R's Using the Law to Force "Religion" Down Peoples' Throats AGAIN
 

September 19, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor

Blocking Care for Women

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and CECILE RICHARDS

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York. Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/op...hp&oref=slogin

This is another example of someone's personal religious beliefs being forced onto the general public. For those who think this is no big deal, just imagine if you went to the doctor and they refused you treatment of any kind based on their religious beliefs. Better yet, imagine if you took your kid and then the doctor refused and your kid died. Under this law, that is perfectly acceptable.

What is it going to take for people to see these wolves in not so subtle sheeps' clothing and that this is a very dangerous road to go down?

Is all this worth the fake promise of on average a few hundred dollars more a year that you really are never going to see?

Once again, I think religion is great if it works for the individual and it dos for me. I just cannot see how people advocate puting their own personal beliefs into law and then forcing people to adhere to them. That violates the very basis on which this country was founded.

I support this new law.

After David's thought-provoking and deep explanation of his support for the law, I thought I would provide another view. This law is bizarre in many fashions. One of the most often heard answers that opponent's of a minium wage hike provide is that if an employee does not like their job or their pay, they are free to quit it and find another one. In fact in all matters regarding employment or employee's rights, the underlying rationale is that the government should play no role as the employee is employed at the pleasure of the employer and is free to leave or be terminated for any issue that may arise. This is one of the central tenants to Employment-at-will on any level.

The Federal Government has long held that employees are not required to have equal pay, health care, guaranteed overtime or other often raised issues based on the philosophy that it is up to the employer to provide and that this is not a serfdom, in which the employee is required to stay at the job if they are unhappy. Again, if you don't like it, you are free to leave.

This law is a complete about face. Under this law, employees have more power than the employer, but only for such issues as the Federal Government deems appropriate. If an medical worker does not agree with something, the employee is required to continue to pay them, not allowed to reprimand the employee and is essentially stuck with an employee who will not perform their job simply based on their disagreement with an issue. Particularly alarming is that this is specific to the healthcare industry. Ignore hot button issues and this is a rather shocking take on things. If a person is dying and someone disagrees with reviving them, the bill allows for that. If a person needs emergency procedures for any reason and a worker objects, on any basis, this too would be acceptable. The employer is faced with accepting liability for employees whose sole excuse for not performing procedures is that they don't agree with the procedure. While you can interpret to be religious, it allows for far more than that.

This law would require employers to have no say in what their employees are supposed to do or any recourse if the employee refuses to do something. It is a complete reversal and I would imagine that most employers are not going to be thrilled. This is the government providing a means by which employees can refuse to do their job all based on their opinion and renders the employer helpless in having any say over the employee in such cases.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

The rule wouldn't stop with women's issues. It would be against gays too. HIV patients and people with infectious diseases might suffer as well. The list could go on and on. How do we prevent this from happening?

I agree with this post.

Something tells me it won't make it. Imagine the CEOs of hospitals who now have to worry about an employee not treating someone based on a moral issue. That can really be just about anything and certainly doesn't limit the hospital's liability. I am sure that most of the Medical lobbyists will be all over this thing just on the basis of liability alone.

Imagine if someone at a hospital fails to treat a heart attack victim because they are morally opposed to gays. The man dies because of the delay or lack of treatment. His wife then sues the hospital for negligence and malpractice. The moral opposition is rather hard to pin down during an emergency as it would allow people act on assumptions. You really couldn't tell if someone on a gurney hooked up to monitors was gay or straight. That moral objection could cost the hospital millions. The only person protected is the employee, even if they are wrong about the issue that they claimed to be morally against.

I am sure that hospitals understand this quite well. You could be morally opposed to anything. Ironically, if you ever saw cases in which parents claimed to be morally opposed to medical treatment of any kind for their child, it is rather common that one or both of those parents work in health care.

