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: