Breaking News: Obama administration rescinds key parts of federal

regulation on ''conscience protections' for health workers


The Obama administration on Friday eliminated key provisions of a George W. Bush-era rule that allowed health workers to opt out of medical services they find objectionable on religious or personal grounds. The rule was widely interpreted as allowing workers to refuse to participate in a range of services, including providing the emergency contraceptive Plan B and treating gays and lesbians.

The new rule leaves intact previously established "conscience protections" for workers who do not want to perform abortions or sterilizations. It also retains the Bush rule's formal process for allowing workers whose rights are violated to file complaints.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021803251.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

even though he betrays us on the big issues, we get a crumb sometimes.

sad but true

It's night and day.

He passed a healthcare plan that republicans wanted during the Bush administration
His finance regulation bill for the most part was a total joke as it kept the structure the same
He thinks Bush tax cuts are a form of stimulus and extended them
Still doing renditio which likely means he's still torturing
He has doubled down on killing innocent people in Pakistan
He has doubled down on Afghanistan
And any time he attacks anything usually it's something democrats support (teachers unions, heating assistance, food stamps, etc)
He cut a deal with big pharma to prevent reimportation

So I don't know how you can say night and day. Maybe dusk/dawn. But sure as hell not night and day.

And I'm not so sure he would have rushed into Afghanistan like the Idiot Son did, either. Obama does not think like Bush or behave like him. To say their business policies are the same is wrong - George Bush has no business policies. Just the free handouts everyone has given him his entire life. Obama actually has legitimate policies he created and helped craft, even if I don't agree with them. At least his thoughts are his own and as far as I know he does NOT have daily conversations with God - unlike the former fella.

They are not alike in any way, shape or form.

He said so. Numerous times. He gave them the tax cuts so he could get START and DADT and unemployment benefits for another year.

He said point blank that they won't create a single job.

Obama loves homeless people so much he is busy creating more of us.

Maybe some sobriety is called for.

I know you can't be serious because DU members are, first and foremost, knowledgeable and informed. And that's a false statement.

Bush passed law to log in protected national forests, including age-old trees. Obama secured millions of acres of pristine wilderness, and brought them under the protection of the federal government (until we get another Bush, I guess). In the meantime, there are a few million acres that won't have Wal-Marts on them.

Obama passed a fair wage act for women. (Bush didn't)

Obama signed a health care reform bill into law, passed by the Dem. Congress. (Bush didn't; health care is just fine, he said, thank you very much)

Obama signed a nuclear treaty with Russia. Very important that we can ascertain and monitor the location of tons of nuclear parts hanging around Russia, before terrorists get their hands on it. (Bush didn't)

Obama and the Dem. Congress repealed DADT. (Bush didn't)

Obama has spoken out in favor of labor unions of all sorts. (Bush didn't)

Obama and the Dem. Congress extended unemployment benefits for millions of Americans during the recession....twice. (Bush wouldn't think of doing such a thing.)

Obama and the Dem. Congress passed a law, guaranteeing that the fed govt would pick up a sizeable portion of COBRA payments for unemployed workers, temporarily. (Bush would laugh at that.)

Obama passed a middle class income tax cut. (It was small, but hey...it was more than Bush did.)

Obama has stated he is against privatizing or doing away with Social Security. (As you know, since you're an informed DU member, Bush tried to privatize - meaning do away with - Social Security.)

I don't know where you've been. But these things, and others, have helped millions of Americans. Unlike the things Bush did.

So...it was a funny post. But you forgot the smilie. You don't want people to think you're uninformed.

:applause:

Thanks! You've helped validate my faith in my fellow DUers!

Peace and blessings.

sneaky pete, tea partier.

...while cutting social security for poor people clearly makes me a tea partier.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

Obama loves us homeless people so much he is busy creating mroe of us, so we won't be so alone!

And we are soooo glad that you care.

including, and especially, the poor. As his father did, to a lesser extent. As Reagan did.

I notice you didn't respond to my long list of things Obama and the Democratic Congress have done together that directly helped working and unemployed people. But the, what could you say, when faced with facts?

Why do you post on this board if you don't approve of the Democratic Party agenda (which our Congress and Obama pursued vigilently, and succeeded so well at doing the past 2 years)?

it is time to start looking at what is really driving people.

Welcome to the new DU.

you put "truth".

Just thought you might want to fix that.

