"Think of the children!" they cried.

Does religion and mores take precedence over women's reproductive rights?

Will the precedent of a federal conscious clause have a chilling effect on free speech for men and women seeking abortions and/or contraceptives?

tsk, tsk, tsk....

Lesly, you have it all wrong. The conscience clause isn't about protecting the fundamental religious beliefs of doctors, nurses, etc. Its about giving homophobic bigots an excuse to not treat gays.

Really, its true.



Andrew Sullivan said it on 9/14, so it must be true.....



Constitutionally, yes. The freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as opposed to being hidden within emanations and penumbras. Furthermore, slavery and involuntary servitude have both been eliminated, so it seems most odd that the Left would be so dead set on using the government to override religious values and compel the individual to act in complete contravention to those values in the service (service, servant, servitude, get the connection?) of another. But hey, we know the Left is all about freedom, right? Oh, let's not forget freedom of association as well...

I understand your point here, bikerdad, but becoming a health care provider is different than owning a store, or just being a private citizen. The hippocratic oath, and longstanding, sometimes informal and sometimes codified, codes of medical ethics, place the provider in a different position than merely a private citizen. I work as an EMT. Now, even though I work for the Makah tribe, not the government, I cannot refuse to treat someone by claiming 'freedom of association.' I am bound by a code of ethics which strictly forbids me to refuse to treat someone while I am on duty.

I would venture that if someone is going to place their religious values over their medical ethics, they have chosen the wrong profession. On the surface, it seems easy to agree that a private practice should be allowed to choose, if they desire, not to provide abortions, or to refer people to a doctor who will perform abortions. But reality is a bit stickier. I can see several problems, the main being this: If a clinic has a strict stance, in which they will not refer women for abortions, even in cases of severe health danger, if the woman dies, will they be responsible for the death of the woman? Don't they have a code of ethics? We have to treat the patient in front of us, not the hypothetical patient about which we know nothing. For example: I am called to the scene of an accident. A very pregnant woman has smashed into the steering wheel, and put her face through the windshield. She is losing blood. She also, obviously, has suffered severe abdominal trauma, possibly harming her unborn child. Now, do I dither, trying to decide if I should treat the baby (let's assume she is at her due date) or the mother? No. I treat the mother, and address the baby once she is stabilized. Likewise, if a woman is at risk of dying if she does not receive an abortion, I have an ethical duty to treat the patient in front of me.

Look at it this way - some prisons are being privatized. Should these companies, private sector though they may be, have the right to, for example, refuse to feed black prisoners? Do they have the right to place all Catholics in solitary confinement? Or do they abrogate some of their rights when they enter into a public sphere of duty ( a la medicine)? I would say that indeed, they do.

Nice take on the first issue quarkhead.

Will the precedent of a federal conscious clause have a chilling effect on free speech for men and women seeking abortions and/or contraceptives?

Not in a Capitalistic society. Human greed will insure that if there is a buyer, there will be 3 sellers that will happily provide products and services. Money has an amazing effect on people's morals.

As long as the law refers to refusing to perform services and not refusing service to individuals, then it is a good law.

Let's look at another oft debated procedure: euthanasia. Should a doctor be forced to assist his patient to die a "dignified death"? Should a doctor be allowed to opt out of performing such an assisted suicide?

Abortion is a sticky issue precisely because people differ in their opinion about whether it affects one person (the mother) or two (the mother and the child).

Does religion and mores take precedence over women's reproductive rights?
When the "rights" of two individual are in conflict, each should be allowed to prevail. In reality, the "rights" of two individuals cannot really conflict, since rights are inherent to the individual.

In this case, assuming the mother has "reproductive rights" she is free to seek a doctor who conforms to those beliefs. One of the beauties of the US health system is doctor choice.

The doctor should never be forced to perform procedures which he or she finds ethically or morally wrong. There is a distinct difference between forcing someone to do something (the doctor) and forcing a person to find a willing service provider (the mother).

