(no subject)
22/2/11 12:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dv8nation.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://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The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or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.
The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or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.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:37 (UTC)A group of Catholic doctors set up a private practice in a major city.
They decide that, being observant Catholics, its abhorrent to each of them to perform abortions and make it a policy that they are able to decline to do so unless required by medical necessity. If someone really wanted one, there are other practices and medical services available elsewhere in the city.
Do you think in this instance they should face legal or tort consequences if they fail to provide elective abortions?
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:39 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:47 (UTC)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.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:49 (UTC)The issue being talked about now is "protecting" employees from employers. Forcing organizations wholesale, on the other hand, is something different.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:51 (UTC)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.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:52 (UTC)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: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:53 (UTC)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.
Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:01 (UTC)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.
Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:03 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:06 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:07 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:09 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:15 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:16 (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_cwI1Xj4M
Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 07:35 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:07 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 00:10 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 04:19 (UTC)They decide that, being observant Catholics, its abhorrent to each of them to perform abortions and make it a policy that they are able to decline to do so unless required by medical necessity. If someone really wanted one, there are other practices and medical services available elsewhere in the city.
Do you think in this instance they should face legal or tort consequences if they fail to provide elective abortions?
What you describe would be no problem. What people are afraid of is the issue that people have been having with fundamentalist pharmacists. In order for your situation to be analogous, this is what it would have to be:
They decide that, being observant Catholics, its abhorrent to each of them to perform abortions and make it a policy that they are able to decline to do so regardless of medical necessity. They also refuse to refer people for abortions elsewhere, and should a patient seek an abortion from another provider, refuse to provide medical records for doing so.
(Fundamentalist pharmacists have been doing this with BC, regardless of what it has been prescribed for, and refusing to transfer prescriptions out of religious fervor. Each time they bring it up, they're getting roundly smacked by pharmacist boards and companies they work for.)