Pennsylvania bill: Allow doctors to deny treatment, medicine on religious grounds

[havocmom]

Forget Kansas, what's the matter with PA?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pennsylvania_bill_0217.html

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1255, also called the Conscientious Objection Act, would absolve medical care providers of liability in cases where reproductive care was denied based on a practitioner's religious or moral beliefs.

Services a provider would be free to withhold, with immunity, include performing an abortion, artificial insemination, and prescribing birth control or emergency contraception (also known as the "morning-after pill").

"There shall be no cause of action against a health care provider for declining to participate in a health care service that violates his or her conscience," the bill reads. "A health care institution that declines to provide or participate in a health care service that violates its conscience," it adds, "shall not be civilly, criminally or administratively liable."

"I intend with this bill," says Senator John Eichelberger (R-Altoona) to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "to make it very clear that people in health care and in medical institutions would be held harmless if they for religious reasons decide not to provide procedures for abortion or contraception."

While I am not wild for either DEM candidates still in the race, this bill in PA certainly makes it clear that having a DEM filling the next SCOTUS vacancies will be more critical than any differences any of us have with the candidates.

Eyes on the prize: keeping women as citizens and not vessels at the mercy of religious crackpots.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Then put in a clause that requires the "religious" doctor to pay for any child's entire life needs

It's only fair - if your religious beliefs require you to force a woman to get pregnant, then you should be held liable to pay for that child's entire life, OR you have to adopt it.

That law is bullshit.

Any hospital that gets ANY government funding at all - even if it's just that they don't have to pay property tax - should be required to provide ALL medical care that's within their means. And ANY doctor or nurse who is licensed by the state should be required to provide ALL medical care, or lose their license.

And any health care provider that will refuse any kind of needed medication for "religious" reasons should have to have a giant banner over their door "WARNING! (list of the objectionable procedures) WILL BE DENIED YOU IN THIS PLACE AND NONE OF THE DOCTORS OR NURSES ARE STATE LICENSED!!!!!" in letters at least seven feet high.

[havocmom]

5. The bill basically legalizes discrimination

How about white supremacist types who may decide they have 'religious beliefs' that people of color are not worthy of medical care?

Where does it stop? Why have state licensing if health care providers can pick and choose what medical conditions they want to treat based on subjective religious grounds? This will make it harder to get prescriptions filled too, as fundies in the farmacy use it as precedent to pick and choose who gets lawful medicines and who doesn't

And if a doctor refused a lawful procedure based on religious grounds, can patients sue their asses for hypocrisy if they are found violating any tenants of their faith? If a doctor fools around on the side, pads billing (STEALS) or does not properly honor their mother and father, can patients take issue with the doctors' sincerity about religious beliefs? How about working on Sunday? Could doctors refuse to stitch up hemorrhaging accident victims in the ER because it's the Sabbath?

I hope the good people of PA take this fool tool legislature out and treat him to a tar and feather overcoat, metaphorically, of course.

[UncleSepp]

192. Working to save a life does not violate the Sabbath

Yes, of course it is a problem when health care providers can pick and choose what treatment they will offer and to whom they will offer it based on subjective religious grounds. However, under no religion which observes the Sabbath would stitching up an accident victim be a violation of Sabbath observance. Neither would delivering a baby, saving a person from a burning building, or relieving the suffering of another human being or animal.

Edit to add: Of course a health care provider has a right to practice his or her religion to the fullest extent. However, that health care provider needs to choose a profession that allows him or her to fully practice those beliefs without compromising the health of his or her patients. A veterinarian whose religious beliefs would not allow him or her to handle pigs ought to go into something like avian medicine, where neither doctor nor patient suffer. Likewise, a physician whose religious beliefs do not allow him or her to provide abortifacients or abortions ought to choose a field where this will not be asked of him or her.

[havocmom]

198. If a doctor feels someone else shouldn't be doing THEIR work on the sabbath,

and let that person die of injuries incurred in such work... Well, this bill looks like it gives the doctor cover.

Working on the Sabbath is not just about the doctor end of the transaction. My concerns would be with a lazy doctor deciding not to treat because the patient worked on a Sunday and was therefore rightly punished by misfortune.

If a hooker comes in hurt, and the doctor believes whores are bad...

Of if someone of a faith the doctor does not believe is the proper faith...

Yes, if someone's beliefs preclude some or many of the lawful and reasonable requirements of a particular profession, they really do not have solid grounds for going into that profession

[UncleSepp]

208. Then that doctor is practicing no known religion.

The value of saving a life is greater than the value of any other thing, including Sabbath observance. The Sabbath examples just aren't realistic. For that matter, an observant doctor who doesn't believe in eating pork isn't going to refuse to save the life of someone who's choking on a chunk of barbecue. The preservation of life comes first. I think we're basically on the same side of this, but the "can a doctor work on the Sabbath to save a life?" question is a question that only seems to come up among people who don't observe any Sabbath and who don't have such a rule. It's often used to make the classes of people who observe the Sabbath seem heartless, cold, and even dangerous.

The example about the hooker? Now that's realistic. Gay and transgendered people have been refused health care on religious, moral, and just plain bigoted grounds, why not hookers too? People have been refused health care based on race, class, and religion before, why not now? This bill might provide another loophole for bigoted people to slip through. The real purpose of the bill, though, goes back to that thing about the value of a life. It exists to allow health care providers not to provide information, services, or products for birth control or abortion if their religious beliefs prohibit it. It's not written that way, and of course, imprecision in a law can be a very bad thing. Imprecision in a bad law is even worse.

The thing with religious laws, whether the universal and obvious ones or the strange and arbitrary ones, is that the understanding is largely in the doing. A person only gets the value out of following them by choosing to follow them. Moreover, a person gets more value out of making difficult choices to follow a law than making easy ones. A person who makes it easy on himself to follow the laws he has chosen to follow by making it impossible not to follow them cheapens the law and the choice for himself and everyone else. Secular laws against adultery, pornography, and alcohol are these kinds of laws. Who has more self-control, a person who can say "no thank you" to a glass of wine, a person who can have a glass or two and stop before he regrets it, or a person who couldn't have any wine at all because it's illegal to possess? A person who makes it easy on himself to follow the laws he has chosen by removing negative consequences from following those laws also doesn't get much out of it. Who has made a stronger committment to keeping the Sabbath, a shopkeeper who closes up on the Sabbath even though his neighbor's shop is open, or a shopkeeper who closes up on the Sabbath knowing that all his neighbors are required to close on either Saturday or Sunday anyway?

[havocmom]

184. Rabrrrrrr, I keep remembering articles on implanting ape embryos in male apes

Back in the early/mid 80s, somebody was trying it. Worked for gestation, but natural delivery was out of the question. Seems blood rich organs such a liver or spleen worked OK.

Soooooo, if a doctor doesn't want to give complete care we could go a bit further than just extracting child support payments for 18 years :evilgrin:

It'd be sorta fun to test just how far their reverence for life/the unborn really goes.

[Sadie4629]

2. Do you believe in the right of a soldier

to follow his conscience in disobeying orders by superior officers that he believes to be immoral? If so, what is the difference in this case?

As long as a woman can seek treatment from another source, physicians should be able to follow their own consciences.

[elizfeelinggreat]

4. I think it's more complicated than that

Have you ever seen a doctor and not realized that their religion has interfered with the knowledge they impart to you about your condition?

That's a big danger to all of us.

[Sadie4629]

12. So the SOURCE of their morality matters

more than their actions? A doc can oppose abortion for reasons other than being a right-wing-fund-talibangelical-nutcase. Would a doctor who simply believes that abortion is an immoral choice be allowed to withhold treatment, while one who says "God says, 'Thou shalt not kill'" would not be allowed to withhold treatment?

There are plenty of sources of information regarding both abortion and birth control that no woman needs to rely on the opinion of one doctor.

[elizfeelinggreat]

17. huh?

I sincerely do not understand why the reasons that a doctor is withholding information (or action) on a medical case has any bearing on the right of a women to have access to that information (or action). Withholding is withholding.

And if you're ignorant of the fact that your doctor has withheld information (for any reason) you aren't likely to go looking to find out what he/she left out - because you're not aware they did so.

And there are NOT that many sources of information for many people nowadays. I wish everyone was able to access the internet, spend time and money visiting more than one medical expert, etc., but I do not believe that's true at all. Do you?

[elizfeelinggreat]

18. again

looking at your post again, I think you're assuming something I didn't say.

I said you might not be aware of what they don't tell you.

You emphasized the religious aspect and I didn't meant to emphasize that as much as the fact that you might not be aware of their prejudices and how it affects your treatment.

Hope I cleared that up.

[Sadie4629]

24. Yeah, that makes it clearer

I took this quote from your reply:

"that their religion has interfered with the knowledge they impart to you about your condition?"

and made an (erroneous) assumption about your meaning.

****

My assumption about the situation in which a medical professional would refuse treatment he/she deems immoral would be that the doc would say, "I don't do abortions/provide birth control prescriptions/do artificial insemination, but I can refer you to someone who will." I would assume a doctor would not outright lie to a patient.

As far as sources of info, you really don't need the Internet to learn about alternatives. You only need the Yellow Pages, or a county health dept., or a school counselor. Few, if any, are totally dependent on the advice of one person in order to make decisions.

[elizfeelinggreat]

29. fyi

as far as "I don't do abortions/provide birth control prescriptions/do artificial insemination, but I can refer you to someone who will."

