In Illinois, Doctors Refusing to Treat Women Who've Had Abortions

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/17/reproductive-health-roadtrip-bringing-back-home


-snip-

I want to focus, however, on one particularly disturbing obstacle that was mentioned in city after city: doctors refusing to care for women who have had abortions. Mind you, these are not doctors refusing to perform abortions. What we heard, in three separate communities, was that there are doctors who refuse to perform routine post-abortion check-ups or even to provide care for completely unrelated ailments to women who previously had abortions. What’s worse, in two instances we heard that these doctors were some of the few who were accepting Medicaid patients at all – meaning that poor women would have to face greater obstacles to receive needed medical care. In one instance, we heard of a doctor throwing a patient’s medical records on the ground and storming out after he learned she had had an abortion.

-snip-
----------------------------------


these men are not Doctors, they are religiously insane doctors who need psychiatric counseling.

women should never go to them. religiously insane men are misogynists too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is about treating women who have ALREADY HAD abortions. Try reading.

And enjoy your VERY SHORT stay on DU.

The hypocratic oath says do no harm, to refuse to treat a patient like that is potentially doing harm and a grevious violation of the oath. Furthermore you really need to wrap your brain around the fact that being a doctor is not the same thing as being a store owner. To compare the two is ludicrous and frankly dumb.

(be good enough to indicate, with proper links, which medical schools still use the ancient version)

Modern Version

A widely used modern version of the traditional oath was penned in 1964 by Dr. Louis Lasagna, former Principal of the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences and Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University:<8>
“ I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

it no longer is Hypocrats then is it? The new version means they just don't want to live up to the standards so they changed it to meet their lower standards. Anyone accepting this is a fool.

I imagine we 'devolved' from the 4000 year old Hammurabic Code of Laws because "we just didn't want to live up the standards..." too. Anyone accepting new laws is a fool.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other, you see. Ethics change, cultures change, science advances-- should not laws, codes and rules also change to reflect advancement?

What part of that did you miss?

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ever been to an ER? YES, they have to treat EVERYONE. No exceptions. Period.

Do you even KNOW any medical professionals?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So, you get to grasp at straws, but no one else does, eh?

Sorry but you just failed the logic test.

Got an axe to grind much?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You see police protection as more important than health care, right? And you also think that government should involve itself in police services, but not health care. Am I getting warm?

:rofl:

your agenda is very clear, and your "handle" on this site is pathetically hilarious.

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

tomato sauce and cheese

Enjoy.

Specifically, one starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

In order to even be in the doctor's examining room, these women had to fill paperwork, insurance documentation and medical histories. If the front office took the info and gave the woman an appointment, then, yes, it's the doctor's duty to treat that patient.

If he refuses to only treat women who have never had an abortion, his office staff needs to ask that on the front end and then inform the female would-be-patient that he would not treat her if she has.

And, you're sadly correct in that too many doctors go into the profession to get rich rather than help patients. That's been a problem for some time.

Like the one here in Florida who put up the sign saying if you voted for Obama, he did not want to treat you.

What does HIPPA say about medical records if a doctor refuses to treat the patient? Does the doctor get to keep them? Because if a doctor is so unprincipled to turn away a patient for some past decision, I would not want to rely on his principles to protect that patient's privacy.

:)

And, all paper patient records should be given to the patient or destroyed and all electronic records should be given to the patient, if wanted, and then destroyed by a computer forensics analyst or someone of equal caliber.

http://privacy.med.miami.edu/glossary/xd_disposal_of_records.htm

And, I was being snide regarding doctor's letting patients know ahead of time. I guess that would work for any doctor who did not take a lick of public money - like through Medicare or Medicaid - but if you take ANY public money, then you can't really pick and choose on that criteria.

Same stuff was said by bigots about desgregation... "Business owners will be forced to let criminals inside their stores who will steal them blind."

You can refuse service based on an individual's actions (so long as the rules are clear) inside your business.

