Action needed NOW on DHHS conscience protection regs
A fierce fight was launched last week over a proposed Department of Health and Human Services regulation that would attach financial strings to laws that have been in place for 35 years guaranteeing health care providers and institutions the right to practice medicine without violating conscience.
See my previous post for backdrop.
If you’ve paid attention to the news, you’ve seen the other side has inundated MSM outlets, the White House, and DHHS with ferocious protests.
Pro-lifers must fight back, and today….
First, call the DHHS and White House comment lines and simply state:
Health care professionals have a right to practice medicine without violating conscience. Please issue regulations protecting conscience rights soon.
DHHS: 202-205-5445
WH: 202-456-1414
Also please call your congressperson and ask him or her to sign on to a letter sponsored by Reps. Dave Weldon of FL and Lincoln Davis of TN expressing this same sentiment. Deadline to sign on to this letter is close of business tomorrow.
The other side is circulating a letter to its pro-abort members. Currently they have about 90 signers and we only have about 60. We need to get our numbers up.
A letter is also being drafted in the Senate, but it has not yet been formalized. For now just call House members.
Action again: Call White House, DHHS, and your US rep now. It’ll take 5 minutes total. Don’t worry about being asked to engage in conversation and being asked questions you don’t have the answers to. That won’t happen.
This regulation will help ensure faithful pro-life hospitals, health care workers, and pharmacists aren’t forced to participate in abortion or dispense potentially abortive drugs.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I emailed Rep. John Lewis (D-GA-District 5) about this Right to Life issue; let’s see if he joins those two other “Democrats for Life” into signing this important bill.
I called mine, but I also found out he’s on Twitter! Anyone else have reps that are cooler than you are?
Leroy, thanks. If you can call, that will get noticed now. The email may not. Thanks again.
Michael Burgess signed on last night.
I’ll never understand the mentality among some Christians that their personal religious beliefs should limit everyone else’s choices. You never hear of Scientologists getting jobs at pharmacies to stop people from accessing their prescriptions, or Hindus getting jobs at butcher shops to stop people from buying beef, or Muslims getting jobs at liquor stores to stop people from buying booze, or atheists getting jobs at Christian bookstores to stop people from buying Bibles. Nope, just Christians.
Don’t want to give women contraception? Then don’t get a job where contraception is distributed. There is no shortage of non-contraceptive health care jobs.
The government has no business requiring birth control clinics to hire people who won’t do the job. The only purpose of a law like that is to put roadblocks between women and their birth control. We know it, you know it, and the whole country knows it, so there’s no point in pretending that this has anything at all to do with “preventing discrimination.”
It’s not discrimination to tell a pro-lifer to go find a job that is compatible with his/her beliefs; it’s common sense.
reality, you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
I agree with some of what reality says. People who have a problem with filling prescriptions shouldn’t become pharmacists. People who are against abortion shouldn’t apply for jobs at Planned Parenthood. People who think that the pill is an abortifacient need to get a clue.
I realize that this law also applies to hospitals, where doctors and nurses might be required to perform abortions or give out contraceptives as part of a larger span of duties, but again, that’s part of the job. I would approve of hospitals that take their employees sentiments into account when divvying up the jobs for the day, but I don’t know if it would be right or practical to require it by law.
The New York Times’ ethics columnist once handled a matter almost exactly like this.
And let’s get down to the real heart of the matter: This is less about protecting health care workers than it is about trying to prevent people from having access to abortion and contraception. If this were a conscience bill on any other issue, it wouldn’t pass or make the news.
Regarding reality’s points about Christians… Well, over 70% of people in the U.S. self-identify as Christians of some type or other, including my own very liberal Catholic self.
The desire to impose one’s own religious views isn’t unique to Christians. In mostly-Muslim countries, Islam colors the law. I wouldn’t be surprised if India and Israel also have religion-based or religion-inspired laws.
Yes, this is about imposing conservative (not necc. uniquely Christian, but yes that’s probably part of it) views on people who might not share them, and I agree that it is inappropriate to disguise that desire as something else, but there’s no need to Christian-bash. The desire to control others is a human thing, not a Christian thing.
