Free Coburn!
Jivin J reported last week the Obama administration plans to overturn an HHS rule implemented by the Bush administration that protects medical professionals. Tthe Wall Street Journal explained what this rule does:
[The rule] says hospitals, pharmacies and other entities that be charged with discrimination and lose federal funds [Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, etc.] if they pressure employees to take part in treatments to which they object on religious or moral grounds….
Still… Obama in August criticized the then-proposed rule and said he was “committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected.”
In other words, Obama doesn’t want federal medical worker/entity conscience protections enforced. Obama considers it “protect[ion]” to force health care providers to participate in abortion.
Yesterday CNS News reported US Senator Tom Coburn (R-TN), an ob/gyn, is telling Obama, “Go ahead. Make my day.”
Coburn… [said] many medical practitioners, including himself, will go to prison before agreeing to engage in medical practices they morally oppose, such as abortion….
The Obama administration’s “review” is considered the precursor to rescinding the regulation.
“I think a lot of us will go to jail,” Coburn told CNSNews.com when asked what would happen if the administration reverses the policy. “Let’s see them prosecute the first one of us for not doing that.”
[Graphic work by John Francis Borra at Veritatis: The Cartoon]

Daniel in the bible didn’t fall for idolatry. God blessed Daniel. In the bible, blessing always means increase.
Obama is not either for free speech nor for persoanl liberties.
Obama is not either for free speech nor for persoanl liberties.
Posted by: xppc at March 3, 2009 9:47 AM
********************************
Yeah…socialism’s like that.
I knew that Obama was extreme, but the fact that he’s jumping in so quickly and enthusiastically to further his pro-abort agenda has actually surprised me a little. I don’t know why it should, though.
What does that look like to force a doctor to do abortions?
Looks like a mass exodus of quality doctors from the medical profession to me, Carla. :(
I’m friends with a few NP’s up here as well as the MD’s they work for. They are very pro-life but they were telling me in their training they had to do abortions even if it was agaisnt their morals or beliefs.
Kel, it’s not only physicians. Professionals from a variety of disciplines will be affected. I think Fr Euteneuer says it well when he refers to this hypocrisy as “choice for me, but not for thee.”
Carla, it’s not just the performing of abortions. If I understand it correctly, it affects other procedures too, such as sterilizations, and other types of activity like research.
Fed Up, I should have gone with my original phrasing for my post then, which was “quality people.”
This just disgusts me.
Don’t want to perform abortions or distribute contraception?
Don’t get a job at Planned Parenthood or any other family planning clinic.
It’s really as simple as that.
Nobody is forced to do anything against their consciences. If a doctor doesn’t want to do abortions, s/he can get a job at a Catholic hospital or open her/his own practice and not do abortions.
This so-called conscience rule was meant to stomp all over Planned Parenthood and stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims, not to protect anyone’s consciences.
The vast majority of medical professionals don’t have a problem with birth control or abortion, and we don’t need a bunch of anti-choicers trying to get jobs at Planned Parenthood and gum up the works with frivolous claims of “discrimination.”
Nobody is forced to do anything against their consciences. If a doctor doesn’t want to do abortions, s/he can get a job at a Catholic hospital or open her/his own practice and not do abortions.
Reality, Catholic hospitals and clinics treat Medicare/Medicaid patients too. Same for most docs in private practice. Are they supposed to discriminate and not see patients with Medicare or Medicaid?
P.S.
The American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all opposed this rule. It was a bad rule that put patients at risk. Good riddance!
Reality, Catholic hospitals and clinics treat Medicare/Medicaid patients too. Same for most docs in private practice. Are they supposed to discriminate and not see patients with Medicare or Medicaid?
Nope, they’re supposed to refer patients to providers who can meet their needs.
This so-called conscience rule was meant to stomp all over Planned Parenthood and stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims, not to protect anyone’s consciences.
Posted by: reality at March 3, 2009 10:47 AM
Is that true? Was/is there an effort by pro-life to stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims if they wished to receive it?
Nope, they’re supposed to refer patients to providers who can meet their needs.
WRONG. There is no obligation to refer patients for elective procedures such as abortions. I am no more obligated to refer for an abortion than I am to refer for a face lift or a fanny tuck.
Abortion providers make no secret of their services. The information is freely available to anyone who wants it. You make it sound as though medical providers are withholding information.
Reality, wrong. There are 3 federal laws protecting health care providers’ right of conscience that were not being enforced. Bush provided a compelling enforcement mechanism – removal of federal $$ if not complying. Obama wants simply to stop enforcement of the 3 laws.
Is that true? Was/is there an effort by pro-life to stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims if they wished to receive it?
Absolutely. That’s exactly what this so-called “conscience” rule would have done.
Jill, if an employee feels discriminated against, s/he is free to lawyer up and sue. There’s no need for the government to yank all their funding. That only harms patients.
Is that true? Was/is there an effort by pro-life to stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims if they wished to receive it?
Absolutely. That’s exactly what this so-called “conscience” rule would have done.
Posted by: reality at March 3, 2009 11:28 AM
Well, so much for showing compassion to rape victims.
Well, so much for showing compassion to rape victims.
Seriously. That’s why seven states sued to have this horrible rule overturned. It would have been devastating to rape victims.
Well, so much for showing compassion to rape victims.
Posted by: asitis at March 3, 2009 11:42 AM
*********************************
If it were a pro-lifer stating certain facts, you’d ask for a citation, wouldn’t you?
BTW, I don’t believe it should be required for a Catholic hospital to be forced to dispense EC which goes against the teachings of their Church. (It happens to be widely available now in other places.) Though obviously, you will disagree with that.
Thank you for that website, reality.
I stand by my position, however, that EC is available in other places. Believe me, if it’s easy enough for a minor to get a court order to override parental consent, then it should be easy enough to obtain the medication. Most people have heard of it, as well, thanks to its being widely publicized in the media.
Kel, are you suggesting that’s not the case? That there isn’t/wasn’t an effort by pro-life to stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims if they wished to receive it? Please correct reality if that’s she/he is wrong. Please fill me in.
I’m not hearing anything from the pro-life here and come to think of it they were strangely silents when I suggested the other day that providing EC in rape kits would be a good idea.
No, I’m not suggesting that’s not the case. I specified a situation in which I believe it would violate the conscience of, for example, a Catholic hospital, to dispense EC. Catholic hospitals should no more be REQUIRED to dispense EC to a patient than they should be REQUIRED to perform abortions, as in the eyes of the Church it is one and the same. I’m sure a non-Catholic hospital would have no qualms doing so.
Medical professionals who have a conscience should strike and then we’ll see Obama squeal like the pig that he is.
Kel, have you seen the USCCB statement on this?
A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.
Catholic hospitals in my area dispense EC to sexual assault victims. There’s a lot more I could say on this but I have go.
