No Offense
ABC News’ Brian Hartman Reports: In what amounts to a final poke in the eye of groups that promote abortion rights, the Bush administration has issued a long-awaited rule that protects doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to provide services that offend them.
Democrat-allied groups like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League and Moveon.org have been railing against this "provider conscience" rule since it was first proposed this summer.
The rule requires any "entities" that receive federal funds to give their workers the freedom to recuse themselves from providing any services they find morally repugnant. It’s not just about abortion. This also gives health care workers and medical researchers the freedom to refuse to do anything they find offensive — like providing birth control, sterilizing patients or sharing family planning information.
The rule appears in the Federal Register tomorrow, just in time for it to kick in before Obama takes office. For democrats to unravel it will require either an act of Congress or a repeat of the lengthy rulemaking process.
In the notice for the rule, the administration writes this is necessary, in part, to address a critical shortage of doctors and nurses.
"The Department is concerned about the development of an environment in sectors of the health care field that is intolerant of individual objections to abortion or other individual religious beliefs or moral convictions. Such developments may discourage individuals from entering health care professions. Such developments also promote the mistaken belief that rights of conscience and self-determination extend to all persons, except health care providers," the notice says.
HHS officials insist the rule, while new, creates no new restrictions. They say it simply enforces laws already on the books.
The Federal Register notice says: "This rule implements federal laws protecting health care workers and institutions from being compelled to participate in, or from being discriminated against for refusal to participate in, health services or research activities that may violate their consciences, including abortion and sterilization, by entities that receive certain funding from the Department."
Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, which promotes reproductive health and education, calls this claim "disingenuous."
"In fact, by redefining key terms it vastly expands these laws’ reach," Camp wrote in a letter of protest she filed with HHS. "The regulation conflicts with and undermines a host of other federal and state laws and policies designed to help Americans obtain needed reproductive health information and services."
These criticisms are acknowledged in the text of the rule itself, but it downplays complaints that this will lead to more limited access to birth control.
"We have found no evidence that these regulations will create new barriers in accessing contraception unless those contraceptives are currently delivered over the religious or moral objections of the provider in such programs or research activities."
Even before this rule kicks into affect, President-elect Barack Obama’s Transition Team already is reviewing ways to, as National Abortion Rights Action League puts it, "fix the damage the Bush administration has done" to the democrats’ reproductive health agenda. The Wall Street Journal took a good look at the Obama team’s options yesterday.
And you can read the new rule for yourself right HERE.

Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
What if the health worker is “offended” by working with an Aids patient or someone with STD? Or maybe they don’t feel comfortable with a particular race.
Neo-cons never fail to reach new lows.
Posted by: JR | December 18, 2008, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
I guess this means that pharmacists can refuse to dispense prescriptions that offend them, too.
Bush loves making us even sorrier that he got elected governor or president. (Just when you thought he couldn’t do any more damage……)I wonder what other insults he will hurl at the American public. Oh yeah, I forgot–he can pardon some of his cronies.
Posted by: Debbie | December 18, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
This is a dangerous precedent that will extend far beyond the issue of abortion. Not good, not good.
Posted by: counting crows | December 18, 2008, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
What really irritates me about this from my personal life is that I had to take b/c pills from the time I was 13 due to horrible female problems and those pills were the only thing that helped me up until my recent surgery. So what would I have done if my pharmacist decided they were against it? Yes, I could go elsewhere, but who the hell should have the right to deny what was medically necessary for me? It’s a load of BS!!
Posted by: AnaB | December 18, 2008, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm
Abortion rights??? Thats not even funny! Call it what it is! MURDER!!!
Posted by: brannigon1 | December 18, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
This is not a moral issue.At best abortion allows for the non existance of human life.Try as they might those in the medical red light district and political death culture cannot get the visual of silent scream out of their heads.The backdrop of human history will show pro abortion puppets for what they are.Who is more insane?The insane,or those who uphold the insane?
Posted by: Reflect08 | December 18, 2008, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
Wake up people. There are late term abortions being done out there. Beautiful babies being killed. No one should be forced to perticipate in such horrible acts. Hitler had doctors doing “experiments” on people. Liberals want everyone and everything to be accepted EXCEPT for what religious people think and do.
Posted by: LS | December 18, 2008, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
The country was founded on the freedom to express our personal beliefs. I see nothing wrong with people in the health care field following their beliefs. Some choose not to murder an unborn child while others choose to murder them. Which doctor would you prefer, one who honors life or one who does not.
Posted by: Appalachian Artist | December 18, 2008, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
There is a time and place for discussion of saving fetuses.
That time is the day when every last unwanted, starving, orphaned or mentally or physically challenged child finds a loving home, enough food, a good education and a positive support environment.
Until then it means NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Posted by: Toby2957 | December 18, 2008, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
A doctor should not be forced to perform an abortion any more than a doctor should be forced to kill on of their neighbor’s children.