Forced referral is also flawed. Why should a doctor who finds a procedure morally wrong be forced to help a patient find a doctor who will perform it? Think of the euthanasia example: if my doctor refuses to assist in my suicide, should she be legally required to help me find a doctor who will do it? I think not.

Does religion and mores take precedence over women's reproductive rights?

First of all, whose religion? So, my answer is absolutely, unequivocally NO. Nobody has the right to force his or her beliefs onto anyone else, whether it be proselytizing or issuing a prescription.

If doctors and pharmacists are allowed to pick and choose which procedures/drugs they support or do not support due to their religious beliefs, where does it all end? Heck, why have heart surgery – isn’t it “God’s will” that you had a heart attack and if you die that's also "God's will". Why should mere humans intervene in “God’s work”? Why treat cancer? Isn’t that also “God’s will”? If you suffer from depression, why should the pharmacist give you a prescription for an anti-depressant - go to church! Pray to God to fix it! Why would we need doctors at all if “God’s will” is responsible for everything? Why in bloody blue blazes would these people enter the medical field?! It boggles the mind.

Will the precedent of a federal conscious clause have a chilling effect on free speech for men and women seeking abortions and/or contraceptives?

I can only hope that someone will come to their senses and squash this idiocy before it can spread.

So let's say a family member of yours get in a car accident. They get brought to the hospital in need of an immediate blood transfusion. The ER doctor says, "Sorry, you're SOL, I'm a Jehova's Witness. We find blood transfusions to be morally wrong." Would you be like "Oh, ok. I understand"? Somehow I doubt it.

If the smell of fecal matter bothers me, I will not get a job a a sewage treatment plant. But if I do get the job, I don't think the plant should cater to my desire to process flower petals instead of feces.

It's just astounding how much pull the cultists still have in this country. AND THIS IS IN THE SAME COUNTRY WHERE RASTAFARIANS STILL GET IMPRISONED FOR PRACTICING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THEIR RELIGION IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME.

That's a fair point. In all likelihood, a person making that decision will not be employed long in the emergency room.

Still, the choice is with the individual, not with the state or the employer. Don't you find it the least bit troubling that we would force someone to do something against their will?

No, I don't. A person who makes the choice to work in the field of healthcare has a responsibility to his/her clients and employer to perform his/her job. If they have a problem with birth control, they shouldn't consider employment in a career field that requires its distribution. Do you think a Hindu should be permitted to refuse to sell the burgers while working at McDonalds?

Where is the servitude in voluntary employment, Bikerdad? It's an insult to anyone who is a slave/indentured servant or was one.

You make it sound as if practitioners have been forced to perform or assist in abortions against their will for the past three decades. The 1973 Church amendment allowed individuals/entities to decline providing abortions, to say nothing of private practices. I'm having a dickens of a time getting an accurate Google hit on this amendment and don't feel like sifting through 80k hits, but it wouldn't be far-fetched to guess the Church amendment excluded medically necessary abortions. Then in 1996 the Coats amendment "prohibit[ed] the government from denying funding to medical residency training programs or other entities that lose accreditation because they fail[ed] to provide or require training in abortion services."

So, not only do subsidized practices get to keep their licenses if they refuse to perform abortions but no accredited higher learning institution is compelled to train students in abortion procedures. Seems like a fair shake to freedom of religion to me.

Supporters claim H. R. 3664 is a "clarification" of the Coats amendment. Its purpose is:








You're breaking my bleeding heart.

I agree with quarkhead that the hippocratic oath and medical ethics should be the ultimate guide, rule and basis for all service decisions made by doctors, pharmacists, etc.



There are many doctors who, in their professional medical opinion, regard abortions and prescribing contraception as completely opposed to the hippocratic oath to "first do no harm". Likewise there are pharmacists who regard contraceptives and abortifacients as poison to the human body and destructive to a woman's reproductive cycle, also against their hippocratic oath. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is just one such example.
AAPS

Many doctors and nurses today are being abused for practicing the oath in their profession.

I never ceases to amaze me the inconsistent reasoning people use to back their belief systems. Why should this apply only to medical professionals? WHy should medical professionals alone be free to exercise their "conscious", eschewing their job responsibilities for religious matters without consequence?