So Kel is it true then? Was/is there an effort by pro-life to stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims if they wished to receive it?
Medical professionals who have a conscience should strike and then we’ll see Obama squeal like the pig that he is.
Posted by: HisMan at March 3, 2009 12:06 PM
Maybe their conscience tells them to protect the health and reproductive rights of woman. Maybe their conscience tells them to show compassion to a woman who has just been raped, even if what she wants runs counter to their own beliefs.
So Kel is it true then? Was/is there an effort by pro-life to stop states from requiring hospitals to provide EC to rape victims if they wished to receive it?
Posted by: asitis at March 3, 2009 12:07 PM
******************************************
Why don’t you ask reality?? He/she was the one who made the claim and provided a website.
Fed Up, that may be the case and the choice of the individual hospitals. What I’m saying is that they should not be forced to do so if they feel it violates their ethics/conscience. I thought that’s what this whole thing was designed to protect. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Kel, I seem to recall that some bishops opposed Catholic hospitals in their diocese offering EC. Because the hospital comes under the jurisdiction of the bishop, I suppose they have to abide by his directives instead of deciding independently.
I agree with you that Catholic hospitals shouldn’t be forced to provide EC. By referring to the bishops’ statement, I was just indicating that they’ve said that under some circumstances, EC can be in compliance with church teaching.
I guess this is another area of disagreement like giving communion to pro-abort politicians. Not all bishops are on the same page. Would make life easier if they were!
asitis,
We have been over this. Abortion doesn’t cure rape.
It does not heal rape. Compassion doesn’t come in pill form.
Compassion doesn’t come in pill form.
Posted by: Carla at March 3, 2009 1:23 PM
It does if the woman says there is a chance she could become pregnant and she does not want that to happen. Of course it doesn’t cure all the damage that the rape has done, but it can easily and quickly take care of that one fear.
There is nothing easy, simple or quick about abortion. What you think will SOLVE a problem or ease a fear DOES NOT. That is just one of the lies I would really love for you to grasp.
Carla, are you saying that using Emergency Contraception is the same as having an abortion? Do all of you people believe this??
There is nothing easy, simple or quick about abortion. What you think will SOLVE a problem or ease a fear DOES NOT. That is just one of the lies I would really love for you to grasp.
Carla, we are talking about Emergency Contraception. It is relatively easy, simple, quick. And it can solve this problem and ease this fear. If I were in that position, I would most definitely want EC so it woudl do just that. I would really love for you to grasp this.
Hi Cleo,
Don’t all of YOU PEOPLE believe this??
If I were raped I would decline EC, thank you very much.
Would anti-contraception people prefer that rapists not wear condoms?
I am not surprised in the least Carla. I know how you feel and I respect that very much.
And your choice would be respected at the hospital. You don’t have to take the EC just becase it’s available to those vistims that DO want it.
Asitis, EC eases the problem for some victims, but complicates it for others. Women who’ve been trying to conceive get sexually assaulted too. Ever watch one of them sob as she tries to decide about EC? I have.
If a woman was just sexually assaulted, she’s got emotional trauma and often physical trauma to deal with. EC requires a fairly quick decision on her part when she may not be in the best position to make it. Very often it’s not the no-brainer you make it out to be.
Would anti-contraception people prefer that rapists not wear condoms?
Posted by: Hal at March 3, 2009 1:52 PM
*******************************
Hal, I’m guessing the “anti-contraception” people would prefer that the rapists not rape at all.
Fed-Up I can appreciate that there are cases where the decision to use EC or not is difficult. And there are cases such as Carla, where it would be not be used. But that does NOT mean that EC should not be made available to rape victims at the hospital.
Can someone help me out with this? Isn’t it standard that a rape victim gets a D and C? Wouldn’t that remove the need for EC? I really don’t know.
I am going to say No to that one Kristen. D and C is a type of abortion and also sometimes used for miscarriage.
They are looking for DNA evidence in case the survivor wants to press charges.
But is the general belief among pro-lifers that taking EC is the same as having an abortion?
Okay, but I thought they got the evidence (in part) from a D and C. I do know it’s sometimes used for miscarriage. So what exactly is involved in a rape kit?
A rape test kit is a test done using many “swabs” used to collect DNA samples.(semen, hairs, skin cells)These samples are collected and analyzed in a lab to compare the DNA to potential suspects. The kit would also be used to test for STD’s.
Employees should not be told, “If you’re pro-life and do not wish to dispense EC or perform abortions, get a lawyer to protect your job”.
In this day and age the argument that one person not wanting to dispense or perform means the woman does not have access is crap.
If I, as a nurse, do not wish to assist in an abortion, I should have the right to take over the patient load of another nurse in my unit who is willing to do so without fearing repercussions for my license or employment status.
What people do not know is that hospitals are extremely, extremely political, backstabbing places to work (a male nurse I once worked with said the problem in nursing is the “G-d*mnd X X Chromosome!”… his point being women in large groups can often get so petty and vindictive that they turn on each other rather than supporting each other. Very true in nursing.)… if your boss is looking to get rid of you for personal reasons and then something like this happens, it really isn’t worth it to get a lawyer to save your job, they’ll make life a living hell for you if you win the right to your job back.
All the conscience rules did was tell hospital administrators and managers that they didn’t have the right to discriminate against pro-life employees.
But is the general belief among pro-lifers that taking EC is the same as having an abortion?
But that does NOT mean that EC should not be made available to rape victims at the hospital
If a bishop determines that Catholic hospitals in his diocese should not dispense it, then it shouldn’t be dispensed. I know you don’t agree with that, but the government is seriously trampling on the constitutional rights of its citizens to practice religion if it forces its ideology onto the Catholic church. The church is entitled to create institutions such as hospitals which embody its values and its teachings. And citizens can choose to utilize those facilities or go elsewhere.
No I don’t think anyone thinks that, d/b.
Posted by: Carla at March 3, 2009 2:55 PM
Gotcha! I just thought that it was standard to do all that AND a D and C.
Kristen,
I googled all of that info. :)
I had an abortion. After many years I miscarried twice and REFUSED a D and C both times because I knew that I could never go through a procedure like that again.
The church is entitled to create institutions such as hospitals which embody its values and its teachings.
Posted by: Fed Up at March 3, 2009 3:04 PM
Sure. But maybe they shouldn’t get federal funding then. It kind of like the Boys Scouts: They are free to discriminate against gays and those that don’t believe in God, but as a result they can be denied public funding.
“No I don’t think anyone thinks that”
I doubt that. Weren’t we just discussing how the pill causes abortions the other week? EC is just a more concentrated pill.
asitis: “Well, so much for showing compassion to rape victims.”
— by not killing their children?
Actually, my question was directed at Carla, Bobby, but thanks for your answer.