MURDER IS MURDER……whether you believe in God or not.
Posted by: Common Sense | December 18, 2008, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
Toby , I could not agree more.
see you at that one particular harbor
Posted by: parrothead | December 18, 2008, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
Bush is undermining a basic principle of being a careprovider: providing care WITHOUT JUDGMENT. Those of us trained in these arts know that a decent care provider does not choose his or her patients. We must provide compassionate compare to all!
Posted by: lovebugs720 | December 18, 2008, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
Can a person making a religious argument against abortion do so without calling names? It does a lot to foster intelligent conversation.
I have a question that doesn’t involve abortion. I’m bisexual. Does this mean my doctor can now refuse to be my doctor over it?
The world will celebrate when George W. Bush can do no more damage.
Posted by: TexasThinker | December 18, 2008, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
Yeah – that’s a great ruling – I’m all for it…..
Posted by: Carolyn | December 18, 2008, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Why is it that abortion opponents conveniently overlook the rest of the meaning of this abominable rule? I doubt that any medical practitioner who is opposed to performing abortion has been forced into doing such a procedure. I don’t think anyone is arguing that point. Should that right extend into not giving advice or a prescription for birth control? Should it extend to into giving a rape or incest victim the opportunity to take a morning-after pill? Do you who bandy about the word ‘murder” so freely consider these actions to be in the same category? If so, you are not in the mainstream and you are inflicting your moral judgments on the lives of others which is unacceptable in this society. If a medical practitioner cannot see fit to provide birth control or help someone who has been violated or abused, then I say that person lacks compassion and should forfeit the right to give care.
Posted by: herb greenebaum | December 18, 2008, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
I am so glad that this is such a pressing issue for GW. The economy is in the crapped, there are two wars waging with soldiers dying left and right. I am so glad that Bush finds this issue more important. Now I really now what his priorities are. I will be so glad when he is out of office.
Posted by: RUGGINS | December 18, 2008, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
People have all the “personal choice” they want. But when tax dollars enter into it, they will have to endure and accept the will of the voting public. If that offends anyone, then keep your private affairs PRIVATE !
Posted by: kip | December 18, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
democrat’s want accessories to murder…hey quess what…some people are against abortion and don’t want to participate! simple…so you just got a prez that supports abortion but that seems not enough now you want to drag everyone with.
Posted by: Noel | December 18, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
I don’t understand the outrage from the pro-choice crowd. Is it so hard to imagine that some providers who are NOT RELIGIOUS may choose not to perform abortions? The majority of abortions are elective procedures. Why does the concept of freedom of choice only apply to those who wish to obtain a particular procedure? Respect the fact that many people (including some physicians) find abortion to be morally repugnant. Morality does not require religion, and to force someone to perform an elective procedure that conflicts with his or her moral convictions is simply wrong. Some dangerous arguments are being made in these comments. Kip, the idea that people should “endure and accept” what the voting public wants is a contradiction to your position. Don’t forget that the voting public once found slavery and genocide to be acceptable in this country. Texas Thinker, think a bit harder please. Do you really believe a physician would refuse to treat you because you are bisexual? Physicians swear an oath to protect life. Destroying life and protecting it are two clearly distinct acts.
Posted by: Chris | December 18, 2008, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
Gloria, you do realize that it is the year 2008 and this law applies to the US, correct? I’m not sure where you live, but I live in a place where we have more than one doctor. I could be wrong, maybe you’re living in the old west, and you only have access to one doctor. Maybe her name is Dr. Quinn, medicine woman? Perhaps you pay her in livestock, or ammunition? If Dr. Quinn decides she won’t give you any birth control, maybe you should hitch a ride on the railroad to the next settlement, where you could perhaps find a more willing doctor. Unfortunately for me, I can’t find a doctor who makes house calls, so the RESPONSIBILITY FALLS ON ME TO FIND ONE I LIKE.
P.S. Say hi to Sully and Horace for me if you see them at the general store.
Posted by: Chris | December 18, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Abortion is killing a human being, no matter what people have let themselves believe. Why don’t you look around your own body and see for yourself that you are human, and therefore were once an embryo, and realize that if you are reading this, then you went through a stage in which you where an adorable, sweet-smelling, and very lovable baby. Now you are very grown-up and have a responsibity to other humans to protect them from harm. Peace to all and Good will toward men.
Posted by: newlifeinchrist2 | December 18, 2008, 7:35 pm 7:35 pm
So if a healthcare provider doesn’t want to treat you for any reason that’s ok? Bush is a total moron as are his loser supporters. No wonder the majority of americans reject Bush and his supporters. Worst President ever! Thank God Obama will reverse these moronic decisions Bush has made that have brought America down.
Posted by: AJ | December 18, 2008, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
Rightwingers want more babies born so they can die in your glorious wars. Rightwingers are such hyprocritical losers. Once a child is born Rightwingers could care less about them.
