talkpolitics | (no subject)

Current Mood: dirty
Current Location: United States, Indiana, South Bend
Current Music: "Carry On My Wayward Son" by Kansas

Entry tags:

(no subject)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/19/946995/-Obama-administration-rescinds-Bushs-conscience-rule-for-medical-providers

The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the rule, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, could “negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services.”

It's good to see that common sense CAN sometimes prevail in DC. There isn't a place for conscientious objectors in medicine.The patient is the one who makes the decisions which is as it should be. I know I wouldn't want to have to go hunting for an atheist doctor if a medical choice I wanted to make conflicted with that of my regular doctor.

Plus, it's a kick in the balls to the religious right which is always nice.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ok, well I strongly expect that many on the right think this is at least one of the major things which it provided protection from.

The first statement of the link provided seems to back up this view:

Remember the Bush Administration's "conscience rule"? The one that would have allowed health providers to deny patients treatment based on religious grounds? The one that would have allowed pharmacists to deny women access to contraceptives simply because they thought contraceptives were immoral?

It doesn't seem to be talking about employees; it appears to be talking about organisations as a whole who choose not to provide certain services.

I think this is very much worthy of clarification.

Right. The two questions are addressing two separate issues. A pharmacist who is an employee of a pharmacy having a dispute with their employer is different from "health providers denying patients treatment on religious grounds".

The issue being talked about now is "protecting" employees from employers. Forcing organizations wholesale, on the other hand, is something different.

From the article:

Federal laws make clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion, Ms. Sebelius said. The Bush rule went far beyond these laws and upset the balance between patients’ rights to obtain health care and “the conscience rights of health care providers,” she added.

And:

The Obama administration said the 2008 rule might have mistakenly suggested that health care providers could refuse to treat entire groups of people on account of the providers’ religious or moral beliefs.

Federal laws provide no protection for such refusals, the administration said.

Of course, this would run afoul of basic discrimination law in this country; ie: you can't refuse to treat black people because they're black and your idiosyncratic religious views motivate this discrimination.

Re: forcing organizations to perform abortions;

In response to such concerns, the Obama administration said, “Roman Catholic hospitals will have the same statutory protections afforded to them for decades” because the laws were not affected by the cancellation of the Bush rule.

Well that clears that up, for me at least.

I think its confused in part because there are vocal groups out there, particularly feminist groups, that think that Roman Catholic hospitals shouldn't be allowed to refuse either.

Oh I'm sure there are. But we, as responsible, mature and diplomatic people, seeking wisdom and peace, would find any outcome forcing any side to do anything so draconically imposed to be offensive to our deliberate sensibilities.

Off-topic, is there are word to describe being both sarcastic and perfectly serious at the same time?

Or more precisely, being sarcastic, and perfectly in earnest, at the same time.

Ha, I don't know. I just listen to Captain Jean-Luc Picard. He never sets me wrong.

After seeing Patrick Stewart on the Extras, I always imagine his persona sitting behind Jean-Luc's forehead, smiling inside and thinking thoughts like "Good show old boy, that made us sound utterly magnificent" whenever Captain Picard says anything like that.

Here's a link to the segment, in case you've never seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_cwI1Xj4M

I think "half jest, whole earnest" might be what you're looking for.

And, of course, you can't actually force them to do anything, since the Catholics would shut down their hospital in a heart-beat if any such thing were to occur. Instead, we should strive to find the most agreeable and productive measures which would preserve hospitals and their services.

Certainly. Or at least measures that don't prejudice their ability to provide hospitals and their valuable services in a way agreeable to personal freedom.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,

Re: Um,