Carla,
Do you think taking EC within 72 hours of unprotected sex is the same as having an abortion?
PiP,
What I meant was that no one equates it with abortion as in, no one thinks it is an abortion pill. Now, it MAY have a mechanism which causes abortions, I don’t know, but if it does, like we talked about before, it seems to be rare and also not the primary mechanism of it.
Yeah, because d said (paraphrasing) “does [anyone] believe abortion IS THE SAME THING as EC?”. So I don’t think anyone thinks they’re the same thing.
Sure. But maybe they shouldn’t get federal funding then. It kind of like the Boys Scouts: They are free to discriminate against gays and those that don’t believe in God, but as a result they can be denied public funding.
Asitis, if you advocate denial of federal funds to Catholic hospitals, you are discriminating against patients who choose to get care at those facilities. Patients should have their Medicare/Medicaid claims denied because they chose a hospital that didn’t subscribe to O’s political agenda?
d,
If sperm and egg have met already then yes.
Fed Up. O’s political agenda? Well it could be called the country’s political agenda since we voted him President. But I digress….
Well you could say what about parents who want their kids educated in catholic school? Aren’t we discriminating by not providing funding to those schools? Perhaps.
But to the point….I guess it would depend on how federal funding is defined in this case. Does it include that kind of “for service” funding. If so, those patients may have to choose another hospital.
Time for bed. G’night.
Well it could be called the country’s political agenda since we voted him President.
Except that we are a constitutional republic not a democracy by majority rule. Constitutional rights aren’t subject to a majority vote. I still have my rights to practice my religion, no matter how much you want those rights diminished.
Have a pleasant evening.
Explain to me why anyone should not be able to use world famous Barrow Neurological Center for any possible neurological trauma that might befall them or any of their family simply because they are a part of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center (a part of the Catholic Healthcare West system?)
Why on earth should their refusal to perform abortions keep someone from having other lifesaving procedures?
Tell you what… for facilites that don’t provide abortions, don’t pay them for abortions. I think that would work…
Otherwise I predict that Catholic hospitals will be closing labor and delivery units en masse. (L&D is normally a money drain on any hospital, anyway. This will just make the decision easy.)
I predict that Catholic hospitals will be closing labor and delivery units en masse.
Elisabeth, I’ve been thinking about that too. The problem, as I see it, is that the hospital will still have to have OB/GYNs with staff privileges (even if not directly employed by the hospital) if it treats women of childbearing age on other units. And it doesn’t resolve pharmacy issues such as dispensing abortifacients on demand.
Tell you what… for facilites that don’t provide abortions, don’t pay them for abortions. I think that would work…
Works unless the agenda is for all hospitals to provide/refer for abortions. This is, to my way of thinking, part of an overall strategy to get faith-based groups out of health care. Then it can be more easily rationed/controlled as the government sees fit.
I still have my rights to practice my religion, no matter how much you want those rights diminished.
Posted by: Fed Up at March 3, 2009 10:39 PM
I don’t want those rights diminished Fed Up. I just don’t want your religion imposed on others.
I just don’t want your religion imposed on others.
Only said in regards to Christianity. Hmmmmmmm.
You are imposing your views on religion on me, asitis.
I don’t have a religion carla. Oh right…. I forgot! You think absence of religion is a religion.
Why do you think it’s wrong for me to impose my religion on others? Why is it wrong in your humble opinion, asitis?
(I did not tell you what I think about your religion or lack thereof)
You don’t Carla? No I suppose you don’t. But I have been told by others here what they think of it. Quite vividly. ;)
Your religion is based on your belief in God and what he teaches. Not everyone shares that belief.
Just answer the question, pretty please.
Why is it wrong to impose my religious beliefs on others?
And again….I never stated what my religion or belief system was.
Carla, I did answer the question:
Your religion is based on your belief in God and what he teaches. Not everyone shares that belief.
Posted by: asitis at March 4, 2009 7:04 AM
Why is it wrong to impose my religion on others?
And again….I never stated what my religion or belief system was.
Posted by: Carla at March 4, 2009 7:13 AM
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why is it wrong?
Did you see my answer at 7:15?
Just answer the question!! Why do you think it’s wrong to impose my religion on others?
For pete’s sake Carla I already did. It’s wrong because it’s YOUR belief in God and what he teaches. Not everyone shares that belief. It’s a personal belief and should not be applied to all.
It’s wrong because it’s mine?? Why is that wrong? What belief system do you have that says it’s wrong to talk about your beliefs?
Isn’t that what you are doing on this blog? Telling me what you believe based on your belief system?
I need coffee.
I think that Catholic hospitals that distribute EC are using cafeteria Catholic weasel-words.
Here is how so-called “emergency contraceptives” work:
If ovulation is imminent, but has not occurred, it can stop it. This would not be abortive. Of course, she probably wouldn’t ovulate anyway due to the stress of the experience. That’s part of why pregnancy from rape is so rare.
If ovulation has already occurred, it can stop the blastocyst (read: baby) from implanting in the womb by thinning the uterine lining. It’s a lot like the pill.
If ovulation was not recent or imminent, it probably won’t matter. I don’t think it would cause an implanted embryo to be aborted, but I am not sure, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it could disrupt an embryo that had just recently implanted.
This all sounds fine until you realize that there’s no way for doctors to tell if ovulation has occurred. There is no way to tell if an egg is already in the fallopian tubes. It may be possible to tell that ovulation is imminent, but not if it just occurred. And I’m willing to bet that the cafeteria Catholic hospitals who are dispensing EC aren’t using an OPK first.
And Asitis mentions that rape victims would have a choice. But would it be an informed choice? I don’t know if they’d even be told what the pill is. Wouldn’t surprise me if they were just told to take it. Would surprise me even less if they were just told it would keep them from getting pregnant. What would surprise me is if they were actually told that it had no way of preventing conception if the woman’s body had already released the egg, but it would prevent the baby from implanting in her womb if she did conceive.
No one told me that the birth control pill could prevent conception, after all. Not the doctor who couldn’t be bothered, for two visits, to give me any information on NFP when I asked but was perfectly happy to write a prescription for birth control pills. Not the couple mentoring my husband and I who told us that NFP was too hard. Not the pastor, whose wife thinks young couples need years to “get to know each other” before getting pregnant. No one in my church even knew they were potentially abortive. It wasn’t until after I had gone off the pill and had my first miscarriage and was researching what could cause “early pregnancy loss” that I learned the truth.
What about my rights, asitis? What about the children I might have lost? Why are women not informed about how “contraceptives” really work? Some wouldn’t use them, and some would make the choice to use them. I didn’t make a choice to use the birth control pill. I was pressured by those who didn’t know what it did, and it didn’t seem right, but no one gave me other options. No one told me it might kill my children. Believe me, my husband and I would have cared.