Never has a doctor told me what he will not do and referred me to someone who does do that unless it's the treatment plan they want me to follow. They tell you what they believe should be done and if they don't do it they refer you to a specialist who does that.

Because it pertains to this thread I will use the religious example: If you go into my local Catholic church and say you are pregnant and need help they will not say, "Planned Parenthood can give you more options" they will say, "call our helpline and someone will help you with the adoption process." That's what they believe in, that's what they will push you towards. If they even bring up the subject of abortion it will not be in terms that help you make a decision based on your needs but on what they perceive to be your religious duty.

I think it's a grave danger that a doctor, for whatever personal reason, will be given legal permission to dismiss the first option and only give the second.

edited to add: I cannot stay online today but will check back tomorrow.

[Sadie4629]

34. There is a huge difference between a church and a doctor

Saying that because a CHURCH will not refer you to Planned Parenthood that means a doctor won't give you options is--a little strange, to say the least.

Even if a doctor chooses not to do a specific procedure himself, he/she will generally not make the choice for you by withholding information on options.

Are you saying that if you seek a second opinon from your doctor, that he/she will only refer you to a doc who will confirm his/her opinion? I think you need a different doctor!!

[havocmom]

43. ER - rape- morning after pill

No time to quibble and dance with straw partners.

State licensed doctors should not have option of religious shields for denying legal treatment to slightly more than half the population.

[Sadie4629]

48. I guess I wouldn't want

a doctor performing a procedure on me that was against his conscience. I'm not sure I would trust him to do the best possible job. How about you?

[havocmom]

57. we'll never know how you would feel unless the issue came up personally

Personally, I want you to have every oportunity to get any and all the medical care you may decide you needed, particularly if you had been attacked. At such a time, I seriously doubt your concern would be the tender feelings of the ER staff.

Personally, I don't want to go to the ER in need of urgent and FULL care and have to worry that somebody with a STATE LICENSE may have the legal right to deny me care because of subjective religious beliefs. I don't want your daughters to every have to entertain that worry either.

This is not about you and me. This is about ALL women.

[mentalsolstice]

122. And what about...

the rape victim, who because of physical injuries, is too medically unstable to seek appropriate services in another location just so she can obtain two pills which must be taken in a timely fashion. As a volunteer rape response advocate, this bill scares me on so many levels. I'm not medically trained, it is my job to provide comfort and counseling during the rape exam, and to inform the victim about non-medical aftercare services. I don't want to be forced into determining whether or not the DR. or nurse practitioner is providing appropriate medical care and information, nor do I want to be forced into giving medical advice myself.

[havocmom]

127. you do understand the many facets of the problems with this bill

And many thanks for the volunteer work!

[yardwork]

107. Prescribing a contraceptive pill is not "performing a procedure."

Nobody in this country forces any doctor to perform abortions. Most doctors choose not to do so.

We're talking about prescribing legal medications.

[Crunchy Frog]

149. A doctor can give me a pill, and I don't give a flying fuck how he feels about it.

I would not require all doctors to perform surgical abortions, but no doctor should be able to refuse to give someone an urgently needed pill, and the "job" of giving said pill should not be affected by the doctors "conscience".

[elizfeelinggreat]

200. how presumptuous of you

for your information I have an excellent doctor. I am not sure everyone else does. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps some person who hasn't as many options doesn't, we owe it to them to try to protect them.

Also, I didn't say the church and doctor were equal, I was explaining those religious practices in case you weren't aware of them.

You have not explained something in your argument that this law won't do harm. Please do tell us what motive doctors have to inform patients that they won't tell them/perform all their medical options because of their religious beliefs if this law passes.

Most of your arguments here are putting the onus on the patient instead of on the medical provider where it belongs. Do you have a personal reason for this?

[havocmom]

6. a soldier can refuse an ILLEGAL order

apples and sour grapes argument.

[Sadie4629]

15. What about conscientious objecters?

[havocmom]

19. They haven't been licensed to treat all people who need care

have they? They didn't take an oath to provide medical care did they.

Are we done with your (limping) straw man yet?

[Sadie4629]

30. At one time

the Hippocratic oath prohibited abortion. Oaths can be changed.

Doctors do specialize in different fields. (Duh.) Try asking your GP to do brain surgery. And claiming that traveling to get it presents such a hardship that he/she simply HAS to do the operation will probably get you laughed out of his office. It's not unreasonable to think that not all doctors HAVE to do all procedures.

[havocmom]

33. IF you are raped and need a pill to ensure your attacker can't use your body another 9 months

as an incubator for his spawn, the ER doctor could refuse to write a prescription you need. You may not have means to get to another town for a doctor who will do the job. You may even be so young that you CAN'T DRIVE to another doctor.

Stop throwing straw around. People don't go to GPs for brain surgery. The DO go to GPs for birth control. They DO go to ERs following rape.

[Sadie4629]

38. If the rape victim is so young she can't drive

I would assume that she has a mother/father/friend/teacher/neighbor/grandparent/counselor/sister/aunt who can drive her to wherever she needs to go.

Even IF the ER physician refuses to inform her about a morning after pill, as a rape victim she WILL have access to a rape counselor (even if it is a police officer) who WILL tell her.

Talk about straw . . .

I notice that you are conveniently ignoring my points (made several times) about county health departments. Why is that?

[havocmom]

68. Sometimes, the father is the perp

too often mothers in such cases just look the other way. Not every youngster has good parents.

Some rural counties have little or no funding for real health departments. Some COUNTIES don't even have doctors. I do know a bit about rural realities.

Rape counselors? Again, reality is not all people have access. There ARE no counselors in many communities and even whole counties.

You obviously have limited skill with empathy and noticing not all people have the same services available.

[Sadie4629]

76. I'm surprised that

it took 68 posts for incest to come into the conversation. SOME girls have horrible families, but THE VAST MAJORITY have loving, supportive parents, and the ones who don't generally have someone--teacher, aunt, mother of a friend--who will see to her needs.

There are a lot of things that those of us who live in rural America have to do without--malls, Starbucks, multiplexes, etc. come to mind. But those of us who have chosen small town life have adapted. We understand that there are certain things that we do have to make trips for. Medical treatment, of all kinds, can be among them. I have made a 60 mile trip to see an orthopedic surgeon. High-risk pregnancies, premature babies can require specialists as far as two hours, or more, from here. My husband had an aneurysm a couple of years ago, and had to go 125 miles by ambulance. We couldn't just demand that the ER doc, as competent as he was, fix that aneurysm.

Yes, traveling to another town to see a different doctor can be a pain, but it's very rarely life or death, merely an big inconvenience.

[havocmom]

90. It wasn't needed until you brought up parents as an option for minors

Fact is, too many minors don't have the option of relying on parents.

If you are 11 to 17, it is a tad more than 'big inconvenience'! Your lack of empathy is astounding.

Edited to add: thanks for another kick! :thumbsup:

[Solon]

98. This Sadie person is off her rocker...

Seriously, I really can't relate to her at all. Oh, BTW: Another kick! :)

[havocmom]

103. Don't go making assumptions...

lots of people with mental issues still manage empathy and logic; can't chalk it up to that. ;)

Thanks for the kick and the smile

[uppityperson]

202. You assume too much.

you assume wrongly.

[skater314159]

108. You are aware that there is more than one doctor in the US?

And that most EDs or ERs have multiple doctors, nurses, surgeons and other staff on at any one time?

Just because one doctor won't perform a procedure doesn't mean that you can't get that procedure.

[Richard Steele]

115. So, are you saying this law would be OK with you? nm

[skater314159]

121. Read my other posts in this thread. nm

[Richard Steele]

128. I did. That's why I asked you that simple question. After reading the new ones, my question remains.

Since you refuse to answer, I'll just put you down
for a "yes", then, shall I?

[havocmom]

131. I live in a remote county with NO doctors

Dealing with reality.... not all women have the same options.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. There are no conscientious objectors on the battlefield.

I don't know what world you are living in, but as the other poster said, the only order you can disobey is an ILLEGAL one. Which, under this administration, is apparently nothing any more, but that's beside the point.

If you are a CO, you tell the military early, and hopefully get a non-combat job. Not necessarily, though.

But any dickass, even a previously proclaimed CO, who waits until he's on the battlefield to say "I cannot kill" gets court-martialed. Or worse.

You are trying to make an argument comparing two entirely unrelated things, and it doesn't work.

[JerseygirlCT]

155. One assumes they won't be signing on to be soldiers

if they are COs.

[WillParkinson]

9. As long as a woman can seek treatment from another source...

So in an emergency room what choices does she have?

Your belief system is your choice.

And if laws like this pass I want to be able to not have to serve Republicans, meat-eaters, smokers, drinkers, etc. because they offend my moral belief. After all, why shouldn't *I* have that right?

[Sadie4629]

14. Where does it say this occurs in an ER?

An emergency room artificial insemination?

Emergency contraception following a rape (which is the only example I can think of where contraception would be dispensed in an ER) is a whole different ball game, and one that few docs would have a problem with.

Likewise an ectopic pregnancy, or other condition which would make an abortion a medical emergency.

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. That's what this law is totally about - giving ER docs the right not to give medication

that might "abort" an egg that was fertilized a few hours previously.

Over in Wisconsin, they're trying to pass a law that would require all hospitals and doctors to provide all medical procedures and information on all of them (the opp. of this PA bill), and the Catholics are having a fucking hissy fit because the post-rape drug might "kill a baby". Many Catholic hospitals won't even tell women that the drug exists, nor talk about birth control, nor do anything that might interfere with a woman's god-given duty to shovel out babies - that's not health care, that's voodoo bullshit, and it needs to be stopped.