If you walked into a physician's office that dealt with men's health issues (perhaps the only one within an hour's drive of your home that participated in your insurance program), and someone saw you walk from the parking lot and said, "We don't take patients that drive that make and model of vehicle. Our doctor doesn't approve of anyone driving a vehicle that has that poor MPG," I suppose you would consider that ok.

line of thinking here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Should doctors then have the right to refuse to treat gays? Or blacks? Or people who still eat red meat after a heart attack? Or people who homeschool their children? Etc., etc., etc. Where do you draw the line? And do you really not see the difference between a doctor and a store owner?

Just wondering ...

That's not relinquising control of your business. There are all sorts of regulations on businesses - from providing access for the handicapped, to keeping the premises clean enough to pass a health inspection.

Refusing service based on a class of persons, not based on actions of specific persons in your place of business, is indeed discrimination.

As a nurse I cared for HIV pos patients, drug addicts, rich and poor of every race and religion. It is part of medical ethics. All people have value and we do not judge them. We provide the best care we can when they come in.
Who in their right mind would want to guess if the person caring for them when they are at their most vulnerable is biased against them in any one of a myriad of ways?

Scratch an anti-choicer, find a white supremacist.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You support the right of these scum to spit in the face of their profession, but you get all bent out of shape when they get their just desserts.

Oh, and btw? Your slip is showing.

Can they turn away Jews, Muslims, blacks, gays, Unitarians?

--imm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What other medical procedures disqualify patients? What if they die because a doctor refused to treat them?

You are welcome I'm sure.

--imm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So, you're wrong again.

Next?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You don't get to just keep changing shit in mid-stream to hammer on whatever "point" you are trying to make.

Again, you're wrong and you you just won't admit it.

Pay attention wingnuts, this is how you deal with a liberal who has nailed you on an issue. Change the subject!

Also look up straw man, red herring, and begging the question.

--imm

because you once had an abortion and you darn well know it.

What makes you a liberal?

--imm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you are pro choice, why not support follow-up medical care?

--imm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Would you do away with public accommodations laws? Rand Paul style?

--imm

Oh boy.

What civil liberties do you support? Civil liberties for woman to be free from discrimination?

:thumbsup:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

maybe you think the doctor running the ER should be able to turn someone away too?

People of Semitic descent have certain inherited medical maladies that people of white European descent don't have, for example. People of African descent also have genetic diseases that other groups don't get. Granted, now that the races are mixing more and more, those are becoming inherited diseases throughout all "colors," but it's still more common among targeted ethnic groups right now.

So, you're saying that these same doctors can refuse to treat a Jewish man for a cold if he has Tay-Sachs disease? Or the doctor can refuse to treat a black man for a heart attack if he has Sickle Cell anemia?

Descrimination.

A physician that provides gynecological services can refuse to perform specific procedures in general. But to refuse all services to a class of persons - such as women who have had abortions - is not refusal to perform a procedure, it's a refusal to provide your services as per a society that has anti-discrimiation policies.

and the doctor just didn't like one or all of these groups...Would his "right" trump their rights?

should not be happening.

Also, doctors should not be able to practice under the auspices of their religious ideology unless they want to work for the church.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's MY BUSINESS, GODDAMN IT!



ETA Your description as a liberal, that's some funny stuff right there.

instead of as healing art and science, are a major problem in this country.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

pays to keep most university doors open? Tuition is a drop in the bucket compared to federal funding.

He has refused to incorporate--and refused to consider the people he treats as 'customers'.


Yes, he's a dinosaur, but he is not alone. There are others like him and we would be better
off if there were more like him.

if they refuse to treat someone due to their past medical history, of course i no longer live in the USA and live in the country ranked 1st in health care in the world so what do i know.

morning to decide which ones you will take, and throw out the rest. Isn't that a death panel?