We are bright, college-educated people. We can understand the science. We referred to the pills as “conception control” instead of birth control. And being on those pills for the first year of our marriage is the one thing in my life I most wish I could change. I am informed if antibiotics might make me pregnant (no joke, they make it sound like the drugs do it) even though I’m not on the pill. But they didn’t ever tell me what the pill did.
Guess what? My freedom of religion is already being taken. I don’t know how to find a pro-life doctor. I wish I could. I tried. I was referred to one by a Catholic diocese, and the office was almost an hour away. She refused to believe I’d ever been pregnant when I thought I was miscarrying, she talked down to me like I was stupid, and even when I had a positive pregnancy test and then miscarried she didn’t believe me. Eventually she said, “Well, maybe it was a chemical pregnancy.” As if that made the child’s life less valuable. Some pro-life doctor.
I wish I had the option of only patronizing pro-life doctors. If my daughter was black, I wouldn’t take her to a racist doctor. Why would I want my unborn child treated by a doctor who didn’t believe she had rights? I bet if it were public knowledge which doctors valued the rights of babies, there’d be a lot less business for those who did not.
If you are thinking of expressing sympathy for my losses, pro-choicers, please refrain. I don’t want any from those who think my children weren’t human and had no rights. If you want to express sympathy for the fact that I was deceived, don’t bother if it’s just empty words. Don’t bother unless you are actually in favor at least of patients being informed of the what the pill might do.
Carla, I’m not saying it’s wrong for you believe what your religions believes or to talk about your religious beliefs. But they are YOURS.
Go have your coffee. I have to go meet frineds for a run anyway.
Asitis – and yours are YOURS. But yours includes a double standard that says its wrong to share your beliefs and yet you are acting exactly contrary to your beliefs by sharing (i.e. imposing) them on me.
Can we at least agree on that…that you are imposing your beliefs on me by telling me its wrong to impose my beliefs on you? How do we get anywhere in a conversation if we can’t agree on that?
Asitis, this is what you sound like to us (I will be using metaphor here, not actually implying that these are your views):
I don’t believe toddlers are human beings. Yes, they look kind of like human beings, but any idiot can see that they’re smaller. Humans are proportioned differently, more advanced mentally, and have real feelings, so they aren’t humans. I say, if my toddler interferes with my life and my plans, I ought to be able to kill it. I mean, I have a way to live my life the way I want and do what I want. Toddlers require time and energy–feeding them, reading to them, cuddling them. After all, I probably kill toddlers all the time when I drive my car (I wouldn’t know, I don’t watch for them)–should driving be illegal too? Huh?
You’re just basing your belief that toddlers are human on your religion. You think they are created in god’s image and I don’t; so that gives me the right to stab them, poison them, and rip them to pieces. Don’t impose your religion on me. Don’t try to tell me that science says they’re human. That’s all just opinion. Until they can get their own stinkin’ snacks, I don’t think I need to be held responsible to care for them instead of just kill them off. Look, I’m not trying to kill your toddler. You do what you want with your toddlers (but admit it, they get on your nerves sometimes, don’t they?) You think toddlers are a precious gift, so go ahead and don’t kill yours. But I think toddlers are sticky-handed expensive little fiends, and I already have two teenagers, and toddlers turn into teenagers. Um, eventually, with the right foods. But that doesn’t mean that they’re like teenagers, just that they might one day be teenagers. I do love my teenagers. I love them as much as you love yours. I just could have killed them before they turned four, and that would have been fine, because they weren’t people yet. And so if you have a problem with the fact that some people tear the limbs off of their toddlers while they try to escape, still alive, from their own mothers, on their remaining limbs–well, that’s your problem and not mine. It’s about having choice. After all, what if that toddler was conceived through rape or incest? What if the toddler’s daddy leaves her mommy? She can’t be expected to deal with a toddler on her own. What if the toddler has Down’s Syndrome, or clubbed feet? Don’t you think a toddler who can’t walk would be better off dying a quick death by poisoning his food so that he turns black and chokes to death, force feeding him if he tries to stop eating it?
Why should I spend years of my life caring for someone who can’t even do dishes yet?
But yours includes a double standard … by sharing (i.e. imposing) them on me.
Exactly, Carla. Besides, even though O is attacking religious freedom, it’s more than that. For socialized medicine to work, physicians and others have to be snapped out of the mindset that they are independent practitioners. They have to submit to government protocols at some point or leave the profession.
It’s unfortunate because in the end everyone will lose. Health care consumers will find their choices restricted. They will find their health care providers unable to advocate for the best treatment and able to provide only the treatment assigned to that diagnosis by the government.
But pro-aborts, in their lust to shed the blood of the unborn, don’t have their eyes sufficiently open to see that this “choice” they think they’re opening up to all women starts us down a path that ultimately ends choice for everyone.
YCW,
I think you are wonderful and want you to know how much I value your words.
Right after being informed my baby’s heart had stopped beating the doctor said, “So do you want a D and C or what??!!” Totally rude, totally uncaring. I was in shock. My baby had died and I was supposed to decide on a procedure that for sure would have reminded me of my abortion??
I am sure a woman who is raped is in a place to totally know the right questions to ask and navigate the doc speak and somehow find the words to refuse what she doesn’t even understand…EC.
I love victim’s advocates!! :)
Fed up,
Well said!!
Asitis,
Should you ever come back to this thread I want you to know that your arguments here are beginning to sound like “Because I said so!! That’s why!!”
I’m willing to bet that the cafeteria Catholic hospitals who are dispensing EC aren’t using an OPK first
YCW, you hit the nail on the head as to why I personally oppose EC. I had to take this matter to my confessor and he advises that I can have a clear conscience … but I usually lose sleep anyway.
your arguments hear are beginning to sound like “Because I said so!! That’s why!!”
I agree, Carla. Note that her comment March 3, 2009 10:30 PM that patients who choose to patronize Catholic health care facilities “may have to choose another hospital.” For the sake of ideology, even the rights of health care consumers are fair game to suppress. Why? Because pro-aborts insist their “rights” supercede the rights of others. Why? Because they say so.
Dear asitis,
You are not off the hook with me, missy.
Asitis – and yours are YOURS. But yours includes a double standard that says its wrong to share your beliefs and yet you are acting exactly contrary to your beliefs by sharing (i.e. imposing) them on me.
Can we at least agree on that…that you are imposing your beliefs on me by telling me its wrong to impose my beliefs on you? How do we get anywhere in a conversation if we can’t agree on that?
Posted by: Carla at March 4, 2009 7:44 AM
I don’t have any religious beliefs Carla.
There are over 15 hospitals in my immediate area. Only 3 of them are part of Catholic Healthcare West.
There are TONS of abortion facilities and Planned Parenthoods as well as hundreds, if not thousands, of pharmacies.