Wow! This is an easy one! GO TO ANOTHER DOCTOR!!!! You are not forced to go to any one doctor and you are free to walk down the road to a different one if one refuses treatment. This isn't Canada, this isn't western Europe either. You are not "assigned" doctors here. Rather this is a clear cut case of doctors being forced into taking political positions or being forced by libs into doing things against their wills. Doctors, like anyone else, should be allowed the freedom to choose what kind of medicine they will practice. It is YOU, not the Republican party, that are using the government into forcing people to do anything. This just disgusts me how you could object to doctors having basic rights. :(:distress: As far as the issue of not treating gays, we already have laws on the books to treat emergency care patients regardless of status, we don't need more laws. There isn't even a case of this happening that you can point to, so your concern in that case is unfounded.

Besides, there is a LIE circulating that Palin is against contraception. She is actually for it. She just doesn't want the government to pay for it. I disagree there. Paying for contraception now prevents 18 years of welfare being paid out.

?????? People aren't assigned doctors in europe. Some peoples understanding of public health is hilarious.

I would say that your explanation is more simple than easy.

If you are taken to an ER with injuries, you are certainly free to hobble, hitchhike or roll your gurney to another hospital. This is Amerca, afterall.

As to where in the world one is assigned a doctor, I can only imagine. Perhaps I should read a book about China or rent Mulan.

Again?!At what point in recent history did they ever stop?

Well, it seemingly is worse with the nomination of Palin. Again, I do not think Cheney and W actually believed all the religious BS. I think they were, instead, using the far religious right as a means to their ends. Plain, however, is a nutcase.

And, what gets me is seemingly moderate people can't see this for what it is. Instead, they say things like "well, what's wrong with a little religion," etc.

I agree and have said as much..As creepy as he is in other ways I particularly don't see Cheney as hyper -religious they used the fundies for their own political gain..Palin is a true believer ,an evangelical cultist that would make one of her own daughters carry the baby if she were raped or knocked up by Track Palin.I have talked to self described" social liberals" out here that are planning to vote McCain/Palin for "fiscal " reasons..When I attempted to explain how crazy she is they did not diagree but shrugged it off..I just don't get it.:shrug:

They are in Canada and in some places, they actually are assigned in Europe. :laugh:

You apparently didn't read all of my post. I did say that we already had laws protecting emergency cases in ER's. Also, despite your worries, there has NEVER been a recorded case of an ER doc not treating someone because they're gay or anything like that. There are already laws against that kind of crap. I already asked you to cite an instance where it happened and all you could do is make a personal taunt about Mulan. Again with the personal attacks and no effort in finding a case where something like you mentioned ever happened. LOL! Too predictable anymore. :lol:

Probably because you come off as a foaming at the mouth hysteric at times. I don't mean any offense by that. No offense meant here either, but your communication style often is perceived as hostile and just short of violent; I picture you in a real life as one of those people with lots of liberal bumper stickers, with a perpetual scowl that cuts people off in traffic. I generally just shrug off any point you make also, as most of it comes from really fringy places and makes a good soundbyte but doesn't really stand up to further analysis. The places you repeat things from are the left wing equivalent of Alex Jones. If you'd tone it down and stop the personal attacks, I might listen to you. Crazy far right religious nuts like my mother get the same response, as both parties have fringies. You just happen to be a left-wing one. No offense or insult meant, but it would be a stretch to call you a moderate. :D Try a different approach and you might actually get me to listen too! :)

Nah more of a laid back surfer type in real life here albeit a bit intimidating looking probably because I'm tall, have a shaved head and tats.I'd say you're handily as fringy as I am only at the other end of the spectrum ..I think being in the cult has really affected you adversely and as I have suggested you should look into some deprogramming and why bother couching obviously offensive remarks by stating 'no offense ..very lame..:laugh:As far as me seeming to come off as hostile and almost violent in my communication style who is the one that was temporarily banned for a vile and twisted homophoic rant? pot. kettle .black.