And the ER is where this shit happens.

[Sadie4629]

26. Are you sure that they don't tell a rape victim

that those drugs exist? Even a lot of Catholic pro-lifers are willing to make the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exceptions to their beliefs.

[Rabrrrrrr]

63. Yes.

[rockymountaindem]

74. Yes

That has been an issue in Colorado as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

157. They often do not

It's up to the woman to know about and seek out the care she should be offered as a matter of course.

We went through this fight recently in CT. The Catholic Church finally backed down, and emergency room personnel must offer women the care they require, including emergency contraception.

[havocmom]

161. Bravo to those who worked to get care for women and get the church to act

[JerseygirlCT]

168. Against Lieberman's wishes, no surprise

Our "democrat" sided with the Archbishop and the RCC on that issue.

[uppityperson]

203. Yes. "a lot" does not = all. eom

[Crunchy Frog]

151. What about a woman having a miscarriage?

Before Roe V. Wade, those women were sometimes made to just suffer without treatment, because the doctor might be accused of having performed an abortion. Also, in some Latin American countries where abortion is illegal, women are left to die of untreated ectopic pregnancies. Under this law, it's concievable that a miscarrying woman or a woman with an ectopic pregnancy could die of untreated hemorrhage or infection and the doctor would suffer no liability.

I do not find this acceptable.

[havocmom]

21. Women of limited means in small communities where doctor choices are limited

would be fucked and that's OK? Only women of means who can travel at will can be assured of choice of caregiver, so also the only ones who would have CHOICE at all. Is that OK? Not with me it isn't


And can women sue doctors who violate ANY of the tenants of their religion? If doctors get to hide behind religious beliefs, they should be accountable for observing ALL the rules.

[Sadie4629]

27. There are no abortion providers

in the small town in which I live, yet lots of women are able to travel the 100 or 150 miles they need to go to get abortions. (It's not only 'women of means' who can make a 100-mile trip.)

Women can be referred for abortions, or birth cotrol info, or any other medical need by their county Health Dept., which will not withhold information. They probably will also know of people who can provide transportation, if needed.

Also, I don't understand your phrase "TENANTS of their religion." Perhaps you mean "tenets?"

And, why keep bringing religion into it? It's not just the bad ol' Christians that this applies to.

[havocmom]

36. Thank you for spelling correction. So far, the only logical point you have made here

I keep bringing RELIGION into it because that is the vehicle the bill's author is using to subject women to abuse/neglect by STATE LICENSED professionals

[Sadie4629]

39. Religion vs. conscience

"There shall be no cause of action against a health care provider for declining to participate in a health care service that violates his or her conscience," the bill reads.

So, only religious people have consciences? Nice assumption . . .

[havocmom]

46. The bill gives cover to religious arguments against certain treatments

Where did I say only religious people have consciences? YOU made the assumptions

And I see you will now try a different straw man as a dance partner.

Sorry, straw men don't dance.

[Sadie4629]

50. I re-read the OP

and see that it DOES refer to religious reasons, so, I'll concede that point.

I still wouldn't want a doc performing surgery on me that he/she morally opposes. But that's just me, I guess.

[WillParkinson]

66. Then...

That doctor is in the wrong profession. He's to help heal the sick and injured, not pass morality lessons.

[Rabrrrrrr]

65. And a woman who's in ER after a rape, at a Catholic hospital because it's the only one in the county

is she then going to go to the next county, and find a hospital that will do what she wants?

Or should she be able to have the expectation that whatever hospital she ends up in will provide her ALL the medical care she wants/needs?

I think any woman - and any man, for that, because some Catholic Hospitals won't do vasectomies - should have the right to expect that when she goes to a healthcare provider, that provider will offer EVERYTHING that is available.

Obviously, you don't. You feel it's okay for a doctor - a healer - to pick and choose who gets what health care.

I find it sad that you think that way.

[JerseygirlCT]

158. I have no problem with a provider, in a non-emergency

situation, informing a patient that he/she doesn't perform abortions, say. It's similar to my old Gyn letting me know that she no longer did obstetrics. Up front, first visit. And when I did get pg, a quick referral to a trusted colleague.

But the emergency room is another ball of wax entirely. In that desperate situation a woman is likely to be very dependent on the medical personnel who treat her to lay out all the options. To do anything less is a dereliction of duty.

[dysfunctional press]

32. a woman can't always seek treatment from another source...

in some poorer rural areas, there may not be many options- or if it is the woman's primary care physician, her hmo/insurance may not allow another doctor- especially if her doctor's "conscience" prevents him from writing a referral for a doctor that WILL do the procedure she wants.

[Sadie4629]

41. The bill doesn't say

that he can use his conscience as an excuse for not referring her.

Also, no one is addressing the health department option. You can get TONS of info and referrals there, all for mostly free. You can probably even get some forms of birth control there.

[havocmom]

47. Referrals do NO good to large numbers of women who have limited access to care

We don't all live near large populations of medical providers to pick from.

[blondeatlast]

56. Why don't Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses go to medical school?

Problem solved and your argument is destroyed.

[havocmom]

71. the blond shoots... she scores....

the crowd goes wild
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[blondeatlast]

101. Thanks. As a blood recipient, I've been asked--NOT KIDDING--

"Aren't you glad your doctor wasn't a Jehovah's Witness?"

I'm. Not. Making. It. Up.

When I read Sadie's ridiculous analogy, my mind shot right back to that. :rofl:

[geardaddy]

190. My doctor asked me

if I was a Christian Scientist before I had my kidney transplant. I wasn't even aware what their tenets were. :shrug:

[skater314159]

111. There is a good documentary about that...

... and how those two groups are helping to come up with some innovative medical treatments. I can't think of the name of it now, but it's a good thing to watch - it teaches what JWs and CSs think and how they put it into practise.

But also, this law would allow those doctors to not have to treat people who DO believe in transplants or whatever - and it would allow them to treat other JWs or CSs with the same beliefs without having to fear a lawsuit!

That is what I thought when I read the OP at least...

[blondeatlast]

139. Those aren't medical treatments, though. I'm a lifelong insulin-dependent diabetic--

the treatment used for IDD is the pre-insulin treatment; high fat, very, very low carb. It may work for even a few years, but they don't see the downside of 20. I've survived for over FORTY YEARS on insulin.

I've seen court cases regarding the abuse suffered by IDD children not being treated--you don't even want to know what I've seen.

[Crunchy Frog]

153. Yes, and that would also solve the problem of high medical costs

and lack of insurance coverage. Actually, that's the best idea I've seen all day. Flood our health care system with Christian Scientists and our country's health care costs go down to almost nil, and everybody can be covered. :)

[Solon]

82. That's a fucking stupid argument...

Soldiers don't have that right, they are supposed to disobey ILLEGAL orders, not immoral ones. As far as CO status, that is rarely given, and usually not for those who voluntarily joined up, but for draftees, who were INVOLUNTARILY conscripted into the armed forces. Unless people are involuntarily conscripted into the medical profession, your arguments has no merit.

[yardwork]

106. It's not easy to seek treatment from other sources in many communities.

If a woman is raped, she has hours to get contraception to prevent a pregnancy. What if every doctor in her county and surrounding counties won't prescribe her the legal med? What if the only doctors on call refuse to prescribe? What if she has no transportation? Remember, she's been raped.

Would you want your daughter to have to drive all over the state in the middle of the night after she's been raped to obtain legal contraception to prevent a pregnancy? What if the hospital were she is being treated won't provide the contraceptive? Would you want your daughter to have to check herself out of the hospital and go find a provider who is willing to prescribe the contraceptive?

What if the provider decides not to help your daughter because she is black, and "their religion" tells them not to provide medical care to black people?

[elizfeelinggreat]

3. absolutely right!

"Eyes on the prize: keeping women as citizens and not vessels at the mercy of religious crackpots."

Amen!

[havocmom]

8. Thanks for seeing the point of OP, elizfeelinggreat!

And could I ask you to keep this kicked today if you have a chance? I am going to be far away from my computer here soon and for the rest of the day.

Many thanks to those who respond and keep this kicked. We need to keep in mind that there are some pretty old Supremes and bills like this one could easily become the law of the land if the GOP stays in power.

PS, if you happen to speak the 'eliz'of the Edwards clan we admire and adore, tell her millions are sending strength and hope every day. She is the essence of courage and service to the nation.

[elizfeelinggreat]

11. I'll be away, too

I'm sorry ... I'll be back tomorrow night and I'll look for it then.

I hope someone else keeps kicking this ... it's so important. Women will definitely feel the brunt of this type of legislation first.

[End Of The Road]

7. This one will be worth keeping an eye on

I wonder how far it will make it through the legislative process. Not far, I hope.

The thing is, aren't most (if not all) doctors who provide these services specialists? I can't imagine that too many of them have chosen specialties to which they're morally opposed. Open a fertility practice and then, when the phone rings, say "no, we're morally opposed to that here."?

I gather from your opening message line that you read Thomas Frank's book, too. I learned alot from that one and wish more people read it (especially those IN Kansas).

