Well, the threatened "right of conscience" regulation was pushed through by President Bush on Thursday as a "midnight regulation ." This regulation would allow anyone to refuse to participate in medical procedures they feel goes against their religious beliefs. "Employees" are defined broadly: from the pharmacist filling a prescription for antibiotics to a cashier refusing to ring out oral contraceptives, to the one who cleans the surgical tools after a procedure involving a blood transfusion. From The Washington Post :
The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable.
The regulation is clearly targeted toward providing a way for medical professionals to opt out of performing or assisting in abortion procedures and prescribing and dispensing the "Morning after Pill." But this isn't *just* an issue of reproductive rights, as if that weren't reason enough to be outraged. Refusing AIDS treatment to unmarried or gay patients, refusing blood transfusions to patients (Jehovah's Witnesses ), refusing to treat mental illness with anything but prayer (Christian Scientists ) are possibilities as well.
According to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report via The Los Angeles Times :
In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” ACOG cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
And from Medical News Today :
Supporters of the proposal said it will protect doctors who do not wish to perform abortions or provide birth control to unmarried women, or perform artificial insemination procedures.
This clearly isn't even about the moral objection to a procedure (such as abortion, birth control, blood transfusions, sex change operations, etc.), which is outrageous enough; but a person who has made life choices with which a medical professional disagrees can essentially be refused treatment. My question is, if one finds the practices of one's profession so objectionable, should you be working in that profession? RA Charo "criticizes those medical professionals who would claim 'an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good'" (quoted in the New England Journal of Medicine ). There are many jobs or professions I will not work because of ethical objections. For starters, Wal-mart.
But what's most insidious (as if it all weren't), is that the vaguely worded regulation could be stretched to include those not directly involved in the medical procedures (such as equipment cleaners), or those making appointments or ringing customers out for medical procedures or products they disagree with or disagree with their application. As if American sex education isn't fucked up enough as it is, can you picture a Christian refusing to see condoms to a teenager?
Interestingly, that report also defines "conscience" as:
"the private, constant, ethically attuned part of the human character. It operates as an internal sanction that comes into play through critical reflection about a certain action or inaction. An appeal to conscience would express a sentiment such as 'If I were to do 'x,' I could not live with myself/I would hate myself/I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.'"
Oh, the irony of Bush acting on behalf of those who wish to act "conscionably" and being able to live with one's actions from his administration that has been anything but.
Further, I myself feel it is morally unconscionable that we don't have universal health care and that corporate CEOs make 250 times what average workers make. Does this mean I get to stop paying taxes?
(Cross Posted )
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Bush's 'Right of Conscience' rule is unconscionable.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11051
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Kinda craps on that whole "do no harm" thing.
Has Obama said anything about if/when/how he'll undo this? I don't quite understand the rules, but if Bush can just announce that this is a rule without consulting congress or anything, can't Obama just announce that its undone? It seems like maybe Bush doesn't even expect it to last, but is just setting up Obama to have to undo it right away and become even more unpopular with the fundies.
I could say lots about how stupid this rule is, but I'm sure everyone here already understands it. Maybe we can get one high profile case of someone refusing to do some standard important treatment that has nothing to do with abortion, just to make the point to everyone else how silly this is. Do Jehovah's witnesses ever become doctors? Maybe someone can refuse to give a blood transfusion to a sick kid just to make headlines.
It's complicated and I don't really understand it myself. Clinton mandated a whole slew of worker safety "ergonomics" rules in the last days of his presidency, and Bush + Congress overruled them, Bush didn't undo it as unilaterally as Clinton had done it. But that might have just been for political cover, safety in numbers. I *believe* Obama can issue an executive order canceling this regulation (and it could if necessary be challenged in court as something beyond what the president can ordain without legislation).
"But that might have just been for political cover, safety in numbers. I *believe* Obama can issue an executive order canceling this regulation (and it could if necessary be challenged in court as something beyond what the president can ordain without legislation)."
That's what Clinton did after the first President Bush's Global Gag Rule, right?
I don't know.
I certainly hope Obama can just "announce it undone". As far as his being unpopular with fundies-meh. That ship has sailed, and I'm not sure it's a ship anyone was especially eager to ride on anyhow.
