Between Abortion and Religion, This Should be an Interesting Thread…

Ending abortion conscience rule?

According to this article, the Obama administration is taking steps to rescind the abortion conscience rule that Bush put into place. What do you think about this issue?

Does a woman's right to care trump a doctor's freedom of religion?

Is this a proper way to enforce such freedom?

Should the rule be clarified instead of rescinded?

Ugh.  Here we go again.

lets not do this again...people will NEVER suddenly say "oh, I get it now and will from this point on, think as you do." ain't gonna happen

Dead horse, meet thread. Thread, dead horse.

Original Post by simwaves1:

Does a woman's right to care trump a doctor's freedom of religion?

Depends on what the doctor agreed to when they accepted employement at any particular institution.  I would think it could be effectively handled at the employer level by terms of employment agreements.

That being said, I still agree with the decision.

I guess I can't agree or disagree at this point.  The whole article is confusing to me.  What exactly did Bush's policy entail?  Was it protecting doctors who refused to do abortions or prescribe birth control?  Or was it going after other doctors who put pressure on the ones who refused?  The article is a bit unclear....

I think I'll lurk on this one.......although I'm really curious to see what people say

oh, come on.  if a doctor doesn't want to perform abortions, there are plenty of specialties where that will never be an issue.  be a frakkin' dermatologist.  shut up.

Original Post by peaches0405:

I guess I can't agree or disagree at this point.  The whole article is confusing to me.  What exactly did Bush's policy entail?  Was it protecting doctors who refused to do abortions or prescribe birth control?  Or was it going after other doctors who put pressure on the ones who refused?  The article is a bit unclear....

my read is that it allowed the gov't to revoke funding from service providers that expect doctors to perform abortions against their own conscience.  you know, all those poor oppressed pro-life gynecologists. 

I agree with the part that says if a doctor(or nurse) does not want to give an abortion they don't have too. But there where other thing's attached to it that need to be gotten rid. The part that most everyone focuses on, the docotor being  able to decline giving an abortion will probably come again, but this time the other parts will most likely be left off.

Original Post by lostincyberspace:

I agree with the part that says if a doctor(or nurse) does not want to give an abortion they don't have too. But there where other thing's attached to it that need to be gotten rid. The part that most everyone focuses on, the docotor being  able to decline giving an abortion will probably come again, but this time the other parts will most likely be left off.

 What were the other parts?

Okay, so I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, or convince people they are wrong or anything. I just think that the lounge threads have been kinda boring lately. I thought this might excite some interest again.

My understanding is that § 300d of the U.S. code already protects doctors who don't want to perform abortions. The rule that was set in place by our former president was made in order to enforce this law. It basically hangs a threat of pulling funding from hospitals who attempt any kind of punitive action against a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion on moral grounds.

But, what has it really accomplished? To my knowledge, doctors aren't experiencing a violation of their freedom of religion on a regular basis. It doesn't seem like this action of enforcement will really help that many doctors. If that is the case, then the only pragmatic effect of this rule is to remove funding from organizations who perform abortions.

The end game of reducing abortions seems to win out in this type of scenario, but at the expense of not only women's health, but others who may have received treatment from institutions who may have their funding taken from them.

Given that the article never mentions abortion by itself, but instead always says abortion-related services, I can't help but wonder if this is directed more at the morning after pill.

From what I can remember, doctors are not forced to learn abortion procedures in medical school.  So I can't imagine doctors being forced to do procedures that they know nothing about.  Could you imagine proctologists being forced to do heart surgery?

However, what has been happening is that there are doctors and pharmacologists who are refusing to give referals to abortion providers and/or information about abortion, but also refusing to give people the morning after pill and/or birth control.

Some folks might think that this is no big deal because people could just go to another doctor or pharmacy, but what if your insurance doesn't allow for that.  What if you don't live in a large city and don't have many options, or live in a rural area where there really isn't any other options.  And with stuff like birth control and especially emergency contractives time is of the essence.

