Bush broadens new "Conscience" Rule

[Liar]

It seems to be a consensus here that Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists don't have any right to their own beliefs. Sounds like the totalitarian idea the Right is always accused of. I just love the double standard.

Wrong. The double standard is Bush's.

A law like this should either apply to ALL professions and ALL beliefs, or to NO professions and NO beliefs. Should Muslims and Jews expect to keep their jobs as burger chefs, if they refuse to fry the bacon? How about Atheists? Should they be allowed to be Sunday School teachers, and then refuse to teach Christianity? Should a bunch of Amish run a nuclear plant, and then be allowed to refuse to press buttons?

Unless you are ok with all of that or more, then you are the hypocrite.

 

[Liar]

DP - You convieniently ignore the double standard of the doctors proscribing marijuana, which is denied by the feds.

Re: the issue at hand - Doctors and nurses do have a right to their own beliefs. The problem arises when their own beliefs prevent them from doing their job, in which case they should get a different job. It's that simple.

If I'm a luddite and I don't believe in computers, I shouldn't get a job as a computer programmer. If I'm a conscientious objector on religious grounds, I shouldn't join the infantry of the armed forces (although I could be a medic or other support person if I wanted to.) If I'm a fundie and I don't believe in abortion, I shouldn't get a job as a pharmacist who must dispense contraception, or as a doctor who must perform abortions to ensure the health of the mother.

Perhaps the solution to this dilemma would be different categories of medical providers, with the government filling in the gaps. In other words, if there's a rural community with no pharmacy or doctor willing to proscribe the morning after pill or do abortions, the government could install a clinic for that purpose, giving the residents a choice. The doctors and pharmacists staffing the clinic could rotate in and out as part of a Service to America type of program paying off their student loans. In that case, they wouldn't get their student loans if they objected to the terms, and they'd have to get private loans, thereby absolving them of the need to go against their conscience.

I know, the right wing would bitch like hell seeing their tax dollars go to such an enterprise, just like the left wing bitches like hell seeing their tax dollars going to Iraq. In a democracy, we can't all get what we want at the exclusion of everyone else. However, if our democracy wants to go the way of the Taliban, letting religious dogma define our laws, perhaps we should add an amendment to the constitution defining this new relationship between God and our legislative process.

Sorry, missed this post. Right on every point, Dee.

 

[Katyusha]

One does not have the right to inflict their beliefs on me, and should I decide I want an abortion or am in need of emergency contraception, someone refusing to provide even a referral on moral grounds is inflicting their beliefs on me. Quite frankly, I'm sick of the Christians in this country crying foul and screaming about limiting religious freedom when they find that they're going to be subjected to the same limitations that every other religion in this country must abide by.

If it goes against your morals to do part of your job, then find another job. I can guarantee everyone right now that if I decided there was a part of my job that I could no longer do because I found it morally objectionable, I'd be fired rather quickly. Why should anybody in the health care industry be allowed to refuse to do their jobs on those grounds when the rest of us would lose ours for doing that?

 

[SlickTony]

It's kind of ironic that Bush and his repub ilks are so vehemently against unions, and at the same time is seemingly embracing the two aspects of organized labor that can be seen even by the left as epidemically bad - micromanaging working conditions and protecting bad apple employees.

This. I'm surprised that the media hasn't caught on to this.

 

[DesertPirate]

Another factor reducing the number of abortions is that younger women aren't seeking them out. Commentators note that as earlier and earlier preemies are surviving, fewer women are looking at their fetuses as 'things' and more as 'babies' so the demand for abortion is dropping.

They might be beginning to understand that life really does begin at conception.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[DesertPirate]

Wrong. The double standard is Bush's.

A law like this should either apply to ALL professions and ALL beliefs, or to NO professions and NO beliefs. Should Muslims and Jews expect to keep their jobs as burger chefs, if they refuse to fry the bacon? How about Atheists? Should they be allowed to be Sunday School teachers, and then refuse to teach Christianity? Should a bunch of Amish run a nuclear plant, and then be allowed to refuse to press buttons?

Unless you are ok with all of that or more, then you are the hypocrite.

I don't have a problem with equal enforcement of these rules. I'm just tired of certain groups trying to tell everyone else what to do. Sound familiar? The left is just as guilty as the right. Catholic hospitals don't do abortions, deal with it. If the Govt. tries to force the issue they will be closed. Can this country afford to loose between 12% abd 18% of it's hospitals?

 

[Liar]

I don't have a problem with equal enforcement of these rules.

May your next paramedic be morally opposed to resusitation. Or may at least your next cab driver be Amish.

I'm just tired of certain groups trying to tell everyone else what to do. Sound familiar? The left is just as guilty as the right. Catholic hospitals don't do abortions, deal with it.