From what I've read it can be undone, but it won't be an instant thing and it's somewhat complicated.
:-(
how can something like this happpen in this day and age? this is a nightmare.
Can we please just get him the hell out of there before he does any more damage to this country (and many others). This is like waiting for water to boil.
I keep having homoerotic images of our black knight riding to the rescue, but will he make it in time?
The worst part is, is after Obamas presidency there will be many more like AsshatBush to try and vie for office. Apparently, even (the Old Spice story) fuckheads that want women to not have the right to vote are with this group. Things need to change with these repooplicans.
Republicans are losing now because they've committed themselves to extremism and exclusion. The circle they're drawing around "Real Americans" is getting smaller and smaller. Like many exhausted movements, they focus more on purging heretics than attracting converts. If they don't find a way to reach out to people other than Southern white Christian social conservatives, they're going to purify themselves out of relevance. And unless the Democrats screw up massively (always a possibility!), they won't be able to reach out to blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians, or young people because their reason for existence is to oppose those unpatriotic non-Americans which now make up a majority of voters.
Sounds good to me. "Conscience" would mean soldiers wouldn't have to fight in illegal, immoral wars of aggression, right? :-)
Right, the irony of that is oppressive and sickening. A college friend of mine signed up for the army on September 11th, and unknowingly was signing the paperwork as the planes were crashing into the towers. Later that day, he didn't know what he'd gotten himself into.
As a Buddhist, he was able to obtain conscientious objector status once he spent too much time at Abu Grhaib watching the atrocities that were commonplace there. He was alienated and told to keep mum when he spoke out against what he believed in while still active duty. After a tooth and nail fight to get out, he was one of the VERY FEW to get out... and now he is an anti-war activist, author and speaker. Where exactly were these protections back then?
I keep thinking that one argument for this ruling would be that many people don't have other options for employment, and sometimes I could see a logical argument forming that they shouldn't be penalized by being excluded from a certain line of work that collides with their beliefs. Then I remember, if that were true and the ACTUAL goal of this ruling, then all the kids who join the military because they lack other options would be afforded the same protections. But they aren't, because that's not what its really about. We aren't protecting people, we're protecting people who want to make life harder for a specific group of people who's choices they disagree with.
This is discriminatory since it applies only to a certain set of beliefs within a certain sector. AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
This is a wierd law because there are already laws prohibiting discrimination against religion in the workplace. I would like to read the whole thing to figure out how far it could be stretched, too. I wonder if it could even allow for docs to refuse treating someone they think is not worthy of treatment.
But, I also have to say that I really do think that they should be able to refuse to perform a procedure or dispense a product that goes against their conscience, *and when the refusing of such does not do immediate harm*.
The "Do No HArm" statement above is interesting. Some docs see "Do no harm" as meaning "Don't allow a patient to suffer a terminal illness longer than s/he wants," and some docs see it as meaning, "Don't provide the suicide method." Some doctors see abortion or b.c. as doing harm. Some don't.
When it is not causing immediate harm, I think that we must always err on the side of freedom. It's tolerance, and is essential for living in a free & pluralistic society.
We can patronize doctors/hospitals/pharmacies who do the things we want, and not if they don't. And I think that feminists have a duty to organize and make sure that there is alternative access for the services if they see a dearth, rather than wanting laws to forced people to do what is against their conscience.
So, the law is weird, and maybe goes too far, does more harm than good. But I am just going to stick my neck out there and say that I think that all the hand-wringing over doctors and pharmacists is overwrought and maybe discriminatory.
Someone with more info about this will hopefully come along and fill in the specifics, but as I understand it, there is a large percentage of the population that lives in areas where they may have only one or two choices for pharmacies/clinics within a reasonable distance. If the place close enough refuses, these people may not have access to the funds or means of traveling any further. This is particularly a problem for something like emergency contraception where time is very important.
People entering medical fields should be made well aware of the duties associated with their chosen job, and if they are unwilling to perform them, they should look to another occupation. Medicine is different than any other kind of job. You are accepting the responsibility, even if on a low level like a pharmacy clerk, to literally help people stay alive and healthy and comply with their physician's directions. Allowing people to opt out of their duties like this is dangerous for the rest of us.