[havocmom]

10. Writing a scrip for birth control pills does not take a specialist.

And do not forget: PA has small, rural communities. Poor and even working class women above the poverty line can not go long ways for medical care. Too often, such women are forced to deal with the limited supplies of local medical practitioners (and the sometimes narrow minds of same)

[moose65]

13. I agree!

Why would a doctor choose a specific field if he/she was morally opposed to it? This is all political grandstanding, though. I don't see any quotes from doctors and other health care providers who want this enshrined into law. This goes against the grain, the entire philosophy of medical care, which is to treat everyone who comes to you.

[havocmom]

31. How many stories in recent years about Pharmacists who refuse to fill scripts?

There can't be too many pharmacists who started before the Pill who are still working, so ALL people going into the field in the past 40+ years have known they would fill orders for birth control, yet many have gotten away with not doing it. I am FIRMLY convinced religious colleges have turned out pharmacists to fight women's rights through this argument just as surly as they have turned Fundy Soldiers out of their law programs.

If a doctor writes a legal 'script, a licensed pharmacist should have to fill it. To deny a legal medical order should otherwise be practicing medicine without a license! Yet, some states have given such pick & choose pharmacists legal cover for denying to dispense lawful medications. Now, we see an attempt to give doctors legal cover also.

How about firemen? Should they get to refuse to put out a fire if they believe it was god's will? How about if they have religious differences with the occupants of a burning house?

Where is the line? It is hard to hold when the slop gets all greased up with bringing religion (a subjective and nebulous thing) into science and professional fields which require state licensing.

Now we have a bill that would let state licensed doctors pick and choose in the ER? STATE LICENSE should convey a certain standard of care which precludes women being at the mercy of personal religious beliefs when they need care.

Since this bill would allow doctors to deny care which has been legal for decades, they really can't say they didn't know it would be part of the job they applied for with licensing.

Will they be allowed to not treat certain men if those men wear garments of mixed threads?

Where is the line?

[Red Zelda]

16. I'm religiously opposed to war in Iraq

so I won't be paying taxes anymore.
Fuck these people.
(Pennsyltucky is a dirtbag state full of criminals, btw.)

[havocmom]

22. You didn't go to school to get a license to practice a profession of paying taxes though

NOT the same thing

[babylonsister]

25. Recommend for outrage. What century is this? nt

[havocmom]

37. Does it feel like we are living in the pre-quel to The Handmaid's Tale?

I FIRMLY believe Fundy U is turning out crusaders in particular fields to try and subvert the rights of women by contaminating LICENSED fields with tripe.

[Wizard777]

28. Can the Doctors be fired for the refusal?

In cases of religious use of Marijuana and other substances SCOTUS has upheld their right to use marijuana and their employers right to fire them for using marijuana. So under equal protection of law. I would venture to say that the doctors can be fired for their refusal.

[havocmom]

40. This bill, if it became law, would protect the doctors

Much like some states which have given pharmacists protection for refusing to fill lawful scripts.

We howled then that it was just the beginning of serious effort to prevent women from getting the care they need. Guess this latest bill proves our point. It isn't so much about protecting the personal sensibilities of STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS as it is a well orchestrated attempt to make women property again.

And we need to elect a President who will put sane jurist on the Supreme Court. That isn't gonna happen with more GOP years of Constitutional Destruction.

[northzax]

186. ah, and there's an interesting question

can a coporation fire a doctor for refusal to perform these services? I would assume that a place like Planned Parenthood that have family planning issues as a priority could (after all, a doc at PP who refuses to provide contraceptives or abortions would be against the entire principle of the place. but if I were an ER chief, and someone refused on my staff, even though they may not be legally liable, can they be fired for refusal to perform the duties expected of them? interesting idea.

[havocmom]

212. Laws to protect pharmacists work to protect them from employers.

So, I would wonder about this one.

How long before EVERY licensed professional gets to pick and choose what regular job duties they will and won't preform based on their personal moral convictions? That way lies madness, and a lot of unanswered needs. Sorta brings back the question of fire fighters who may feel it was god's will your house got hit by lightening.....

Big ol can of worms and a slippery slop toward near anarchy of state licensed fields if the trend keeps up.

[chemp]

35. Hypothetical

Born again doctor finds himself a nice job in a planned parenthood family clinic.
Strings women along with "waiting periods" and consults.
Woman cannot afford two or three visits.

Anti-choice groups can now plant a protester INSIDE the clinic.

Kinda like a vegan refusing to serve customers at Burger King.

[havocmom]

42. Ecellant point!

And think how many women would shy away from seeking ANY medical care if they found out fundy doctors have access to their medical files but legal cover for not providing treatment.

How long before we females have to send male relatives to the doctors for us, or use a doll to try and communicate to medical care givers where the boo-boo is?

[Sadie4629]

45. Wow. Talk about a strawman

Funny how no one has call you on that.

[havocmom]

49. Not a strawman, but a logical extension of the agenda

You do seem to be quite an advocate of moves which will end in limiting women's reproductive choices we notice.

And I am flattered that you have expanded your vocabulary to include that term. :rofl: You don't back up your use of it with any debate of why it applies in the case you are responding to this time. Using the phrase without actually making any point to back it won't fly though.

[Sadie4629]

55. Yeah, by the way--

how much rent do those TENANTS of religion pay?? :rofl:

[havocmom]

62. Thank you for keeping this thread kicked

Most helpful of you.

Spelling errors I make in abundance. Pick on me for them all you want. You don't seem to get far in logical debate, so I am happy you can get you jollies dwelling on the inconsequential.

Thanks again for lots of kicks to the thread. I should send flowers or something.

[Sadie4629]

73. As far as logic goes--

Me: I feel that it is a safe assumption that any doctor who won't do a procedure will refer a patient to someone who will.

You: Strawman! Lack of logic! Fundy! Tenant!

Paranoid conspiracy theorist: Fundy docs will infiltrate Planned Parenthood and string women along for 2! or 3! visits in their diabolical quest to deny all women their legal rights!

You: Good point! Absolutely! Fundy! Tenant!

[havocmom]

75. Misrepresent much?

Oh, indeedy.

Would put you on ignore, but then how would I thank you for all the kicks? :loveya:

Point if fact: I do know a fundy who went to work in a doctor's office to 'out' patients who have had certain procedures. Names and pictures got put up on a church bulletin board so others would know about private medical histories and which members of the community supported reproductive freedom. So, not paranoid and not conspiracy theorist at all to draw LOGICAL conclusions.

Back up and punt. You are losing a lot of ground.

Thanks again for the kick :hi:

[Sadie4629]

80. That woman

(if she really exists) should be prosecuted, because what she did was clearly a violation of patients' rights legislation.

I'm also fairly sure that she is indeed a rarity. I've known many, many "fundies" in my life, and most of them will pray for you, but leave you alone to do whatever you want to do. As a matter of fact, I can't think of one of them who isn't so busy living his/her own life that he/she would bother you at all. Believe it or not, they are not hiding in your closets or under your bed to jump out and scare you. (That's the boogey man, FYI.)

And I don't see where I'm losing ground at all. You haven't even come close to changing my mind.

[havocmom]

88. HE exsited. And didn't face anything beyond having to change employers

I have had my picture taken MANY times by MANY people who first tried to intimidate clinic patients, then workers, then finally volunteers who stood shoulder to shoulder along property lines to stop them from harassing people. I don't really appreciate having being almost called a liar. I also know, for a fact, that one of those who bullied and intimidated received a court order to get mental health care as a condition of probation. I know the anti-choice crowd had some of their own people on buses chartered to transport pro-choice demonstrators to a huge rally in front of a state legislature.

But, it does show me much that you doubt anything which disrupts your vision of the situation.

[skater314159]

116. Violation of HIPPA law

gotta also call that Slander and Libel.

Are there any LAWYERS where you are? If there were such a case as this, Lawyers would fall over one another trying to represent the people whose names and pictures were posted.

Gotta call BS on this one. :hi:

[havocmom]

129. pre-hippa

and since some don't think a law counts if they disagree on religious grounds....

[noiretextatique]

79. so, do you support this idiotic proposal?

surely there are more pressing problems than this attempt to deny people health care options.

[Sadie4629]

84. I support

the right of people to have consciences and to follow their consciences. (If more people did that then maybe we wouldn't be in this obscene war. JMHO.)

Like it or not, abortion IS different from other medical procedures. It is legal, it is a woman's right, but no one can deny that there IS a second life involved, and if that bothers a doctor, I don't think we should be putting them in a situation where they are doing something they believe to be wrong.

If women have alternatives, then I think it's fine for docs to tell them that they personally don't do abortions, but that Dr. ______ will either do it or refer them.

[havocmom]

91. We all support the right to follow consciences

Don't want reproductive care? Don't have it.

Don't want to practice medicine, do something else for a living.

Can I make brooms with all the straw you are tossing around? We could sell them and give the money to the DNC to help fight the GOP moves to limit women's rights! :D

[noiretextatique]

124. no, it is not "different"

it is a medical procedure, like any other. whatever ethical or moral considerations this procedure brings up for other people should govern their decisions about having the procedure...not mine.

[kimmylavin]

188. WHAT?

Plenty of people deny that there is a second life involved, unless you mean that of the father.

One of the big sticking points of this argument is the whole "life begins at conception vs. life begins at birth" thing.

And do you honestly think that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion will just refer the woman to someone else? That he or she will honestly say, "I'm morally opposed to this procedure, so much so that I am willing to face legal consequences for not doing the job I am licensed by the state to do, but why don't you check out Dr. So and So."? Or doesn't it seem more likely that they'll say "I'm morally opposed to this procedure, so much so that I don't want you to have it. You're on your own, as I can now be protected by law for not doing my job."?