What if, in a case like Terri Schiavo, you were asked to take out the feeding tube and let a perfectly healthy women die? Wouldn’t this be a breach of conscience, that had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion?
Posted by: reality at July 23, 2008 6:05 PM
Right. Because there would be NO WHERE else for women to get BC. Get real reality.
What do people here think of Muslim cab drivers refusing to accept passengers with alcohol or dogs — even seeing-eye dogs?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800
I’ll never understand the mentality among some Christians that their personal religious beliefs should limit everyone else’s choices.
Was it the Christians that made seat belts a law? Smoking bans in public places? No more plastic bags in California? No trans fats in New York restaurants? Helmets on motorcyclists? Same sex marriage in Massachusetts?
I think the other side does plenty of “calling the shots”…
The difference here, is that a human beings life is on the line. For those of us that believe that Life begins at conception, there is no choice. Any more than there is choice for rape, murder, or kidnapping. All choices which I’m sure the Christians took away also?
Here it is! It’s the second question down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23wwln_ethicist.html
MK–Terri Schiavo was not perfectly healthy when her feeding tube was removed; her brain was half its proper size. Are you perhaps talking about someone else?
I’m sorry DRF, but where I come from brain size does not have anything to do with health. Just look at congress.
DRF,
I’m curious. You call yourself a liberal Catholic. What exactly does that mean?
Health: yet another word hijacked and given a new definition…
Well, over 70% of people in the U.S. self-identify as Christians of some type or other, including my own very liberal Catholic self.
But only a tiny fraction of them believe in the extremist, anti-contraception point of view.
The desire to impose one’s own religious views isn’t unique to Christians. In mostly-Muslim countries, Islam colors the law. I wouldn’t be surprised if India and Israel also have religion-based or religion-inspired laws.
But this is the United States. Our country was founded by people who knew the dangers of mixing religion and government. It’s why the very first freedom enumerated in the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion. That freedom includes all types of Christians, and non-Christians, too.
Religious freedom means nothing if one religion is allowed to step all over others. Your religion should dictate YOUR lifestyle, not mine, and vice versa.
That’s why when Muslim cabbies started refusing to carry passengers with alcohol in their luggage, the city of Minneapolis started yanking their licenses. Americans were rightfully outraged at the idea of Muslims inconveniencing non-Muslims for religious reasons.
And that was just over cab rides, not something so intimate and vital as birth control!
Yes, this is about imposing conservative (not necc. uniquely Christian, but yes that’s probably part of it) views on people who might not share them, and I agree that it is inappropriate to disguise that desire as something else, but there’s no need to Christian-bash. The desire to control others is a human thing, not a Christian thing.
Fair enough.
Reality: 7;10: Religious freedom means nothing if one religion is allowed to step all over others. Your religion should dictate YOUR lifestyle, not mine, and vice versa.
That’s why when Muslim cabbies started refusing to carry passengers with alcohol in their luggage, the city of Minneapolis started yanking their licenses. Americans were rightfully outraged at the idea of Muslims inconveniencing non-Muslims for religious reasons.
We are too easily inconvenienced today. We waste time in court arguing silly things like this and wonder why the courts are so backed up. Really, how many people carry liquor in their luggage? Did this happen once a week? I bet the americans who were outraged were the ones without any religion. Those who had a religion would have been more forgiving of the Muslim religion, IMHO.
Why don’t Americans save their rage for important things like abortion?
By the way. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from any and all religion.
YOUR dislike of my religion should not restrict MY right to practice MY religion.
That’s what the founding fathers had in mind.
From QuoTD: Why don’t Democrats hammer this point? Because by emphasizing that Republicans would ban even early-term abortions, Democrats would be implicitly leaving open the possibility that Republicans might be right about late-term abortions.
~ Steve Waldman, former editor of U.S. News & World Report, in a Wall Street Journal op ed, July 22
Let’s forget the egos and do what’s right for once.
I’m sorry DRF, but where I come from brain size does not have anything to do with health. Just look at congress.