Same shit, different party affiliation.

OTH, good on Obama.

four people had beaten me to it.

... actually, just towards an actual middle.

But... steps is steps!

By woodblock print artist Ando Hiroshige.

...but many big city museums have some of these woodblock prints. Your prints may vary, but whatever ones they might have will take you away. I just happen to be in the Twin Cities where the Minneapolis Institute of arts has the biggest collection of them in the US, I believe. Including a version of the one in my sig. line. They rotate them through a small part of the museum and give me something new to look forward to all year long.

I'm very happy about both. :applause:

Even though Obama is the worst president ever and i hear that he is terribly criminal as reported by a republican politician I saw and if it's on TEEVEE you know it has to be true so there you have it now what are we going to do about that birth certificate and that michelle wants to make us all breast feed kenyan gay babies and close down churches to make them into muslin places for terrorists and homosexual actions that will damage our military and have dead people and mickey mouse voting to give abortions and mortgages to under-age prostitutes to give money for the democrats to steal their elections and raise our taxes.

Gobama! :hi:

are finally enacting the gay agenda sharia law via the Madison Fire Department and Miss Anderson of the second grade. It's good to be alive comrade! :loveya:

Come, join the Pepsi generation! :hi: :hug:

You oughtta make that an OP!

Could it be ... Obama is finally GETTING IT?

Let us hope.

things (Eygpt uprising) are going his way. His trip to Silicon Valley no doubt is Obama's way of acknowledging the importance of iPhone, Facebook and Twitter, their enormous part in the bloodless people's coup.

Keep the pressure on him, everyone!

Somewhere deep inside that man is a brave one hoping to get out.

On this issue, how many more steps would you want? Do you really think that forcing doctors and nurses to perform abortions and sterilizations that they're morally opposed to is going to bring them over to our side?

All this means is that the Republicon House will take this matter up. Rather than being an executive order, whatever emerges from there is going to be tacked on to some budget bill that President Obama will have to sign if he wants to keep the government running. If you think he's going to veto a bill, just because it lets a pharmacist out of supplying birth control pills, you're deluding yourself.

him we're paying attention and we want to see more moves like this.

He got this one right.

Doesn't really make up for the rest of this sell out agenda I mean, thanks, Mr. President.

:eyes:

:eyes:

credit for these things. They make a huge difference. But he needs to be more proactive on the big ticket issues, too. The stuff that makes us want to workhard for his re-election versus just showing up at the voting booth.

Allows pharmacists the right to refuse a women birth control... I hope this federal bill will protect the women of Wisconsin when he gets working on this again....

Planned Parenthood Advocates spokeswoman Amanda Harrington said her organization’s statement about Walker is based on Assembly Bill 168, a measure Walker sponsored in 2001 while serving in the state Assembly. It would have applied to pharmacists and other health care providers … But both Harrington and Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin say the protections for pharmacists in Walker’s bill would have applied to the dispensing of all types of birth control. Planned Parenthood says flatly: Pharmacists would have been able to block women from getting birth control. Walker says he supports allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions on moral grounds.

The claim by Planned Parenthood is still off the mark. In an effort to paint Walker as extreme, the group’s lobbying arm says in a direct mail piece that Walker "tried to pass a law to allow pharmacists to block women’s access to birth control." That bill might have made it more difficult for some women to get contraceptives at some pharmacies, depending on who was on duty. But words matter -- the possible narrowing of access to birth control in some cases isn’t the same as blocking it in all cases.

We rate the claim as Barely True.

PolitiFact is “Pants on Fire” wrong.

The final paragraph’s quote from Planned Parenthood, "tried to pass a law to allow pharmacists to block...birth control" does not suggest, as they claim, to "blocking it in ALL cases." It ALLOWS a pharmacist to refuse the sale, it isn’t a total block.http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/10/political-fact-checking-fact-checkers.html

But the bill did "allow pharmacists" to block birth control"... if they wanted to. I don't see any untruths in that statement. Of course I'm only going by what you typed here. After all, in all cases, the birth control COULD be blocked.

But in no way does this impact the bottom line of the rich and powerful

That people will have to actually do their jobs and help people?

You'd think that this would be beyond a law and that people would simply understand that this was how things should be. I find a bit of happiness in the fact that at least this stops people from being able to hide behind something like religion and simply not take care of those who are paying them to do so.