Posted by: AJ | December 18, 2008, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
If babies were born speaking, there would be no abortion.
Posted by: Angela | December 18, 2008, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm
I say if they refuse to take care of patients or dispense medication, fire them. There are lots of people out there looking for work right now. If they don’t want to do what they were hired for, they can quit and go to work for religious organization. Why must someone like Bush continually try and shove their religion down people’s throats.
Posted by: Dickie | December 18, 2008, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
Gosh, I guess as a librarian I will start exercising the right to choose only the books I want rather than consider our patrons. So out with those many religious books especially the one that starts with B. I feel that many of these books are immoral and have brought much bloodshed into the world.
Posted by: Debbie | December 18, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
Oh and I forgot to add could someone please explain why antiabortionists are never complaining about people being put to death in our penal system, even though many of them are innocent? Why can’t some of the energy of those right-to-life-if-you-aren’t-actually-born-yet-and-after-that-you-are-free-to-die-from-lack-of-health-care-etc supporters go to the care and protection of the living. Let me guess–they are often poor and maybe not cute.
Posted by: Debbie | December 18, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
What’s so bad about this? As a painting contractor, I refuse jobs because I don’t want to be associated with the project. I am sure others do similar thiings in their line of work, too. Why can’t doctors and nurses have the right to decline certain jobs? They aren’t discriminating against PEOPLE — or preaching morals.
Posted by: midasallen | December 18, 2008, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
What gets me about Obama’s abortion stance is that during one of the final debates he actually stated that sex is sacred. A sacred act. If he truly believes that, then how can the guy take the position that an unborn child created by that same sacred act is not itself sacred and deserving of love, care and protection? For the left-wing nuts out there posting about this Rule, I suggest you read the text of it before spouting off. No doctor should be forced to perform “medical services” which violate his or her personal conscience.
Posted by: Mike | December 18, 2008, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm
I love how the bible thumpers stand up on their moral high ground and keep throwing around the term “Pro-Abortion”. First of all, some people in this world believe that men and women should be allowed to choose based on their indivual circumstances, thus the correct term is “Pro-Choice”. Secondly, No Doctor has ever, nor will they ever be forced to perform an abortion on a patient. What is being overlooked, however intentionally, is the scope of this law, which goes far beyond abortion. This opens the door for any number descriminations to take place, for which any number of excuses can be thought up. That is not the future we should be working towards.
Posted by: Ryan A | December 19, 2008, 3:32 am 3:32 am
I wonder how they will draw the line on discrimination. For certain, this will be tested in court and it can get messy.
Posted by: Busby SEO Test Gary Viray | December 19, 2008, 4:06 am 4:06 am
What’s next, allowing doctors or ambulance attendants to refuse to treat jewish people, or blacks ? How about school teachers refusing to teach disabled kids ? Voting clerks refusing to allow women to vote ? Where does this stop ? When you sign up for a public service job, you agree to serve the public, all of them, not just those who happen to align with your personal beliefs.
Posted by: rod-the-farmer | December 19, 2008, 5:15 am 5:15 am
I have another idea. If you want to practise exclusionary medicine, put up a BIG sign on the outside of your building, telling just who is excluded. I am thinking of a golf club, with a sign saying “We don’t allow women to play here.” Or blacks.
Maybe your business card should say “I don’t treat people who are pro-choice on abortion, morning after pills, stem cell research, etc.”
Posted by: rod-the-farmer | December 19, 2008, 5:21 am 5:21 am
Can I work in a bar & keep my job legally by refusing to serve alcohol to patrons because it ‘offends’ my moral values? Hey, if you feel that your health service job really offends you, get a job you can morally feel at peace with. Nobody ‘likes’ or ‘loves’ abortion anymore than they do divorce, yet divorces are granted every day. Abortions & divorces are like teeth-pulling, sometimes necessary & always accompanied by pain, but necessary. Should a woman carrying a brainless fetus be ‘forced’to go through the entire pregnany to watch the helpless infant die in agony for 2 entire days after its born? Sometimes someone will need an abortion. Dont be so quick to play Doctor Big Brother. Don’t like abortions, don’t have one. Don’t like divorce, don’t get one, (& you may want 1 someday.
Posted by: Mairead | December 19, 2008, 5:30 am 5:30 am
The response to this clearly shows the liberal mentality… absolutely no regard for the beliefs of anybody but themselves. No doctor should have to go against their conscience to perform a procedure they feel is wrong. If you want a procedure they won’t give.. go find a different doctor. This is NOT about availability of service, it’s about liberals deciding that EVERYBODY has to believe the same things they do.
Posted by: howwouldiknow | December 19, 2008, 8:52 am 8:52 am
As if he hadn’t already cemented his legacy as the undeniably worst president ever… 31 days till the world breathes a sigh of relief and the infectious vermin in the white house is finally eradicated.