Why can't a soldier "find religion" and decide he doesn't want to train killers, but still maintain his job and benefits. Scheduled to deploy to Iraq next week? Sorry! The Major found religion over the weekend. He can't bomb anyone now.

There's me thinking that the Bill of Rights was a document that set out which rights government was not permitted to abridge or revise.

Since the health system in the USA is not a government-run facility, it seems to me that healthcare providers have a perfect right to lay down policies that employees and agents must follow.

Just as health professionals would be free to set up healthcare businesses that follow a particular faith's doctrines. Of course they may find that the rest of the medical profession refuses to reconcile them, since their standpoint could be seen to contradict the Hippocratic principle of "do no harm", but they'd be free to do so without interference from government, wouldn't they?

Doesn't the hippocratic oath state the doctor will do NO HARM? If that doctor feels that the unborn is a child/person then wouldn't we be forcing that doctor to break the hippocratic oath by performing an Abortion?

We act as if there are no alternatives. I would imagine that the majority of doctors out there would perform the procedures. Isn't it possible for the person to see another doctor? Isn't possible for the hospital to assign a different doctor?

I do not feel that anyone should be forced to perform an act that violates their morals. Having to live with others around them who do not follow the same moral code is fine. But to force someone to violate their own beliefs is simply wrong.

For example: To force a priest to perform a marriage of a homosexual couple would be wrong. But, the rights of all need to be respected so to allow the same priest to ban all gay marriages performed by others would be equally wrong. Allowing that priest to harrass the married individuals, outside of his property or church would also be wrong.

OLS,

How far do you want to go with this logic? Your words remind me of an incident that occurred in my part of the country in February. A pharmacist for an Eckerd’s in Denton, Texas, a college town about 40 miles from the Dallas/FortWorth metroplex, refused to fill a rape victim’s morning after pill prescription on moral grounds.

Story from the February 3, 2004 Fort Worth Star Telegram:



<snip>



The link to the FWST article may require registration, but it's free.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/stat...ast/7862364.htm

Medical personnel are not the only ones who are able to do so, and it is not without consequences. They will suffer job discrimination as a result.

Three reasons:

• 1) The practical conundrum of cowardice hiding behind conscience. A pharmacists risk level is not substantially increased by prescribing RU-486. A soldier's risk level is substantially increased by being deployed, hence, a legitimate question arises as to the objecting soldier's motivation.
  
  
• 2) There are numerous alternatives for military personnel who become conscientious objectors. The alternatives are not instant, but they are there.
  
  
• 3) The calling of being a soldier is, ultimately, a higher one than being a doctor. Medical personnel are charged with treating individuals, soldiers, airmen, sailors,and marines are entrusted with the defense of all of us. This much greater obligation, as well as the practical difficulties, are why the military conscientious objector has a higher barrier.
  
  

If the healthcare system was completely free of government interference, I would agree. However, not only are there many government hospitals, but through the long arm of a myriad of government programs, much of our healthcare system falls under government regulations. There has been a deliberate, conscious, and very vigourous effort on the part of the abortion fans to force medical students to learn how to perform abortions, to force hospitals to perform them, to secure public funding for abortions and birth control, etc. Even private practitioners, if they serve welfare patients, would, under the dream scenario of the abortion fans, be required to perform abortions. Thus, the care providers are faced with a choice: either violate their own moral standards to perform a procedure that they find abominable, or deny service to everybody paying even in part with public monies.

That, sadly, is the scenario as presented by NARAL (which has changed its name): "Do my abortion, or you can't help any of these other people."

When you look at it that way, who is being selfish?

Actually, the majority of doctors refuse to perform the procedure, which is one reason why the abortion activists are pushing for doctor's to be required to perform it. It may not be possible for a person to see another doctor, without travelling quite a distance, and inconvenience that must not be allowed to stand in the face of some fuddy duddy moral squeamishness on the part of a bigoted, misogynistic doctor. Finally, some hospitals, primarily Catholic, but not exclusively, simply refuse to permit abortions, so assigning another doctor isn't an option.

