hindu, don't get a job at Texas Steak House.

Do your job or get another if you cannot. No one is "forcing" these people to do something illegal. If you don't want to do your job, you are free to get another.

The ruling is asinine.

[SemperEadem]

69. rights...

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right.

Practicing medicine without a license (interfering in the doctor/patient relationship and privacy) and forcing your religious views onto someone you don't know isn't.

[slay]

86. You're kidding right?

Letting a doctor or health practitioner's religious BELIEFS, which are just that - beliefs, interfere with a woman getting actual real medical treatment? Hello? Reality check? What if a doctor thinks gay people are abominations that should die and refuse any and all treatment for anything to gay people? Is that OK?

There is nobody saying that health practitioners can't practice their beliefs on their own time - but when they are in a job serving the public, then that's what they need to do - serve the public, and NOT impose THEIR religious beliefs on the rest of US. Good grief. You make me sad to be Democrat with your kind of thinking. :(

[nodehopper]

104. people totally have the constitutional right

to not take jobs where their morals are being compromised. Denying someone medical care or refusing to dispense prescribed medication is infringing on THEIR rights with your religion in a professional setting. Unacceptable!

[uppityperson]

107. "What other personal or moral views might people be forced to abandoned?"???....

How about if a doctor is morally opposed to treating people with dark skin? Should he get a pass? How about not treating someone obese since "morally" they feel they are simply aiding someone to be unhealthy?

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right, yes. But what right has a health care provider to force their religion on me? If you cannot do the job you were hired for, you should not be employed there any more. What precedent/slippery slope do you mean? Like teachers having to teach evolution in public schools rather than creationism?

"If freedom can be ignored in the name of health, then what happens if the fundies get back in power and declare abortion a health threat?" This makes no sense to me. "if freedom can be ignored in the name of health" makes no sense. If a pharmacist is religiously opposed to providing contraceptives, and a customer is religiously fine with it, whose freedom is at risk there?

And fundies have declared abortion a health threat, no "IF" about it. That is the reason for having this "conscience" thing there in the first place.

I sincerely doubt that any health care provider will be forced to do everything. My GP won't be forced to do open heart surgery. My neurologist won't be forced to do abortions.

"Thirdly, if we want pro-lifers to respect the idea of choice, that needs to be a two-way street. This is the kind of thing that gives them ammo in calling us "pro-abortion"." Are you seriously saying that we must respect anti-choice people's forcing anti-choice laws on us to have them respect pro-choice laws? If we simply allow them to pass laws outlawing abortions, and contraceptives, then they will not call us "pro-abortion" and this is....good?

[cui bono]

143. If someone's personal morals prevent them from fulfilling

their professional obligations without infringing upon the rights of others then they shouldn't be in that profession. In fact, their morals should keep them from choosing it in the first place.

But the religious fanatics purposely choose certain professions such as pharmacist precisely so that they can deny people what they deem to be immoral, so that they can impose their beliefs on others. It's their way of trying to get rid of birth control, abortions, you name it.

They are not moral people, they are simply ideologues. Selfish ones at that.

[Zhade]

152. Freedom FROM religion is ALSO a Constitutional right.

NT!

[EstimatedProphet]

158. No, that's bullshit

There is no reason why this should be construed as an attack on freedom of religion, unless it is your religion that you should be able to force people to do what you want them to.

[pleah]

7. I would like to read one of these stories that actually said "will" not "may".

May just doesn't mean much. imo

[liberalsince1968]

116. Same here. There should be no QUESTION about this horrible rule being rescinded.

I can't believe how chickenshit the Obama administration is being about this.

[hamsterjill]

12. Very glad this is being addressed!

n/t

[Deep13]

15. I have irrational beliefs and my patients should suffer for them.

Well, I know not everyone here thinks religious convictions are irrational, though that is how I see it. Still, it is fundamentally unethical for a doctor, nurse or pharmacist to make his or her patient bear the burden of the medical professional's subjective beliefs. And of course it adds value to the irrational by subtracting value from real need.

[defendandprotect]

19. If Obama needs encouragement, let's be sure to give it to him--!!!

Time to lift this insanity -- !!!

Good to see the possibility of it happening . . .!!!

"Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, as well as two family planning groups, have filed suits challenging the Bush rule, arguing it sacrifices the health of patients to religious beliefs of medical providers.

For more than 30 years, federal law has allowed doctors and nurses to decline to provide abortion services as a matter of conscience, a protection that is not subject to rulemaking.

In promulgating the new rule last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said it was necessary to address discrimination in the medical field.