[uppityperson]

205. What if a dr denied treatment on a smoker who had emphysema?

The doctor felt morally it was wrong to treat someone for something they caused to themselves? How about an obese person who has diabetes?

If I get raped and don't have PlanB offered or available, yes, there is a second life involved DUE TO the actions of the doctor.
You continue to assume that a doctor will refer elsewhere, and where they refer is accessible and affordable or on someone's insurance.

[skater314159]

114. Logical?

Saying that PP will become anti-abortion isn't logical. It's fucking nuts.

Planned Parenthood is FOUNDED ON reproductive freedom of individuals - both men and women - and the only way that would change is if they sell out. THEY would have to do it.

You are paranoid - not "logical".

[Solon]

144. It doesn't have to be PP though...

Many pro-life organizations have started "reproductive services" clinics, without bothering to advertise that they are pro-life. Many of them have been busted for unethical practices in providing false information on Abortion, on delaying procedures indefinitely for non-medical reasons, etc.

[skater314159]

172. Aww Jeeezus...

... man. I really am sick of this "bait and switch" crap... and to think they claim to follow someone who taught honesty and respect for their fellow human beings...

[uppityperson]

204. For all your brilliance you don't seem to understand what that term means

Try this, google search "straw man" and definition.

strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).<1> A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.<2>

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.<3> It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

[Sadie4629]

53. In many states

an abortion already requires more than one visit to accomplish. I'm sure you're against that, but saying that some fundy doctor would "string women along" by requiring 2 or 3 visits is--well, just revealing your ignorance of the matter.

[noiretextatique]

81. just because their are stupid laws in some states

doesn't justify creating more stupid laws. abortion, like any other medical procedure, should be readily available to women, without state or church interference.

[Sadie4629]

86. Some abortion procedures

require more than one visit. And that has nothing to do with laws--just the way the procedure is done.

[Solon]

87. That's not the argument, thanks for playing though...

If a procedure requires more than one visit, that doesn't mean shit, but requiring waiting periods, or return visits, BY LAW, is just atrocious.

[Sadie4629]

93. The statement

was in response to the post about the eeeeeeevil fundy mole doctor who would actually make a woman come in twice! TWICE, damnit!! when it's such a huge inconvenience for that woman to have to come in more than once. Sometimes, inconvenient or not, it requires two appointments, and if the woman wants the abortion badly enough, she manages to do it.

[Solon]

94. If the purpose is to delay the procedure until it can't be legally done anymore...

and not for valid medical reasons, then such a doctor should have his license to practice revoked for malpractice. I really don't see why you would object to that.

[uppityperson]

207. Most are done in 1 visit. nt

[noiretextatique]

123. most abortions are done in one visit eom

[skater314159]

113. Then Planned Parenthood needs a better HR dept.

If they hire that sort of fucking doctor and don't notice his BS, then PP has a REAL FUCKING PROBLEM.

Three words for your hypothetical:
NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

[havocmom]

132. The violator of the files was at a private doctor's office

The person was fired.

Planned Parenthood Clinics all over the nation were targeted for all sorts of harassment of patients and workers back a few years. There was also violence and murders at some.

Three words to your assumptions:
GET SOME FACTS.

[JTFrog]

44. Didn't this start with WFRA?

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005, introduced in the Senate this spring, has an odd constellation of supporters and opponents. Its sponsors include Pennsylvania Sen. Richard Santorum, a religious conservative, and Massachusetts liberal John Kerry. In what must be a sign of the end of days, Hillary Clinton has found common cause with Orrin Hatch in support of WRFA. On the other side, civil rights activists, including the ACLU and the National Women's Law Center, have joined with businesses in opposition.

------

http://www.slate.com/id/2120789/

Pharmacists with religious objections to contraception say they should have a right to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions, and police officers have argued that religious liberty entitles them to refuse to protect abortion clinics. If sufficiently widespread, such refusals could effectively nullify the constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Social workers have argued that counseling gay and lesbian couples offends their religious convictions. Here WRFA could amount to a federal right to discriminate and come into direct conflict with the civil rights laws of some states. In each of these cases, the expansion of religious rights in the workplace that WRFA envisions would require courts to intervene in ideological disputes between employers and employees.

[havocmom]

52. Yep, and a lot of us got laughed at when we said THAT was just the beginning

WFRA greased the slope. It is no surprise this is being ratcheted up now.

[Firespirit]

51. Some religions object to organ donation and blood transfusion

I think this is Christian Science. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think anyone, anywhere (other than a Christian "Scientist") would be OK with an accident victim being rushed to the ER of a county hospital, and the doctor in charge denying the patient a blood transfusion because he had a religious problem with it.

Why are reproductive services different? Medical care is medical care.

[havocmom]

54. Weeeelll, reproductive service limits only seem to effect a certain part of the population

Are there any figures for strict adherents of Christian Science followers going into medicine? I would be interested to find out how many people who don't believe in basic medical procedures go into medicine anyway.

Seems it is just medical care which ensures full care to females that gets all knotted up.

Thanks for the post. Good points.

[Firespirit]

61. I can't say

It might be that Christian Science practitioners don't get into mainstream medicine. Like Scientologists, to my knowledge, aren't infiltrating the mainstream psychiatry community.

Garden variety fundies, though, really DO see it as a mission to take over every profession and make it "Godly."

I fail to see why there is a debate about this on our side... A lot of fundy colleges are not accredited, because what they teach is crap. They exist, but they don't get the "seal of approval." Yet an accredited university can hire a fundamentalist professor, so long as that individual leaves his or her religion outside the classroom.

It seems to me that if you work as a state-licensed professional, a doctor in this case, you put your SCIENTIFIC and medical responsibilities first, and religion second. If they can't do that, they shouldn't work in secular medical institutions.

[left is right]

64. I thought it was the Jehovah's Witness

that had beliefs against blood transfusions. BTW, whether you are right or I am or we both are, your posting is the exact reason that licensed Medical Doctors should not be allowed to have their religious beliefs to interfere with the dispensing of any legal medical treatment within their field of practice. (just to dispense with the silly argument of family practitioner refusing brain surgery)

[sarcasmo]

58. If I tell them I am an Atheist will they refuse me care based on their beliefs?

This Country is a Nightmare.

[havocmom]

60. That's what it looks like. And if you worked on the Sabbath and got hurt...

well, perhaps you get no care for that either.

What happens when some doctor decides his religious beliefs include the doctrine that females should never be out in public unless accompanied by a male relative?

Nightmare indeed.

[suffragette]

171. Or if someone has an STD and is unmarried

The list of exclusions could go on and on.
Truly a nightmare in the making.

[WillParkinson]

67. Or a gay man

Sorry, I'm morally opposed to that. The bible says you have to die so I'm just helping you along.

Where does it end? Where does their "moral" line get drawn?

[havocmom]

70. Another execellant point. Sorry I missed that branch of the agenda!

Yep, where does the line get held on this very slippery slope. There are still groups that also hold very racist views as having religious merit. Do doctors get to refuse treatment based on race with this insane bill?

Shit would hit fans if there were religious beliefs disallowing medical services to hetero white males, would it?

[Sadie4629]

85. I think

the bill specifically identifies the procedures for which a doctor can deny treatment and claim protection: Abortion, birth control, artificial insemination.

No, they cannot choose not to treat atheists. :eyes:

[havocmom]

89. IF the bill passes and is upheld, there will be more limits

Do you have a crystal ball that insures the discrimination will not spread out to other groups and other procedures? This is just one more step in a carefully orchestrated long term attack on basic human rights in the nation which is supposedly the bastion of liberty.

[Sadie4629]

92. The slippery slope argument goes both ways, you know

They fear 'us' as much (if not more than) we fear 'them.'

I remember reading once that at the time of Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers never thought they'd end up defending the 'rights' of two-cell embryos, and pro-choicers never thought they'd end up defending a procedure as grisly as D&X abortion. (If you know much about it, it is an appalling procedure.)

[havocmom]

95. WTF? Nobody is forcing women to get care or pills?

Really, have so tea or something, I am concerned about you.

[Solon]

96. D&X procedure may be appalling, but so is open heart surgery...

both are only done IF necessary. I don't give a flying fuck how grisly a procedure is, if it saves the life or health of someone, do it for crying out loud, and don't, for all that is good in the world, don't legally restrict it! For fuck's sake, learn about WHY the procedure is done in the first place, before you rail against it!

[havocmom]

100. Don't try to confuse poster with facts

Can't get through.;)

[Solon]

141. Oh silly me, I thought she may actually want to learn...

I don't see this poster lasting much longer on this board.

[uppityperson]

210. If I'm not married, doctor can refuse me birth control. Like back in the old days.

Back when you could get a diaphram only if you were married or would be within a short time. Yes, condoms were available, but I'd rather be in control of my ability to not get pregnant rather than relying on someone else. If I were unmarried, I could be refused contraception due to morality issues.

[havocmom]

214. Already happened in some states with pharmacists refusing to fill lawful scripts

Since many women are put on birth control pills as a way of treating medical conditions and not for preventing pregnancy, such pharmacists are actually interfering with a doctor's treatment of a patient. THAT seems like practicing medicine without a license. I sure as hell would use that line of thinking to sue any one who pulled the 'You're not married, so no pills for you' routine on any unmarried daughter treated for one of several conditions BC Pills are widely used for!