Posted by: mk at July 23, 2008 6:49 PM
lol
You didn’t really answer the question DRF. Because in fact, it could be anybody. What about the situation in Alta Canada where an elderly man was simply going to be denied food and water. Would you participate in this? What if the court ordered you to with draw these non-extraordinary measures and you believed it was inhumane to dehydrate and starve someone to death.
If you couldn’t act according to your conscience, unless you have NO conscience I guarantee eventually you WILL come up against something that goes against what you believe in. Unless you are a moral lemming.
And BTW, I see your response to the Schiavo case as a rationalization similar to that with abortion.
Aside from abortion, I worry about other implications of not having this protection.
If, for example, we come to a time when euthenasia is considered a mainstream option (instead of the “quietly kill the poor and uninsured” as it is now) should a nurse be required to participate?
If a nurse works in the neonatal ICU and works everyday to save babies, should she not have the right to opt out of participating in the death of one of her patients?
Yes, there are certain responsibilities inhearant to being a healthcare worker, but killing should not be one of them.
I definitely don’t agree with the anti-contraception mindset. Like…I can’t overstate that. However, seeing as how I don’t think BC is murder, and I enjoy what I feel is a right to live my life as I see fit, right down to sex for recreation and the unborn’s right to live, I think that people should be allowed to decline dispensing BC to people if they personally disagree with it. I’ll exercise my right to tell them to take a long walk off a short pier, then exercise my right and then left foot in a continual walking motion until I find someone who will give it to me, which I’m sure will not take long. Rights are great. I love America. I still say I can be ok with sex, be a non-Christian, and be a conservative though.
Patricia–All I said was that Terri Schiavo was not perfectly healthy. MK’s sentence structure suggested that she was using a healthy person as an example, so I thought that perhaps she had meant to write some name other than “Terri Schiavo.”
I’m sorry DRF, but where I come from brain size does not have anything to do with health. Just look at congress.
Assuming that you’re not joking in the first half of your sentence, then you don’t come from planet earth. At Ms. Schiavo’s autopsy, the doctors found that half her brain had atrophied away. This woman was gone. Can one argue that she’s not dead yet? Sure. But it certainly affected her health!
Patricia’s example about the man in Alta C is a bit better. No, I do not support taking an elderly but self-aware man off of life support against his wishes. The law should allow him to request it, though, or to specify his wishes for the future.
…getting back to the conscience laws, am I the only one who’s remembered that we already have anti-discrimination laws? It is already illegal to refuse to hire someone based on creed or religion. Ergo, this isn’t about protecting people’s consciences, which we already do. The real purpose of these laws must be something else.
Yes, but this isn’t entirely about getting hired. This is more about “help someone else do something you fundamentally see as wrong, or you’re fired!
When I took on my position as a computer programmer, I had no idea that I would be required to work on a project for an abortion clinic. But I suppose that if I didn’t want to be put into that position, I shouldn’t have chosen this field of work. But if you think about it, I really should not be allowed to let “morals” permit me to freely exercise “discrimination”. When my brother became a surgical tech, and sought employment at a Catholic hospital, he operated under the assumption that he would be involved in a profession that saves lives. Not one that would coerce him, under threat of termination or federal penalties, to be involved in performing abortions. To be clear, there is a moral difference between “abortion” and “unintentional termination of a pregnancy”. He could be involved in a surgical procedure that has the indirect result of ending the life of an unborn child, but that would not be the “intention” of the surgical procedure. If I had studied to become a librarian, should I have the right to refuse helping someone locate last month’s copy of playboy magazine? Or to locate a sexually explict web site? If I was a man being asked to help a man find homosexual literature? If I was a woman being asked to find a particular issue of penthouse? If I felt uncomfortable, sexual threatened or persued? Surely I should know, unless I have lived in a cave all my life, that pornographic literature exists and, as of late, that the internet is also a source of said content. Should I, as a properly “educated librarian” be allowed to object to participating in assisting somebody with seeking materials that I find objectionable? Or should I have persued another field of study? I realize that arguments could be twisted in many different directions regarding the above, but where and when should we draw the line and “force” others to perform acts that they find morally objectionable? Obviously, discrimination based on race should not