Why should the Catholic hospitals be forced to go against their conscience or close?
Asitis, you may not hold any faith-based beliefs. But the personal beliefs you express here in the form of opinions and attitudes are oppressive toward some in society in the very same way you accuse Christians of being that way. Do the rights of atheists supercede the rights of Christians?
I agree, Carla. Note that her comment March 3, 2009 10:30 PM that patients who choose to patronize Catholic health care facilities “may have to choose another hospital.”
Posted by: Fed Up at March 4, 2009 8:47 AM
FedUp, note that I said that might be the case if they defined federal funding to also include payment for services covered for a patient under Medicaid, etc. And I didn’t mean to imply that I would necessarily support this. I don’t think it would necessarly make sense to deny funding on an individual patient basis or a facility basis if the service had nothing to do with the “health and reproductive services of women”. Similarly, I don’t think it would make sense to deny federal funding to the neurological center that Elisabeth mentioned.
Why should the Catholic hospitals be forced to go against their conscience or close?
Posted by: Elisabeth at March 4, 2009 9:49 AM
Their refusal may have more of an impact in areas where there are not as many hospitals to choose from as yours Elisabeth.
Can these hospitals not survive, like catholic schools, without federal funding?
Asitis, you may not hold any faith-based beliefs. But the personal beliefs you express here in the form of opinions and attitudes are oppressive toward some in society in the very same way you accuse Christians of being that way. Do the rights of atheists supercede the rights of Christians?
Posted by: Fed Up at March 4, 2009 9:50 AM
Fed Up, how are my personal beliefs oppressive to you. How do they stop you from practising your faith?
I don’t think it would necessarly make sense to deny funding on an individual patient basis or a facility basis if the service had nothing to do with the “health and reproductive services of women”.
Thanks for clarifying your position on that. It’s my understanding … and I could be wrong … that this is precisely what would happen. Leave out reproductive for a moment. Just excluding the “health services of women” leaves out about 50% of the population, doesn’t it?
To answer your last question, if I understand your viewpoint correctly, you would restrict my right to practice my profession as a Catholic in good conscience. That means NO INVOLVEMENT whatsoever in abortion. Including referral. You would support legislation that forces me to at least refer for abortion, right?
The way I read it, it refers to the health rights for women as they relate to their reproductive stytem. It’s not clear though.
Question first: Fed Up does being a Catholic also mean that you can have no involvement whatsoever with birth control?
You claim to have no religious beliefs. Then can you please explain your belief system? What is the basis for how you come to believe what you believe about abortion? How did you arrive at your conclusions about it?
Ah….. Nice bait there Carla.
But honestly, I have no religious beliefs. Why do you keep trying to insist I do?
Asitis, it seems to me that your belief that there is no God is what you base your worldview on. You say “You believe in God, but I don’t, so your point is invalid,” but the fact remains that you don’t believe in God, and we do, so YOUR point could be invalid. And round and round it goes.
Your belief leads you to assume that it’s ok to terminate pre-born human life. Ours (as well as solid science, thanks) leads us to believe that the termination of pre-born life is not ok. We cannot both be right. Either it is wrong to kill human beings in utero, or it is not. It has nothing to do with one’s “beliefs.” Either murder is wrong, or it isn’t. Either rape is wrong, or it isn’t. One can continue to rape and murder, but that doesn’t make it acceptable, even if it is in that person’s worldview to believe it is acceptable.
Oy. I have a raging headache, so I apologize if this post is incoherent.
But honestly, I have no religious beliefs. Why do you keep trying to insist I do?
Posted by: asitis at March 4, 2009 10:37 AM
***************************************
Your “religious belief” is that there is no God. It has to do with religion (i.e. God) or the lack thereof. It is a religious belief.
Or, look at it this way: You see the “self” as the highest point of accountability. You are, in essence, your own “sovereign god” because you determine your own destiny. This is a religious belief. I think that’s all we’re trying to say.
Kel: You say “You believe in God, but I don’t, so your point is invalid,”
Specifically, I would be saying your point is invalid for me. I’m not saying it’s not valid for you. Just don’t apply it to everyone.
And as for abortion…. it’s okay for you to consider it unacceptable and me to consider it acceptable. We can both be right. I’m not saying in any way that it is acceptable to YOU. I understand it’s unacceptable to you. No one is saying you have to choose abortion.
You are, in essence, your own “sovereign god” because you determine your own destiny. This is a religious belief.
Posted by: Kel at March 4, 2009 10:41 AM
Wow, do I get a shrine or something?
I am not my own god Kel. I am just me. Living my life, trying to what’s best for me and for others. This is not a religious belief.
Asitis, you are neglecting the fact that an abortion does not only involve one human being, but two (or more, if there is more than one pre-born child in utero).
Those who choose to terminate human life because they believe it is “valid for them” are doing so because it is in line with their worldview of “self” being sovereign above all other things.
Saying I do not have to choose abortion is essentially saying, “You don’t have to choose to murder that person. I understand it’s unacceptable to you, but it might not be unacceptable to me. I still think others should have that right.” The taking of human life has an impact on more than just the person having the abortion. It is an act of violence against a defenseless human being. It affects us all.
We stand up against child abuse and slavery because we know that those issues affect society and they affect us all. Abortion is no different, because more than one human being is involved. One human being is oppressed (to the point of death) by another human being. This is not based on any religious belief. It is a scientific fact that a human life is taken in an abortion.
Wow, do I get a shrine or something?
I am not my own god Kel. I am just me. Living my life, trying to what’s best for me and for others. This is not a religious belief.
Posted by: asitis at March 4, 2009 10:50 AM
****************************************
Well, you can erect a shrine for yourself if you want to. It’s allowed. :D If you are not your own god, asitis, then to whom are you accountable, morally?
Kel: Saying I do not have to choose abortion is essentially saying, “You don’t have to choose to murder that person. I understand it’s unacceptable to you, but it might not be unacceptable to me. I still think others should have that right.”
Well, I don’t actually think others should have that right. And neither do most people.
Well, asitis, what makes them right in that belief that others should not be allowed to murder?
Not bait. But nice bobbing and weaving by you. And still you do not answer my questions.
Well, you can erect a shrine for yourself if you want to. It’s allowed. :D If you are not your own god, asitis, then to whom are you accountable, morally?
Posted by: Kel at March 4, 2009 10:55 AM
Even if it were entirely to myself Kel, that would not make me a god and give me a religion.
What question carla?
The way I read it, it refers to the health rights for women as they relate to their reproductive stytem. It’s not clear though.
Yes, very unclear. And very unrealistic. Say a woman presents to the ED with a broken wrist. So she’s treated for that and is ready for discharge. But just before leaving, she inquires about the morning after pill. Is coverage for the entire visit denied?
Fed Up does being a Catholic also mean that you can have no involvement whatsoever with birth control?