Exactly right.
I actually think that this is the most significant argument than can be made against this rampant kind of "allowing for conscience" thing.... but I also can't bring myself to believe that it should trump individual freedom all around.
It's why I say that those who are truly concerned about access should organise, especially at the community level, and make access possible. When people take care of their communities in this way, people are served *without* eliminating freedom of conscience.
It's just hard for me to get my head around protecting the rights and freedom of a class of people who want to exercise their rights and freedom specifically to take mine away. They want the freedom to diminish my freedom. They want the right to ignore my rights.
In this 'freedom' tug-of-war, I still can't see where the happy and ethical middle ground is. It's clear Bush wants the rights of religious-right medical practitioners to have the upper hand. There is no compromise or happy medium in this bullshit.
Bullshit. This isn't 'freedom of religion', it's freedom for some religious medical professionals to impose their religious morality on everyone else. Not everyone can just go to a different doctor/pharmacy/hospital/whatever. If you live in an area in which there isn't an alternative, or if you don't have the money to keep going to different doctors until you find one who won't force their beliefs on you, you're screwed. If someone doesn't want to do their job, they can find another one. And that's one of the major issues, because there are fundamentalists who are intentionally entering certain professions with the purpose of denying care & imposing their beliefs.
These regulations are despicable, and toxic to women's health.
If you want to be a nurse and not dispense EC, you could work in, like, a plastic surgeon's office. But if you are an ER nurse and refuse to give the morning after pill to a traumatized rape victim, you are hurting people and are a danger to public health. People should have to do their job, or get another job, ESPECIALLY when the job is providing healthcare to the public.
What if you are an ER nurse with a stated, and known objection to EC? Isn't it extremely unlikely that you would be the only one available to dispense it?
Well, basically what would have to happen is they'd have to make sure someone else was always staffing the ER with me to be available to do that. They'd have to trust that I'd bring such cases to the attention of someone who could handle it (what if even that is against my conscience? Then the patients have to know who to ask?). Basically they can't trust me to function as a full nurse, there has to always be someone else around to take care of the things I won't do. This might not be a big deal in a big hospital if lots of people are always around working, but what about a smaller place? Or what if more than half of the people working there refuse to dispense EC? By this rule the hospital isn't allowed to fire them or force them to do their jobs so they have to, what, hire twice as many people to do only that job? How are they going to afford that? Or, they have to let the public go without critical care.
Its like if I took a job at starbucks and then announced that caffeine is against my religion and I will only take orders for the decaffinated beverages. Instead of telling me I have to do my job or leave, Starbucks would be required to either hire another person to look over my shoulder and do the parts of my job I won't do, or allow customers to be refused their orders. Only instead of caffeine, replace it with time-sensitive critical medical care.
My endorsement is probably the kiss of death around here, but you're wonderful.
Terabithia, I heart your Starbucks comparison. Seriously makes the staffing and budgetary issues about working around Bush's opt-out regulation crystal clear, and it's pithy too! I'm filing this one to whip out and use later, if you don't mind.
Of course I don't mind. I don't even remember anymore if I thought of it myself or heard it somewhere, but its a good comparison to use to explain this to people. Go for it.
And I thought of an extension of the starbucks analogy. Say starbucks DOES hire another person to work at the same time as me and take care of the caffinated orders that I won't do. Well, what if we get to talking and I convince them that caffeine is bad? Effectively they convert to my anti-caffeine opinion. Now this second employee can also refuse to dispense caffinated orders, and again Starbucks can't do anything about it. Do they have to hire ANOTHER person to do those parts of the job? This could keep going forever. It would just cause total administrative chaos.
Basically what I'm getting at is that the idea that if I had a stated and known objection to something I wouldn't be put in a position to have to dispense it is ridiculous.
You're forgetting the expanse of our country that is rural and small town. There have been cases where in small towns women have been denied EC access. You also assume that everyone has easy access to transportation, and ability to take time off of work and run around for EC. Most EC is at the pharmacy, not the ER.
