In the United States of Obama (thanks, Chris Tingle), you will have the freedom to do exactly as you’re told:
Doctors from across the country have come to Washington to try to save a federal regulation that gives added protection to medical workers who choose not to perform certain procedures, like abortion, that they morally object to.
“It is open season on healthcare professionals of conscience,” said David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association. “Discriminate at will.”
Though a number of “provider protection” laws have been on the books for decades, some doctors complained they weren’t being enforced. So just before he left office, President Bush enacted a federal regulation calling for better enforcement and mandating that some medical schools and employers actually certify their compliance in writing.
“They are very broad. They are broader than any kind of rule that has existed on the subject before,” said Judy Waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center. “They are very heavy handed, and I would be guessing, but I think that they were ideologically motivated.”
Obama announced a month ago that he was reviewing the regulation. The White House said in a statement that “this issue requires a balance between the rights of providers and the health of women and their families, a balance that the last-minute Bush rule appears to upset.”
Ideology, you see, is other people’s beliefs. The “last-minute Bush rule” expires today.
I don’t see how this could pose much of an inconvenience, though, given the Decline of Christianity and associated foolish belief systems–apart from the ones sponsored by government, of course–in this country.
Related: a great post following up on Darleen’s earlier post about how Barney Frank (last seen mau-mauing a student asking a legitimate question) was against the govenment dictating executive salary caps to corporations, before he was for it.
I just don’t agree. I think you’re free to take a job where you don’t have to do stuff you don’t want to do. I don’t see what sense it makes to contribute your productive energies to an organization that engages in activities that aren’t in line with your values. I don’t understand people what can make a fuss about the stuff they have to do at their job but simply can’t be put upon to go support a business where they don’t have to fuss and whine, and not just because it’s a pitiful way to go about living and it lacks integrity. Hello? That’s how the employment market works.
Krauthammer – last night on Fox All stars, reproduced at the Corner:
Look, let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine that you had a pill that would reverse homosexuality. Imagine it existed, it were approved, and you had a pharmacist who said “I will not prescribe it because it implies it’s a disease and I don’t want to be a part of that.”
What would you say to him? I would support him. I think people on the left would.
But if you have a pharmacist who says I won’t do that with a morning after pill or a contraceptive, there is less sympathy on the left.
What I think you’ve got here is a matter not of principle but of policy. I don’t understand why you cannot have a set of regulations in which where on the one hand you protect the provider who has a conscientious objection against the procedure and say he or she doesn’t have to participate or give information, and have other regulations which were to ensure that if that were to happen, a patient would have access to a provider who feels differently and would provide regulation.
Our problem here is that the abortion issue is a poisonous issue, as we see in our Supreme Court nominations, and whatever it touches, it makes into a partisan issue that it is impossible to find a compromise.
There is a reasonable compromise here, and I hope it’s found. I’m not sure the Obama administration is going to find it or support that reasonable compromise.
Well, what’s the problem with this scenario, hf? The government is socializing health care. Health care providers will have to provide those services that the government wants them to, or go out of business. Ergo, people and institutions who have a problem with providing abortions or abortifacients will have either to violate their conscience or quit. Ergo, the government will ensure compliance with its ideology, which, however will not be heavy-handed.
C’mon, just do it. Just eradicate the little ball of flesh. That’s all we’re asking. Just do it, it’s not so bad. You’ll get used to it.
I think people what provide socialized medicine are dirty socialists, Dan.
I see. So, someone who goes to medical school and has to pay off their hundreds of thousands in loans to do it is just kinda SOL?
I don’t see how this could pose much of an inconvenience, though, given the Decline of Christianity and associated foolish belief systems–apart from the ones sponsored by government, of course–in this country.
There is always Islam…or Wicca. Or better yet Goranity, the worship of Gaia through her living prophet and goracle Al Gore of Nashville (or the District of Columbia).
No one said socialism was fair.
5
Well I would figure they were all SOL the minute their services became the right of 300 million people. Not agreeing or disagreeing with your’s or hf’s opinions but that is mine.