However, I'm still bothered by abortion/sterilization portions. Nonetheless, can't change the world in a day, I suppose.

to perform an abortion when she is morally opposed to abortion and considers it to be murder?

"I'm still bothered by abortion/sterilization portions"

Abortions that aren't performed, say, at Planned Parenthood are usually done to save the life of the mother or under medical duress. Can you explain to me what, precise situation you envision where a doctor would be "forced to perform an abortion"- how would that work, exactly?

Because the ONLY place in the real world where we've seen these bogus "conscience protection" clauses play out is when some Jesus-drunk pharmacist decides, usually out in the middle of nowhere at 2 am, to hold a woman's birth control prescription hostage because she "looks like a slut", or to deny a rape victim emergency contraception.

The legions of doctors in danger of being forced to perfom abortions probably only exist in the same right-wing fantasy universe where women are running around pregnant for 8 months and then getting abortions on a whim because they 'look fat'. :eyes:

Exactly.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

the article linked in the OP quotes the Dept. of HHS announcement stating: "Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion."

The poster to whom I replied said: "I'm still bothered by abortion/sterilization portions."

So, apparently, the poster disagrees with the statement by HHS that "health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion." The poster would like for health care providers to be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion.

I think that is ghastly.

Because beyond that, it's a bogus point. No one is forcing anyone to perform elective abortions (much less receive them :eyes:) anywhere, in this country, nor is there any logical pathway by which health care providers could be envisioned to do such a thing.

The only scenario I can envision where that portion might even come into play is if you're talking about a pregnancy that has gone horribly wrong and lifesaving action is needed to save the life of the mother that might result in the loss of the fetus. In such a circumstance, presumably another physician would be available -one would hope- but honestly I think do think refusing to assist in such a case amounts to a serious dereliction of duty, as much as refusing to stop the bleeding of a trauma victim or otherwise taking action to save a life. That's what doctors and health care providers are supposed to do.

I agree that if there were any remote chance of doctors being forced by evil planned parenthood overlords to perform abortions against their will, it might be ghastly. Just like it would be a terror-filled tragedy for New York City if King Kong actually showed up and started swatting airplanes and climbing buildings. But it's not going to happen, it's not in danger of happening, and even if it were in danger of happening- which it isn't- that part of the conscience clause is going to remain.

OTOH, Jesus-drunk pharmacists actually HAVE held womens' birth control prescriptions hostage because they didn't like the idea of them fucking outside of marriage, rape victims HAVE had to plead to receive emergency morning after pills... these are not abstract hypotheticals dreamed up in a right wing think tank, these are actual realities experienced by American Women in the 21st Century. So if you'll excuse me, I'll worry about that instead of getting my shorts all twisted over someones objection to a redundant and irrelevant portion of the conscience clause.

I also notice you're not interested in having this fight over sterilization conscience refusals.

which has absolutely nothing to do with my posts in this thread. I responded to a poster who said s/he had a problem with keeping the conscience protection for doctors who have a moral objection to performing abortions. I don't believe anyone should be forced to perform an abortion, and I believe that the policy of the Obama Administration respecting the conscience of physicians on this issue is correct. The poster to whom I responded believes it is incorrect. That is the issue, not prescription for birth control.

Thank you for effectively admitting that there is NO real-world situation whereby any doctor in this country might conceivably be "forced to perform an abortion".

Nice that you agree with the Obama administration on that one meaningless -meaningless in that it's a sop defense against something that would never happen- section of the conscience clause.

Just out of curiosity, DO you think pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

Do you accept that women should have the right to choose?

Do you accept that people should have the right to use birth control?

I'll wait for your answers. I'm curious as to how broad your support for rights of conscience and/or choice are.

is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is whether doctors should be forced to perform abortions. I agree with the Obama administration that they should not. You and the poster to whom I responded in my first post in this thread believe that they should.

I will not be diverted into other issues by you.

The reason that it is inconceivable to you that a doctor would ever be forced to perform an abortion is that we have this longstanding policy ensuring that doctors have the right to refuse to do so. You seek to take away that right. You would apparently be delighted by the prospect of forcing people who have a moral objection to performing abortions to perform them. I think that is indefensible. The fact that you have been unable to defend your position, and you persistently attempt to divert the discussion to other issues, such as prescriptions for birth control, is strong evidence that your position is indeed indefensible.