He criticized "an environment in the health-care field that is intolerant of individual conscience, certain religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions and moral convictions.""

[LynneSin]

26. If they can deny abortions what else could they deny over 'moral beliefs'

that's a very very tricky path to open and one that personally I believe that doctors should not be given. I mean first it's something abortion and then what doctors deciding on who to save medically based on who has 'better values'

[Deep13]

29. All medicine is arguably an interference with god's control over life.

I am glad that most believers do not follow that logic to its extreme implication, but some do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. Ever wonder why there are so many unethical doctors out there?

I think this contributes to it. The ruling, as it currently stands, allows medical practitioners to take an easy way out, and not face their own moral center. If you feel so strongly about certain medical practices that you can't perform them, then find another profession. Or another field. A podiatrist or dermatologist can still help people while never performing abortions. A cardiac surgeon can save lives though his entire career and never dispense the morning after pill.

It is only the religious nuts who claim their choices are being restricted, when the intent is to restrict the choices of women. If someone loves babies so much, let them go into pediatric medicine instead of obstetrics.

They are themselves setting up a false choice.

[HockeyMom]

109. Mood stabiilizers

Pharmacists have also refused to dispense these too based on their religious beliefs. PRAY when you get that urge to kill yourself or somebody else.

[The Unknown Derelict]

32. About time...

This policy made as much sense as an Amish person working at a computer support center. :rofl:

And I don't mean any disrespect to the Amish. I'm just pointing out the insanity of this policy that shouldn't have been put in place to begin with.

[scytherius]

40. Awesome. If something bothers your conscience . . . get another job.

This is a RIDICULOUS rule to let people "opt out". Suppose you don't like blacks, can you opt out treating them in the ER? Suppose it's a Satan worshiper. I remain ASTOUNDED that this idiocy is a rule anywhere. If you decide you want to do something for a living, that is what you do. If it creates personal problems, live with them or quit. This Nation is just fucking nuts sometimes.

[krabigirl]

41. Good!! Those people are insane. Choose another damn job if you don't like it! HAHAHA

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. If you are in the health care field

your priority should be to your patients. If you want to abide by religious beliefs, become a minister.

[williesgirl]

44. Great news. You need to read the comments on this article on Wash Post. The wingnuts

are out in force as one would expect. If you have time, leave a positive comment since it's obvious that the freepers are sending their own to the site to inundate public response. rec'd

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Excellent! If they can't do their whole job they can get a different job

and step aside for someone who WILL do what the job requires.

I only have two choices in my job - do what I'm supposed to do, or get another job. If I can live with that, so can they.

[kleec]

49. 'Conscience' rule

If I go to a doctor it's for a medical reason and definitely not for religious counseling! These are entirely separate issues and should be treated as such. If a medical person has a problem with that, then get the hell out of the profession or set up practice in a church!

[starroute]

64. It's no different than science teachers and evolution

If you want to believe in creationism, fine. But don't become a high school science teacher unless you're willing to put your beliefs aside and teach evolution in the classroom.

There are certain things that are part of public policy. We as a society have decided that birth control and abortions should be legal and available. We as a society have decided that a knowledge of evolutionary theory is an essential part of scientific literacy. And anybody who is either hired by (in the case of teachers) or licensed by (in the case of medical providers) the government has an obligation to adhere to those decisions.

Granted, the ways in which these "as a society" decisions are made are fuzzy and implicit -- and especially at the present moment, when there are serious cultural divisions in the nation, some of them can become controversial. But formally endorsing those divisions in law doesn't seem to work either -- as just one example, it can lead to the sort of jurisdiction-shopping that we've seen in pornography prosecutions brought under "community standards" statutes.

I really don't see any easy answer to this -- and it will only get worse as national populations continue to become less homogeneous. We've already seen disputes over whether fundamentalist Muslim women should be allowed to have driver's license photos taken fully veiled -- or for that matter, whether they can drive veiled even if that constitutes a safety hazard.

I'd tend to apply the libertarian standard of "your rights end where they impinge on my rights." I think that would lead to rulings that the rights of women to get full information on abortion or of schoolchildren to get the latest scientific information take precedence, as do the right of drivers to know that other drivers do not have their ability to see and hear artificially impeded. But it's a tricky situation and one that probably will demand more explicit formulations in the future than it's previously gotten.

[rasputin1952]

71. Medical Professionals have no legal bounds to express their

moral views upon anyone else in a professional manner.

They have every right to discuss in open forums what they consider their moral values, that is an inherent right embedded in the First Amendment.