Okay fine. I thought you were banned before too? I was saying "no offense" because I didn't want to get banned again, LOL! I knew full well what I was saying was going to be taken as offensive, I just couldn't think of any other way to say it, so I thought I should put a caveat out there. :) I did look at deprogramming, and did a full program, however I'm still a conservative. I am just not a conservative because I think "God demands it", I don't think that the antichrist is a democrat LOL, and I'm not hiding in a bunker waiting for raids by federal agents. I'm a conservative because that's the philosophy that I think would work the best and give everyone the most amount of rights and the largest share of the fruits of their own labor.

I think you misunderstood my rant. It wasn't to be offensive as much as it was to make accusations that weren't disprovable online. Many accusations at the time, such as making up relatives (that really do exist BTW) were not possible to prove or disprove online despite calls to do so. So, I made a series of accusations that I thought would upset the other person and make them stand in my shoes for a bit. I actually do have very good friends that are gay. I'm not homophobic at all.

Nope I havn't been banned yet although some really cool people have been .Good for you for looking into the deprogramming ..I would say the only thing I have ranted kind of aggressively about since you have been around here is Palin..I'll admit the thought of having her in the White House brings up some serious emotion for me .It is just so wrong in so many ways.

Okay, let's strike a peace then. I will be nothing but respectful to you for the same in return. Cool? I won't post any more sarcastic smileys at you either. :laugh: This one is real. :)

Cool no problem although a little sarcasm or verbal sparring does not bother me .Really at no time in any of our interactions have I been upset with you .Consider the profession I work in. It takes a hell of a lot to tip me.:laugh:

My mom's dad used to work at Camarillo. He had a schizophrenic patient who was convinced that the government was after him and he used to walk the grounds picking up garbage, claiming it was "evidence" and he would give the bags of it to my grandfather. So, in typical Carl McCarrell humor, he started leaving notes for the guy with messages that he was being watched. He said the guy took a few days in isolation to calm down. :laugh: Since you're also a mental health worker, I thought you might appreciate the humor there.

So true...
 

and some very intellects at that. Some also just grew bored with the constant agreements/disagreements and decided to leave (ie Dissention - Truly one of the cool ones). I wished MIA Ledgies would drop in every once in awhile though...Some are sorely missed.

Yeah I know some older guys most of them retired who would do things like that ..I currently work forensic psych which is the "criminally insane " so probably not such a good idea for that population.

Oh fun! I can't imagine what dealing with those people would be like. Do you have trouble sleeping after work?

I took some electives in deviant psychology and social psychology. I thought it might help out, since I was planning on taking the Certified Fraud Examiner's test at the time. It was fairly interesting. I love that whole field and love TV shows that involve it, like SVU especially. I did my final essay on Charlie Sheen. I figured why just study one form of deviancy when I can study a guy who has all of them?! :laugh: That's about the extent of anything I know on the subject. I'd imagine you might have a very rotten view of humanity.

Oh yeah diss really kept things rocking around here ..those times were The Golden Age of the Ledge IMHO.

Nah I have the wonderful ability to stop thinking about it the minute I walk through the third locked gate out of the facility.

The good ol' days indeed...
 

Diss had the same opinion as myself of the 'infamous' Stevie Nicks "master reel" seller and his online (Predatorial at that) practice of charging too much for a compact disc that may contain only up to 20 minutes of material.

That, and our opinions of another former member who would brag how they 'contributed so much to the SN/FM trade community' while at the same time SELLING compact discs that were FREELY traded to this person.

Makes me wonder what I could have gotten for the BN live tracks! :D I hadn't even thought of selling them.

Depends on which...
 