Bullshit sophistry. As long as everyone can excersize their rights as consumers and take their money to a competitor, I'm perfectly fine with anyone offering or not offering any (legal) service they want. IF they are clear and upfront about which medical conditions they are choosing to not treat, so that consumers can make an early and informed choice. Also, if there is no reasonable availability of options for the consumer (as is often the case with health care, especially in rural areas), and the one available hospital does not provide sufficient care, there's a public health issue. Then guv' ment has to step in, somehow. Setting up a side shop that provides the missing services, or something.

But you know what? That's only one part of what this legislation is about, and that is not where the big problem lies. It lies in that the hospital that DOES abortions, or the pharmacy that DOES sell contraceptives, can't do shit against employers who refuse to partake in that. They have no right to ask the presumptive employees if they are going to "mortally object" to something the employer is selling, and to choose another applicant if that's the case. They can't fire them. And they can't even re-assign them to tohwer duties in the hospital, where their "moral conscience" wouldn't be cmpromised. Oh no, that would be "religious discrimination".

So who's telling who what to do? Really.

 

[Katyusha]

But you know what? That's only one part of what this legislation is about, and that is not where the big problem lies. It lies in that the hospital that DOES abortions, or the pharmacy that DOES sell contraceptives, can't do shit against employers who refuse to partake in that. They have no right to ask the presumptive employees if they are going to "mortally object" to something the employer is selling, and to choose another applicant if that's the case. They can't fire them. And they can't even re-assign them to tohwer duties in the hospital, where their "moral conscience" wouldn't be cmpromised. Oh no, that would be "religious discrimination".

So who's telling who what to do? Really.

Indeed.

What would it be like if you walked into a supermarket, picked up a package of pork chops, and the one cashier currently on duty refused to ring it up for you because some belief they hold prohibits them from handling pork? If the entire store refuses to sell pork products for whatever reason or even no reason, that's one thing, anybody who has autonomy over the entire store should be able to sell or not sell whatever they like. But if the store sells them, and the cashier won't ring them up because of moral beliefs? How many of us would go complain to their manager? And how many of them would be fired for it?

 

[slyc_willie]

They have every right to believe in the fucking flying spaghetti monster, if they so choose.

They shouldn't have the right to inflict their beliefs on anyone else, but now they do. And that's exactly what it is: a fucking infliction.

Indeed.

However, as antagonistic as this new policy is, I seriously doubt it will last. The Bush administration is in it's last hour of influence, so it is pushing through what it can. I doubt anyone on either side views this piece of BS as a true and viable threat.

Whatever the reasons for the opposition, they will quickly see the day. Any hospital who decides to enact this edict to the letter will almost certainly and shortly face a wealth of legal retaliation. And once the Supreme Court has their say, this, too, will be a thing of the past, fading away amid the heady cloud of humiliation which hovers over the exiting Bush.

 

[matriarch]

http://www.springwidgets.com/widgets/view/66853

Hey, you asked.

I like that, I also copied the code:

<!-- SpringWidgets | Inauguration Day 2009 (#66853) | HTML | Generated on 12/21/2008 --><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowNetworking="all" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" height="153" width="167" id="springwidgets_66853" align="middle" data="http://downloads.thespringbox.com/web/wrapper.php?file=66853.sbw" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="movie" value="http://downloads.thespringbox.com/web/wrapper.php?file=66853.sbw" /><param name="flashvars" value="param_eventTitle=Inauguration+Day+2009&param_eventDate=01-20-2009&param_eventTime=00%3A00&param_counterStyle=scoreboard&param_linkUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fspringwidgets.com%2Fwidgetize%2F71&param_eventSkin=US+Flag&param_eventCustomSkin=&param_counterX=0&param_counterY=0" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="bgColor" value="0x000000" /><embed bgColor="0x000000" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" src="http://downloads.thespringbox.com/web/wrapper.php?file=66853.sbw" flashvars="param_eventTitle=Inauguration+Day+2009&param_eventDate=01-20-2009&param_eventTime=00%3A00&param_counterStyle=scoreboard&param_linkUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fspringwidgets.com%2Fwidgetize%2F71&param_eventSkin=US+Flag&param_eventCustomSkin=&param_counterX=0&param_counterY=0" quality="high" name="springwidgets_66853" wmode="transparent" width="167" height="153" align="middle" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object><div style="font:11px/12px arial;width:167px;"><a href="http://www.springwidgets.com/widgets/view/66853/?param_eventTitle=Inauguration+Day+2009&param_eventDate=01-20-2009&param_eventTime=00%3A00&param_counterStyle=scoreboard&param_linkUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fspringwidgets.com%2Fwidgetize%2F71&param_eventSkin=US+Flag&param_eventCustomSkin=&param_counterX=0&param_counterY=0&width=167&height=153" target="_blank" title="Get this widget!">Get this widget!</a></div>

....but have no idea what I have to do to get this to turn into an image here in my post.........*computer-deficit*

Help??!!

 

[Liar]

Don't worry, mat. It's not your non-geekiness that screws it up.

These boards simply don't support embedding apps and widgets.

Nice little in the middle of the code. Looks like it's mocking us...