You and the poster to whom I responded in my first post in this thread believe that they should.

Where, exactly, did I say that?

The reason that it is inconceivable to you that a doctor would ever be forced to perform an abortion is that we have this longstanding policy ensuring that doctors have the right to refuse to do so.

Bullshit. The policy was enacted by the Bush Administration, and didn't change anything. If what you are saying bore any resemblance to reality, doctors would have been "forced to perform abortions" all the time from 1973 to January of 2001. They weren't. Because it addressed a "threat" that didn't exist. The only real-world implication of the policy, again, was to give cover to jesus-drunk pharmacists who want to hold womens' birth control prescriptions hostage.

You seek to take away that right.

Again, where have I said that? What I've said is, it doesn't happen, it's not going to happen, it wouldn't happen if the policy was rescinded. It's a non-issue. What IS an issue is, again, the persistent attempts by members of the anti-choice community- which I have to assume you're a part of- to basically make it against the law for people to fuck for non-procreative purposes, through everything from limiting access to abortion to attempting to impede access to contraception.

It's quite all right to FORCE women to bear children, however? That does not horrify you? An endless supply of unloved children for porn and cheap labor suits your needs? That doesn't horrify you?

After all, children are a woman's punishment for having sex.

We are horrified by such very different things. I remember being horrified by abandoned children shot as vermin on the steps of a Catholic cathedral in a nation too godly to allow abortions.

Who said anything about forcing women to bear children? For porn?? WTF?? Children as "punishment"?? You have some bizarre, BIZARRE notions.

"I remember being horrified by abandoned children shot as vermin on the steps of a Catholic cathedral in a nation too godly to allow abortions." Really? Was this documented? Seems like it would be newsworthy. Can you provide a link, please? I hadn't heard about this atrocity. Are you saying that this alleged incident means that all pro-lifers are child-murdering monsters? Or all those who are opposed to forcing doctors to perform abortions (as I am) are child-murdering monsters?

No doctor is ever going to be forced to perform any surgery/operation. If it was out of their area of knowledge, they wouldn't even be involved. In the case of saving the woman's life, doctors that know what they are doing would be the doctors used for the situation. If they have an understanding of the operation, then it's their job to go ahead with what the patient is legally asking for. Or, what is needed to save the patients life. Otherwise, stay out of the practice all together.

With that being said, my problem with the situations I mentioned has little to do with the knowledge a doctor may or may not have. My problem comes from the fact that this doctor is going against the wishes of a patient that helps keep him employed. For no other reason than the fact that he disagrees with it.

This isn't about what the doctor wants. If he or she has a problem with this part of the job, then get another job. Nothing wrong with having a moral opposition to abortion. However, stay out of a field that is legally going to be confronting those very morals.

If I had a problem with people eating meat, I wouldn't work at Outback Steakhouse.

A doctor may love delivering babies and be tops in her field at it, but have a moral opposition to abortion. You are saying she should be forced out of the medical profession because YOU do not have a moral opposition to abortion. Why must you force her to perform the procedure? Isn't it enough that the procedure is available to those who want it and those who want to perform it? Why should it be necessary to force others who are opposed to it on moral grounds to perform it?

Should people who are opposed to the death penalty be required to perform a lethal injection on a prisoner?

They also shouldn't be involved in the judicial system in a state that can hand down capital punishment, either.

Once again, no one is forcing these people to do anything. However, you have to understand that certain jobs require people to perform certain actions. If you're not comfortable with all of those actions, seek another job.

Once again, to further the Outback Steakhouse argument; if I'm a vegetarian, I wouldn't work there if I had a problem handling the product. I'm not being FORCED to handle the product. It's my job. Part of my job requires that I handle dead animals. If that's too much for me to handle, then I have to quit that job. Morally, Hypothetically, I'm against the consumption of meat, so I should be in a line of work that suits me. Legally, it's not against the law to eat meat.

It's also not against the law to have an abortion. If you're uncomfortable with that portion of the job.... seek... another... job.

is not an essential part of being an OB-GYN doctor. In fact, I believe that most OB-GYNs do not perform abortions. By contrast, all Outback Steakhouse servers serve animal flesh to customers. Therefore your Outback Steakhouse analogy is inapt.

You would force a large majority of obstetricians out of the practice of medicine, all because you insist on forcing them to perform abortions against their will and their conscience. Why is it not enough that those who wish to perform abortions can do so, without forcing those who are morally opposed to abortion to perform them?