BN tracks you had, there's ton of those tracks floating around, some in a great quality and some that sound like garbage. I laughed when I saw my master disc of the following listed on eBay awhile back (A good way to make enemies is to sale stuff that one traded FREELY for in the FM/SN trading circles) :


Buckingham/Nicks-The Raw Demos

1. Without You (Vocals & Bass)
2. Candlebright (Vocals & Guitar)
3. That's Alright (Acapella w/Bass guitar)
4. Garbo (Vocals & Bass)
5. Cathouse Blues (Vocals & Bass guitar)
6. Sorcerer (Vocals, Bass & Banjo)
7. After the Glitter Fades (Vocals, Drums, Bass & Slide Guitar)
8. Kind of Woman (Percussion mix)
9. Without You (Vocals & Acoustic guitar)
10. Candlebright (Vocals & Guitar)
11. Garbo (Vocals & Acoustic guitar)
12. Cathouse Blues (Vocals & Acoustic guitar)
13. After the Glitter Fades (Vocals, Drums, Bass & Slide Guitar)
14. Kind of Woman
15. Sleeping Angel

If I was interested in making $$$$ I could sell my Beatles collection (Over 800 compact discs) but I'm not about $$$$ or profits.

Lotta Beatles!!!! I didn't know they had so much catalog.

I couldn't really appreciate their sound much for some reason. I know it resonated with a lot of people, I just didn't care for it. I'm an uncultured swine, I know.

Try looking at the website bootlegzone.com to see how many Beatle bootlegs and releases there are currently in circulation - Makes Fleetwood Mac related material look amateurish (The Beatle vinyl sourced releases by Dr.Ebbett's were of such a great quality that Apple/EMI decided to remaster their earlier recording to compete with the fan produced bootlegs which were of a better quality than the officially released compact discs.)

As for massive catalog, there is one set of Beatle Bootlegs itself which consists of 76 cd's (basically a majority of the "Let it Be" session work) - "The Beatles - Day By Day Series Vol.1-38" (2 Discs per volume)

All I can say is WOW!!!

well I'm from europe and have never been assigned a gp. I don't know what your laughing at.

It happens freely, without provocation, and usually with drool :cool:

If...
 

one is a "Native American" (Such as I - though I prefer the Non-PC term "Indian") and has the need to seek medical treatment through "IHS" (Indian Health Services, aka "Incompetence at its best" - Trust me, I suffered TWICE from their mistakes) you are assigned a doctor, you do not get to request or choose a MD.

Neither have I but, you know, AJ also lectured me about the newspapers in my country so I guess he knows better than us.

Sarah Palin is the next QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE, Sharon!!! Here she is being interviewed. SHUN THE NONBELIEVER!!!!!!!

I could only love her more! :)

My point was less that doctors are assigned, as this point is only relavent to the effect that people are not assigned doctors here, but more that we are free to choose our own doctors. If you think you might need contraception or an abortion, I would hope you would have interviewed your doctor or had these kinds of conversations long before you wind up on his door with an emergency. I mean, at some point people have to take responsibility for their own health care, which means having a GP that you go to that you feel comfortable with. Make sure your doctor has similar views to your own and there shouldn't be a problem, as we already have laws protecting people in emergencies. If you want contraception and your doctor says no, get a different doctor or go to planned parenthood as most of them will give you free contraception. They have saved me on many successful dates! LOL!

Basically, the liklihood that you will ever be turned away by your GP for needing an emergency abortion is nill if you checked out your doctor ahead of time. Vice versa, if you hate abortion, go to a pro-life doctor. The doctor should be free to choose what sort of medicine they practice. We shouldn't force them to do something they may or may not consider a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

Well, Pravda has reported that The Washington Post was a "state run" newspaper, despite the fact that we don't have any state run newspapers in this country. This is especially ridiculous considering that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein worked under Ben Bradlee for The Washington Post to take down the Nixon Administration. Last I checked, state run newspapers didn't take down the President. I mean, do you think we should take newspapers that report that kind of crap seriously! :lol:

Besides, a survey was taken last year of Europeans who roundly believed that Sherlock Holmes was real and that Winston Churchill was a myth. I'm sorry, but considering the results, I can't take much of Europe seriously. I mean, come on now, Biggles was real?! :) Naw, I'll stick to reality rather than social constructs, thank you.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...k_holmes_real/