Posted by: JohnGaltWho | December 19, 2008, 8:56 am 8:56 am
The response to this clearly shows the anti-choice mentality… absolutely no regard for the beliefs of anybody but themselves. This is NOT about availability of service, it’s about anti-choice hypocrites deciding that EVERYBODY has to believe the same things they do. If a health care provider has moral objections to performing their job, then they need to get a different job. This rule simply allows discrimination.
Posted by: SearamblerOne | December 19, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am
Bush is an idiot and anybody who supports is a bigger idiot!!Lets eliminate birth control, abortion and sterilization, lets make as many kids as possible, because seriously, there aren’t enough unwanted and abused children in the world!! Is it better to go through life suffering and being unwanted and abused or never to be born?
The people who are against birth control and abortion are the first one to complain about people on welfare who keep popping out children!!
Posted by: Mr. M | December 19, 2008, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Hooray for this ruling! Dr’s shouldn’t be FORCED by law to participate in a medical procedure that goes against their moral principles. There are plenty of doctors that don’t have a problem with abortion or birth control. If you go to a doctor that won’t perform it – go somewhere else! This protects the freedoms of our medical providers and I stand behind it.
Posted by: GW | December 19, 2008, 11:12 am 11:12 am
Long past due. Doctors take an oath to protect life yet the pro-choice group would require them to perform abortions
irregardless of their personal beliefs.
Same would hold true of hospitals/clinics that are religious sponsored orginazations with religious bias to taking life. They would be required to perform abortions or provide
services on contraception that conflicts with their religious doctrine
or to risk losing all state/federal moneys and therefore being put out of
business. I do not believe there is
any shortage of facilities or qualified mmedical personell that are willing and
able to provide those services without
forcing unwilling people or businesses
into violating their own personal convictions to do it. What has, in the past, made this country so great is the fact that we all can live together without conflict even though we do not all think or believe alike. Many men and woment have given their lives so that we may agree to disagree.
Posted by: jon b. | December 19, 2008, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Let me turn things around, GW: Patients shouldn’t be FORCED by law to be tended to by a doctor who won’t give them the basic medical information they need to make an informed decision. For those doctors who have a problem with abortion and birth control — why not go work at a Catholic hospital, where it’s certain that no one will discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs? There are plenty of Catholic hospitals out there. If you’re a doctor and find yourself in a secular hospital — go somewhere else!
Posted by: CHOICE | December 19, 2008, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
CHOICE – As far as I knew, no one is FORCED to go to ANY doctor. If they don’t like the care their doctor gives them they have all the rights in this country to find ANOTHER doctor who will give them what they want. I think JON B. says it perfectly.
This doesn’t say anything about race or religion. This will NOT discriminate against PEOPLE. This only discriminates against MEDICAL PROCEDURES. And it only applies based upon the preference of the individual provider. There’s a difference here. Sometimes discrimation is a GOOD thing – and this is one of those times.
Posted by: GW | December 19, 2008, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Lovely… now we can’t even “force” docotrs to be doctors.
Hope they don’t get offended by, say, treating gay people, or women, or men, or people that have used drugs because it “offends” them. I’m tired of people getting pats on the head and dog cookies because they whine enough about being “offended” to get out of doing actual work.
Posted by: Mika | December 19, 2008, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
All of these hateful comments against this are a direct result of our “I want it, it’s mine, and I want it now” society or I’m going to claim DISCRIMINATION! It’s OK for me to demand what I want and I don’t care who has to go against their principles or beliefs in order for me to get what I want. What a SELFISH country we live in!
Posted by: GW | December 19, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
I’m a physician, and I fully support this ruling. How can liberals force me to violate my own faith and my own conscience? They are all for supporting “rights” except for those people who don’t agree with them. Hypocrites. What about my rights? This is akin to forcing the concentration camp guards to participate in genocide to protect the “rights” of the Nazis who found their victims offensive. Physicians have a moral obligation to stick up for those who are helpless and voiceless.
Posted by: VF | December 19, 2008, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
Its amusing that those who push freedom of choice for some, can so eagerly try to deny it for others.
Posted by: Bill V. | December 19, 2008, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
If abortion was illegal like it is supposed to be, we wouldn’t have to worry about this ridiculousness.
Posted by: Smack | December 19, 2008, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
It would be great if Obama’s first rule or Presidental Finding or resolution or whatever you want to call it was “Every rule appointed by GWBush is now null and void”
What happens to the women who are being denied medical care, what if the location is rural and there are no other choices in doctors or pharmacies? The new rule could have at least said that the medical professional must attempt to get the patient a new doctor who will take care of them.
Posted by: Mel | December 19, 2008, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
One more thing… If a woman chooses life because I won’t participate in an abortion, then I’ve done them a great service. What greater joy is there in this world than a child? Who would ever wish that their son or daughter had never been born?