Were I a doctor, treating a patient then finding she was denied the Rx I had prescribed, I would worry that a pharmacist may be opening me up to malpractice by denying/slowing the patient's meds! I would probably go for the idiot's license, again on the basis that they were overriding a licensed physician and consequently practicing medicine without a license.

The slippery slope of bending over backward to not offend tender sensibilities of licensed professionals who chafe at some of the regular aspects of their CHOSEN profession can get us mired in a lot of muck. Not well thought through by RW law makers.

[uppityperson]

209. Obese and diabetic. Smoker with emphysema. Elderly with heart problem.

[havocmom]

216. Sorry, I feel it's god's will that you are fat, sick, old... no soup for you

:sarcasm: if you all don't recognize it ;)

But, yeah, taken to possible conclusions, it could lead to that sort of response from a doctor who feels god's will be done is the peg they can hang ignoring patients' needs on if they want.

[raccoon]

59. Wonder how many of these doctors don't want to prescribe Viagra? nt

[MindPilot]

69. or perform vasectomies. eom

[Solon]

143. If I remember correctly, my Dad had to shop around for a non-Catholic doctor...

to have his vasectomy performed. So it isn't necessarily women who would be affected, though they need more urgent care in most cases that men looking for vasectomies. Just an FYI, my Dad IS Catholic, let's just say my parents disagree with the Church on some things.

[IcyPeas]

191. VIAGRA VIAGRA VIAGRA -- good question!!

[DFW]

72. Does this mean that patients don't have to pay the bill if their religion forbids it?

I think I just founded the Church of Povertology.

[havocmom]

77. Damn, I am having an epiphany and YOU are my prophet

Together, we can work with others... Spread the word! Praise be!

:thumbsup:

[zorahopkins]

78. Dammit, What About MY Rights?

I hate stuff like this -- absolutely HATE it.

What about my rights to decent, respectful health care?

What about MY rights to full information from a professional?

Don't I have a right to quality health care?

Or is it that women don't really count?

[havocmom]

83. I see by your profile, that you are a female.

Sucks to be us. This bill is one more step toward making us less than citizens.

We need to make sure it is a Democratic Administration who nominates the next few Supreme Court Justices. The Roberts Court needs some people who understand women have rights.

[RainDog]

97. Sharia law validated by the U.S.

there's really no difference because this case allows someone's religious convictions to legally determine a patient's fate. Can't wait to see all the support for the rights of Christian Scientist's to deny any and all medicinal care because their religion doesn't believe that's a good thing.

I think the French revolutionaries were on to something when they decapitated both the king and the clergy's power. and funny how they go hand in hand... House of Saud, Wahabbists.... same thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. This is why I am so very excited

About the Fundies being invited to the table to help 'shape the health care plan'...that is why I am so very happy that Revs Caldwell and McClurkin and Walker have staked out a place at that table! How great!
So may hinderence face us on National Health care from the religious crowd. I'm cursed and women who need to end a pregnancy are murderers. This is all going to work out great! Because these are the good Fundies, right? These are the ones that 'only' hate gays, right? The Fundy parade was just 'homophobic' singers, not Fundy ex-Gay industry, anti-choice Republican operatives public in their support for Bush specifically for Bush's anti-choice and anti-gay postitions, right?
Yeah, Obama's Fundies just hate gays, so all is well for everyone else, right? Not like he used Dobson, right?
What is the difference between Dobson/Robertson and McClurkin/Caldwell? There must be huge differences if Democrats are welcoming them, right? So what are those differences? Educate me.

[skater314159]

102. PA has always had a strong stand for religious freedom...

... but it is also strongly influenced by Quakers... for example in PA (unlike in many states) you can get a "Quaker Marriage" which is a marriage without having to have clergy, and in PA there is not as much pressure to swear oaths and take pledges because of the Quaker background - which makes it easier on agnostics, athiests and non-Christians to navigate public life without running into Christians prosyletising them.

I think that this is a good clause, as our already overworked medical system can identify who doesn't want to recieve treatment/aid, and then move on to the people who really want/need the care (think of it as triage). Now doctors and nurses don't have to worry about getting sued or whatever for NOT providing aid (even if the patient doesn't want the treatment, family members of another faith could sue the doctor for malpractise or wrongful death if they refuse/deny service.)

Also, where does this law say that it will apply to anyone who doesn't want it to apply to themselves? I can see Amish and other groups in PA taking advantage of this - but they don't really deserve the bigoted anti-religion statment you made in the OP. If you have a personal issue with religion, that's your issue to deal with; you really shouldn't promote hate and bigotry in a post where you bash people for those same attributes.

[havocmom]

105. I am not about forcing care on anyone who does not want it

The bill would let doctors use subjective reasons for denying care to patients who do seek it. Doctors are licensed by the state. The population should be able to expect care by state licensed professionals. I am not promoting hate, I am promoting PROFESSIONALISM and responsibility to do the tasks required by one's CHOSEN profession.

Get real

[skater314159]

120. Ok... Ammendment review...

The STATE cannot make laws that interfere with the freedom to practise one's beliefs, and the STATE cannot make laws that force one to practise a particular belief.

Within the US, there is both Freedom OF religion and Freedom FROM religion.

Get real.

Bigotry is bigotry, even if spoken by "liberals".

[Solon]

136. That's a bunch of bullshit, actually...

The state CAN interfere with the freedom to practice one's beliefs IF they have a compelling reason to do so, for the public good. Animal sacrifices have to abide by both laws for ethical treatment of animals, where applicable, and sanitation laws, even if it interferes with religious freedom itself. Human sacrifice is outlawed, churches have to abide by zoning laws, people in certain professions, particularly when its public safety, must not allow their religious practices to interfere with those professions. Police can't refuse to protect someone or some location due to religious belief, nor can firemen refuse to put out a fire at a location due to religious belief either. I say doctors perform a necessary public service as well, and therefore shouldn't be able to refuse treatment to patients due to religious beliefs.

This is public good issue, not a civil rights issue, if doctors(or pharmacists) can't perform their legally sanctioned duty of treating patients or prescribing medications, they need to leave the profession.

[Richard Steele]

148. Exactly so. nm

[skater314159]

174. What?

I can't understand what you are saying here.

The state CANNOT interfere with freedom to practise your faith... period.

And I'm disturbed that as a pagan (assuming this from your avatar) you talk about human sacrafice... what modern faith in the US has human sacrifice? I have a "hot button" associated with Christian Fundies throwing "human sacrifice" out in conversations against my personal faith, and I don't see why you even listed that in the post.

[Solon]

175. I'm using it as an example...

Also, the state does "interfere" with freedom to practice your faith if it interferes with the public good, and there is a compelling secular reason to do so. Oddly enough, most of the time this is due to anti-discrimination laws. For example, fundy Christians, in many cities in the nation, cannot discriminate against GLBT people for housing or employment. Those same Christians claim they are being discriminated against, or that their freedom to practice their religion is being interfered with. The fact is that, to have a pluralistic society, such compromises are made.

I don't see why it should be any different for doctors, nurses, or pharmacists.

[Rabrrrrrr]

196. Jesus Christ. Are you stupidly oversensitive much?

She says a fact - "Human sacrifices are outlawed" - with nothing else related to human sacrifice, and you take as a personal insult on Paganism?

Holy fucking hella shit.

That's a SERIOUS fucking stretch of imagination.

You are SERIOUSLY way too sensitive about your faith if you draw that conclusion from a post that said nothing about paganism, or about your personal religious practice.

Fuck.



And by the way - the state DOES limit religious expression. As in the examples given above: animal sacrifice has levels of allowability, human sacrifice is outlawed, churches can't blast loudass praise music at 2 am on outside speakers, in mosts states if a religious organization has more than 2 or 3 fundraiser dinners they come under the rubric of "restaurant" and need Health Department inspections, religous organizations ability to act in politics are strictly limited, the Sanctity of the Confession Booth exists no longer: all clergy and church workers (and anyone who works with kids) have to report any hint or suspicion of child abuse and other abuses to the state or face jail time,

so, stop lying. Lying is fucking annoying, and it's evil.

The state DOES limit religious freedom when it's necessary to do so for the public good.

[JerseygirlCT]

163. This allows doctors to NOT treat people who need treatment

that's a problem of the most basic level.

If a woman needs emergency contraception, but the doctor believes (hard to believe an educated person would believe this, but apparently some do) that it's abortion, he/she will not offer the needed care, or inform the patient that it's available. Which leaves the patient untreated. A big problem.

As I said above, if your personal beliefs are such that you feel you must limit women's reproductive choices, then you need to find a different specialty than emergency care or ob/gyn. Simple as that. If you are unwilling to provide complete care to your patients, then you are in the wrong line of business.

[Cerridwen]

104. What at least one person here is missing is a rather interesting unintended

consequence of this bill.

Were I the head of a search team looking for competent doctors or nurses to work in my hospital or clinic, or were I the head of the admissions department in a nursing or medical school (as this bill covers those entities as well), and were I the type who thought that health and medical care should be provided to ALL who enter my hospital (regardless of their chromosomal makeup), and were I the type that thought nursing and medical students be required to learn and be competent and able and WILLING to provide ALL medical and health care (within their specialty or training) to patients,

I might be inclined to use this bill as justification to pass over those school applicants or applicants applying for positions as doctors or nurses who have a "conscientious" objection to providing said care.

In short, I might be inclined to apply a religious litmus test to my job or student search.