Obama overload
Obama overreach
We feel it everywhere
Trillions in the breach
Empty bank, empty Street
Dollar goes down alone
Pelosi’s in the House
So we now all must atone
But we can see through-
Your broken promises oh One
You got your head cocked back and your teleprompter on, maybe
And can we tell you our love for you will still be strong
After the hope of November’s gone?
We never will forget those nights
We wonder if it was a dream
Remember how you made us crazy?
Remember how we made you beam
Now we do understand what happened to our love
Barack, we’re gonna cut no slack
We’re gonna show you what we’re made of
We can see through–
Your broken promises oh One
We see you talkin’ real slow and you’re smilin’ at everyone
Can we tell you our love for you will still be strong
After the hope of November’s gone?
Out on the road today, I saw a OBAMA sticker on a Cadillac
A little voice Inside my head said, “Don’t look back. You can never look back.â€
We thought we knew what love was
What did we know?
Those days are gone forever
We should just let them go but-
We can see through-
Your broken promises oh One
You got that Rush pulled down and talk radio gone, maybe
And can we tell you our love for you will still be strong
After the hope of November’s gone?
We can see through-
Your broken promises oh One
You got your head cocked back and your teleprompter on, maybe
Can we tell you our love for you will still be strong
After the hope of November’s gone?
In honor of Don Henley who filed a copywrite infringement complaint about this parody…
I’m not going to argue about this, hf, because it would get pretty vehement. Let’s just agree to disagree. But it would be kind of a drag for you, I think, if the government made churning out dirty socialist propaganda a condition of your employment.
It’s all right, though: you can always get a job with the dirty socialist Work Projects Authority.
We can disagree I think. I do green marketing stuff all the time. It makes me feel dirty.
I would say that the government socializing medicine is bad thing #1, and then (possibly) demanding OBs provide abortion services a bad thing as well.
Most doctors are able to provide the services they want. Not every doctors does every procedure encompassed w/in their speciality.
I searched a bit, but haven’t really seen what the Obama’s side of the isle is proposing here.
What might be delicious irony, but for the seriousness of the thing, is that we’ve been harangued into not talking about abortion, and speaking euphemistically only of a “choice,” as if it referred to the preference of ice cream flavor. Now, in this context, “choice” is not permitted.
Well, and the issue is, the government wants to force faith based hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding. Its not just one guy saying “I won’t do abortions”. The left wants to force EVERY hospital to do abortions, even though a woman who wants an abortion has numerous options to get one elsewhere.
This is an attack on religion as much as it is abortion.
“…attack on religion…”
Wouldn’t personal autonomy suffice as a better, which is to say more complete, descriptor? One needn’t be religious per se to take a stance opposed to performing abortions. Rights attach to persons first, don’t they? And to institutions only insofar as they are constituted by rights bearing people?
but that’s separate from what this post is about, Matt … not that the slope isn’t slippery but it does fundamentally change the equation … how would you feel if the Bush rules were preserved while all hospitals were forced to perform abortions? Is that compromisey? Just curious.
Sdferr, yeah I agree, its not exclusively an attack on religion. But my understanding of the issue is this is the left’s attempt to force religious hospitals into getting in line or going out of business, as any governmental or charitable funds (ie tax deductible) they are receiving will either be withheld or taxed, causing many to go out of business. The constitution specifically provides for separation of church and hospital apparently.
Sdferr, the thing is, there’s a specific constitutional prohibition on attacking religion. Personal autonomy, not so much.
Of course, for it to get any traction, a constitutional prohibition would have to actually mean something.
Hf, I understand your point, I think. Lets say its a secular hospital and you have a doctor who doesn’t want to do abortions, where hospital policy says “we do abortions”. If that’s the case, then yeah, the doc should go somewhere more in line with his principles and the hospital would technically have the right to fire him if he won’t do what he’s told. But I think the purpose of this entire thing is to keep doctors from having a choice- if no pharmacy or hospital has the right to not perform abortions or sell morning after pills, those people of conscience would have no options. And I think thats the intent here- to eliminate any options for doctors, by running faith based hospitals or pharmacies run by religious folks out of business.