Posted by: VF | December 19, 2008, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
If pro-lifers would accept the reality that abortion is legal and (in some cases) necessary, we wouldn’t have to worry about this ridiculousness.
Posted by: Mel | December 19, 2008, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
VF – I was going along with your first post until you said it was moral obligation to protect the innocent. And your second post – YOU have done them a great service?
When did medical providers get to start making moral choices for me?
Posted by: Mel | December 19, 2008, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
Mel, Not being complicit with a patient’s poor decision is not the same as making a moral decision for them. If I refuse to help you knock off a liquor store, am I making a moral choice for you? I frequently encourage my patients to quit smoking, especially parents so as not to expose their kids (or me!) to second hand smoke… I certainly wouldn’t buy cigarettes for them. Am I making a moral choice for them?
Posted by: VF | December 19, 2008, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
It is obvious that many can not make the correct moral choices and for those of us who can, we’ll make them for you.
Posted by: Smack | December 19, 2008, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Thousands of already living children all over the world died last night due to easily curable disease and hunger, yet what have you done to help them- or do they not matter because they are already alive in another country – be it a horrible existence. Those who disagree with abortion need to remember He is the only one who is supposed to be the judge-not us. Honestly, do you believe if Jesus were alive now would he respond as many do? The fact is on some level there has to be a separation of church and state- which is tricky due to a majority of our laws being Bible-based. King Solomon threatened to cut a living baby in half in front of two arguing women- if he had he would have murdered new life outside the womb. Religious individuals: should this not bother you that Solomon- named the wisest ruler would have killed the baby- or is it irrelevant because he did not actually go through with slicing the child in half? Methods of birth control have existed since the early civilizations of Egypt- perhaps even before. The mainstream media and a majority of Americans believe in a right of choice. Pro- life supporters make up a small minority. The majority of Doctor’s nurses ect. will hand out birth control, sterilize and abort. That being said- if a health care provider wants to forgo money for ethical/moral convictions let them- it is a free country. If you live in a part of the country which is extremely conservative – move – you should not have to but relocating is an option.
One thing to remember- those who object to abortion(murder)it is your free choice- however; do not push your morals in others faces. If you want respect – respect others and vice versa. You do not have to accept but you should tolerate and I’m not just specifically meaning abortion. The reality is if abortion was overturned- women would be performing the abortions on themselves with coat hangers or going to Mexico. Also, your taxes would dramatically sky rocket due to payment of welfare and wic for struggling mothers. In some states your property taxes would increase because the schools would be over flowing and property taxes pay for public schools. As another poster stated: some pro-life supporters rail against abortion but complaints occur regarding welfare and white trash parents and children. Also, parents of the year do not abort- abortions occur for a reason.
Posted by: Rachel | December 19, 2008, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
Kill all the babies is the attitude the killers want fortheir sick cause, way to go Bush!
Posted by: libssuck1 | December 19, 2008, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
This rule is not for abortions, rather it is for healthcare professionals who view any kind of birth control, steralization or abortion to be against their personal beliefs.
Posted by: Joe | December 19, 2008, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
Hmmm, maybe if I switch handles, then maybe my posts won’t evaporate around here?
Anyway, I don’t see how the State can force doctors to perform abortions if they choose not to. That would be rather like forcing priests to give absolution to avowed atheists.
Posted by: Grand Old Party | December 19, 2008, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
I really hope I do not run into a doctor or medical provider like VF. He/She may refuse to treat me because I take B/C when all I have is a broken arm. Or will it be because I am a black woman and I offend his or her “morals?” Please, anyone who says that this will not be a rule that allows doctors to discriminate for any reason is delusional! They are already discriminating against a group of people…people who have a choice. VF…there are a lot of “parents” who wish their child had never been born. Those are the ones who abuse, neglect and ultimately kill their children. Figure out how to solve those issues before you go telling someone else how to feel.
Posted by: My Body My Choice | December 19, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
Noone should have to perform these procedures if they don’t believe in them. I am so sick of hearing people say they should have a choice in abortions. People do have a choice, THEY CHOSE TO LAY DOWN AND HAVE SEX! That was their choice, they knew the chances and they did it anyway. You should not have a choice to kill an unborn baby. I DO NOT want to see abortions become illegal, I believe women who were raped or were a victim of incest should have a CHOICE as their CHOICE was taken from them. But for these women who lay down and have sex, you made your choice and abortion shouldn’t be one of them.
Posted by: NO CHOICE FOR CONSENTUAL SEX | December 19, 2008, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
Perhaps I have missed a comment on this already but what about when abortion was illegal–but the wealthy could get them, the poor couldn’t….is this really what we want to return to.
Posted by: Debbie | December 19, 2008, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
If a doctor perform an abortion, and the husband was against it, he can sue the doctor.So why should the doctor do something that would be not ok with the husbend or boyfriend , or even the grand parents?