If you’re asking whether I think physicians in Catholic hospitals should prescribe BC on demand then I say the answer is NO unless there’s a medical reason beyond contraception. BC isn’t an issue that’s appropriate for the ED. As for inpatient units, it gets more complicated. I’d rather not see it happening but I know it does take place. I don’t believe a physician on staff at a Catholic hospital should be FORCED to prescribe it if it violates his conscience or he genuinely believes it may be harmful to the woman. The woman has the option to see her outpatient provider to get it. Unless the outpatient provider is her attending in the hospital, chances are he knows her better and can help her make a better choice than a doc who sees her a few times in the hospital anyway.
Even if it were entirely to myself Kel, that would not make me a god and give me a religion.
Posted by: asitis at March 4, 2009 11:00 AM
***************************************
Hmm. Well, I guess that’s your belief, isn’t it? It isn’t mine. Ever heard of secular humanism? Humanist Manifesto?
I am going to impose my beliefs on you asitis.
You are wrong.
LOL, Carla. :D
Fed Up, I was speaking specifically about physicians in hospital.As a Catholic physician or pharmacist, you would have to have no involvement whatsoever with birth control?
Sorry… should read: I was NOT speaking specifically about …
Well, asitis, what makes them right in that belief that others should not be allowed to murder?
Posted by: Kel at March 4, 2009 10:59 AM
Well, it’s pretty much a universally held belief and the law. have you not been though this before Kel?
I am going to impose my beliefs on you asitis.
You are wrong.
Posted by: Carla at March 4, 2009 11:04 AM
Carla, I love you. You are awesome.
Well, it’s pretty much a universally held belief and the law. have you not been though this before Kel?
Posted by: asitis at March 4, 2009 11:21 AM
******************************************
Another universally held belief is that the being in utero is, in fact, human. Yet I see people here deny it all the time, based on their beliefs.
When slavery was the law and it was “universally held” that blacks were only three-fifths persons, then that was correct because it was the law? It’s ok with you that homosexuals are denied marriage rights because the voters say so? (I’m guessing you don’t believe that, because you believe it infringes on another’s “rights.”) Yes?
Just curious for the Christians- do you believe that if God didn’t exist, you would commit murder, or steal, or eat puppies? Is the fear of hell the only thing holding you back?
No, the fear of hell is not what holds me back from committing those crimes. The love that is within me from God holds me back. All of us are equally sinners, PIP. A murderer is no more a sinner than a thief or a liar. That is why we all equally need Jesus atonement. We cannot be good without Christ working through us.
And when I say “good”, I don’t mean by the world’s standards.
Is the fear of hell the only thing holding you back?
Posted by: prettyinpink at March 4, 2009 11:34 AM
***********************************
LOL-that’s a typical misconception. I came to Christ not for fear of Hell, but because I opened my eyes and saw His goodness in my life. I saw the sacrifice He made for me, and how He gave up His life so that I (we, you) might live…life, and life more abundantly.
Bethany, 11:38 great post.
Another universally held belief is that the being in utero is, in fact, human. Yet I see people here deny it all the time, based on their beliefs.
Posted by: Kel at March 4, 2009 11:25 AM
Do people deny it all the time Kel? That it’s human?
I’ve seen several posters here who have continually denied it, yes.
I’ve even seen the posts that dehumanized baby Shanice (even the CNN coverage called her an “it”), as well as other BORN babies who were born into toilets, just this week. I find it very sad.
It’s ok with you that homosexuals are denied marriage rights because the voters say so? (I’m guessing you don’t believe that, because you believe it infringes on another’s “rights.”) Yes?
Posted by: Kel at March 4, 2009 11:25 AM
I actually do believe it’s okay that homosexuals might be denied the right to a church marriage. I think that is up to each church to decide based on thier faith. I do not, however believe it;s okay to deny homosexual couples the same civil rights that heterosexual couples have.
No, the fear of hell is not what holds me back from committing those crimes. The love that is within me from God holds me back. All of us are equally sinners, PIP. A murderer is no more a sinner than a thief or a liar. That is why we all equally need Jesus atonement. We cannot be good without Christ working through us.
Posted by: Bethany at March 4, 2009 11:38 AM
Good thing you have God then, Bethany
I don’t know which civil rights you’re referring to, but ok.
How about slavery? Obviously today, we know that such laws were unjust, and those who supported slavery were on the wrong side of history. Those people were clearly 100% human. Just as the pre-born human child is 100% human…not half human, not three-fifths human, not “potentially” human, but HUMAN.
PiP: Just curious for the Christians- do you believe that if God didn’t exist, you would commit murder, or steal, or eat puppies? Is the fear of hell the only thing holding you back?”
No offense PiP, but that was a stupid question. Thats like asking “For all you non-Christians, is the only thing holding you back from murder the fear of going to jail?”
Its hard to posit a scenario in which God does not exist but morality does as I believe that morality stems from the universal God, BUT, if there were no God, and there were morals, I would follow the universal morals as a matter of character. A real Christian doesnt even think about Hell. Christianity is about the here and now, living every day in a better, more fulffilled, way.
Good to see Asitis voicing another opinion! I guess shes okay having her opinions on homosexual marriage scrutinized, but not abortion….I wonder why that is?
Asitis,
“Do people deny it all the time Kel? That it’s human? ”
We just had Yo La Tengo deny it yesterday. On the “Chris Matthews” post, (s)he wrote:
“Anti-choice laws are like Sharia Law. Sure its fine if its only applied to Muslims who hold to it, but for the rest of us it doesnt’ make sense. Likewise, sure if you want to have a personal law against abortion, more power to ya, but for the rest of us who don’t hold to the cosmology that a fetilized egg is human it makes no sense.
” (emphasis mine)
it’s okay for you to consider it unacceptable and me to consider it acceptable. We can both be right
Since it’s pick on Asitis day :-) Here’s the flaw in your argument, Asitis. You can’t make a relative argument (we’re both right) unless you impose an absolute truth (that’s it’s relative). You’re subjectively applying an absolute truth (that it’s relative) in attempt to prove that other absolute truths (such as morality) do not exist. If there are no absolutes, then your assertion that it’s all relative fails because you apply what you claim doesn’t exist in order to prove its nonexistence.
As a Catholic physician or pharmacist, you would have to have no involvement whatsoever with birth control?
Not if I believed it were medically contraindicated or if it violated my conscience. But I have purposely positioned myself where BC isn’t an issue I have to deal with.