Maybe I just don’t get it Matt, but for myself, these issues continue to resolve to individual rights, without which supposing rights inhering in institutions of any sort simply make no sense in the context of American political philosophy. Any elision of that principle works to the good of what I understand as an anti-American political stance, namely the collective over the individual.
Right. But if I own a private business what I started with some risk involved and I did a business plan and everything and so then I hire people and give them coffee mugs with our new logo and I’m very excited but then my new employees come into my new office what has just been decorated and they say they don’t feel right about doing the jobs what I hired them for, I say to them you are so fired and I’m going to sue your ass for fraud cause you got this job under false pretenses and you’re not taking that coffee cup.
But, Happy, many doctors don’t “work” for anyone. They belong to partnerships. The have “privileges” at hospitals.
Your example of hiring someone who refuses to do their job isn’t exactly the same thing. If my husband’s employees were to say tomorrow they weren’t going to drive the big truck to New York anymore, because it was against their religion or something … well, they’d get fired, ’cause who needs a driver who won’t drive?
But, my OB worked for himself.
I’m listening to Patty Griffen right now. It’s very soothing. I highly recommend it.
Of course, later, I’m going to have to turn up the Incubus for my workout.
This is true but the hospital should have the right to say who gets privileges I think. I am trying trying trying to err on the side of freedom here.
How did this accommodation of belief thing work out with the Muslim meatpackers who don’t want to touch pork? They were told, “This is part of the job, you knew it was part of the job when you accepted the position and if you object to doing this part of the job, find another position,” right? That was the EEOC’s position, wasn’t it? I mean, the government wouldn’t force an employer to accommodate religious belief about the morality of certain food products but run roughshod over moral beliefs about terminating pregnancies, would it?
What’s the saying for this in Austrian?
Isn’t your analysis simply one of freedom of contract hf? But then the government steps in between the Hospital and the employee to coerce the Hospital on its side of the contract? Or am I confused?
Whose freedom, HF? Freedom of the patient to get whatever service they demand? Or freedom of a doctor (or nurse) to engage in treatments they are morally ok with?
Does a woman’s right to an abortion trump absolutely everyone’s rights? The unborn babys … the doctors …
hf, other than sueing em for fraud, I agree with you. But Sdferr has it (and I’m understanding his point more I think)- the government is interfering in an at-will or contractual relationship, by telling businesses how to run. Your example of a private business doesn’t exactly work because, at least until Obama and Frank get their way, government doesn’t have any influence over private businesses, unless the business is somehow in bed with the government. If I understand the way in which Bush’s bill worked and what the libs are trying to get implemented, is any business, like a hospital, that benefits in some way from legislation written for hospitals (ie tax breaks, federal money, research grants, whatever), will either toe the line or lose their right to whatever government benefits they receive as a result of being a hospital. I assume, though I could be wrong, if a hospital is treating Medciare/Medicaid patients, the government could also effect the way the hospital is run(I’m speculating here though – I know zippo about Medicare and hospitals, ie are hospitals required to treat medicare patients). So because either the hospital receives federal money or tax breaks or whatever, libs think the government is the true employer of these doctors and thus, should be able to dictate the treatment provided.
Ultimately, I think its about eliminating faith based hospitals, as abortion is one of the few issues faith based hospitals may not be willing to budge on.
Arnold Kling addresses the collectivity issue poignantly, albeit somewhat obliquely. h/t Cafe Hayek
y’all are pushing me into the deep end of the pool and I don’t got my floaties on
27. Comrade Carin
My brother in law is a doctor. Right now, he delivers babies (among other things-family practice being what it is and all). If this goes in, I’m fairly certain that he would stop his delivery practice after all of his known pregnant patients deliver if it meant that he had to do abortions.