Should we also let Scientologists who are pharmacists and doctors to refuse to give patients anti-depressants since it's against their religious beliefs too?  Where does it stop?

As I recall the bill enabled doctors to withhold birth control prescriptions, birth control INFORMATION, as well as the morning after pill, abortion etc.

In fact, I don't think the bill specified what activities were covered under morals.

If you're working as a doctor you should be doing your job. If you're working as a pharmacist you should be providing the morning after pill regardless of your own morals.

Should a vegan working in a supermarket be able to refuse to sell meat?

Original Post by lilad:
Should a vegan working in a supermarket be able to refuse to sell meat?

Thanks for bringing it back to a CC topic!

I'll go elsewhere for religion and politics, thanks.

Original Post by beaglated:

Thanks for bringing it back to a CC topic!

I'll go elsewhere for religion and politics, thanks.

This is the Lounge. We can talk about anything we want here.

@ class_matters - I think your point is well made. There aren't a lot of distinctions that I am aware of that define the line at which a persons religious rights are no longer valid. American Indians can't smoke peyote. Jewish priests can no longer perform animal sacrifices. Sikhs aren't allowed to wear their Kirpan in public (unless they live in Ohio or New York). Mormons aren't allowed to practice polygamy (sorry, dnrothx. I couldn't help it.)

Our religious freedom is obviously limited, but where do we draw the line. If a doctor believes that abortion is murder (plan B for example), I certainly do not expect him to be required to offer that as an option for his patients; however, he should be required to refer them to someone who will.

Makes sense. Admit I wondered about the article as well. Submit that a vegan probably wouldn't work at the butcher counter, but you never know.

Interesting position you have Sims. I think you are right and the real reason for the rule was to reduce the number of abortions. I can't imagine any doctor getting the shaft for following his or her conscience, but I guess you never know that either.

Will need to read up on this.

Speaking from a country where abortions are as easy to get as a latte no doctor/nurse (to assist) is legally bound to give an abortion if their religion is against it or they just don't agree with it, but there are plenty who are willing to perform it so there is no worries that it wouldn't be got.

Original Post by simwaves1:

Our religious freedom is obviously limited, but where do we draw the line. If a doctor believes that abortion is murder (plan B for example), I certainly do not expect him to be required to offer that as an option for his patients; however, he should be required to refer them to someone who will.

But the doctor should be required to tell the patient about the options available and THEN if they aren't comfortable being the provider of those options they should refer the patient to someone who will. 

But I'm with PG. If you don't want to write prescriptions for birth control or the morning-after pill, become a different doctor if it goes against your religious beliefs that much. 

Requiring a doctor who doesn't believe in abortion to refer a woman who wants an abortion to another doctor that will do it....  wouldn't that be like requiring a PETA member who owns a clothing store to refer customers that want fur coats to the store that sells them?   After all...fur isn't illegal, and it's a singular person's choice as to whether or not to wear fur.  That clothing specialist should HAVE to tell me where I can buy one if I want it, right?   If you take away the human emotional factor, it's basically the same thing.

I just can't see where the doctor can be held liable for not supporting abortion if he doesn't believe in it.   Why does it become his fault that the woman became pregnant to begin with?   The doctor that doesn't believe in birth control or abortion can still give advice according to his belief...I think it's got something to do with abstinence.

Original Post by charleet:

Requiring a doctor who doesn't believe in abortion to refer a woman who wants an abortion to another doctor that will do it....  wouldn't that be like requiring a PETA member who owns a clothing store to refer customers that want fur coats to the store that sells them?

No, it would be like requiring doctors to do their jobs and attend to their patient's needs instead of treating their patients like nameless baby containers.

And nobody on Earth "doesnt believe in abortion." Its a matter of whether women who want abortions are treated like competent adults capable of making informed decisions or ignored and told "no, you dont really want that."