Any doctor who believes that providing birth control or emergency contraception to EVERY woman because of their own beliefs should probably find another line of work. When you choose a helping profession, your peace of mind and morals are secondary to providing the best care to your patients and clients. That doesn't mean you have to leave your morals at the door, but you have to know what they are and make sure you don't let it keep you from giving quality, objective care. It's not like healthcare professionals don't take formal Ethics classes or learn about ethics throughout their education. I'm studying to be a mental health counselor, and we are instructed to think A LOT about our own values. And being a liberal who values autonomy doesn't make it any easier to keep my morals out of my work. You really have to know yourself and have a passion for helping others to be in healthcare. Not everyone is cut out for it.
I dunno, doesn't this depend a lot on the doctor's line of work? How many docs go into it thinking specifically about such things as b.c. and abortion? And even an OB has a million reasons for being an OB that do not have to involve abortion or birth control. I do know some OB/GYNs in a practice nearby who are up front and tell their patients when they call to make their first appointment, "We do not give birth control prescriptions and we do not do abortions." The reason, according to my sister who is a patient of theirs, is that they are pro-life and would not ever be comfortable doing that. But they want to do all the other things that OB's do. They just think that the other stuff is harmful.
I appreciate your thoughtful response about medical professionals considering their own ethics. Knowing friends who have goine through medical school I think that this really is going to vary a lot, and doesn't necessarily address the issue at hand when it is an issue of beliefs about personhood. (The other stuff, liek sex-change operations, is more muddy.)
Being a "liberal," I have found, doesn't mean that I always see my own bias. I think that we have to watch out for our bias against those whose philosophical beliefs have led them to define life and death differently from us. And when the issue is NOT whether someone will come to immediate harm, there has to be protection for religious or philosophical beliefs.
As I understand it, this particular rule is saying that employers can't regulate their employees behavior on an issue like this.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as it stands before this rule, if an OBGYN wants to have a clinic where they do not do abortions or birth control or anything like that, they can. And then their employees are also expected to follow that policy.
Similarly though, if an OBGYN wants to open a clinic where they DO dispense birth control, they can. And they can hire employees. But since a major part of their practice is giving out birth control prescriptions or other related things, they need employees who will do those things. Now with this new rule, if they have an employee who is against birth control, that employee can refuse to have anything to do with any patient care for someone who needs birth control, effectively refusing to do a large part of their job. And now the employer can't cut their pay for the work they're not doing, can't fire them, probably can't afford to hire a second person just to do the extra parts of their job... its ridiculous.
If you are against giving out birth control you shouldn't take a job where you'll need to do that. Pick a different job (anything from a practice that does not give out birth control to a different area of medicine to a different field completely). But don't take a job where people are going to depend on you to give them health care they need and then refuse to do it.
I understand that some people find it morally objectionable. You know what I find morally objectionable? Guns. Ergo, I would not take a job as a clerk in a gun shop. I also wouldn't take a job in a store that sells mostly other stuff and some guns if I knew I'd have to sometimes sell people guns. The idea that I could take a job there and then just refuse to do it and they couldn't fire me is ridiculous. If you find a job morally objectionable, find a different job.
Basically what Terebithia said. But I also want to add that I don't object to healthcare professionals denying to provide care to patients and clients based on their religious or moral beliefs. You can't help everyone, and you don't have to help everyone. But you do have to at least make sure they get the help from someone who is willing to give it. But this law lets healthcare workers off the hook when it comes to that ethical principle. When I become a counselor, there might be a few sex offenders who walk into my office. As a feminist, I don't think I could treat sex offenders. I think their crimes are unforgivable, and I don't think I could stand to be in the same room with someone who committed rape or child molestation. But I still know that they have every right to receive counseling services. It would be my ethical obligation to refer sex offenders to a competent counselor who is willing to provide counseling to sex offenders. That's how a healthcare professional balances their work and morals: "I cannot provide you this service on moral grounds, but I understand that you need or believe you need this service for your health and well-being. So here's the name, number, and address of a competent professional who is willing to provide this service to you."
thanks for this comment. i often find myself on the other side of this issue, b/c i very strongly feel that people's moral choices need to be legally protected, and you've given a great example as to why.
