[Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Wed Mar 4 19:38:18 PST 2009
To the best of my knowlage they have not. (hence, why I wrote what I did) I believe that it should remain that way.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Sunil Ramalingam
To: vision 2020
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
I'm quoting g here. That was from his post responding to you. I'm not aware of doctors being forced to perform abortions in this country, though I'm certainly willing to be educated if that's happened.
Sunil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:57:44 -0800
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Sunil,
Who are talking to? I didn't say this which you are quoting.
Best Regards,
Donovan
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 6:48 PM
Why don't you document where people have been forced to do what you describe below:
"If a health care provider signs up to be a pediatrician at a children's hospital he is not immediately obligated to be the facilities abortionist. If you visit a doctor for a flu shot he does not have to acquiesce to your demand to have your pregnancy terminated."
Sunil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:09:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
"First, health care is a right."
Wrong. Access to health care is a right.
"If you are a health care provider, in order to get your license or certification of any kind, you are sworn to do certain things. If you don't want to do those things, you should not sign the agreement to get the license and/or medical certificate."
I would be quite surprised if you could document that statement. Please provide us with a copy of this mythical agreement of which you speak. I suppose I could be wrong (not bloody likely) but I'm quite sure that a person can obtain their M.D. and never practice any kind of medicine a day in their life. Any "agreement" is between the physician and his employer, be that the patient or the facility he works for. If a health care provider signs up to be a pediatrician at a children's hospital he is not immediately obligated to be the facilities abortionist. If you visit a doctor for a flu shot he does not have to acquiesce to your demand to have your pregnancy terminated.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Donovan Arnold
To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
Garrett,
You make some really good points in terms of market capitalism and how it should work, and for the most part does work. However, there are some big differences that must be made between market capitalism and that of health care.
First, health care is a right. And something being a right means that it must be provided, if not by a government entity, then by a private entity under contract with the government.
If you are a health care provider, in order to get your license or certification of any kind, you are sworn to do certain things. If you don't want to do those things, you should not sign the agreement to get the license and/or medical certificate. That is when the "choice" is made.
The choice does not come when someone drops in front of me and I decide I don't want to do CPR and let my employer find another health care provider. Nope, the choice was already made by me when I got my CNA, got my CPR card, got my First Aid card, became med certified, I signed a contract with my employer and the State of Idaho agreeing to provide services in exchange for a job and my certifications and licenses.
Your license is an agreement with the state of Idaho to preform tasks expected of that license, in a state sanctioned manner, by the patient or person in need of your services.
If is a violation of that person's rights, for me, as a CNA, to not provide care to someone because of this reason or that. If I have a problem with providing care, I could not agree to get my license. There are medications I do not always agree with giving people, that I must give. There are services I provide people, I do not think they should get. But it is not my right to decide what they need or get based on my social/religious/political beliefs. It is my obligation to do what the nurse tells me to do within the scope of my job, training, and licenses, and certifications, that is all. If I commit a sin in the performance of my duties of helping someone, I know a guy named Jesus who I can talk to about forgiveness. If it is something so grave I cannot morally justify it, I need to change jobs.
I am appalled that a pharmacist has the right to counter a doctor's order and stop care provided to a patient based on their political/social/religious beliefs. That should not happen.
The pharmacist doesn't know everything the doctor knows. And their inaction could cost a life, or permanent damage to someone. Same with nurse, PA, CNA, LPN, MA, or other medical professionals.
There are lots of jobs in the medical field that do not involve birth control or abortions a person can pursue if this is a problem for them.
Best Regards,
Donovan
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Subject: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 11:49 AM
Sandra writes:"in order to maintain adequate standards of care, more employees would berequired at all times to pick up the slack of those refusing to do all aspectsof the jobs they were hired to do."It makes sense that in order to serve patients with care they expect, if somecare-givers refuse to help, others would need to step in. Isn't it theresponsibility of the employer, though, to insure that it's employees dotheir job? If I'm starting to understand the conscience rule correctly,those employees would have job security even if they disobey their boss'sorders. It is ironic that this essentially is government interference with aprivate enterprise in its ability to function as needed, considering it'sthe opposite of conservatives' normal stance of not regulating businesses.Should a person expect to get an abortion from any health care provider, or arethere select clinics where such procedures can be had? Who makes the call ofwhether a health care provider performs controversial procedures or not? Isuppose it's the director of clinics who would decide if they perform them,not necessarily the doctors, nurses or other staff, and that some directorswould choose to offer them, some would not.Obviously you can't get an abortion at a dermatologist's office. Where,then, can one expect to have that done? If there are specific places, thenobviously those procedures should be performed without hassle, and if staffthere consciously object to helping with such a procedure, then they are notdoing their job, and they should be let go. It's a private business, afterall, and the free market should dictate its success in the long run.But if staff in a place where its not part of their mission to performabortions is expected to take part in one anyway but refuses and then is let go,that doesn't seem right, and they should have recourse for objecting basedon moral reasons. Whether they need a conscience rule to ensure that right, Idon't know.Do pharmacies carry every available drug, or do they only have select drugsavailable? Are they obligated to sell any drug someone has a prescription for?If not, then I agree they should not be forced to carry drugs they don'twant to sell. Whether they need a conscience rule to ensure that right, Idon't know.It does seem ridiculous that the rule applies to contraceptives.The rule will only affect institutions that receive federal money. If theydon't comply, the punishment is no more federal money. I suppose thethinking is that since tax-dollars are used, it could be construed that the fedsendorse abortions, and hence are mandating clinics that receive fed money arerequired to ensure their employees do things they may not want to do, thus theconscience rule is a way to protect those employees religious rights fromgovernment intrusion.The conscience rule could be a way for anti-choice foes to infiltrate clinicsand stop abortions, which would make them activist health-care providers,essentially going against the duties of these providers to provide health careas needed.Perhaps it would be best for employees to sign a waiver, acknowledging theyunderstand abortions are performed at those clinics, and that they are willingto help as needed. Those that don't sign aren't hired.In essence, it's possible that the conscience rule (I still haven'tread it, shame on me, but at 127 pages its toooo long (another reason not totrust it!), see link below) is illegal if it essentially is a rule regarding theestablishment of religion, ie, preventing businesses from firing people becauseof a special status given to employees who claim religious freedom. It'spossibly a law establishing religion as a trump over a business's right tooperate as needed, and to terminate employees who don't do their job.Government does not need to pass laws to protect people's religiousfreedom. The Constitution already protects that, but it doesn't mean you areentitled to get paid for standing up for your religious beliefs.Yes, I suppose I may be a flip-flip-flopper on this one...Official text:http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=157701135748+2+2+0&WAISaction=retrievegclev======================================================= 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/f8c5a156/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list