Why, if it was not essential for an OB-GYN to know? Because in some cases, it is needed to save the life of the woman. In recent decades, that knowledge has not been taught as it routinely had been because of pressure from religious fanatics. Before Roe v. Wade, some of those procedures were not called "abortions" because doctors understood the need and did not want to get those cases covered by the anti-abortion laws. But the doctors knew them and used them.

Doctors do not want to have to amputate limbs, but sometimes it is necessary to have that knowledge to treat a patient. Even if an OB-GYN does not want to perform elective abortions, some abortions are not elective. But I guess that is not important to doctors whose religion is more important to them than their patients.

My analogy would be inapt if you could provide proof that most OB-GYNs do no perform abortions.

Still, you're missing the point. Even if you could prove that concept, the fact of the matter is that both go into their job knowing what they MIGHT have to do. The likelihood of certain things coming up is irrelevant. If you're not even comfortable with the chance of it or the thought of it or the possibility of it, you're simply in the wrong line of work.

We hold doctors in such high esteem. At the end of the day, they are simply doing their jobs. Sometimes, that job will call upon you to do some things you have a real problem with. If the problem is too big, then the job is not for you.

If this were ANYTHING else, people would agree with that. If I said that I couldn't stand my job because of "this" and I was against "this," people would say that the job isn't for me.

What is different about being a doctor?

Truthfully, I don't care. The person could always find a different doctor and it will still get done. But, the fact that this doctor is in a scientific field and is still letting his morals get in the way of scientific evidence is what bothers me.

"the number of abortion providers dropped from 2,908 in 1982 to 1,787 in 2005. Eighty-seven percent of counties in the United States and 31 percent of metropolitan areas have no abortion services." wapo

"Founded in 1951 in Chicago, Illinois, ACOG (the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) has over 52,000 members" acog

And I do not agree with your analysis that those who are morally opposed to performing abortions should not be allowed in the medical profession. If your view were enforced, there would be a catastrophic shortage of physicians, to the point where tens of thousands would routinely die for want of medical care.

By your reasoning, anyone who is morally opposed to the death penalty should be prohibited from being hired as a prison guard. Even though the vast majority of prison guards would never have to administer the death penalty, your reasoning would require that all guards be prequalified to administer the DP, because "the fact of the matter is that both go into their job knowing what they MIGHT have to do. The likelihood of certain things coming up is irrelevant. If you're not even comfortable with the chance of it or the thought of it or the possibility of it, you're simply in the wrong line of work."

I've not said that people "shouldn't be allowed." I've said that they shouldn't be doctors, and that they should be done away with, to an extent. But, not legally, by any means. Those same people should be the ones that make these decisions, actually. They themselves should decide to step away, in my opinion.

What I said is that it would make logical sense for someone opposed to a portion of a particular job to seek a different job. That's simply reasonable.

Honestly, the doctor is there to serve a client. They do what the client asks. If they are not willing to do this, that's fine. However, in my opinion, they should probably step away from that field.

It's not about the doctor or what the doctor wants. It's about the patient. Or at the very least, it should be.

And once again, no doctor is forced to do anything. If anything, your numbers show that doctors certainly aren't being forced to perform abortions.

My original comments were about my viewpoint. If I was a doctor, then I'd do what the patient asked, so long as it wasn't harmful to the patient. To me, that's what a doctor is there for.

Just like any other person being hired to "take care" of your needs.

"I'm not prohibiting blacks from coming in here. I'm just saying that they should make the decision to keep out."

I also disagree with your statement that the doctor should just "do what the client asks." Should a psychiatrist provide a fatal dose of narcotics to a despondent patient because she asks for it? Should a heart surgeon perform a surgery on a perfectly healthy patient simiply because he wants it? Must a dermatologist perform a liver transplant on a patient, even if the dermatologist is not comfortable with her ability to perform such a procedure? The answer in all of these cases is "no." What a doctor does to a patient is a matter between the doctor and the patient. In most instances, both must agree in order to have it done.

You said: "Just like any other person being hired to "take care" of your needs." Again, I disagree. An attorney is not required to follow her client's instructions if to do so would be unethical, in the judgment of the attorney.