i'm kind of in the middle on this issue: i believe people (in this case, healthcare professionals) have the right to do or not do what they see fit, even if someone else wants them to provide a service, and even if they're the only one within X number of miles who is capable. (i don't buy the "what if someone needs EC from the only pharmacy in town? argument, either. people have choices as where to live. if you want to live somewhere near where services are convenient, then move there. if you want to live in the middle of nowhere, that's also your choice. and if it's inconvenient, there's mail-order pharmacies....have it fedexed.)
i see nothing wrong with, say, a pharmacist informing his or her employer UPFRONT that (s)he has an objection to doing X, Y or Z. then the employer can decide whether or not to continue this person's employment, based on the services the business owner wants to provide. i believe that right should be legally protected. where i *do* call foul, though, is the last-minute stuff; i think it should be required for the employee to notify an employer before, so the employer can hire someone else or decline employment. and just because i think it should be legally ok to decline care doesn't mean i think a business owner should now be legally forced to keep paying you. (in short, i believe in something similar to the military's conscientious objection for healthcare.)
and, as always, i think the best response it to fight fire with fire. someone doesn't want to take my money for my birth control? i promise there are plenty who do. i'm happy to give them my money. given the number of people who need these services, i'm reasonably confident that a pharmacist who wouldn't sell birth control would then be a very impoverished pharmacist.
there are plenty of people who think that birth control and EC and abortion are a moral benefit, too. and many of them go into OBGYN and other medical care. kudos to those people. :)
I say that if you want to put your activism and politics ahead of being a doctor, then go do that, but dont bring it into the medical workroom and dont be a doctor. This is an unjust situation because the person that is refusing to give out BC or Plan B has no one forcing their beliefs onto them. They are still able to make those choices for themselves freely. However, they unfairly have now been entitled with denying someone else their bodily and personal beliefs about how to govern their own reproductive choices.They get the choice but the patient/customer doesnt. Its clearly very infantalizing and dangerous.
I'm a firefighter, but as a follower of Hephaestus I also believe that fire is sacred and cannot be put out. Therefore, I will not be fulfilling firefighter duties relating to fire, but expect to collect my paycheck and avoid reprimand because the main task of the career I chose conflicts with my religious views.
Witty, but not completely apt. Pharmacists dispense all kinds of medications, and so do doctors. Plastic surgeons do all kinds of surgery other than sex change operations. OB's have many many jobs to do besides abortions, and none of these are definitive of the job. YOU can believe they are equal to the other parts of the job, and fall under the same definitions, but there are lots of (thoughtful, moral, even) people who don't.
Which makes it an issue of philosophical or religious difference, and it should be respected to the extent that a person's health is not put in immediate danger.
And as an anti-extinguishist firefighter I can still get cats down from trees. Who do you think you are, assuming that that's not a more important part of the job (fire fighting) than putting out fires? Maybe that's how you see it, but not me and my conscience. Pharmacists shouldn't have to fill prescriptions or dispense medications, and firefighters shouldn't have to put out fires.
Whether someone should be allowed to go open their own pharmacy where they don't dispense BC is another issue. (I think pharmacists should be required to give out whatever the doctor prescribed, or else doctors should start keeping their own medicine in stock. But its besides the point of this rule.)
What this rule is talking about is employers being able to regulate their own business. Its saying that if I am a pharmacist and I want my customers to have access to BC, but a specific clerk announces that they won't hand it out, I can't do anything about it.
So, no one is saying that every doctor has to perform abortions. Obviously most of them don't. But we're saying that if they take a job that involves BC or abortion they can't then later refuse to do that part of their job with no repercussions.
So, its not that far off from the firefighter analogy. And firefighters do in fact do other things, like sometimes function as paramedics. What if I want to be a firefighter becuase I want to be a paramedic, but I don't want to put out fires? I should just become a paramedic you say? But no, I already have this cushy firefighter job, and I'm just going to stay at the sidelines and not fight fires, but I'll join in when we respond to the scene of an accident. See, I still want to do part of my job, why should someone be able to force me out just because I don't want to do another part?
What if you hired a security firm to guard your house or business, and after you hired them they said its against their conscience to do any work after sundown so they won't guard it at night. But the'yll still guard it in the day and you have to accept that and pay what you agreed, because you can't force them to do something against their conscience!