What I think gets overlooked is that a pharmacist doesn’t go to work with the intent of sabotaging a physician’s orders or seeing how many BC prescriptions he can refuse in one day. If BC is prescribed for a patient in the hospital, there is a reason for it. Docs don’t write orders at random. If the pharmacist faces a matter of conscience, he is free to consult with the doc or ask a colleague to step in. Same goes for the physician. If a patient asks for something that places a doc in a conflict of conscience, he is free to consult another doc or discuss his reservations with a patient. The patient is free to ask for another opinion. She is also free to bring her BC script to the hospital with her and to continue taking it unless her doc tells her it’s contraindicated for medical reasons based on the treatment she is receiving. It’s not like some mythical Catholic cops are going to confiscate her pills on admission!
There is no requirement that I know of that requires any hospital (Catholic or secular) to fill prescriptions at the time of discharge. None of the hospitals in my area do it. When the patient is discharged, they go to a local pharmacy to fill their scripts. So if you’re asking about a Catholic hospital filling a prescription for someone who walks in off the street to fill her BC script it’s a moot point. They wouldn’t fill it. But they wouldn’t fill it if it were for antibiotics or anything else either.
“No offense PiP, but that was a stupid question”
Well I guess what I’m saying is, these claims that morality is suddenly meaningless if God didn’t exist does seem to come from the place of “it’s only because God commanded me not to do it that I won’t do it.” But I don’t think that’s it at all. I think we all have an inherent moral system (“natural law”) that exists whether you believe in God or not. Else it seems like fear of God is the ONLY thing holding people back from committing these crimes. Furthermore, this argument destroys the idea that even atheists can be pro-life, because you are implying that without a belief in God you have no inherent moral system. Not all atheists are moral relativists. I’m not an atheist but I do know many people who are and they are very moral.
Get what I”m saying?
“BUT, if there were no God, and there were morals, I would follow the universal morals as a matter of character.”
Right, that is what I was getting at. Regarding the statement that without a belief in God morals are meaningless.
But this: “A real Christian doesnt even think about Hell.”
Most Christians I know do; that is the reason they so passionately try to convert people. If you don’t convert, you will be licked by the flames in eternal hell! If only you believed in God, you will be saved! That is indeed an argument about fear and not love.
That is indeed an argument about fear and not love.
PiP, not sure I follow that last statement. As I see it, it’s love of neighbor to want everyone to go to heaven. I don’t see it as fear-driven.
Good to see Asitis voicing another opinion! I guess shes okay having her opinions on homosexual marriage scrutinized, but not abortion….I wonder why that is?
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 11:56 AM
I’m hoping there might be some pro-lifers out there that may listen to a different perspective Ollie!
I think we all have an inherent moral system (“natural law”) that exists whether you believe in God or not.
********************************************
Yes, that’s right. It exists, whether YOU BELIEVE in God or not.
“because you are implying that without a belief in God you have no inherent moral system.”
Actually, no, that’s not it at all. Whether you believe or not, that system is still in place. However, there are those in society who have chosen to replace what they *know* to be logically and morally right with what they feel like doing.
The fact that some atheists are pro-life should remove all arguments that being pro-life is simply a matter of “Christian faith.”
What I inferred from Oliver’s point that “A real Christain doesn’t even think about Hell” is that when you are living the Christian life, your motivation is not fear of hell…your motivation is love for the One whom you choose to serve, because He first loved you. However, Hell IS real and sinners who choose to reject Christ SHOULD fear Hell. If we believe it’s real and don’t want others to go there, then out of love, we should tell them that there is a way to be saved, and that Way is Christ.
We tell our kids, “don’t touch that hot stove, or you’ll get burned! Don’t run into the street, or you could get hit by a car! Don’t do drugs because you will ruin your life and it could very well take your life!” But we don’t do it so they’ll live their lives in fear…we tell them the truth so that they will be aware. They still have a choice…they can touch the hot stove because they think we’re liars. They can run in traffic. It’s still their choice…but we TELL them because we believe it is true and because we actually care about them and want them to be safe from possible harm.
PiP :”Get what I”m saying?”
I suppose, but the way you phrased it came across bizarrely, as if Christians would do whatever the heck they wanted except for God’s commandments.
PiP: “Most Christians I know do; that is the reason they so passionately try to convert people…”
Now first of all I said, “real” Christians, and not “most.” But even considering that, my comment was in regard to an individual Christian’s personal actions. In other words, Christians should not live their own lives in fear of hell. Now, if a Christian tries to convert based on “fire and brimstone” they are not spreading the true message of Christianity. Certainly this is a part of it, and it isnt something that should be glossed over, and if these Christians are concerned over this, their message isnt one of “fear” so much as it is one of concern, BUT the real draw and power of Christianity is not refuge from Hell, but refuge from ourselves and our world, emotionally and spiritually, in the every day.
Thanks Fed Up.
“But I have purposely positioned myself where BC isn’t an issue I have to deal with”.
I think possibly this is what Catholic physicians and pharmacists would do in light of any legislation. I can understand your desire to practice your profession without sacrificing your faith and believe you shoudl be entitled to do just that. Legislation may restrict your ability to do so (eg. where you work or what you do), but I can also see how not having the legislation may restrict access for patients in some areas.
It’s something I hope they would look carefully at before implementing.
What I think gets overlooked is that a pharmacist doesn’t go to work with the intent of sabotaging a physician’s orders or seeing how many BC prescriptions he can refuse in one day. If BC is prescribed for a patient in the hospital, there is a reason for it. Docs don’t write orders at random. If the pharmacist faces a matter of conscience, he is free to consult with the doc or ask a colleague to step in. Same goes for the physician. If a patient asks for something that places a doc in a conflict of conscience, he is free to consult another doc or discuss his reservations with a patient. The patient is free to ask for another opinion
Asitis: “I’m hoping there might be some pro-lifers out there that may listen to a different perspective Ollie!”
But not on abortion? Again, I wonder why…
PIP at 12″24pm
Oh I most certainly get what you are saying PIP! Thanks
Asitis: “I’m hoping there might be some pro-lifers out there that may listen to a different perspective Ollie!”
But not on abortion? Again, I wonder why…
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 12:48 PM
You mean why will I not give you my opinion on when abortion is okay and and when it’s not? Surely you jest!
PiP: “these claims that morality is suddenly meaningless if God didn’t exist does seem to come from the place of “it’s only because God commanded me not to do it that I won’t do it.””
I just noticed this and actually have a comment.
The idea that morality is meaningless without God may not necessarily mean that Christians follow morals simply because God said so. What those claims more likely mean is that there would be no “natural” morals without God. Its not that we only follow morals because God says so, but we only HAVE inherent morals to follow because God exists to create those inherent morals.
Of course, I actually dont really believe in “universal” morals outside of God. I dont see how its possible and I follow the ethicists would hold this to be the case, because I know they work under the assumption that God does not exist to “ground” morals to a universal theme. However, that doesnt matter. We have a moral system that everyone subscribes to that is based on a handful of premises. Where those premises come from is anyone’s guess or hypothesis, but they are there. These premises are enough to derive additional morals and create a moral “system.” For example, based on these conditonal premises, we can derive that abortion is an unjust violation of human rights.