The employee chooses his/her place of employment. Doctors and nurses aren't having their licenses rescinded for not providing abortion services. They are free to practice at institutions which support their decisions, or open their own practices. Pharmacists may do the same. The employer should reserve the right to terminate an employee who won't perform his/her job. A doctor who has religious objections to birth control should never work as a woman's health practitioner to begin with. If a doctor cannot make the critical life and death decisions he/she will inevitably face during some point of their career involving the health risks to baby and mother, they belong in gynecological practice as much as a burka in a topless bar.

I think there are two different issues here.

Noone should be forced to perform abortions if they find it morally objectionable.

I agree that these people have rights of refusal, its just too close to asking someone to commit something they view as a crime.

On the othe hand, I believe pharmascists should be required to fill prescriptions made out by doctors, for birth control, morning after, Aids medications and anything else, above and beyond and despite their 'personal' beliefs..or they simply must find another profession. Doctors diagnose, pharmascists do not have that capacity. If you begin allowing pharmascists to refuse to fill legally held prescriptions on moral grounds, they open themselves up to life endangerment. I mean really, who is Jack Dip behind a pharmacy counter to decide on a patients future when the patient has a reputable MD and a legally held prescription?
Its really too far, the law has too much leeway and is open for all kinds of abuse on more than just moral grounds, in small towns it could be used on personal grounds and agenda. Its incredibly devastating to womens rights across the board, more-so in rural areas and where churches or ultra-rightists run entire towns or regions.

I can see the lawsuits mounting. Shall the pharmascist be prosecuted when a pregnant mother dies from her pregnancy after refusal of birth control? How about rape and incest victims, or shall teenagers be forced to have babies because the local pharmacy will not distribute BC to anyone? Its quite ludicrous in a free country that a simple counter clerk can make these type of life decisions for any and all in his/her town, on moral grounds?
Morals tend to be great when looking toward 'others' but easily rationalized contrarily when our own interests are at heart. Whos watching the moral 'watchers' while all this is going on?

Compelling an individual to perform a service for another has a name.

Its called involuntary servitude. That you believe "women's rights" justifies it shows just how radical and illiberal your thinking has become. It doesn't matter whether the pharmacist doesn't want to provide an Rx because of moral objections, ethical objections, or because he doesn't like the color of the sky today. When you compel him (or her, don't forget, there's LOTS of women who are refusing as well), you have become a slaver.

Susan B. would be ashamed of you!

Whenever you decide on a job/career, no matter what that job is there will be certain things you wont like about it. You have to accept the good with the bad. The medical person gets paid to pass the medicine over the counter, not to pass judgement on whether or not they think that person is right or wrong.
I personally dont like the idea of killing anyone(especially for political reasons) but considering the fact that I am in the army I realise I may have to do it someday even if I am 100% against it. I knew it before I joined and if I had decided that I could not handle it I would not have joined. Suppose someone is convicted of a crime, but they need medical attention, can the doctor just say because he beleives the person deserves to die that he should not have to treat him?

Let us look at the original Hippocratic Oath.



Obviously it can be argued that doctors who refuse to provide abortion services or referrals are obeying the Hippocratic Oath. The employee of a firm has a duty to his employer. Catholics believe that abortion is a sin. A Catholic run hospital should not be coerced into committing and enabling sin.

Let us go back to the Jehovah Witness example. I do not know of any Jehovah Witness run hospitals. If there were some they should certainly have the right to refuse blood transfusions. There is probably a good reason why there are no Jehovah Witness run hospitals, they would probably quickly go broke. Catholic hospitals can profit within the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church.

Can someone give me a number on how many emergency abortions are needed annually?

If I choose to be a pediatrician, I do not have to engage in brain surgery. If I own a convenience store, I do not have to sell pornographic magazines. If I run a hospital I should not have to engage in actions which I firmly believe endanger my soul.

Unfortunately the legislation in question isn't restricted to the Hppocratic oath. The far-reaching bill in question absolving pharmacists from the job responsibility of filling prescriptions and/or referring patients to another pharmacy is not restricted to doing harm. A pharmacist can refuse on moral grounds.