I have spent many years in the medical field, I respect patients and their families. It is part and parcel of the profession. If asked specific questions by a patient, it is the responsibility of the medical professional to give the best medical advice practicable...or to refer a patient to a specialist or defer to a second/third opinion. For a Pharmacist to make a "moral" decision based on little more than what they believe is "moral", is essentially a criminal act. If i have extreme pain from a surgery, and I take a Rx for percocet to a pharmacy, do they have the "right" to deny me the pain med because I "might" become addicted?

Pharmacists who refuse to fill Rx's for legitimate reasons should lose their licenses. Their "morality" does not trump their responsibility to fill a prescription.

[Pavulon]

78. Wife is in medical field

her specialty does not come in to play in this issue. However a doctor can refuse to write you percocet if they think you are drug seeking. You have no recourse with that doctor if they do.

They can refuse to preform a procedure if they wish. That choice may have impact on a patient or their career but a surgeon can not be compelled to operate on you. Lots of factors influence that call. Morality is not the issue. Professional judgement is.

Now an OB may have a more difficult time justifying a position like this but they could refuse to learn the procedure or work in a hospital that requires all OBs to perform it.

[rasputin1952]

90. My point was after a painful surgery, not just because I stubbed

my toe.

The Limbaugh "Dr Shopping" was essentially a joke, simply because he was purchasing thousands of oxycontins with cigar boxes of cash...that is trafficking, and he should be in the FL Penal System.

As with all things, there are many aspects to be looked at, and in the medical field, for various reasons one must use caution. But when I fell off the roof, fractured my wrist which was the size of a softball and turned up at the Er, after the cursory radiological procedures, and the ER doc came in 2 hrs later and told me "frozen peas were my best friend for this injury", let's just say it got VERY ugly. I demanded another doc, who came in, took one look at the X-Rays, and I got some morphine IV virtually immediately. With the pain minimized, we could talk. He hooked me up w/an excellent ortho doc and things are fine. It does not take a Medical Degree to realize that there are serious problems that are pretty damn obvious.

I was a Medical Platoon SGT in the Army. Standing orders, Airway, Bleeding, Pain. Only when contraindicated, ie a headwound, would morphine or another opioid be denied. No one EVER became addicted to a single dose of morphine when indicated. When pain is alleviated, you can move the patient, you can deal with them on a level that is far more amiable and things go better.

Sure, there are people out there that will do things that are not good for their health...that is the judgment call...but far too may MD's are, quite literally "assholes"...and I guarantee, they would self medicate themselves if they felt excruciating pain. The last thing one would try is a "bag of frozen peas" on a broken nose....:hi:

[Pavulon]

99. I agree on the meds

I believe a woman should be able to get an abortion performed by a competent professional. I am not aware of a shourtage of professionals in my area.

I have met many asshole doctors. A few drinks makes many worse. Still they are just people. Some have had real problems with the FDA and are gun shy with scheduled drugs.

My point was that I think it is unwise to compel a doctor to perform any elective procedure. Obviously in a ER case the procedure would be performed, the person doing that procedure would not consider it elective anyway. Most doctors I have met are not fundy types.

Certainly not calling you out on meds.

[rasputin1952]

103. Thanks for thr response...

I've worked w/many fine MD's, easily 80-85% are pretty darn good.

I have osteo-arthritis in C3-4 and L4-5. Vioxx was a wonder med for me. Celebrex and others just don't do it....although abiut 1000 mg of ibuprofen helps, but for that kind of dosage, I get a little worried about my stomach as well as some liver/hematological problems w/that kind of dosage, so I use it only when I'm in some serious situations.

There must have been something in the pharmacological properties that made Vioxx work so well for me.

Oh well...life goes on...:hi:

[joeglow3]

72. Will we take this option away from our soldiers?

How about citizens if a draft is implemented? After all, a soldiers job is to go and kill where our leaders tell them to.

This IS a slippery slope and I can't get behind it, as the unintended consequences will be huge.

[Captain Hilts]

80. Soldiers void their right to privacy, freedom of speech, etc. when they sign up. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. And, as has always been the case, a soldier can refuse and take the

consequences.

That is a very soggy strawman. No doctor will be forced to do abortions - he will always have to choice of quitting the job.

The problem is moral cowards who want to take a moral stand but not accept any consequences for that stand.

There is NO slippery slope. Just people who don't want to meet their job requirements.

[Pavulon]

87. Lets look at the Triangle

my wife practices medicine here. There are 4 major hospitals, 2 are world class.

WakeMed and Duke do not need to be in the abortion business. There are at least three outpatient clinics in the area that perform elective abortion. They can provide a service for much less hassle and cost than a hospital.