I wonder how the author(s) of this bill would feel about a "Christians need not apply" sign at the HR department of medical schools, hospitals and clinics? Because, you see, even though I have serious doubts the people who would deny medical care to a patient due to "religious" concerns are anything even close to Christian, to be on the safe side, I'd just use a broad brush (much as they're trying to do to women) and make sure to include all Christians; real or imagined; in my litmus test for hiring and admissions. And I could justify this type of discrimination because of this law; I want ALL health care options provided and available to ALL my patients; if you cannot provide that; you are not qualified to work in my hospital or learn in my school. And if I were a capitalistic profit driven CEO; I sure as hell don't want any employees denying services which make me money.

Nice going.

[havocmom]

109. Or, if I am hiring, I can use litmus test to hire only people of one faith?

Most medical care providers get federal monies for some programs. Discrimination is illegal, so far. Should be that way for care givers and patients alike.

[Cerridwen]

110. Pretty much. It happens at private schools and (if there are any left) private

hospitals, as well.

Pretty soon we'll need xtian* and secular ambulance companies and xtian and secular emergency rooms and xtian and secular hospitals and doctors' offices and clinics and this could really "entertaining" in a train-wreck sort of a way.

*xtian: I used this spelling to denote that I do not for one second consider the people who would pull this crap to be any sort of Christian I've ever known.

[havocmom]

125. If I need an ambulance (or the fire department)

I want secular. I may have an emergency on a Sunday, after all. ;)

And we agree 100% on xians/Christians. There IS a difference.

[Cerridwen]

137. I want a secular everything, except for churches, of course. :D

If someone needs/wants/has a religion, there are churches and temples, mosques and, if I remember correctly, Jesus said something about a "closet".

I often wonder if this is how the pre-xtian Romans felt as they watched their government taken over by a small Jewish cult calling itself Christian.

First they scream they're discriminated against, then they set themselves up to be discriminated against, then they scream they're discriminated against...demanding they be free to practice their own beliefs while furiously working to deny the same freedom to others.

Many of us do see the difference, I'm happy to make the acquaintance of another. The Christians I've know are followers of the teachings of Christ. The xtians I've known are scared, miserable, controlling, authoritarians afraid someone might have "more" (stuff/fun/life) than they themselves have and will do their damndest to make sure others are as scared and miserable as they are.

[havocmom]

140. May I suggest you post that to your journal, that we may refer others to it often?

:applause:

[Cerridwen]

142. Done. And thank you!

:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

165. Well, actually, if you are unwilling to provide the care required

in your specialty, then you *should* be weeded out and sent in a different direction. You are not competent in that case to treat patients, because you are offering only partial care. So I think a hospital would be wise to say "no thanks".

[Cerridwen]

173. I completely agree. And in this day and age of profit, if I'm paying you,

I expect you to do all your job and not just the parts with which you agree. Why would I pay you 100% when you give me only 90%?

[VP505]

112. Want to see that law, if passed

wiped off the books faster than you can say "Jesus"? Make it legal for anyone who objects because of religious beliefs to not have to pay their doctor bill. See how fast those Doc's will change their tune.

[havocmom]

134. DFW post upthread re a new religious order...

you might wanna join? ;)

[DFW]

180. At the top.........

There is the Lord High Zwetschgen, the forgiver of all bills......

Followed by the twelve Lilikoi, who oversee the
twelve realms of the Blumenkohl, divided up into
ten Zuckerschoten, each headed by an Archkuerbis,
each of whom is supported by three Kuerbiskerne.

Hey, this is easy. I'll even recruit Tom Screws and
John Revolta as star converts. The medical profession
in Pennsylvania will never know what hit them.

[Luna_Chick]

117. Oh, the chill I just felt go up and down my spine

"No, I'm sorry, patient. I believe God put you on this earth to be fruitful and multiply. I refuse to treat you because you wish to terminate your pregnancy regardless of the reason. You shouldn't have had sex in the first place if you don't want/shouldn't have children, and no, I won't refer you to someone who will help you because it's against my beliefs to do so."

"No, I'm sorry, patient, but because you are an unwed, pregnant lesbian, I refuse to give you prenatal care because we all know your child will also become gay if you raise it. I will, however, refer you to the nearest adoption agency, should you actually be healthy enough without medical care to deliver the child to term, in the hope that your child will be raised by a proper heterosexual male/female couple."

"No, I'm sorry, patient, but you're eighty years old and since my God tells me/my priest/advisor that birth control for your woman prevents the natural order of the universe, I also don't think you need that viagra for your constant erection."

"No, I'm sorry, patient, but I because you're not the same color as I, and my God supports the superiority of my particular race, I must treat these other people ahead of you. I may or may not have time to stop your bleeding. If you die, so sorry, it is God's will, and you should rejoice for obeying the Almighty."

"NO, I'm sorry, patient, but you wanting a vasectomy is against God's will. Go home and tell your wife to have six more."

I wonder, if this abomination should pass, they'd go a step further with subsequent bills? Something to parallel the extensions of the Nazis' Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service? Further laws that ensured people of certain faiths could not serve as doctors, etc.

Eroding our freedoms, brick by brick. But remember, it's only bearded fanatics from the desert abroad who hate our freedom.

What the fuck is wrong with these people??

[havocmom]

135. Grand post

But, then, I expect nothing less from you.

[skater314159]

118. Question here...

... I think if a doctor - say a woman (let's call this Scenario #1) wants to be a OB/Gyn, but she is "pro-life"... shouldn't she be able to open her private practise and treat other women - with similar beliefs/faith - if she wants? If she only wants to treat other women who are "pro-life", why isn't that her right?

I think if someone has certain religious beliefs that might stop them from treating the general public or performing some of the procedures... shouldn't they just be a doctor to other members of the same faith group?

That way, that community gets health care in line with its beliefs, and the doctor doesn't have to perform anything she/he doesn't want to.

What's the problem with that? I think that is a right that should be afforded to individuals.

(Scenario #2)Now, if that same doctor, KNOWING that they can't do certain procedures and/or treat certain people due to their beliefs, goes to an ER or General Public Clinic... and forces their beliefs on others, then that is unethical and immoral. I have a REAL PROBLEM with that.

Are you railing against #1 or #2? Both? Why?

[Luna_Chick]

126. Just a quick question

Like you, I also have a huge problem with someone in the medical profession forcing their beliefs on others. Absolutely, we're in agreement on that.

But, just as an example, let's say that the "community" in question is a rural town of about 300 people without a big choice of doctors to choose from. The nearest "city" is maybe, I dunno, a three hour drive from town. Some people in town are of a particular faith. Some are not.

A patient has an emergency and must see a doctor who may be the only one available at the time. Doctor and patient differ in faiths. Patient's religious/spiritual beliefs go against those of the doctor, but the patient requires urgent medical care.

Is that patient then SOL if the doctor is only a doctor to others of his/her faith group and is protected by a bill like this to refuse medical care based on religious differences? Three hours could mean a life. And not everyone can choose their geography due to financial or other reasons.

Not trying to flame, just curious if I understood you correctly?

:shrug:

edited for typo

[Solon]

145. #1 most likely violates the Civil Rights Act...

I'm not sure if it has a medical exclusion, but trying to restrict your patient lists based on religion most likely violates either that or some other Civil Rights law. It depends on whether the clinic in question is considered a publicly accessible business. Not to mention the licensing of the medical practitioner themselves.

[mentalsolstice]

119. I can see Liberty Univ. and other fundy schools

...starting up medical schools and ramping up other studies in the field so they can flood the profession with like-minded folk. Hell, they're already doing it to the legal profession.

[havocmom]

138. They've been cranking out lawyers like crazy, haven't they?

And I seem to recall some of the young cannibals lawyers highly placed in Gonzo's DOJ (and involved in the firing of Federal Attorneys who WOULDN'T act on political vendettas) were graduates of Fundy U's.

I do believe I read that some of the pharmacists who pulled the 'no pill for you' nazi routine were grads of RW Xian schools.

[blondeatlast]

178. Bullseye! That's precisely what is behind this, I'm very willing to bet. nt

[jmowreader]

130. This means...

I can become an obstetrician in Pennsylvania, start a religion that says having more than two children is immoral, and refuse to provide care to anyone who's got two or more kids already, right?

Better: I can move to a really small town that doesn't have another obstetrician and require all the "quiverfull" people (look it up, it's kinda strange) to go back to folk remedies and midwives.

Even better: Before I turn the women who don't meet my standards away, I can scream at 'em about how they're going to hell for destroying the earth.

Hey, I figure that if ONE kind of reproductive care can be legally denied on religious grounds, why not all of them?

[Luna_Chick]

133. Yep

Precisely why it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

[girl_interrupted]

146. A Physican is suppose to be advocate for his patient, not

himself. How would a bill like this, allow that? It's infuriating. I wish I had more information on this. Aren't Governor Rendell & Senator Bob Casey Jr, Democtats? Anyone know their position on this bill? It's one thing to have an opinion or a religious belief, but to force it on others when it comes to their health care? Disqusting.

[blondeatlast]

182. And--you can have your immense government-subsidized student loans FORGIVEN

for practicing in an area of urgent need.

Don't get me wrong--I think the practice of forgiving ;oans in areas of dire need is a good one, but this can all get very slippery.

If a moral issue prevents a doctor from doing what is necessary to heal, they shouldn't be a doctor in the first place.

[havocmom]

183. Ooooo, I missed that facet totally! Good catch.

Yes, forgiving loan debt for service to difficult communities is great, BUT, the people in those communities should not get sub-par care while taxpayer subsidized education goes un-repaid.

Good point blondeatlast!