What kind of logic is this? If you believe you are going to hell in a hand basket for giving a blood transfusion perhaps you should not offer your time/talents as an employee where you stand a good chance of facing the moral dilemma. If pork offends you don't seek employment as a butcher or stock boy.


I don't know of any research company such as Gallup that has answered that question, but there are cases where it is life-threatening.





One more time. Property/owner's rights are in tact. The legislation doesn't "correct" some state/federal mandate that mysteriously chipped away the right of the individual/company to refuse offering abortifacient services/goods. Nor does it lift a hidden provision somewhere in the federal government that forces doctors to perform abortions against their will. The bill's purpose is to allow the pharmacist to:

1) Refuse to fill out abortifacient prescriptions such as Plan B and refuse to refer the patient to another pharmacy
2) Refuse to fill out prescriptions that run counter to their personal ethics/morals based on individual inclinations and refer patients to another pharmacy (i.e., Catholic pharmacist doesn't have to fill out a birth control prescription in a privately owned or corporate owned pharmacy)

It's more akin to making you keep me as a cashier employee after I refuse to accept money for pornographic material and refer them to another store.

Yes, they can refuse on moral grounds. That is a good thing. Their employer may still fire them.





The fact is I can own pretty much any other business and not be forced to stock offensive items. I should be able to operate my pharmacy the same way. What part of private property rights do you not understand? I can be a lawyer and choose not to defend murderers, I should be able to be a pharmacist and choose not to aid in the killing of fetuses



I am sure they can find a supplier for their needs without coercing someone to participate in the act of what they consider murder



I think you need to read your original link again.

Let me edit to help Lesly out.



No local, state and federal authorities should not force an individual to participate in the act of abortion. It does not protect the employee from being fired by his employer.

Edited to fix quotes. -Amlord

Funny, I've never seen anything about doctors being forced to perform abortions. As for the Hippocratic oath...

So, abortion being frowned upon was a religious intervention, not a medical one. I, for one, would prefer my doctor to be somewhat beyond the beliefs of the Middle Ages.

Oh, and just a funny aside for all the France-haters; the Hippocratic oath wasn't even used in graduation ceremonies until 1804 - in France.

What does all this have to do with a pharmacist not filling a birth control prescription, anyway???

That's the problem, Hugo. The employer cannot fire them for exercising their morality/religion. The 1973 Church amendment already established "no federal, state, or local government can require individual or institutional health care providers, such as hospitals and health centers, that receive federal funds under particular public health programs to perform or assist in performing abortions if these procedures conflict with their religious or moral convictions." It prohibits employment discrimination against health care providers that refuse to perform abortions.

The 1996 Coats amendment "prohibits the government from denying funding to medical residency training programs or other entities that lose accreditation because they fail to provide or require training in abortion services." Supporters of Abortion Non-Discrimination Act claim the bill is a clarification of the Coats amendment. Finally, the feds may not be able to enforce the Hyde amendment which "stipulates that Medicaid clients have access to abortion services in cases of rape, incest, or where the pregnancy endangers a woman’s life" if this bill passes.


Man, this is entering Twilight Zone territory.

pharmacist: a person licensed to engage in pharmacy
pharmacy: the art, practice, or profession of preparing, preserving, compounding, and dispensing medical drugs

I am not telling employers what goods/services they must provide. I am talking about the employee, in this case a pharmacist, to refuse fulfilling job duties on moral/ethic grounds and simultaneously keep his/her job and have grounds to sue you, the employer, if you fire them.


I don't consider it an accessory to murder if a pro-life pharmacist is required to give a referral to fill a Plan B prescription any more than I consider it an accessory to sin if a Catholic is required to give a referral for birth control prescription.


I'll take that advice after you realize I'm not arguing pharmacies should be forced to carry anything. Too bad pro-life pharmacists lack the entrepreneurship to start their own business and stock whatever they want like their employers.