If you come into the ER and require an abortion due to complications of trauma, you get one.

OB's at these hospitals (at duke at least) do not perform elective abortion. Most probably would, but it is a simple outpatient procedure. It does not require a hospital OR to perform.

IF you choose to do that it would costs tens of thousands of dollars to use an OR or outpatient facility to do that procedure.

It is all moot. It is like requiring a reconstructive surgeon to fix ingrown toenails. Sure he can, but you will not pay his price.

[Mad_Dem_X]

81. Yes! Please do this, Mr. President!

I hope this happens!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. YAY!!!!!!!!! We

the "conscience rule" sacrifices the health of patients to the religious beliefs of medical providers.
It sacrifices the health of patients to the religious beliefs of medical providers.
It sacrifices the health of patients to the religious beliefs of medical providers.
It sacrifices the health of patients to the religious beliefs of medical providers.


thank "god", leadership that understands, MYTHOLOGY HAS NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT, and
LIVING WOMEN TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER A POTENTIAL PERSON.

KandR

[pink-o]

89. Bottom Line: keep your "conscience" outta your profession!

Or if it reeeeeelly offends your sensibilities, GET ANOTHER FUCKING JOB!!!!

Seriesly, nothing gets up my nose more than these fake moralizers who just need a fainting couch when in their professional capacity they encounter someone who goes against their poor little "conscience".

Case in point: I am a vegetarian, and in the perfect Pink-O world no one would take a sentient life and serve it up for dinner. But boo fucking hoo, not everyone thinks the same way as I do, and humans are omnivores, so I'm not the boss of anyone's morals. I was taught in a democracy that all viewpoints are valid when they're fucking LEGAL!!! So in my job with the airlines, I check in rifles for hunters who're going after deer and moose, and I have never once refused to do it! If I did, I'd be posting this from the unemployment line--which is also telling that these fundie idiots have bosses who support their craziness. Anyway, it would never occur to me to bring my beliefs into my workplace, that's completely unprofessional.

Of course, my beliefs are crazy commie left-wing destroying-American-Values type. Fundies who are against abortion, birth control and the vaccination for cervical cancer are just looking after everyone else's morality. :sarcasm:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. Did I mention that I love Obama? nt

[marshall]

101. At the very least they should give them a pamphlet or a phone number or website

This doesn't seem to be about forcing somebody to actually perform an abortion or even assist in one. It's just about making information to someone in need. They don't have to go into a lot of detail. Can't they just tell them that one legal option is abortion and if they want to talk to someone about it they can provide them with information on how to contact that person, or they can call the person in and let them talk.

[Politicub]

102. President Obama is amazing

He's nearly too good to be true, but he is very real. Every day it seems I read or hear about another great thing he or his administration is doing.

:fistbump:

[uppityperson]

106. If you are an employee, you need to do the work, or quit.

If you can't do the work you were hired for, you need not be working there.

[CountAllVotes]

108. ah YES WE CAN!!!

good job Mr. President! We the People are keeping a close eye on you!

:thumbsup: :D :D :D :party:

Ladies out there: We just got some of our rights as a human beings restored today. Congratulations! :toast:

:dem: :kick:

[HockeyMom]

110. Are these pharmacists going to second guess doctors?

What about women and girls who are also taking BC pills for painful and irregular periods? I took them when I was 11 and my daughter did at 14 for these reasons. Or maybe they just think that an 11 year old is having illicit sex with an adult and killing their babies to cover it all up? Or maybe again, they should just PRAY the pain and bleeding with all stop?

I really, really HATE these people.

[robinlynne]

115. right on. If you don't want to provide healthcare, take a different job. It is that simple.

[spoony]

127. It is unreasonable to demand anyone who has an objection

to abortion to perform an abortion. Let those who don't object peform them. Why trample on rights of conscience?

Think about the politicians in our party who are pro-choice in the legal sense but who are personally opposed to abortion. Does it mean they can't be Democrats? And if a doctor is opposed to abortion but does not interfere in someone's right to have one, does it mean they can't be doctors if they won't PERSONALLY peform the procedure? I'm really put off by the people in this thread who are saying yes, that they should quit and serve fries or whatever. Require them to give a referal or not try to persuade patients out of an abortion, fine, but not this.

[humblebum]

130. The hospital where I work already has stated that it will no longer

perform any surgeries if this passes, and they may close altogether. My guess the latter will happen.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

134. My guess is that it is fearmongering by those who haven't actually read the legislation or have no

idea what the rules in effect currently are.