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They work for Health Care Companies that are run by local hospitals - like where I live. They sign CONTRACTS - by which they are legally bound to care for ALL who walk through their doors, regardless of ability to pay, regardless of their belief systems. My GP just got fired for assuming she had the "right" to decide who got what treatment according to her "morality" when her contract said otherwise.
And I'll be damned if I'll even consider replacing her with a Dr. who went into private practice to get rich, or one who sees themselves primarily as a "business owner". If a Doctor wants to run a business - they should get a business degree, not a medical degree, or go into administration at a hospital. They're supposed to take any and everyone who walks in the door.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

your own opinions on this thread. Your response make no sense whatsoever. :eyes: :crazy:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the hospital system in the area where I live. It was originally run by The Sisters of Mercy (feel free to Google them)but when they sold it to the other local hospital system, one of the provisions of the sale required this policy to remain, where these signs also appear in almost every Dr.s office in that system too. This is in Lansing, Michigan. Yes, they are required to treat EVERYONE. Period. I couldn't imagine wanting to live anywhere that this is not the case - it's barbaric. And greedy.

to do that which they disagree with will reduce the number of people who enter the profession. We need as many that can become doctors as possible and the best and brightest if possible.

In fact, right now there are only about a dozen people trying to get into each single slot in medical schools in this country.

If they find out they'll actually have to treat sick people, even if they don't personally agree with their previous medical care, that number might drop to only 10 applicants for each open position. Doooom for us all!

If the 'best and brightest' think that some classes of people are not worthy of their service, then I would hesitate to call them either.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

duty to provide medical care to people in need. A doctor should not have the power to turn down a patient for ideological reasons.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Since you clearly haven't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

may include treating patients who s/he disagrees with politically.

because the patient had a tooth with a filling. And you have no idea if life-saving treatment is entailed or not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

Also, when it comes to the issue of the OP, this is a politically charged issue split on ideological lines - it's not braces and fillings, it's women's bodily sovereignty and dignity in healthcare.

lack of medical care is not a democratic value.

Shall I order you a pizza?

but be prepared for others refuting it. You sound like Dr. Laura.

Right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But some folks just can't help but pick & choose.

Pick & choose what parts of the bible to expect others to conform to.

Pick & choose what parts of the Constitution to support and which parts to ignore.

Pick & choose whether to uphold their oaths or not depending on the situation.

Doctors, cops, firemen. If they are picking and choosing who to serve and protect and who to disregard, they should not be in a job where they serve the public.

:hi: I "see you".

regulates practice. Such licensure carries with it a duty to the public, whether expressly stated or merely implied.

When I graduated from vet school, I took an oath that said something or other about looking out for public health. In CA, if my actions as a veterinarian endanger the public health I can get in trouble with the state.

Allowing needless illness or death affects public health, even if only by affecting health statistics negatively.

a public servant.

breaking the oath

to treat the sick and injured. If they cannot handle that obligation, then they need to leave the business, plain and simple.

If you believe basic health care is a right, then someone has to provide that health care.

If there is no one in your area who will provide that care, you have been deprived of that right.

Is health care strictly a business, like selling widgets or burgers? Or does the profession have a higher standard?

My feeling is that this is one more reason why we need to implement universal health care. Medical education and care is heavily government subsidized; perhaps doctors who wish to treat medicine as strictly business should foot the entire bill for their education, and should not be eligible to receive government payments for Medicare and Medicaid. Then they would be welcome to accept or refuse whatever "customers" they wanted, but we wouldn't be helping to pay for their bigotry and slots would open in medical schools for students who were interested in actually providing medical care to people who need it.

Healthcare should be a right for all US citizens.

is that you?

should doctors be able to refuse treatment if they dont like your hairstyle or how you vote or whether or not you smoke pot?

DIRTY or unsanitary and a health threat to others??? Because that's the reason for requiring shoes.

:eyes:

Oh, and IBTT.

Ever hear a little thing called the Hypocratic Oath? This is a violiation of that oath and these people know it.

and I'm a fireman who doesn't like hillbillies, I can just let it burn?