Please cite the part of the bill that prohibits an employer from firing an employee who refuses to dispense medication that the employer wishes to dispense and I will agree with you. I have seen nothing in any link that shows that. I agree 100% that a employer should have the right, in absence of a labor contract, to fire at will.

It does appear, from the article, that Mississippi law may violate the property rights of the employer, but not the bill recently passed by the House. I cannot find the exact wording of Mississippi's law invoking the "conscience clause". Can you? Let me quote this from your article.



The religious right is not the primary foe of property rights in this country. The same article that condemns pro-lifers for infringing on the property rights of an employer celebrates a court ruling that infringes on the property rights of an employer.

Let me quote Lesly.



This ain't about you. The Pope, and a few others, may disagree with you. If I gave you the name of a hitman, after you told me you needed someone to kill your spouse, I would probably be guilty of a crime and certainly I would be acting immorally.

I know the bill will conflict with Title X's purpose "to assist in making comprehensive voluntary family planning services readily available to all persons desiring such services." Title X doesn't fund abortions but requires reproductive materials covering all options be made available. Likewise Medicaid covers abortions in the case of rape, incest, and mother's life. This bill nullifies Title X and Medicaid requirements of 4,600 hospitals/clinics receiving federal/state funds that either must refer women for abortions or pay for the abortion in those three cases.



Hugo, if the language of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act didn't include "other healthcare entities" and "any other kind of health care facility" I would be inclined to say that the act provides lawsuit immunity for 4,600 hospitals/clinics against non-compliance with Title X and Medicaid. The Texas pharmacist in the CNN article was fired for refusing to fill out a Plan B prescription to a rape victim. If the act covers pharmacists too and you fire him the law is on his side because you "discriminated" against him. You call that operating your pharmacy the way you want to?

Let's say that's fine with you because you wouldn't stock Plan B anyway. Some pro-lifers believe contraceptives also endanger their souls for reasons I listed here. As an employer do you believe an employee's finely tuned moral compass supersedes your license to sell birth control to your customers?

Suit Claims Using Birth Control Pills Is Abortion
Ex-Pharmacist Testifies He Refused to Fill Birth Control Prescription for Fear of Committing Sin



Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. vs. The State of California. California's Women's Contraception Equity Act requires employers provide prescription coverage as part of their health plan to employees. Religious employers are exempt. The act defines a religious employer as one whose's purpose it the teach their religious values, primarily employes people that share those beliefs, serves persons who share those beliefs, and it qualifies as a church under federal tax laws.

It is a very narrow definition of religious employer, I agree, but freely accepting public funding and 75% of your workforce is non-Catholics a dispute was bound to come up. They appealed to the SC but the SC refused. Even without the Women's Contraception Equity Act I think Catholic Charities may have stood a better chance if they had gone the way of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and freedom of association. Of course finding medically qualified personnel is harder than finding a scout.



Sadly it is about me as it effects me. The hysterical lengths to which the self-appointed sentries of un-viable life want to legislatively interpose their ethos between me and my doctor have no regard for my efforts to avoid pregnancy if the medication I take so much as blocks one zygote from implantation in the uterus. Call me a murderer. I'll keep taking the pill and sleep well. Enough is enough.

And their repeated denials that abortion is ever needed to save a woman's life, that laws designed to stop the government from punishing state/federally funded medical residency program effect women like Pulitzer Price journalist Martha Mendoza, who was past the point where dilation and cutterage was a safe option and had to carry a rotting corpse, bleeding for a week because she couldn't find a trained physician capable of performing a partial birth abortion.

How can anyone argue that one person has the right to abort her child but another person does not have the right to refuse to take part in it? You can't force someone to participate in an act that they consider to be murder, and you can't force them to tell their patients where they can go to have their child murdered.

I don't know the numbers, but I think it's safe to assume that an incredibly small number of abortions are medically necessary.

As for the Jehovas Witness refusing to give a blood transfusion, unless every doctor in the hospital is a Jehovas Witness, I'm sure it would be easy to find someone willing to give the transfusion. Same for pharmacists. If one pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills, just find someone else.