Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, Jul 18, 2008.
I don't know what else to say.
Oh my stars and garters.
Surely this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by an inreasingly irrelevant administration trying to prop up some of it's waning support base. Just goes to show that health issues are nothing more than a political football for these people- the health and welfare of the populace is a secondary consideration or worse.
Why would anybody who is anti-abortion or anti-contraceptive want to work in family planning? And why should they expect any special protection from the state for upholding such prejudices in the workplace?
Did anybody read the article?
HHS is trying to implement what it feels is Congressional directive to ensure that nurses and providers are not refused emplyment on the basis of their religious/moral disagreement with abortion.
In this draft of the regulations, the definition can be read broadly enough to include things like emergency contraception. The point of a draft is so that the lawyers who are writing these things can get feedback to cover things that could potentially be missed - like carving out an exception for prophylactics.
Clearly this draft isn't ready for primetime, but its foundation is clearly not as draconian as Nancy would have you believe. She and NARAL need to calm down and speak with the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assoication to learn how to avoid hysterics and approach disagreements like adults.
Yep, I read it!
"I'm a rightwing, neo-Nazi, homophobic, black-hating fascist. Can I have a job in the health service and get protection in law for refusing to help queers and n*ggers? Ta'."
Pretty much. This is ridiculous.
Which is rubbish. It is healthcare - as a healthcare worker you provide the best possible treatment in your ability. You do not discard the evidence of the best care for a patient based on your arbitrary religious beliefs. The patients welfare is paramount, not your ability to make a religious statement.
The exact reason this is political is that they are singling out the hot button issue of abortion. Why aren't they including blood transfusions for Nurses that are Jehovah's witnesses? Would you be happy if your child died because the person in charge of providing a blood transfusion refused to administer based on their religious beliefs? The answer is no and it would be ridiculous for a person to be legally entitled to that position even though they could not do the work.
I couldn't imagine anything more draconian than dismissing the best interests of the patient, medical ethics, and medical science so that a 'healthcare' worker can make a personal statement.
That's the trouble with government run hospitals - they're not allowed to discriminate. If all hospitals were private, they could simply advertise for the skills they needed, and if your religion prevents you from exercising skill X, don't bother applying.
It's not a problem at all. They have to give the job to the most qualified person who is capable of doing the work. If you can't do the work the position entales because of your religion that isn't discrimination. That's being unsuitable for that position and another candidate will be better placed. If you can do the work and are the best qualified but aren't given the position because of your religion that is discrimination.
Here is the story from a different perspective, with a link to the actual drafted proposal. It has many more implications than were earlier suggested, starting with Federal grant money.
It has been the policy of the Federal government, to allow private institutions, State and local governments, to not abide by many of their regulations. EEO is a good example. However, if the entity wishes to do business with the federal government, receive federal program funds (education, infrastructure, police, etc), or receive grant money, they must follow federal law. What this draft does, is it loosens federal law, so that neo-con religious groups can get federal money, even for denying birth control. I bet the public hearings will be interesting on this.
The only government run hospitals in the US are military, veteran's and those that serve Congress. All others are private.
Virtually every other hospital in the nation receives federal funds at some level. Whether Medicaid, Medicare or grant money. It could even be construed to mean private practices whose doctors received federal student loans.
This is really, really scary. If they succeed in banning the pill, all hell is going to break loose.
And you all sat here and wondered why I was against the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Here's another example of why government and religion simply don't mix.
Good God. I'm against both contraception and abortion, but I at least have enough sense to know that the two are different.
Call this Reason # 20549395020439 why I can't wait for Jan 20.
Where I see this being a major problem, is places like Oklahoma, Texas, etc. Their state legislatures have already adopted regressive christian-based laws. I could easily see them implementing these requirements in state, county and local hospitals, and clinics. I seriously doubt this would be adopted in WA State.