Posted by: Joe | December 19, 2008, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
GW: “Sometimes discrimation is a GOOD thing – and this is one of those times.”
Wow…if that isn’t the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.
Posted by: Ryan A | December 19, 2008, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm
I have been a nurse in women’s health for years, and then went to medical school and had rotations in OB/GYN among other rotations. At no time did anyone pressure or coerce me into performing, seeing, associating with or assisting with an abortion. That just doesn’t happen. This law is intended to “protect” people who knowingly get a job at an abortion clinic and then refuse to do the job they were hired to do, by making it illegal to fire them. It also lumps birth control in with “forms of abortion” and will make it more difficult for Medicaid patients to get birth control or sterilization. Is that really whet we need? More welfare mothers having unwanted babies? Rape victims not being given emergency contraception because it violates someone else’s beliefs? What if you have a medical condition that would contraindicate pregnancy, but you still want to have sex with your spouse? Should some pharmacist be able to refuse to sell you birth control because he thinks you shouldn’t have sex with your spouse unless you want to conceive? Say the pharmacist works at a women’s health center pharmacy which only sells birth control but he still refused…don’t you think he should be fired and he should go get a job at a pharmacy that doesn’t sell birth control?
Posted by: mallory | December 19, 2008, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
VF – Casey Anthony wished her child hadn’t been born. Susan Smith wished her children hadn’t been born. Andrea Yates….etc. etc.
Posted by: one more thing | December 19, 2008, 11:09 pm 11:09 pm
Now a doctor or pharmasist who doesn’t believe in anti-cancer drugs can stop giving them because it’s against their religion. What a can of worms we may all regret, but thats OK, as Scrooge said, “If they’d rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.”
Posted by: mike | December 19, 2008, 11:55 pm 11:55 pm
1. “I want my rights so you can’t have yours” is getting old. Both sides.
2. Doctors can and DO refuse to treat people, for a variety of reasons. It happens all the time. “I don’t take your insurance, or you’re too sick, or you question me too much…” Go to another one. It’s that simple.
3. Doctors and nurses, and pharmacists, who take jobs in specific areas of a business (if it has a business office, it’s a business) that performs procedures, or provides services that they find repulsive are fools or worse. If you’re anti-abortion and you find yourself in a workplace where you’re told you have to help perform abortions because that’s what you were hired to do, you didn’t read the job description. If you’re there to “change things from the inside” and show people the Light, you’re on a fool’s errand. Refuse to do your job, be gone. The reality is, a way will be found to get rid of you. That’s the way it works.
4. The smallest town has two pharmacies, or you can get mail order.
5. I’ve adopted an “unwanted” child. Have you? If not, you’re not “part of the solution” in reducing abortion rates and helping save the born, and so shouldn’t be trying to force what you consider right on others. I’m glad my child’s birth mother chose not to abort, and as a HC worker I WOULD NOT assist in an abortion, but I don’t presume to take that right away from anyone else.
Posted by: Laughing Cynic | December 20, 2008, 7:53 am 7:53 am
ok. does this mean that every doctor, every hospital, every pharmacy needs to spell out what they will or won’t do? i would prefer knowing what a hospital, doctor,or pharmacy will or will not do prior to going through the time and expense seeing them only to find out they would not prescribe or dispense birth control pills, or won’t refer someone for a vascetomy, or won’t prescribe something for a mental illness because they don’t believe in mental illness….remember tom cruise?
Posted by: Clyde | December 20, 2008, 8:05 am 8:05 am
While the focus of this ruling appears to be a woman’s choice of abortion vs. a medical provider’s alleged moral/religious beliefs, much more is at stake than abortion rights. At stake is that a medical provider, including pharmacists, may refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for recognized safe methods of birth control, including the “morning after” pill on their personal alleged moral/religious beliefs. This is unconscionable! Contrary to popular belief among the anti-choice proponents, I don’t believe any woman seeks an abortion on a whim. Meanwhile, every child deserves to be a wanted child and to seek to exert government control over the availability of recognized safe methods
of prescription birth control to women is reprehensible and unconstitutional.
Also, what most people don’t realize, is that from the time G.W. Bush first sat behind the desk in the Oval Office, hhis administration mandated that the only sex education permitted to be taught in school receiving federal funds is abstinence only. As a result, the U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the industrialized world and one of the highest rates of STDs in the industrialized world!
Posted by: nanameow | December 20, 2008, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Here’s a quick and easy way to get rid of this rule: all female health providers should decide that they find Viagra, and the dirty old men who want it, “morally offensive.” After all, if some deity wanted the old leches to have erections, they’d be able to have them! And the image of horny old lechers is not appealing to most people.
Then watch the backpedaling start. All it would take is for men to be denied some element of reproductive health care that they cherish.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush.
Posted by: slavicdiva | December 20, 2008, 11:42 am 11:42 am
So, health care providers that have moral objections to blood transfusions can not only deny them, but refuse to even mention the possibility, to trauma patients, surgical patients, or anyone else who might benefit from blood products?