The Catholic Church tried to coerce its members into signing postcards using the same fearmongering strategy recently.

[EFerrari]

135. The power imbalance between a doctor and a pregnant woman is huge already.

Bush's rule only makes it worse.

No one is going to be forced to perform abortions against their will, things will simply to back to the way they were before. That's only what the right wing will say and it's silly on its face.

[rebecca_herman]

131. in my opinion

Hospitals or other employers in the health care field should be allowed to set job requirements. If they insist their employees provide abortions, or any other medical procedure, that's fine.

However I don't think a doctor in a private practice should be required to perform a procedure they don't wish to perform as long as they will give a referral to a doctor who will perform the procedure. This happens all the time with procedures other than abortions. Some OB-GYNs decide not to deliver babies, or only to handle low-risk pregnancies. Some doctors in other specialities decide not to do surgery, and if their patient requires surgery, they are referred to a doctor who will perform it. I had a gynocologist that decided not to perform pregnancy-related care or deliver babies - if her patients became pregnant, they were referred elsewhere. My mother had a doctor she loved who chose to no longer perform surgery due to his age but she continued to see him for checkups until her condition was resolved - if she had needed additional surgery, she would have been sent to a different doctor. Not all cardiologists perform heart transplants. Not all eye doctors do laser eye surgery. And so on. I don't feel being an OB-GYN requires a doctor to do any particular treatment, unless they work for someone else and that is a job condition.

[BrklynLiberal]

133. Can't happen soon enough!!!

[AllieB]

145. Rachel Maddow had a good analogy for these folks using 'religious beliefs'

as an excuse not to perform their jobs. It would be like an Amish guy applying for a job as a bus driver. In other words, he wouldn't be hired because it's against his religion to drive. These healthcare workers shouldn't get the job if their religious beliefs interfere with the performance of their duties.

[ReliantJ]

151. There are many doctors willing to perform the

abortion. No need to force someone to do it.

[MattBaggins]

161. Oh really?

Could you do us a favor and give us an idea of how many abortion providers are available in say Kansas and Utah? If a woman needs an emergency abortion to save her life where will she get it?

I do try to avoid directly insulting folks but, you sir or ma'am are an idiot if you think there isn't a life threatening lack of emergency services for women's health.

[rebecca_herman]

163. do you a difference between

emergency and elective procedures?

I think very few people want doctors declining to perform emergency procedures and keeping their licenses. I absolutely think a doctor who refuses to provided emergency care should get in trouble and lose their license.

I do have a different opinion on elective procedures. I'm very uncomfortable with punishing a doctor who has chosen to make certain elective procedures not part of their private practice. I think doctors should have a choice which elective procedures they will perform, as long as they are upfront with patients about this. These decisions are made for all sorts of reasons, not all related to morality - some doctors don't have the equipment or facilities neccessary for a particular procedure, avoid a certain speciality because of high malpractice rates if something goes wrong, or other reasons. Some just felt pulled into medicine for other reasons and feel that this particular field is not their calling in life. Would you be angry at a doctor who only did plastic surgery for accident victims and refused to do elective plastic surgery? If you would not be angry, than why would you be angry about a doctor who performs medically neccessary abortions, but not elective ones?

I know of many doctors in OB-GYN who do not perform elective abortions but provide wonderful care in the various OB-GYN specialties. I'd be pretty angry if I was a woman with a high-risk pregnancy I was desperate to save, and the best doctor for managing high-risk pregnancies and giving me a chance at a living healthy baby was kicked out of the medical field because he wouldn't do elective abortions. Losing highly skilled doctors hurts people too you know. There are doctors who are never going to be convinced to perform an elective abortion. Let them help the people who need their speciality skills, leave elective procedures to the doctors who CHOOSE to perform them. If I ever want an elective abortion, I will find a doctor who WANTS to help me, not get a doctor who helped patients in other ways kicked out which only hurts the patients who needed that doctor's services.

[crimsonblue]

159. Philosophy has no place in the exam room.

I want my doctor to be blunt, honest, and thorough. A doctor that misses diagnoses, prevents care from taking place, or refuses to practice medicine because of a philosophical belief is abhorrent. Doctors are scientists, and must act according to the precepts of science, especially the hypocratic oath. The rights of the patient are always greater than the needs or desires of the doctor. My dad has seen many doctors in his practice that are religious fundies, who deny the theory of evolution, refuse to prescribe contraceptives, and admonish patients for their diseases, telling them "maybe you haven't prayed enough." This BULLSHIT needs to end, now.

[truebrit71]

160. About fucking time too...

Enough with this religious shit in the workplace...