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

[strandinthewind]

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

[strandinthewind]

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.

[David]

I support this new law.

[ashton]

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.

[vivfox]

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?

[ashton]

Originally Posted by vivfox

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?

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.

[David]

Originally Posted by ashton

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.

I agree with this post.

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 don't see it that way. Just as if a woman should have the right to choose said options; then those medical professionals now have the right to choose whether or not to perform those procedures. And if you can't get it done by one person (an abortion for example), then go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with that.

Not that I work in the medical field, but I also maintain a certain right to choose within my line of work. If a "customer" gets out of line, curses, or is abusive in any way it's my decision on whether or not to walk away from that situation. I get to use my own better judgement. This seems like the same thing in my book.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I don't see it that way. Just as if a woman should have the right to choose said options; then those medical professionals now have the right to choose whether or not to perform those procedures. And if you can't get it done by one person (an abortion for example), then go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with that.

Not that I work in the medical field, I maintain a certain right to choose within my line of work. If a "customer" gets out of line, curses, or is abusive in anyway it's my decision on whether or not to walk away from that situation. I get to use my own better judgement. This seems like the same thing in my book.

I agree a doctor should not be compelled to perform an abortion ande there are many laws already stating that. So why is there a need for this new rule. Well, giving the option re abortions was not enough for the far religious right. They want their control go way beyond that. Moreover, imagine for a moment if you lived in a small town in a mostly rural state and were poor. You go to the doctor to get some procedure done (again, the new rule is limitless) and the one doctor in the town says no based on a moral objection and so do the doctors in the closest towns. The only way to get the medical attention you want is to go out of state and at a cost you cannot afford. What do you do then?

Again, this is not a small issue limited to abortion.

Finally, let's say you live in a state full of wiccans. Would you want their religious tenets controlling your medical care? Of course you wouldn't.

In the end, this is just another tactic by the far religious right to infiltrate and then dominate American life all while taking away autonomy.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, imagine for a moment if you lived in a small town in a mostly rural state and were poor. You go to the doctor to get some procedure done (again, the new rule is limitless) and the one doctor in the town says no based on a moral objection and so do the doctors in the closest towns. The only way to get the medical attention you want is to go out of state and at a cost you cannot afford. What do you do then?

Start the car!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

Start the car!

I my scenario, there is no car, though a bicycle could be a possibility.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree a doctor should not be compelled to perform an abortion ande there are many laws already stating that. So why is there a need for this new rule. Well, giving the option re abortions was not enough for the far religious right. They want their control go way beyond that. Moreover, imagine for a moment if you lived in a small town in a mostly rural state and were poor. You go to the doctor to get some procedure done (again, the new rule is limitless) and the one doctor in the town says no based on a moral objection and so do the doctors in the closest towns. The only way to get the medical attention you want is to go out of state and at a cost you cannot afford. What do you do then?

Again, this is not a small issue limited to abortion.

Finally, let's say you live in a state full of wiccans. Would you want their religious tenets controlling your medical care? Of course you wouldn't.

In the end, this is just another tactic by the far religious right to infiltrate and then dominate American life all while taking away autonomy.

One of the reasons for this law was a therapist who was sued because she said she didn't have appropriate expertise to deal with gay relationships and referred her gay patient elsewhere. Apparently, a guy came into a therapists office and asked for help with his gay relationship. She didn't know how to deal with the dynamics and referred him elsewhere. He ended up suing her and her church membership became an issue. THAT is a case of someone assuming a religious objection, when none may have existed at all. My understanding was that she was Methodist, which allows gays for membership.

No doubt, you'll say I'm not addressing the issue, despite giving an example directly on point as to why the rule may be necessary, and you will make your response all about me. Heck, I've been able to post this prediction and have it come true.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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! ]

Wow. I called you xenophobic before but I guess you really are. One mistake in a Russian newspaper. Big deal.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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/

What's that got to do with anything? Some crappy survey that shows a few Europeans in a poor light means that I don't know anything about my own country and you who live in America knows better than me? Wow, could you be any more patronising? That's not the first time you've mentioned that survey, so obviously you've got this view of Europeans being stupid that you love to keep touting with this "evidence". You get yourself in a little hissy fit if anyone calls you stupid but then bring out this crap.

Btw, what that link fails to mention is that it was a survey by a TV channel in the UK only where only 3,000 people were surveyed, so not exactly a large number of Europeans (out of around 700 million who live in Europe). You obviously want to believe that people in Europe are stupid.

Originally Posted by rubytuesday

Trust me you don't want to compare average general knowledge between europeans and americans. you'd be in for a major embarassment.

Amen to that.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. Therefore, you must also be an idiot and anything you say about your own personal healthcare choice is incorrect because of the results of this survey, which have nothing to do with you.

I know. For someone who hates being called an idiot he sure loves to call other people stupid. Besides that poll is throwaway at best. It was done by UKGold who wanted to get some press for their channel. A news release stating "Britons know Sherlock Holmes wasn't real" wouldn't exactly get much attention in the press.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Wow. I called you xenophobic before but I guess you really are. One mistake in a Russian newspaper. Big deal.



What's that got to do with anything? Some crappy survey that shows a few Europeans in a poor light means that I don't know anything about my own country and you who live in America knows better than me? Wow, could you be any more patronising? That's not the first time you've mentioned that survey, so obviously you've got this view of Europeans being stupid that you love to keep touting with this "evidence". You get yourself in a little hissy fit if anyone calls you stupid but then bring out this crap.

Btw, what that link fails to mention is that it was a survey by a TV channel in the UK only where only 3,000 people were surveyed, so not exactly a large number of Europeans (out of around 700 million who live in Europe). You obviously want to believe that people in Europe are stupid.



Amen to that.



I know. For someone who hates being called an idiot he sure loves to call other people stupid. Besides that poll is throwaway at best. It was done by UKGold who wanted to get some press for their channel. A news release stating "Britons know Sherlock Holmes wasn't real" wouldn't exactly get much attention in the press.

Again, you post was mostly personal attacks. Maybe cite something that says that Europeans do well on math tests or something to support your position?

The Pravda quote was not just one occasion, but was illustrative of something that they routinely do. It was the one occasion that I could think of off the top of my head that was plainly a lie that REALLY stuck with me as truly ridiculous. I mean, who doesn't know that Putin controls the press in Russia anymore? It is nothing more than government spin. They have no compunction about reporting lies. I used to read the dispatches sent by a guy in another group from the foreign press, but they reports usually bore no resemblance to what was actually going on here. They were full of anti-American bias and slant, yet, you call me xenophobic?! Europeans tend to be the most hostile to Americans, snobbish, and condescending people. Try going somewhere in Paris as an American without running into someone being rude because you are American. Me xenophobic? Whatever?!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

. . . If a "customer" gets out of line, curses, or is abusive in any way it's my decision on whether or not to walk away from that situation. I get to use my own better judgement. This seems like the same thing in my book.

For starters, no one is going to die without your advice (as a rule that is )