Great! We need more rules like this!!
Posted by: John Madden | December 20, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
It’s not about just abortion, though that seems to be the focus. It’s about all medical options that people might deem objectionable. It’s for pharmacists, doctors, nurses, orderlies, hospital administrators.
Abortion
Birth control pills
Morning After pills
Vasectomies
Hysterectomies
Ovary removal
Blood transfusion
Mental health medications
Transplants
Stem Cell treatments
Artificial heart implantations
And whatever else someone who knows nothing of your health issues or morality deems inappropriate for you. And no, there’s no requirement to tell you ahead of time what you’re being denied.
Posted by: David | December 20, 2008, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
Again, the reality is that a health care provider whose beliefs don’t allow blood transfusions FOR OTHERS (it’s fine to adhere to that for yourself and yours) probably wouldn’t be working in a trauma or surgical setting. If they were that dumb (or that set on Witnessing, whatever), co-workers would likely nail them in a heartbeat. You cause a death through something like that, everyone goes down. Lawsuit city, and no law or regulation is going to protect someone in that situation, not to letting you DENY (refuse to allow anyone else to provide) someone health care based on your religious beliefs. No health care worker works alone in those settings.
They step aside if they can’t do a specific task, and others pick up.
Posted by: Laughing Cynic | December 20, 2008, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
No one should be forced to do something they feel is morally wrong. This is a FREE country people. If you fire the pharmacist for not giving out the morning after pill, then who is going to give out prescriptions? Don’t shoot yourself in the foot society.
Posted by: Toby | December 20, 2008, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
just go to one of the many dr.s who will provide the service. it’s extremely selfish to force someone to do something that goes against their beliefs when there are so many others who will do it with no objections!
Posted by: jenny | December 20, 2008, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
noel talks a good game…
but you wouldn’t find noel adopting a child to save its life.
ha,ha,ha.
Posted by: 7pesos | December 20, 2008, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
I don’t think this article is written accurately. It’s not refusing to provide services that “offend” or are “repugnant” to health care providers, but services that go against their conscience or religious beliefs.
I’m really disappointed at the language of this article and how poorly it is written. It shouts BIAS like no other.
Posted by: jk | December 20, 2008, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
Again pro-choice are called murderers. So I can call Anti-choice people (pro-rapist and pro-incesteous child rapist) and then again all of you would want your 11 or 12 year old daughter to give birth after being raped then give the rapist parental rights, because it’s OK. Then of course everyone of the ‘pro-choice” people are foster or adoptive parents, but you better not be gay!!!
Posted by: mike | December 20, 2008, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm
in Catholic ruled countries women are dying from ectopic pregnancies as medical professionals are so fearful of being jailed.
over 150,000 children find themselves in foster care and up for adoption in the US. I see very few “qualified” Christians adopting, but feel free to preach against abortion.They spend tons on fertility treatments on themselves, maybe God doesn’t feel you deserve a baby.
B/C is used as a way to treat endometreosis and hormonal imbalances. like girls who start puberty too early for one…
Doctors take an oath, not really a moral oath, all life is sacred unless you are a woman whose life is at risk during pregnancy.
i know of a 2 year period where 3 women died just after giving birth or in a few months after, this was in northern NH. Some women like those with AIDS or out of whim of the mystery of pregnancy may develop a clotting problem and become very anemic or die, bleeding to death.
again there was statistic that came out this year…
1.2 million abortions
1.5 million miscarriages…shall we now go after miscarriages as murder as our bodies obviously could not carry that life to term???
Posted by: Cherie | December 21, 2008, 12:32 am 12:32 am
To VF: Who would ever wish their child had never been born? I’ll tell you who: those who leave their kid(s) in locked cars (sometimes on hot days AND with the motor running) while they go do their “thing” (whatever that is), those who sexually abuse them, those whose boyfriends kill them, sometimes with their help (yes, it does happen), those who kill them (or try to kill them) because he/she is “ruining” their lives, those who have them and then don’t even do what they’re supposed to do as parents, and those who have them and actually tell them, “I wish you’d never been born!” I can’t call these people who believe that children are a joy–and they prove it by their horrendous actions. That, plus the fact that conservatives such as yourself vote against legislation that directly benefit the lives of kids–that is, those who are already here– and that you and your ilk put down your “Don’t kill your children!” signs and take off once the babies are born, proves what we already know: your “pro-life” mantra has become nothing more than a commercial slogan. That’s why none of us take your so-called claims seriously, because “pro-life” and “right to life” are just words–and you’ve done a good job of proving it.
Posted by: Veronica | December 21, 2008, 12:37 am 12:37 am
“Bush is undermining a basic principle of being a careprovider: providing care WITHOUT JUDGMENT. Those of us trained in these arts know that a decent care provider does not choose his or her patients. We must provide compassionate compare to all!”
