[Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Wed Mar 4 18:28:57 PST 2009
I don't think that there are many who would dispute a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in a situation where it meant that to not would result in her death. (an exceedingly rare situation)
You do, however, bring up an interesting point. Do you believe that a person should be able to dial 911 and insist that the arriving paramedic (who is after all sworn to help) perform an emergency abortion because she wants to be able to have a good time at the prom on the following Saturday night?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Donovan Arnold
To: Bill London ; Saundra Lund ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; g. crabtree
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
Gary,
So you are saying, it doesn't matter if a person with a license sworn to help somebody doesn't? How about if you had a stroke, or are suffocating, and the paramedic doesn't like you? Should you call another hospital provider? Or do we make exceptions to capitalistic rules in matters of health care and government provided rights?
Best Regards,
Donovan
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
To: "Bill London" <london at moscow.com>, "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>, vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 5:40 PM
"I can certainly see situations (as Saundra Lund notes) where medical providers, citing their religious beliefs, refuse to provide prenatal care to various clients, refuse to give ED medication, refuse to do reconstructive surgery."
I'm thinking that you imagine the situations more vividly then you might see them. Let's leave the religious aspect of this discussion aside for a moment. While I find it more then a little hard to believe that any other then the tiniest fraction of medical providers would withhold the services you list, I still would have to ask, so what? Get a different provider. As I have argued in the past, all purveyors of goods and/or services, whether they be landlords, physicians, pharmacists, bankers, grocers, mechanics, or anyone else should be free to decide who they want to work for and sell to based on whatever whim strikes their fancy.
You're apparently in favor of the right to be irresponsible. You're in favor of the right to not deal with the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Above all else you're in favor of the right to choose. What about my and others rights? Why does the right to choose supersede everyone else's right to view innocent life as something special and worthy of protection? What is it about your rights that are so special that I have to be forced to join with you in exercising them against my will?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill London
To: g. crabtree ; Saundra Lund ; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
G-
That is the core of the problem here.
You say that an abortion is "the death of a child" and as such trumps the normal requirements of professionalism (doctors should be able to refuse to do such things based upon their religious convictions)
However, not everyone agrees with you..not your definition of abortion nor what constitutes a religious conviction
Religious convictions come in a wide range of flavors. I can certainly see situations (as Saundra Lund notes) where medical providers, citing their religious beliefs, refuse to provide prenatal care to various clients, refuse to give ED medication, refuse to do reconstructive surgery.
BL
----- Original Message -----
From: g. crabtree
To: Saundra Lund ; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
"Third, I personally was looking forward to seeing Mr. Crabtree’s howls of indignation the first time a clinic refused to provide prenatal care to a welfare mother with more children than she can support. Or, the first time a married woman was denied insurance coverage for baby number three, four, five, or more. Or, the first time one of his buddies was denied his ED medication. Or, a loved one was denied reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy. And so forth."
She sets 'em up and she knocks 'em down! The straw men, that is.
She then goes on to make a specious argument that involves fiscal responsibility. It's good to start ones day with a hearty belly laugh. Keep it up Ms.Lund. Now that D.L. Hughley is a "journalist/news commentator" there's a slot for angry comedienne that's come open. The similarity in hairdo's should aid in the transition.
The fact of the matter is that not one of your examples forces the health care provider to be complicit in the death of a child. Yip and squeal all you like, killing people is not the equivalent of being denied a boner pill and someone who thinks our new demander in chief trots on water really has no chops for making an economic responsibility presentation.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Saundra Lund
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
Tongue planted firmly in cheek, I have to say that I don’t think the Conscience Rule was all bad J Of course, it helps that it was drafted by morons who didn’t bother to think about anything other than trying to ram their beliefs down the throats – and into the pocketbooks – of everyone.
First, I think folks should read what it actually says and what it actually requires. It’s freely available in the CRF – have a good read.
Second, isn’t it absolutely amazing that so many of the people – who lost the election – are screaming about evil government and wanting to keep evil government as small as possible except when they want it to advance their personal agendas? Why, the unmasking of the hypocrisy alone is worth the price of admission, isn’t it?
Third, I personally was looking forward to seeing Mr. Crabtree’s howls of indignation the first time a clinic refused to provide prenatal care to a welfare mother with more children than she can support. Or, the first time a married woman was denied insurance coverage for baby number three, four, five, or more. Or, the first time one of his buddies was denied his ED medication. Or, a loved one was denied reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy. And so forth.
Because, of course, the “Conscience Rule” allowed health providers (the definition of which was incredibly broad) to refuse to provide, participate in (even tangentially), provide referrals, or process claims and payments not only on the basis of “sincere religious belief,” but also “moral conviction.” Thus, health care delivery in this country was turned into an arena where others were given free rein to force their religious beliefs and moral convictions on the rest of us.
And, let’s think . . . just for a minute . . . about implementation. In order to maintain adequate standards of care, this moronic “Conscience Rule” opened the door for employers – including the government – to stick their noses into the religious beliefs and moral convictions of their employees and potential employees. How else could they make sure to staff adequately for whatever situation might arise? You wouldn’t want, for instance, the only lab employee on duty to be a Jehovah’s Witness who is willing to do all the work except those pertaining to transfusions if you were the victim of a drunk driver and needed an emergency blood transfusion, would you?
So, that brings us to the next inevitable result: skyrocketing health care costs. Because in order to maintain adequate standards of care, more employees would be required at all times to pick up the slack of those refusing to do all aspects of the jobs they were hired to do. So, not only was our care – and not just those pertaining to family planning, reproductive freedom, and end of life care – to be dictated by the religious beliefs and moral convictions of those calling the shots, but we were supposed to pay for the increased financial burden of those religious beliefs and convictions. Yeah, that was gonna be real helpful for those of us already struggling with out-of-control health care costs.
Yuppers, that “Conscience Rule” was a real brilliant move conceived by incredibly brilliant people, huh? It would have been a real hoot to see their spittle-flecked outraged faces when they realized the Pandora’s Box they opened.
Saundra
Moscow, ID
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
~ Edmund Burke
----------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090304/1fc5dbb9/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list