Problem being that in locations small enough, this may shut down ALL delivery rooms. No doctor would be available because they don’t want to do abortions. The OB/Gyn goes “no delivery” and the family practice folks do the same. That would really hurt small communities.
Not that the Obamanation cares.
Obama doesn’t care about small towns. Big cities … you know places where community organizers … organize.
*y’all are pushing me into the deep end*
/throws lifevest
If you drownded hf, my enjoyment of this blog would definately be lessened. Nobody calls the lightbringer a dirty socialist as stylistically as you =)
thanks! are you Enoch Matt or your own Matt?
27/32. Comrade Carin
I failed to answer your question in 27.
Personally, I don’t think that it does. The Feminazis apparently think otherwise. They’re such control freaks like that. Causes a reflex rebellion reaction.
And no, he doesn’t care about folks outside of the big cities. And he doesn’t care about most of them either, really.
“Does a woman’s right to an abortion trump absolutely everyone’s rights? The unborn babys … the doctors …”
GLBT and sometimes Ys rights also trump all. If you have working for you a hairy fellow who all of a sudden decides to dress in coulatts and high heels and demands to be called Janis, well, they say, BIGOT! If you’re a doctor and you don’t want to provide fertility services to a couple of Biker Lesbians, you’re fucked.
Now, if you’re a University Professor who wants to show pornography in your physics class, or lecture about Bushitler in your English Romanticism class, now that’s clearly a question of freedom.
We already have three federal laws covering this issue:
The Weldon Amendment. First adopted in 2004, the Weldon Amendment (named after former Representative Dave Weldon [R-FL]) has been included in each subsequent Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations act.[1] The law’s requirements apply to federal agencies and programs as well as state and local governments receiving federal funds from HHS.
The Weldon Amendment prohibits discrimination against health care providers who do not provide, pay for, provide coverage for (in the case of a health plan), or refer for, abortions. It protects a broad number of entities including physicians and other health care professionals, hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, HMOs, and health insurance plans that do not cover abortion. It also contains important catch-all language including in its protections “any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.”
Public Health Service Act Section 245. Signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) places restrictions on the federal government as well as state and local governments receiving federal financial assistance.[2]
PHSA Section 245 prohibits discrimination against both individuals and institutions (including doctors, hospitals, and postgraduate training programs) that refuse to undergo training in, require or provide training in, provide referrals for, or perform, abortions.[3] It also prohibits discrimination against individuals and institutions that refuse to “make arrangements for” any of these activities.[4] Thus, PHSA Section 245 would on its face prohibit discrimination against a doctor who refused even to “make arrangements for” such activities as abortion referrals.
The Church Amendments. Named after former Senator Frank Church (D-ID), the Church Amendments were enacted at various times in the 1970s in part to respond to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and to address concerns that doctors and faith-based hospitals would be forced to perform abortions or sterilizations as a condition of receiving federal funds.[5]
The Church Amendments:
Prohibit courts and other public officials from requiring individuals or institutions receiving grants under certain federal programs to perform or assist in abortions or sterilizations or to provide facilities or personnel for the same.[6]
Forbid discrimination against physicians or other health care personnel because of their religious or moral objections to performing abortions or sterilizations.[7] Areas of prohibited discrimination include employment, promotion, termination, and extension of staff privileges.[8]
Extend protection to individuals, including researchers and laboratory staff, participating in HHS-funded behavioral or biomedical research (including research funded by the National Institutes of Health).[9] Under this provision, no individual can be discriminated against on the basis that (1) the individual performed or assisted in any lawful research activity or (2) the individual refused to perform or assist in any research activity because it would be contrary to his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions. This means, for example, that researchers who object to participating in federally funded embryo-destroying research cannot be fired or otherwise discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs.
Bar any program funded by HHS from requiring any individual to perform or assist in “any part” of a “health service program or research activity” if such participation would be contrary to the individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. On its face, this provision covers a broad array of activities, including contraception programs and research activities administered by HHS.
