Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    so.... the christian conservatives are ready to let the FBI shut down for their pet cause. nice. guess if they reckon they get a free trip to heaven, it doesn't matter what the terrorists do.
     
  2. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #2
    I think that it's right that this bill be held up. It's not right to withhold federal money based on whether a doctor at a clinic will refuse to give an abortion.

    Free-riders of any kind make me ill though. :mad:
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    "The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers."

    So this is bad?

    It is right and proper to force people to go against their legitimate beliefs?

    It is right and proper to withold money from the providers, possibly (probably?) forcing them to close their doors? Because they don't want to perform abortions, the public at large should be denied medical help for cuts or broken bones or cancer?

    'Rat
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Rat. Yes. This is very very bad. You're looking at it from the point of view of one particular provider who happens to have a particular belief. What about the point of view of the _patients_ that person is supposed to serve? Shouldn't they be able to get the health services they require from health providers?

    If you don't want to be a health care provider, get a different job.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    This line doesn't wash, Milo. There must be room for Conscientious Objectors. A belief that it is not part of a doctor's duties or rôle to take away life should not prevent anyone who wants to practise medicine from being a doctor. There must be another way.
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    I live in the midst of Amish country.

    They refuse modern medicine, partly because of religious beleifs, to the point where they will let their children die rather than seek "English" medical care.

    What happens if the reverse were extended to the community? Would insurance companies would refuse to immunize your children because it was against stockholder, board, or executive (or the the third-floor mail clerk's) religious beleifs?
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    Once again, think of this from the patient's perspective. Don't they have the right to expect health care services from health care providers?

    Looking at this from the doctor's point of view doesn't really reflect reality. If a doctor doesn't want to perform abortions, they can choose a line of medicine that does not include performing abortions. Or they can open a private practice and not recieve federal funding. But if someone wants to open up a clinic or a hospital and recieve federal funding, that institution must have abortion providers on staff.

    The Republican position here sounds reasonable: someone who doesn't want to perform an abortion shouldn't have to. Who wouldn't agree with that? The problem is, that's not what the law would really do.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    I disagree. A doctor must serve her patient. They take an oath, and their profession cannot be overruled by their religion.

    I feel that conscientious objection is not analogous to this case. If a soldier enlists rather than be conscripted, he cannot claim C/O status.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    That oath does NOT include a commitment to take away life on demand.
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    Then they can work as a foot doctor, not an abortion provider. Look. What we are talking about is can someone use federal funds to set up a medical practice that functions on religious rather than medical principles. The answer is no.

    Read the article:

    "The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers."

    Look at that last line. HOSPITALS!!!! INSURERS!!! Are you paying attention? This is not about forcing individual doctors to perform abortions against their will, which NEVER HAPPENS, EVER. It's about allowing public institutions to take away women's rights.
     
  12. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    i expected IJReilly to come in and say this, but maybe he's busy. so i will...

    of course, the real issue is here is the politics the anti-abortionists are playing w/ the spending bill. even _we_ got sucked into the debate of the language of the amendment, rather than commenting on whether or not such an amendment is appropriate in such an important bill.

    the fbi might shut down some of its operations w/o further funding. sort of ironic, 'cuz bush ran on basically two things: his anti-terror abilities, and his morality. in this single bill, they're coming to a head, 'cuz we apparently have to pick one or the other. and anti-terrorism is losing! huh?!??!
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Absolutely right, Zim: the amendment clearly has no place in the spending bill, whatever one's views. False choices are being offered, as usual.

    To me, not being a denizen of Jesusland myself, this is not necessarily a "religious" issue: it's a question of definitions. There are perfectly good "medical principles" on the basis of which to disagree with abortion on demand.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Attaching unrelated, special-interest riders to omnibus spending bills is an old game in Washington; in fact, it's one of the reasons our deficit spins out of control. Be that as it may... I read another article about this particular bill this morning, and I have an idea it will be challenged successfully in court. As has already been pointed out, it doesn't so much give conscientious objectors to abortion the ability to opt-out of providing them (a right they've always had), so much as it allows both medical plans and hospitals who take federal funding to prohibit willing doctors from providing the services. Even more controversially, it allows these providers to prohibit their doctors from even referring patients to facilities that do provide the service. So it goes straight to the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, which should be sacrosanct, and also treads on the First Amendment. We shall see how these provisions fair in court. Of course all real conservatives will oppose them. Right?
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    OK, I'm with you now. And I totally agree.

    We shall also see how they fare.
     

Share This Page