be permitted. A person cannot choose their race or ethnic heritage. Religious protection is enshrined in the bill of rights as the “First” amendment to the constitution (also ratified at the same time as the constitution, so they did find this to be important). There are several other reasons why one should not be discriminated against due to circumstances beyond their control. But we should be allowed to “morally object” based on one’s choices. Now you might say that this would extend to finding interracial relationships “morally objectionable”, but you would be wrong. A person does not choose one’s race. Somebody else’s preference for interracial relationships is “their” choice. Finding interracial relationships objectionable would be “my” choice. But the status of one’s race is not a choice and therefore should be protected. I may object to another’s preferences in regards to race, but should not be allowed to discriminate based on race. While I may choose for myself to avoid pregnancy by not engaging in sexual intercourse, another person might choose otherwise. But there is not a preexisting condition that is out of either parties ability to control, that causes sexual intercourse and subsequent pregnancy. To be sure, sexual urges wax and wane and sexual drive is not chosen. However, someone else chosing to engage in sexual intercourse should not compel me, as an involved or uninvolved party, to participate in terminating the life created by another person’s choice to engage in sexual intercourse, should I find that objectionable. Not only would that seem applicable to the first amendment’s “free exercise of religion” clause but also to the “unalienable rights of man” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, among others being “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness”.
Michigan_Pat 9:25:
PLEASE send your comment to the editor of every newspaper in the country and to every radio talk-show host. Excellent points. Thank you for standing up for LIFE!
And that was just over cab rides, not something so intimate and vital as birth control!
Was the use of the word “vital” intended to be ironic?
Birth control is not “vital” at all – it’s purpose is to prevent the creation of new life. There is nothing vital about it.
X, I don’t know if you were able to read my post on the last thread before it was taken down but I want you to know that I was not judging you personally. I did not know what your state in life was. If you had mentioned it at some point I did not remember. It is not my intent to judge the state of anyone’s soul. I responded to your assertions because I thought that they were unjust. The Catholic Church is not out to suppress women or spoil anyone’s fun but to safeguard the material, emotional and spiritual health of all — women and men. I presented the teaching of the Catholic Church so that you would know where I am coming from.
xalisae:2:04 AM Rights are great. I love America. I still say I can be ok with sex, be a non-Christian, and be a conservative though.
Cool!
But, Eileen, I don’t feel I need a separate entity to dictate how I should go about different aspects of my life or establish a moral code for me to live my life by in order for me to HAVE a moral code in the first place…I don’t think I need someone else to tell me what should or shouldn’t be done so that I can stay safe…I can protect myself. Should I be faulted for that? Does that mean people who feel otherwise should be allowed to make my choices as difficult as possible to carry out? I know that most of you have advocated not using oral contraceptives as a personal choice, and that’s great…I don’t HAVE to choose the same things you have…but I’ve seen at least one person on this website advocate actually making them illegal, and that is a huge point of contention for me.
xalisae,
I simply responded to your assertions that some of us are religious fanatics who want to suppress women and are afraid of sexual pleasure. You gave your opinion and I responded.
Alexandra: What do people here think of Muslim cab drivers refusing to accept passengers with alcohol or dogs — even seeing-eye dogs?
If the dog is drunk and can’t find the way home, then I’d say the person is entirely justified in having the cab driver take them.
The claim that people opposed to contraception shouldn’t become pharmacists is pathetic and murderous. When did a pharmacists code of conduct become to protect and prevent life? Aren’t those two requirements at odds with each other?
It is the people who give out contraceptives who should not only lose their jobs, but freedom as well.
It is the people who give out contraceptives who should not only lose their jobs, but freedom as well.
:: laughing ::
Now that is a “good grief…” moment.
Simply, this proposed regulation (1) encourages the narrow-minded (of any religion) to violate the hippocratic oath (no don’t tell me you are not a doctor so it doesn’t apply – doctor’s ignore it also); (2) invalidates legal provision of certain medical services in the majority of states; and (3) is another nail into the death of the first amendment to the Constitution. What part of wall between church and state (Jefferson, 1802) don’t you understand?
Oh, I understand… Religious freedom ensures someone can force their religious views on another! Bull……..