:spray:

This is a disgusting failure to live up to their oath.

Or "we serve Christians only."

You would likely be sued for discrimination, and lose the case, because those are protected statuses.

These women are not being refused specific services, they are being refused as a class of persons.

The case could be made for discrimination.

It's been done before and will be done again. It usually makes the news, and depending on the state and the company, it doesn't happen again. At least at that location.

I just have not heard the stories where it was law that you could indeed ban gays from a venue.

I leave it to the reader to determine which part...

Do you ever take the liberal side of an argument?

Like I said. Just Curious.

swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.



They should lose their license to practice.

because she had an abortion. She goes home, dies of internal bleeding. Doctor gets convicted of depraved indifference.

Electric company somehow learns that two gays live in an apartment. PowerCo CEO doesn't like gays, orders their electricity turned off, after all it is a non-public entity. Cold spell hits, tenants freeze to death. Depraved indifference.

Man staggers into a store, bleeding from a knife wound to the belly, asks for help. Store owner does nothing, doesn't care for the mans color. Man dies. Depraved indifference

UPS guy refuses to deliver medicine to Muslims. Person dies. Depraved indifference

See what I'm getting at.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.



None of it is followed by "Unless the patient has had an abortion."

"without shoes"...The latter could be construed as a public health risk, I believe...The former is someone who's past the doctor "doesn't like"...It's judgmental, bigoted, and unprofessional as hell.

...Welcome to Du.

Awesome priorities there, chap!

Excerpt from the Modern Hippocratic Oath:

My recently fired Doctor signed a "Pro-Life" pledge printed in all the local papers without identifying herself as a Doctor, a pledge which was signed by many others. Oddly enough, ALL the Doctors and Nurses on that list are suddenly no longer with the Medical group from which I receive medical care. :evilgrin:

too.

poor brainwashed things

onto my medical care, considering certain medications "immoral". I won't miss her, but I'm glad these Doctors and nurses will have to go elsewhere to force their beliefs on others.

Jesus Christ after I said that yes, I was sexually active and no, I'm not married. She didn't like my "Not that it's any of your business, but I have no religious beliefs." reply. Obviously I left without my exam.

If forced childbirth is something that they so much want to promote - which goes against the recommendation of ACOG - then they should accept the sacrifice of the money that they would get otherwise.

:hi:

no matter what they were. Now they need to weed out these type of doctors. If they won't treat a patient because of their religious doctrines, make them have a special license. Make them confine themselves to only that practice and see how long they stay in business.

a dead rat. I get three illinois dailies a day. no way this happened, not without a story being published.

This is "somebody told me that somebody said that there were doctors that did X, Y, and Z".

That might be good enough for people who read right-wing blogs for evidence that the President is a Muslim, but it's pretty thin for me. Even the people who this author spoke with were not given, at the very least, psuedonyms. Before jumping to all kinds of conclusions, it might be good to have enough facts that a competent reporter might have a snowball's chance in hell of finding the alleged doctors, and at least being able to ask for their version of the story.

It simply does not ring true. No facts, no names, no name of "towns," no nothing.

Illinois, despite Sam Zell, Rupert Murdoch before him, and other cackles of cretins, has a thriving newspaper industry. In the suburbs between Chicago and Springpatch, there are dailies in Joliet, the Southtown daily, and more. There are weeklies (the regional is a fine little paper) The idea that this occurred more than once, AND WAS NOT REPORTED strikes me as absolutely unbelievable.

Could this have happened? Possibly, once, with one angry, demented MD in some rural locale. Is it happening in several towns? No way. I call bullshit on this.

Yes, we did have a case where one, mind you ONE, pharmacist in southern illinois refused to fill a birth control prescription. That happened years ago, and the state passed a law preventing it from happening again. If a pharmacist has such a problem with that drug on religious grounds, he/she MUST give back the prescription and advise them where they can have it filled.

Cops had to be called in to quell the minor riot that occurred. Women who run Fortune 500 companies didn't take kindly to that shit.