You said: "And once again, no doctor is forced to do anything. If anything, your numbers show that doctors certainly aren't being forced to perform abortions." Yeah, that's under the rule that has been in effect for 30 years, and that is the official policy of the Obama Administration - conscience protection for those medical professionals who are morally opposed to abortion. But the poster to whom I replied in this thread stated that he/she had a problem with this conscience protection as it was applied to abortion. Sho he/she wished to change it so that doctors would be forced to perform abortions.

I said.. "so long as it is not HARMFUL to the client."

In both the case of the lawyer and doctor, harm is involved.

As far as the forced issue, I'm with you. No one should be forced to do anything along those lines. I just think it makes logical sense to avoid professions that COULD involve situations you aren't comfortable with.


Also, your analogy of the discriminatory business owner only proves my point. If he were to allow black people entry, but black people knew that the owner and, LIKELY, most of his patrons were bigots, then once again, everyone involved knows what might/could occur.

Still, no one is forced into doing anything. The black people in question can either choose to put up with it or head to another place. It's sickening to think that a place like this might exist, but as a private business owner, he has that right. He could deny them entry, for that matter. I'd hate his guts and would never give him any of my business, but it's his right.

People also have the right to be racist. And if a couple of black guys go into a place where known racists mingle, that's a choice they make.

And even for the black people in question, much like the doctors, I would say; You might want to think about doing something else.

Because the day might come when, during a dangerous prison escape attempt, that guard is expected to shoot and kill prisoners. Whether the killing is committed with a needle or a gun, both are still executions carried out by agents of the criminal justice system. The difference is that the escape attempt is an emergency situation, and the consequences of NOT carrying out that duty could be the loss of innocent life--escaped prisoners are highly dangerous, after all. Is this a tough thing to ask of someone who's never shot a fellow human being, and feels upset by the idea of doing so? Of course. But it's part of the damned job. Not an everyday part, but certainly well within the line of duty in those rare emergency situations.

Similarly, there are times when abortion is an emergency situation, and the consequences of NOT performing one could the the loss of innocent life--in this case, the mother. Is that a difficult, potentially upsetting thing to ask of a doctor? Sometimes, yes. But it has to be done, because lifesaving emergency procedures are part of the damned JOB.

If you can't do the hardest part of your job, then you shouldn't HAVE that job. If you think that killing people is ALWAYS wrong, then don't become a prison guard...or a cop...or a soldier...or anyone else whose job depends upon them to potentially kill in order to protect others. Similarly, if you think that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, then don't become a doctor--because part of your job is to save the life of those women whose own pregnancies are literally killing them.

There is no rational or moral defense for cowardice and incompetence.

Stop making ignorant claims.

is a procedure primarily used after a miscarriage. There is absolutely no moral controversy over such a procedure. Are you trying to obfuscate the issue?

no obfuscating required.

In post #68, you stated: “ALL OB-GYNs learn D&C. Stop making ignorant claims.”

You said this in a failed attempt to rebut my statement in post #47 that: “Performing abortions is not an essential part of being an OB-GYN doctor. In fact, I believe that most OB-GYNs do not perform abortions.”

Your statement about D&Cs fails to rebut my statement that performing abortions is not an essential part of being an OB-GYN doctor. D&C is a procedure that is primarily used for something other than abortion, so the fact that doctors learn D&C does not imply that they perform abortions, or that performing abortions is an essential part of being an OB-GYN doctor.

A woman seeking an elective abortion in the first trimester is not going to attempt to force a doctor with objections to become involved in her case. It is the women who need that procedure to save her life that will be put in that situation, when they are already under the most stress. You want to make a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that ruptures to have to interview doctors at the emergency room about their opinion of abortion? She may not have the time for that.

How about any one of the many complications that can happen late in a pregnancy that mean the death of the fetus and possibly the death of the women if she cannot get an abortion? Why do those women have to deal with the loss of a wanted child and the search for a doctor with the knowledge and willingness to help them? Now that Dr. Tiller is dead, there are only, what, three doctors in this country that know how to help them - and those doctors are being harassed to literally kill the skills that can saved women's lives.

Wrong place.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but rather about ensuring that people who become doctors have only one priority: The patient.

If you can't perform a job to the best of your ability for ethical reasons, you shouldn't take it. That's why vegans don't and shouldn't apply at slaughterhouses, that's why members of certain orthodox religions can't be infantrymen, and that's why people who can't distribute birth control pills for asinine reasons shouldn't be pharmacists.