Asitis: “Oh I most certainly get what you are saying PIP! Thanks”
Thats because you are an animal, and dont use reason. You only operate off of instinct.
Alrighty guys, I get it for the most part. I guess I get that from some of Jills posts, which in the past HAS said that without God in people’s lives there are no moral values. That those philosophers that didn’t credit God are a reason that abortion exists. I’m sure you agree, if I read your posts directly, that that in itself is not true, it is the fact that people are not using their inherent moral system in the correct way which can also apply to otherwise religious individuals too.
While the appeal to a fire-and-brimstone hell may seem like a good way to convert people “out of love” many people do find that approach insulting and driven by fear. Preaching the message of love seems the far better approach coming from my perspective.
PiP: “Preaching the message of love seems the far better approach coming from my perspective.”
At least we can agree on this.
Asitis: “Oh I most certainly get what you are saying PIP! Thanks”
Thats because you are an animal, and dont use reason. You only operate off of instinct.
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 12:58 PM
Oh such anger. Do you run? You need a run…..
Asitis: “Oh such anger. Do you run? You need a run…..”
Oh wise one! I forgot that you can read motives through the internet! I am taken aback by your piercing comment!
Just so you know, I very rarely get angry. I honestly view you as an animal, based on what Ive seen here anyways. You are below a human who has physically lost or never had the ability to reason, you have chosen to not use your reason. You have chosen to embrace your instincts only and to become a creature.
Wow Oliver. Pretty angry words still. Go on, lace up. Go for a run. You’ll feel better.
Asitis: “Wow Oliver. Pretty angry words still. Go on, lace up. Go for a run. You’ll feel better.”
Does running remind you of your ancestors? Do you forage for fruit on your runs too?
I can understand your desire to practice your profession without sacrificing your faith and believe you shoudl be entitled to do just that. Legislation may restrict your ability to do so
Well, I am glad to hear YOU believe I should be allowed to practice within the dictates of my conscience. The current administration gives me little reason to believe that’ll be the case for much longer though. I think Catholic providers will taste the bitter pill of socialized medicine first, but others will soon find the pill being crammed down their throats too. Sad, very sad. What constricts a provider will ultimately restrict patients too.
PiP: “Preaching the message of love seems the far better approach coming from my perspective.”
At least we can agree on this.
You agree that a message of love is better and then you make hateful comments?
Does running remind you of your ancestors? Do you forage for fruit on your runs too?
Posted by: Oliver at March 4, 2009 1:22 PM
No, but if it’s a long run during marathon training, I’ll take sport gels along. I suppose I could buy fruit along the way. Harder to digest though. Thanks for the thought anyway.
“What constricts a provider will ultimately restrict patients too.”
How so, Fed Up?
“Well, I am glad to hear YOU believe I should be allowed to practice within the dictates of my conscience. ”
I think so too Fed Up. Removing the conscience clause (is that what it is called?) is unacceptable. There are plenty of people willing to provide abortions and IVF and there is no reason why Catholic hospitals and practitioners should be required. I like that in med school, PA, and nursing rotations one can opt out of learning how to do abortions or being involved with them.
I’m a little this-and-that about EC with rape victims. Not all rape victims who expect or desire EC may know about policies at each hospitals and I think there should be some sort of standard in carrying it; but I don’t think it should be pushed on them or purposely refused either way.
Anyway my 2 cents.
Fed Up: “You agree that a message of love is better and then you make hateful comments?”
Am I preaching? No. My only goal here is to plumb the depths of the philosophical debate. If I hurt a few pro-choicer’s feelings along the way, I honestly dont care. I need to put every argument under as much stress as possible to see the flaws and cracks and to feel the responses. So far only SOMG had provided a pro-choice response to help me craft the pro-life argument, but at the minimum I can bolster my current position and maybe encourage a few pro-lifers to not take the pro-choice side’s bull sitting down.
Oliver, I think you should read “The Original Revolution” by Yoder. I found it to be very good, has an interesting perspective on Christian pacifism.
Asitis, it’s what I said above at 8:08AM. Independent practice and socialized medicine don’t mix. The government can’t implement socialized healthcare until providers who will not acquiesce to government control are out of the picture. When medicine is dominated by those willing to follow government directives, your choices as a patient will become restricted. The only choices you’ll have will be those the government permits your doc to give you, which will not necessarily include those your doctor would offer you if he were allowed to practice independent of government control. Instead of receiving optimal care, you’ll get cost-effective care. BTW, I’m talking about health in general, not women’s reproductive issues.
PS- PiP, glad you also see the light on the conscience matter.
Fed Up, don’t forget I lived in Canada most of my life. I know about the good, the bad and the ugly of universal health care.
I think the U.S, is moving toward something inbetween what it has now and what Canada has which I’d say is a good place to be.
Why should the Catholic hospitals be forced to go against their conscience or close?
Posted by: Elisabeth at March 4, 2009 9:49 AM
Their refusal may have more of an impact in areas where there are not as many hospitals to choose from as yours Elisabeth.
Can these hospitals not survive, like catholic schools, without federal funding?
Posted by: asitis at March 4, 2009 10:03 AM
Catholic hospitals have a mission to serve the needs of the underserved in their communities. That means that they serve a large portion of the community’s medicare/medicaid patients. These are patients that, in our area, for example, Mayo Clinic won’t touch.
In order to keep running, these hospitals need to obtain funding from as many sources as possible and that includes reimbursement from Medicare/Medicaid (which is, ultimately, federal funding even if administered by the states.)
Most of these hospitals provide valuable services that have nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive choice. People know going in that this is a Catholic hospital.. if you want an elective tubal, get it done at County. Or Banner Good Sam. Or Abrazo Paradise Valley. Or any other number of hospitals. If you want non-Catholic reproductive medicine, go to the many, many non-Catholic hospitals!
Many people (like myself, and I’m not even Catholic) choose to have their children at the Catholic hospital because they know they won’t be pressured to have a tubal. They know that their child’s life will be fought for, not against. They deliberately choose to give birth in that setting because they agree with the philosophy and religious ideals of that institution. They know that if there is an emergency situation, the doctor will work to preserve their fertility, not give it a half-hearted attempt and then sterilize them because its easier…
There are hospitals and providers around here that I would fear having an emergency c-section under their care… as a mother of soon to be seven, I would fear that they would find some “little thing” to justify their belief that I should have my tubes tied and then claim it was medically necessary. I do not have that fear when delivering at the Catholic hospital.
Why should people of faith have THEIR choices removed from them? No one is stopping women from going to a non-Catholic hospital… in fact, there are far more of those here.
asitis: “I don’t have any religious beliefs Carla.”
Nor do many people who oppose taking the lives of the unborn. Religious belief isn’t required for such opposition.