Let them answer to the public.

http://www.aapsonline.org/

http://www.aapsonline.org/resolutions/2003-2.htm
60th Annual Meeting
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Point Clear, Alabama, September 17-19, 2003


WHEREAS: the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons stands on the principles of the Hippocratic Oath, which oath clearly opposes abortion of a developing human child;

WHEREAS: teachings of the major religions of the world have opposed abortion of a developing human child until very recent times;

WHEREAS: even if religion is removed from the issue of abortion of a human child, without life as the ultimate ethic, no objective ethical standard remains;

WHEREAS: the unborn child in the womb meets the definition of human being, and people's choices are limited by government when those choices would harm another human being;

WHEREAS: the purpose of abortion of a human child is to destroy the life of the child, in contradistinction to other terminations of pregnancy to save the life of the mother, in which an attempt would also made to save the life of the child;

WHEREAS: our society will not permit a woman to terminate the life of her unwanted child after birth, despite its total dependence, even in the privacy of her own home in consultation with her physician; and

WHEREAS: the public's right to know and to make an informed decision about abortion of a human child has never been made possible by the opportunity to view various methods of abortion at different stages of gestation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons supports the right to life of human beings from the moment of conception to natural death.

"WHEREAS: teachings of the major religions of the world have opposed abortion of a developing human child until very recent times;"


I am pretty certain Roman Catholicism qualifies as a major religion. And the RC fully approved of abortion up until quickening (when the fetus starts moving) for almost 2000 years. I know they changed that, but only very recently. 20 years ago that was still the official policy.

...and "Obamacare"

i've never met anyone in the medical profession who would refuse to treat ANYONE based on ANYTHING about their past unless they had a valid MEDICAL reason for refusing to serve them, e.g., they lacked the qualifications for what the patient needed, or the patient was requesting a medically inappropriate procedure, trying score some narcotics, etc.

doctors supposed to treat all patients with equal care regardless of their class, background, nationality, personal history, an so on. doctors are not supposed to sit in judgement of their patients' personal lives. doctors are not supposed to care about how patients' medical needs arose except to the extent that information is medically necessary.


in this case it sounds like the doctor women as patients and THEN, while taking a medical history, learn about a previous abortion, THEN reject them as patients.

it's one thing to, say put a sign up saying you won't accept patients with history of abortion (still odious, but of a different flavor). it's quite another to accept that woman as a patient and then drop everything on the basis of a NON-MEDICAL decision based on MEDICALLY OBTAINED information.

maybe Rand Paul can re-certify them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Doctors take an oath about caring for people. I'm pretty sure lawyers don't.

the case with medical care, disturbingly enough.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are a lot of affordable ones out there and a lot of them will charge a relatively low retainer and bill you for the hours later.

(I work in a law firm, so yes, I know what I am talking about.)

Enjoy your time here.:eyes:

"Community Health Centers", which, for approximately the last 40 years, have existed to treat patients on an "ability to pay" sliding scale basis. They are federally funded, and most also have some state funding. If a patient has no income, the treatment is free. Of course, if hospital admission is necessary, that may then become a whole different story. Most have contracted the assistance of specialists to treat patients who need them, who will also bill on the same sliding scale, through the Health Center.

The thought that any physician would refuse to treat anyone based on his/her class is absolutely among the most revolting things I have ever heard.

The patients mentioned in the OP are being discriminated against because of their gender AND a past medical condition, which is illegal, as well as unethical.

I've never heard of this before. Thanks for posting.

among others



http://www.aapsonline.org/ethics/oaths.htm

control over women's bodies.

"LET THOSE WOMEN DIE" seems to be the message here.... punish women who have chosen abortions previously in their lives and in some cases this might mean the women will pay with a death penalty.