And only four states don’t have conscience laws: States and Territories
Four states have no protection of conscience laws: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Vermont, although who and what they cover varies. See http://www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-Laws-USA/Conscience-Laws-USA-01.html.
So why is there the need for a federal regulation that would apparently even allow an employee in an insurance company to refuse to process a claim or expense reimbursement for birth control pills?
Just to turn the question around on you, Jim, if it’s already covered, then what’s the reason for rolling this directive back?
As far as the latter example, about folks not processing forms, tell me just how that differs from the Muslims who were awarded that settlement for having to fill out applications stating that they would have to agree to be required to handle pork products if so asked, even if they were never so asked?
oh. Just the 2010 part was supposed to be orangey. html is real picky about what actual characters you use.
Anyone remember the Ghey Eharmony kerfuffle?
Conscience not.
Plastic surgeons are allowed to refuse to perform surgery on someone whom they believe to be mentally unstable.
Someone who has body dysmorphic disorder cannot walk into a hospital and demand that the hated foot be chopped off, simply because the sufferer is fixated on the foot as the cause of all his troubles.
All of that “do no harm” stuff goes out the window when it’s a lefty sacrament.
” Imagine it existed, it were approved, and you had a pharmacist who said “I will not prescribe it because it implies it’s a disease and I don’t want to be a part of that.—
Do pharmacists prescribe? I thought they filled prescriptions that someone else has made.
But do pharmacist have a professional ethics and licensing system? What do their professional ethics say about a pharmacist’s ability to step between an individual and their doctor or medical care?
I think if the Reich wants dr.s to attend mass executions it should be left up to each individual dr.s conscience whether to attend, or not.
How do they do that, meya? Is that what happens when you walk into their place of business and you ask them to fill your prescription? Is that when they step between you and your doctor? Or do they come to your house and keep you from getting prescriptions they don’t like filled, and call your doctor and scold/treaten him for writing such presecriptions? The latter would deinintely be an ethical violation. Is that what you’re talking about?
Does anybody go to med school wanting to be a proctologist? Or is it a case of a resident screwing up their residency so badly that the head doctor says, “ok son, it’s assholes for you.” Is it as lucrative as , say , fertility medicine?
What monopoly is that? The Evil Right Wing Pharmacists Cabal?
I can walk out my front door and be at any one of three different pharmacies in five minutes walking time. If I get in my car, I can probably make it to any of 10 pharmacies in the same amount of time.
You can only get eggs from people who sell eggs. that doesn’t make an egg vendor a monopoly.
And yet they can simply decline to represent a potential client, which is just horrific.
By the way…
It seems they’ll come to you if you ask them to.
Well Pablo, that certainly doesn’t help the poor young woman who had drunken multiple sexual encounters the night before and needs her morning after pill RIGHT NOW!! Why should she be inconvenienced and have her rights crushed like like a Concord Grape (see what I did there?) when seeking protection from having to face potential consequences from her own irresponsible behavior?
Have you been ignoring the copious memos on !HOPE! and !CHANGE! again?!
OK, I admit it! I’m just on my second cup of coffee and I haven’t entirely banished the morning grumps.
And why does she even have to go to a doctor for a prescription? BECAUSE OF TEH WOMB USURPING MONOPOLY!!!
Thankfully, no. But what standards are those? The ones where they have to provide whatever services a potential client requests? I’m not familiar with such ethical standards. Feel free to enlighten me.
Irrelevant.
Once they are retained for a specific purpose, which they agree to and are paid for, then their options are limited for a variety of very good reasons. And even then, there are reasons for which they will be allowed to withdraw from a case. But they can decline to be retained any time they like.
Sooooo. In this case limiting choices is good? Do I have that right, maya?
“But what standards are those? ”
I’m sure they vary across our several jurisdictions but there’s a model code out there you can look up.
“But they can decline to be retained any time they like.”
And there’s the case when the firm has been retained, and the lawyer works at the firm. I doubt most people going to pharmacies make deals with pharmacists. Rather they deal with the pharmacist’s employer.