[Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 4 19:07:33 PST 2009
Gary,
I think if a pregnant woman was having a medical emergency and the arriving paramedics decided not to treat the woman because it would result, or could result in an abortion, and the woman consented to the treatment to save her life or prevent her permanent injury, the paramedic should be culpable for malpractice if she/he/they refused for religious, political, or social reasons.
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: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, "Bill London" <london at moscow.com>, "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>, vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 6:28 PM
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
#yiv2096708423 UNKNOWN {
FONT-FAMILY:Wingdings;}
#yiv2096708423 UNKNOWN {
FONT-FAMILY:Cambria Math;}
#yiv2096708423 UNKNOWN {
FONT-FAMILY:Calibri;}
#yiv2096708423 UNKNOWN {
FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;}
#yiv2096708423 UNKNOWN {
MARGIN:1in;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 A:link {
COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 A:visited {
COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR:purple;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 P {
FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0in;MARGIN-RIGHT:0in;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 PRE {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Courier New";}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 SPAN.HTMLPreformattedChar {
FONT-FAMILY:Consolas;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri", "sans-serif";}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 .MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;}
#yiv2096708423 #yiv692810045 DIV.Section1 {
}
"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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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/df507898/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list