These clowns shouldn't even have gone to medical school. Is that harsh? Maybe. Too harsh? Not by half. These "doctors" who object to abortion on medical reasons often setup hospitals like a local Catholic hospital my wife absolutely refuses to be taken to, where they treat all women of childbearing age as "possibly pregnant," just so they don't accidentally "participate in an abortion." Publicly funded ambulances take people to this hospital all the time, where certain pain medications, antibiotics, and other types of drugs are barred from use in the case of female patients, lowering the quality of the healthcare provided and increasing the pain and stress of patients.

If you take the job, then you do the job. If you won't do the job, vacate it so someone else will.

because killing is "doctor work"? I disagree.

If a doctor becomes an abortion doctor and then decides that he/she can't perform the procedure on religious grounds, then they need to find a new job. Sorry, but you don't get to deny people the help they need because your God told you it's okay.

That would be your key phrase right there.

Newsflash: Not all OB-GYNs are "abortion doctors." Some want to help women in their pregnancies and deliver babies into the world.

there are plenty of specialties that they can pursue that would never involve providing abortions. Or in a large hospital, they could come to an arrangement that *they* would not be the ones to provide abortions but would refer people to colleagues.

It is not appropriate for someone to become a doctor and then refuse to allow patients to have legal medical procedures.

And 'killing' is YOUR word.

must also be willing to perform abortions, even if she has a moral objection to abortion? No. Your position is very wrong. I stand with the Obama administration on this one.

If they can make an arrangement with other doctors so that they never have to be the one providing it, then that's fine.

But people should not be deprived of any form of legal medical care because of someone else's moral objections.

There are plenty of jobs that plenty of people choose not to do, because of their moral objections to some aspects of the jobs.

If you don't like government policy, get a job in a seminary where you won't be offended!

Religious choice is not a choice nut is based on the geography wherew you were born and your parents beliefs. How can any one be more correct or wrong then the others?

Keep it home!

Just saying.

:eyes:

for them.

:thumbsup:

Got here in time to recommend. Credit where credit is due. That needed to be done. :applause:

He has to support anti-choice rules for some reason? :(

Most presidents make a point, when they first take office, of immediately wiping out the discretionary rules the last president created in his last days in office.

Anything created in those last days, are usually symbolic bombs intended to make some kind of political point. If they were seriously intended to last they would have been passed earlier in the previous president's administration.

So Bush passed this in his last days to leave it, like a bag of shit left on Obama's doorstep in the middle of the night, and Obama waited 2 YEARS to get rid of parts that were OBVIOUS AND GRATUITOUS INVITATIONS TO DISCRIMINATE, and for some reason he thinks the rest of this is somehow valuable enough to keep?

:wtf:

:shrug:

The article doesn't really make it clear.

What about the bushes policy against woman did Obama change?

He left in place the right of anti-choice people to stop a woman from getting an abortion, to stop a woman from getting emergency contraceptives, to stop a woman from getting birth control.

I don't get it.

Previously you could refuse to perform just about any medical service; that's now limited to abortions and sterilizations. (eg pharmacists weren't selling anti-bleeding drugs, etc.)

Woo-Hoo!!!

Woo-Hoo!!!

Let the celebrations begin! Yay! <sarcasm>

:kick:

should be statutorily barred from participating in any surgical procedures, period. For the safety of all patients. Because who the heck knows if they might try to sabotage a procedure because maybe they don't like your religious views or the color of your skin or your political leanings. They are a danger, period.

But that's just me, lol.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that opposition to LIFESAVING abortion (which is NOT the same thing as elective, non-emergency abortion) should flat-out disqualify you from going to medical school. Lifesaving emergency abortion procedures are no different than any OTHER emergency lifesaving procedure, and all doctors are required to know (or at least, USED to be required to know) basic emergency procedures because they never know who's going to get stuck as the only doctor on a deserted island after a plane crash (for random example).

All doctors used to be trained in those emergency termination procedures, but now only willing OB/GYNs and ER doctors are trained so. That's dangerous and wrong. If your personal religious or moral beliefs prevent you from being able to do ALL conceivable parts of your job, then you aren't qualified for that job and shouldn't be allowed into that career period. Your moral beliefs should NEVER be the final deciding factor when someone else's life is at stake.

Absolutely!

nt.