[Crunchy Frog]

147. Doctors should also be allowed to refuse to treat priapism

on religious grounds. They should not have to suffer any liability if a man's penis falls off.

[Luna_Chick]

150. Or...

for refusing to reattach it.

[Hekate]

152. We're finally civilized enough that refusing to treat black people is considered heinous, but ...

...it's still okay to refuse to treat women for our specific medical needs.

Hekate

:argh:

[JerseygirlCT]

154. They always have a choice: leave the practice

Get another career.

The patient is the one who decides on a course of treatment. The doctor is there to advise. The doctor has no right to interfere in a patient's right to treatment.

No surprise that all the procedures mentioned affect women's health.

If you cannot and will not treat every patient without regard to your personal beliefs, then you need to find a different line of work. Look for a specialty where women's health won't be an issue, for instance. Try geriatrics or proctology.

But if you cannot treat women like complete human beings, then you have no business in either emergency care or gynecology.

[havocmom]

160. Bravo! And what about VD? How would we feel if some doctors wouldn't treat that

out of aversion to how a patient acquired it?

Would a doctor be allowed to tell an embarrassed patient 'tough cookies, you got what you deserved for having sex with more than the officially sanctioned partner'? Would the doctor be spared any accountability for an innocent spouse getting the clap if their partner couldn't face another diatribe from a second, or third disgruntled MD?

BIG ol can of worms

[JerseygirlCT]

166. Yup. Get the beliefs out of it, period

If you personally cannot offer all the care needed, it is your *personal* obligation to find a practice that suits your own beliefs. No patient should ever have to suffer because of a doctor's beliefs.

[havocmom]

156. OK, I gave ya all enough time, and nobody posted: timing of this bill? PA primary Friday

Y'all don't think this bill and the timing are just about protecting the tender feelings of some doctors who might bristle at being expected to do doctor stuff, do you?

Looks like a platform from which to attack DEMS too.

Think about it. Timing is important.

[blondeatlast]

162. Ah--I think we've met the fringe issue for 2008...

Somehow I think there's no need for the state interfering in this issue--I'm sure it happens and docs and hospitals have worked out ways of resolving it--but that's not good enough for the crazies, is it?

We need to be ready as it's coming to a citizen's propsal in YOUR state, America.

[havocmom]

169. Well, there was rumor PA would be this years Florida/Ohio in the GE

Now we see part of the plan.

Get THAT big state's population in a tizzy and very visibly (and viscerally)divided so that one can be the tipping point in the Big Steal 08 GOP plan.

Yeppers. Oh, PM coming at ya to

[blondeatlast]

159. Triage, cadavers, life-or-death decisions and the possibility of mistakes--

if a potential physician is unprepared to deal with such a scenario as an abortion needed to save the life of a mother, they should not be permitted to go to medical school.

Yes, I am saying an ethics test should be a requirement, simple as that. One enters an ER often unable to make decisions for one's self (I've been a patient many times as a lifetime insulin-dependent diabetic. I haven't always had a surrogate available immediately to make decisions for me).

It takes a certain type of ethical fortitude to suck it up and make those decisions--I want to be somewhat secure that my caregivers will be able to take that up for me.

If you can't do a procedure because you are morally opposed to it, don't go to medical school. Period.

[havocmom]

164. There ya go, bein all logical and all again

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

167. Sorry. Stuck at home with the flu and waiting for a repairman--so

I'll just bug y'all (well, not you) to pass the time! :rofl:

[havocmom]

170. Me, with fresh chicken soup in the fridge

and no way to email it to you x(

[smokey nj]

189. I've cross-posted a link to this thread in the Pro-choice group.

I hope you don't mind, havocmom.

[havocmom]

197. Thanks for that cross post. This is too big to stay in one forum

I want our daughters and granddaughters to be treated as PEOPLE, not issues. I want to know anyone with a medical LICENSE will practice MEDICINE, not religion when women come for care.

I am old and this is not a matter which really affects me. But I take it damned personally when some idiot politician decides to protect the feelings of a few who may well just be in the wrong profession at such cost the the many who go to that profession for legal care.

Thanks for cross posting. The more who are aware, the better. I give no more inches to the religious hooligans who think they can fix what is broken or missing in themselves by taking what is HUMAN RIGHTS away from women.

[Luna_Chick]

176. Kickin' to keep it going N/T

:kick:

[havocmom]

177. a kick from the chick, cool

Hey, did you see this thread about attempt to make morning after pills difficult in Missouri?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2884337#2885992

[dajoki]

194. Check this one out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3333824

[dajoki]

179. Story about this subject...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3333824

Doctors refusing to care for patients based on "values"
Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care
New laws shore up providers’ right to refuse treatment based on values

By Sabrina Rubin Erdely
Updated: 2 hours, 12 minutes ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916 /

Lori Boyer couldn't stop trembling as she sat on the examining table, hugging her hospital gown around her. Her mind was reeling. She'd been raped hours earlier by a man she knew — a man who had assured Boyer, 35, that he only wanted to hang out at his place and talk. Instead, he had thrown her onto his bed and assaulted her. "I'm done with you," he'd tonelessly told her afterward. Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she'd had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room — Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania — to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. "No," Boyer says he replied abruptly. "I can't do that." He turned back to his writing.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

Boyer left the emergency room empty-handed. "I was so vulnerable," she says. "I felt victimized all over again. First the rape, and then the doctor making me feel powerless." Later that day, her rape counselor found Boyer a physician who would prescribe her EC. But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says.

<<snip>>

That's exactly what's happening in medical offices and hospitals around the country: Catholic and conservative Christian health care providers are denying women a range of standard, legal medical care. Planned Parenthood M.D.s report patients coming to them because other gynecologists would not dole out birth control prescriptions or abortion referrals. Infertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother. In a survey published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere. And in a recent SELF.com poll, nearly 1 in 20 respondents said their doctors had refused to treat them for moral, ethical or religious reasons. "It's obscene," says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program who continues to work on projects with the Los Angeles advocacy group. "Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care. And too often, the victims of this practice are women."

[blondeatlast]

181. An ER physician should not be permitted to let his own morals subvert his duties. He can find anothe

department to work in; simple as that.This actually harmed the patient in more ways than one and it is unconscionable and violates the Hippocratic Oath.

He needs to be reassigned.

[dajoki]

185. And I believe...

that the hospital should not receive federal funding if they are going to allow their staff to discriminate against anyone.

[blondeatlast]

193. Word. nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

195. Nor should they receive tax-free, non-profit status.

[Supersedeas]

187. when religious trumps medicine -- an oath to the religious oligarchy or the practice of medicine

[depakid]

199. What makes you think Democrats won't support this?

or appoint judges who will necessarily
Think about it. How many voted to confirm Roberts and Alito?

and who's that Dem Senator from PA? And what's his position on reproductive rights?

[HuffleClaw]

201. any health care provider that allows their religion to trump their duty to the public...

...should lose their license at the very least. what complete madness.

[mondo joe]

206. The freedom from administrative liability seems to me the biggest problem here.

Physicians in private practice have rather a lot of leeway in what they do or don't do to begin with.

But if I understand this correctly, the elimination of administrative liability would mean even if you work in a hospital that offers these services you could refuse to do it without risk to your job.

[havocmom]

217. Cool, huh? Don't you wish YOU could pick and choose what duties of your job to do?

I feel strongly about lots of things, but if I take a job that requires doing some things I don't believe in, I have to do them anyway... or find a different line of work.

[mondo joe]

221. This law basically is a way to give special rights based on religion, including

the right to not even be held accountable for the job they are paid to do.

[uppityperson]

211. If I'm unmarried, contraception can be denied me.

Back in the old days a woman had to be married, prove she was married, or to be married in a short time to get contraception (diaphram) prescribed. They could do this again. Being against premarital sex, a doctor could deny contraception. Yes, you can still get condoms, but I would rather be in control of my contraception, whether it be pill or diaphram. And damn you to any doctor who would deny me, based on a practitioner's religious or moral beliefs.

[NMMNG]

213. I am so sick of this nonsense

If somebody is incapable of doing their job because of their religious beliefs they need to get another job. Patient care should not be sacrificed because of moral grandstanding.

[havocmom]

218. That's it in a nutshell, Buffy!

This bill is just one more step toward sending CHOICE to the stacked SCOTUS. Wingers will keep working on stupid bills, hoping for court challenges that they can take to the Supreme Court. The result will be women as less than citizens.

Margaret Atwood had a cautionary tale that is seeming more possible all the time, and it scares me that our daughters are all at risk of these people who are just as dangerous as the Taliban.

[NMMNG]

219. The Handmaiden's Tale

The RRRW does think we're nothing more than walking baby machines and it's vile. They're bloody megalomaniacal control freaks.

[McCamy Taylor]

215. Is the doctor required to refer to someone who provide necessary treatment?

It is the last one that will cause problems. The window of opportunity is short for the morning after pill. Will the law require that the treating ER after a rape have to refer the woman to a doctor who will provide the pill? Will it have to counsel her that the pill exists and is an option? What if it refuses to do so? This is a violation of the standard of medical care if she turns up pregnant and then suffers medical harm from an unintended pregnancy her body was not able to handle (and that the ER physician should have been able to anticipate that her body would not be able to handle from reviewing her medical history and noting that she had lupus for instance) or develops psychiatric illness from pregnancy by a rapist. I don't care how much immunity the state may have written into its law. There are always federal courts.

[Elspeth]

220. This is Afghanistan now?

Holy crap!