What we're talking about here is people who have specifically chosen to be in professions where they need to dispense birth control or assist in abortions or whatever, and then refuse to do it. We are not talking about people's freedom to choose to have a specific type of business where they don't do all services.
Absolutely. Reverse Vampire Corporation (Revampcorp) was the worst security I ever hired.
In 10 days I'll be leaving for a year of volunteering in a country with a terrible terrible AIDS epidemic. I'll be teaching English and HIV prevention. What if, two months into my service, I convert to Teach Nothingism and declare that my newly acquired stupidity conscience commits me to Abstinence Only Education? Should they have to keep me on for another 10 months of not doing my job with regards to teaching safe sex?
Also, I would argue that denying someone emergency contraception IS putting their health in immediate danger. The word "emergency" is in there for a reason, it only works if you get it in time.
I know you've said above that someone else at the same job could do it instead, but what about a pharmacy that only has one person working the counter at a time? Now because a specific employee refuses to do their job they have to have someone else there too? What if more people refuse to dispense it? You can't tell them to go work at a place where they agree with their job, you just have to put up with them not doing it? So now you're telling the woman to spend time finding another pharmacy for her EMERGENCY medication. In a lot of places there just isn't another pharmacy nearby, but even if there is, what if the clerk there has the same issue?
This does put the woman's health in danger.
I'm sorry, but this ruling is bullshit plain and simple. Who gets to decide when it is a case of "immediate danger"? It seems very clear to me that this, as usual, really has to do with controlling women's lives and bodies. When does it ever have to do with men? Does anyone ever object to dispensing viagra? What a joke. If you become a health care professional, you need to do whatever it is that helps the person, within the law, and whatever the physician and the patient decide is best. Fuck this bullshit about pharmacists not dispensing EC or the pill because it is "against" their beliefs. Bullshit. Then get a job in a gas station.
The point is that if you have moral objections to the job you are supposed to be doing, you should not be doing it. End of story. A jehovah's witness should not be a surgeon or anywhere near an OR. Someone who objects to BC should not be a family doctor, OBGYN, etc. Sure, there are other services they give, but BC is something routinely prescribed in well-patient and OBGYN visits. That is not a rare, minor part of the job. No one's saying don't be a doctor--just choose your specialty in a way that you can do your job AND fulfill your moral duties.
The gun analogy is good. If you are a cashier in a sporting goods store, you will ring up many items that are not guns. But you will have to ring up guns and gun-related items. Maybe you should find another place to cashier then.
If my religion says women shouldn't own businesses, and I'm the business banker covering your region, or the only one in a small rural town, women aren't going to be able to get loans.
I am a professor, and I am required to give my students time off from class for any religious holiday, regardless of whether I agree with their religion or not. Doctors should allow women to exercise their legal right to care regardless of how the physician feels about the morality of the care itself. How is this not the same thing?It's not like BC or blood transfusions are ethically questionable procedures, which doctors can refuse to support.
If this is going to go through, there needs to be full disclosure by the applicant and it needs to be known to existing and new patients and pharmacy customers. But that could constitute hiring discrimination, so this law essentially does what is suggested above: it could force businesses to hire more people than they need in order to properly provide care, or their patients may just have to go without. I think Bush is counting on the latter.
As far as I know, the Obama admin. is indeed already trying to reverse the shit out of this thing. It's so incredibly absurd and unreasonable.
Bush is so, so tired. Have you seen him lately? He's just giving us the biggest F-U possible. I think he's doing his best to make his place in history as the worst president ever. He's done a ton of de-regulation that will just be more work for the Obama admin. to reverse. Bush has no concept of personal accountability or responsibility. He's like a mentally impaired child.
Aleks- your statement is perfect.
Now that's something I don't hear nearly enough of!
As for Bush, a lot of Republicans are saying he's drinking again. It's their way of trying to cut him loose before (oops!) he drags the party down with him.
I want to know what happens when this conflicts with, y'know, actual civil rights. What if the ER doc is a Klansman(because the Klan does base its racism on its interpretation of the Bible) & refuses to treat a black person?
Being a Bushy means never having to think through the obvious consequences of your actions.
I would love to see that happen. Be the wind that blows this shit straight back into their faces.
