And Bush Wants to Give Women One More Kick in the C**t on His Way Out the Door

November 18th, 2008

Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers – NYTimes.com
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 17, 2008

WASHINGTON — A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

…

But the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states have urged the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed rule.

Pharmacies said the rule would allow their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.” State officials said the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.

The Ohio Health Department said the rule “could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs” — a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Filed under: hail to the thief, political malfeasance, religion sucks, women's issues | Comments (3)

3 Responses to “And Bush Wants to Give Women One More Kick in the C**t on His Way Out the Door”

Adam on November 20, 2008 10:14 pm
I am uneducated on this matter apparently. Are you telling me that if I worked in a hospital that receives federal money, or not for that matter, and I DO NOT want to do activities in my job, I could be fired, even if I am not doing this activity because it is againnt my moral code? Is this hurting women or protecting individual care givers? I am not being synical, I seriously do not understand. Thanks. ADM
SuperBadGirl on November 20, 2008 11:36 pm
What this means is that people in some jobs, like pharmacists, emergency room personnel, etc. could refuse to dispense legal medications and advice to women in crisis situations. For instance, a woman who has been raped goes to the hospital and receives emergency care and a rape kit. Emergency contraception (a.k.a. the morning after pill) is commonly offered to victims of rape. If the emergency room nurse/doctor is morally opposed to contraception, s/he could (under this law) refuse to give the medication to the victim, or even tell her that the medication exists. Even though the medication is 100% legal and in some cases the hospital is required by law to offer it.

Same thing with pharmacists. A woman visits her doctor and gets a prescription for the morning after pill or some other form of contraception. The pharmacist at the store she goes to refuses to fill her legal prescription, and refuses to tell her where she could fill it. The company that pharmacy works for could not discipline the employee for refusing to do their job.

In the most extreme scenario, this could result in places that are primarily related to women’s reproductive health (like Planned Parenthood) hiring a nurse who subsequently refuses to dispense birth control. They couldn’t fire that person for refusing to do their job.

I understand that some people have moral objections to birth control. That’s fine. They’re free to feel that way and not use birth control. They have the right to believe what they want to. They do not, however, have the “right” to be licensed pharmacists, or licensed nurses. There is no “right” to be a doctor or nurse. Those are state-regulated, licensed positions. People who don’t feel that they can do the job that the state provides them a license to do should have that license revoked.

Can you see someone refusing to fill a prescription for AIDS medications because they believe that AIDS is a plague sent by God? Or refusing to fill Viagra prescriptions unless a man provides his marriage certificate? What about a Christian Scientist who becomes a pharmacist and then refuses to dispense any prescriptions at all, to anyone?

Because this is primarily an issue about women’s health and reproductive rights, it’s very emotional. People don’t stop to think about the incredibly flawed logic behind this law. People who are licensed by the state to fulfill a task can’t be allowed to let their religious views dictate what they will and will not do to help people. Where would it end?
Dim Reaper on November 21, 2008 1:55 pm
Governments are the same the world over it seems. It’s just the same over here. What do we need our government doing right now? We need them to be sorting out the banking system and making sure people aren’t goign to lose their homes or jobs.

Instead though they decide to arse about on the sidelines with more unnecessary legislation.

On this, I can understand someone having a religious objection to something. I personally have a religious objection to killing someone, which is why I’ve never joined the armed forces. If you’re a doctor and you object to the use of contraception then you should have picked another job, or go work in a research role.

I used to teach a kid who’s family were Johovah’s Witnesses. One of the things they are against is blood transfusions. Yet, the kid’s dad was a surgeon – he did his job and presumably put his beliefs aside for that aspect of his work.