This is sickening. Take their medical license away, if they can't be tolerant of our rights, they shouldn't practice in the USA.

this is worse than the pharmacists who won't prescribe Plan B. At this rate, someone's going to die like African Americans used to because white doctors wouldn't treat them, white ambulance drivers wouldn't pick them up, etc. :grr:

But the headline is:

"Christian Science Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Any Prescription"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-science-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-any-p,9645/


Really, these doctors refuse to do their jobs?

doctors are unethical bastards. I don't think women who have had abortions would receive even adequate care if these creeps were their doctors.

Quiverfull doctors refusing to treat anyone who's been surgically sterilized.

Anti-illegal-drugs doctors refusing to treat anyone who'd ever smoked weed, taken crack or meth, or shoved heroin.

Fundamentalist doctors refusing to treat anyone who'd had sex before marriage, or lived with their spouses before marriage whether they had sex or not.

Doctors refusing to treat any man who'd ever taken ED drugs like Viagra.

- - - - -

There MIGHT be a good reason to refuse to treat someone who had an abortion 30 years ago. ("But doctor! He was anencephalic." 'That's no excuse. He would have been a great Republican!') I, however, have absolutely no idea what it is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

EPIC FAIL. GIVE IT UP.

Your analogies get more and more pathetic.

Or are you just describing your most paranoid right-wing fantasy?:eyes:

ob-gyn refuse to believe I had an abortion....she kept calling it a miscarriage. She was nuts. This doctor went on to 'kill' a woman who wanted her tubes tied. 'Complications.'

I don't even tell drs. that I've had one. The insurance companies get this info....the gov't. Who knows....someday the Fundies may take over and they'll put me in an internment camp.

What sad, sorry excuses for "doctors" these misogynists are.

:party: :toast: :bounce:

....they need help. Seriously.

& privately circulate it. Perhaps even nurse/practitioners would also qualify?

Under no circumstances should these doctors be getting Medicaid or Medicare funds. It is one thing to refuse to perform abortions, or for that matter, any other medical proceedure. But to refuse patients because you don't like what they did is outrageous. Honestly, I think their licences should be put at risk.

What does that have to do with anything? One is too many!

Yet with the headline and language used, one would think it was a pervasive problem. The article is quite inflammatory. It is a blog post. Not a news article.

I live smack dab in the middle where this allegedly occurred. I guarantee you it would have made the news. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Also, just to be clear, women's issues are frequently ignored by local and national news.

are going way overboard, accepting the original premise as fact, even though the post HAD NO FACTS. NONE.
We have obviously concerned people demanding the resignation, the license, or even worse for some mythical doc. This is the worst aspect of the intertubes, in my opinion. Without even one provable fact, people go hog wild.

If it would have, it would have made the headlines.

THere are no facts, no names, no places, no dates, no nothing. What does that have to do with anything? Everything.

and remove their license to practice.

Seriously, people should have the option of avoiding using these doctors.

I assume that this has already been done. If not, it only takes a phone call.

The malprctice suit for "pain and suffering" from the woman who was treated so shamefully is optional...but it will also send a powerful message.

what country are we living in?

Find another line of work if it means so goddam much to you, all you "Dr. Heaven-Peckers" out there.

Fucking holy-rolling pharmacists too. Lawn care offers no moral dilemmas. Go mow lawns.

Regardless, isn't refusing a patient with a valid medical concern against the Hippocratic Oath?

Too bad things are like this...but if a woman has an abortion in her medical history maybe it'd be best to keep it to oneself.

because everything a human body has been through has an effect on a person's health.

There is no reason a woman should have to hide her medical history.

All the MD has to do is ask, "How many kids?" But your body tells me you've been pregnant several times.

the AMA tolerates this.

What does that say about them?

in medicine in the US today.

doctors who take medicaid here in illinois are few and far between. in some cases over a 100 miles or more for specialists.i hope the ladies reported the doctors to the state of illinois but i doubt anything will happen. these doctors know the state has no choice to keep them because no other doctors are willing to wait months to be paid.


one hell of a healthcare system we have in the good old usa..