I am hoping we get one really high profile case of something like that (obviously one where no one actually ends up dying or anything, but where they could have because of this rule) to really point out the flaws in a rule like this.
This shit has me so pissed off.Any freaking body can deny me birth control. Some snot nose teenager trying to be funny can use their "conscience" for shits and giggles, or some racist person who do like my kind can use the excuse of their "conscience" to deny me perfectly legal birth control.
How can you properly run a business this way?
I tell you this, if I walk into my pharmacy or planned parenthood and some cashier refuse to ring up my pills, ALL HELL IS GOING TO BREAK LOOSE!!! They are going to have to call the cops on me.I refuse DAMMIT! to let someone's "conscience" to deny me my RIGHT to obtain doctor prescribe legal birth control.
Sorry for the rant,but I am so mad I can chew nails.
@penny rose
amen to that! cause a ruckus when your rights are violated!
This is Bush's last (I hope) big FUCK YOU to women. I say the consequences of this law will unarguably fall upon women more than any other group. 85% upon women (for being women), 5% upon LGBTs (for being LGBTs), and 10% upon others- that's my unscientific projection. It's not like there's any controversy as to who exactly it is that medical professionals would like to refuse services to. A straight man has a minuscule chance of ever suffering a negative effect from this law. A woman of reproductive age has a huge chance, however.
It's like Bush saw this opportunity to fuck women over, and once seeing it, could not resist the overwhelming urge to make it law.
"So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise."
Malcolm X
I assume this law work in reverse? Base on this law I can work at a Church or an anti choice establishment and refuse in good "conscience" to hand out literature about the sins of abortion and birth control. I can refuse to hand out or discuss information to teenagers about "abstinence" and based on the definition of "Conscience" I would be within my rights under the law.
I can only speak about myself when I say that in good "conscience" I cannot tell a woman that abortion is a sin and that birth control is wrong, because it goes against EVERYTHING I believe in.
'If I were to do 'x,' I could not live with myself/I would hate myself/I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.'"
I say we fight fire with fire.
I don't know, the way they've phrased it says you can refuse to do things but not that you can actively do things. So I bet they would say that you can refuse to discuss condoms, but you can't actively tell them about condoms, all you can do is refuse to have a conversation with them in the first place.
Its stupid but I bet that's how they'd answer you.
True, but I am not talking about openly discussing condoms and birth control options with anyone who walks in an anti -choice establishment.
"all you can do is refuse to have a conversation with them in the first place."
Exactly the point. Based on this law( and please correct me if I am wrong) we are not sure whether employers can even ask potential employees what they stand on birth control/abortion. If this is true, there could be a person who is anti-choice working the front desk at the local Planned Parenthood. A woman can be denied to schedule an appointment to have an abortion.Can't you just see people trying to infiltrate Planned Parenthood and these same people having access to our records?
What I am saying is that the law work both ways. Can you imagine if Pro-choice individuals worked the front desk on an anti-choice organization?
Something tells me that they would not be very happy about that.
Yeah, that's a good point. We should work on that.
We should.You know those people who stand in front of abortion clinic with their signs and pamphlets? Now imagine us REFUSING TO HOLD THEIR SIGNS AND REFUSING DUE TO OUR "CONSCIENCE" TO HAND OUT PAMPHLETS.
Yeah but the problem is we already don't do those things...
This is crap. As a nurse, I'm often faced with providing care that goes against my beliefs. But my patients come to me for medical care, not a paternalistic decision about what's right or wrong. I'm a nurse, not a religious leader. I have to ensure that my patients (or their family memebers) are informed, capable of making a decision, and are making decisions of their own free will. If all of these things are true, then it is my job and my duty to provide the care they want, even if I disagree with it. To do anything else would be denying a person the right to make reasoned adult decisions about their healthcare.
I don't even know what to say to this. Part of me wants to just say "fuck this shit" and leave it there. The other part of me wants to express how glad I am not to live in the States sometimes (please don't take offense. There are just ... a lot of regulations that owuld make it really difficult for me to live there) and the other part of me can only think about the fact that if I did live there, I wonder how many tries it would take before I could find a pharmacist who would fill a prescription for testosterone?
But...my ultimate decision is to just say 'fuck this shit.'