Does Bush proposal threaten access to the pill?

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.

But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women's health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25940818/

[onehandle]

1. Let them start their own pro-life or whatever hospitals.

There's enough room in the world to keep these dark ages zealots far from our 21st century society.

[rAVES]

8. hehe, "pro-life" that cracks me up every time...

[saigon68]

2. Fundy Organized religion = opiate of the Sheep

[drm604]

3. This is completely ridiculous.

If your religious beliefs prevent you from carrying out your occupational duties then find a different job! :banghead:

Reasonable religious accommodation means allowing certain types of clothing, not requiring people to work on their holy days, etc. It doesn't mean that they are exempt from carrying out duties that are a basic part of the job description.

What happens if a health-care workplace has so many people with religious exemptions that proper care can't be delivered, but they can't be replaced because of these rules?

There will be groups that attempt to stealthily get themselves hired in large numbers so that they can block the delivery of certain types of health-care. In fact, that may be the real goal behind these rules.

Just like there are people who get "law degrees" at places like Regent University just so that they can impose their agendas on the rest of the country, there will be people who get Pharmacy degrees solely so that they can refuse to fill certain prescriptions.

[BadgerKid]

4. Let the religious hospitals handle it!

They can keep their religion out of my health care (such as it is).

[JerseygirlCT]

6. Actually, as most of them get some gov't funding, they shouldn't

be allowed to get away with this, either.

We had that situation here in CT. The Catholic hospitals wanted to deny rape victims emergency contraception. After threats of lawsuits, they finally agreed to do so.

Guess what side old Joe was on? Yup. Rape victims be damned, more important that Catholic hospitals not have to go up against their beliefs. (insert big eye roll here).

I think those hospitals have a choice: take no public money and do as you wish - so long as you make sure that patients know they will be getting reduced care. Or take the money and abide by the law and the best medical interests of the patients.

[drm604]

10. What if your only local hospital is run by the Catholic church?

More and more hospitals are being purchased by the Catholic church or are merging with existing Catholic hospitals. If you only have one or two local hospitals and they're both run by the church, what does a woman do for reproductive care?

[RainDog]

11. no contraceptiion, but alter boys all around!

fucking hypocrites. it's okay to fondle little boys with no consequence. but god forbid that a female not be a baby machine.

The older I get, the more I hate religion.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. You don't want to do the job, don't take it. It's so freakin' easy.

If you want to go into health care, you're going to have to provide that care to the patients, regardless of your own beliefs. Medical care is the standard, not your faith. If your faith prevents you from doing that job fully and with the *patient's* best interests foremost, not your own, then you need a new career.

Simple.

[peacetalksforall]

7. Roe-Wade reversal through the back door. Clever. How do you all like being owned by

the religious right? The same religious right, who if you speak to them, will demonstrate in their conversation that abortion is much more important issue with them then killing our kids and Iraqis, afghanis and creating refugees, poverty, destroying infrastructure, torturing, kidnapping, stealing our money to help them buid a private mercenary, lying, and deceiving.

[pipi_k]

9. And they can get away with it because

IMO, nurses, doctors, health care workers in general can almost pick and choose, there seems to be such a shortage of them what with the aging Baby Boomer population needing more care.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if there were fewer spots than people to fill them, pharmacies, hospitals, etc. wouldn't have to hire people whose "religious beliefs" preclude them from doing, or dispensing, things they find repugnant.

If that were the case, then I'd like to see interviewees asked if they have moral objections to certain things and then, all other things being equal, being passed over in favor of others who will just do the damned job they were hired to do.