That’s just it though LoveBug. Is it compassionate care.Some are being forced to provide what they believe is not compassionate.
Posted by: Joel | December 21, 2008, 5:04 am 5:04 am
Well, if you’ve indulged in any of the seven deadly sins, you’re history:
1) Lust (includes; hormonal adolescents, hormonal adults, viagra-popping seniors)
2) Gluttony (fat people)
3) Greed (Overpaid CEO’s, people with stock investments, 401Ks, bank accounts, big houses, big cars, etc., etc.)
4) Sloth (Anyone having a bad-hair day, I guess)
5) Wrath (Soldiers and pretty much anyone who works in Defense)
6) Envy (Where do I begin?)
7) Pride (A double whammy for those CEO’s again, plus sports team supporters and old guys with hair transplants, botox or liposuction. Maybe we can include smug, “in-your-face” Christians too?).
Ned Flanders should be fine. But maybe a bit lonely? :)
Posted by: Scotty | December 21, 2008, 10:35 am 10:35 am
VF – A license to practice medicine does not turn a banker into a doctor. You are no doctor. Please do humanity a favor and find another line of work. Did you know that there are exciting possibilities processing medical insurance claims? Hell, you could probably do just as much harm denying necessary medical treatment as you appear to be doing in your current “occupation”. You swore the Hippocratic Oath. If you are unable or unwilling to perform your duties as specified therein, you are not a doctor. You don’t even get to play one on TV. Go play golf somewhere and leave medicine to the professionals.
Posted by: kidkline | December 21, 2008, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
HEY! Where are the BABY’S RIGHTS?
Posted by: Anna | December 21, 2008, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
hey the anti abortion docs are all right wing nut jobs anyway…according to most of these posts you liberals DISPISE and LOATH THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE…SO WHATS THE BIG DEAL. they will stay away from all your abortion mills … you can abort all you want with your LIBERAL doctors and have a nut!!!
Posted by: Tim | December 21, 2008, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
kill kill kill kill and everyone has to join or its not fair
Posted by: Tim | December 21, 2008, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
What amuses me about all you “religious” people who oppose abortion rights is you are also the first to promote the death penalty and war with other nations. Perhaps you should consider being less hypocritical. Or maybe more honest. Just say what you are all really thinking… “Women just can’t make decisions for their own bodies and need to be kept subjugated to their male masters”. At least I could respect you all.
Posted by: Christine | December 21, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
“Women just can’t make decisions for their own bodies and need to be kept subjugated to their male masters”. At least I could respect you all. NEVER MENTIONING THEIR IS ANOTHER PERSON INVOLVED,,,,HUM… maybe a baby…do ya think….. ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT YOURSELF,,,ME ME ME
Posted by: Tim | December 21, 2008, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
“Women just can’t make decisions for their own bodies and need to be kept subjugated to their male masters”. At least I could respect you all. NEVER MENTIONING THEIR IS ANOTHER PERSON INVOLVED,,,,HUM… maybe a baby…do ya think….. ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT YOURSELF,,,ME ME ME
Posted by: Tim | December 21, 2008, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Stuff like this is the reason his approval is so low; he’s off the base. Tho I disaprove of his job performance, I don’t hate him. Neverhteless, hello everyone, abortion is legal . . . .
Posted by: Old_Blood_N_Guts | December 21, 2008, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm
Wow, one policy I finally agree with….as a worker in the health field, I am finally given legal protection to serve genuinely. Up until now, abortion counseling, or other issues that I find morally wrong, I have had to offer for fear of prosecution. I know….this will probably offend some, but don’t lecture about women’s right to choose, because as a fellow women, I wouldn’t sentence another women to often a lifetime of regret or worse…..much of what I have seen in my 25 year career.
Posted by: taxed too | December 21, 2008, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
Get over yourselves, Abortionists. You can not and will never be able to force me to commit an abortion. This is nothing more than a law designed to protect me from your desires of convenience.
Posted by: Maxify55 | December 22, 2008, 3:18 am 3:18 am
taxed too: your imagined impression you mean.
There are christian groups who like to fear monger women into believing they will have mental problems by having an abortion. i say shame on anyone who pushes that on any woman. what she does is between her and her doctor and God is her judge NOT you. They even made up a statistic not taking in account (or ignoring on purpose) that a large margin of their study group already had mental illness and drug problems before choosing to have an abortion.
people act like this is such an easy choice to make.. shame on you.
adopt children and zip it.
Posted by: Cherie | December 22, 2008, 3:29 am 3:29 am
to the doctors and other supposed health professionals: why don’t you go to a country where abortion IS illegal and see what it does do to women and children. or better yet go to Russia where many women go through the procedure w/o general anesthesia.
that way you DON’T have to preform what you don’t believe in.
are you gonna turn away a women who has miscarried because you would have to preform a D & C? its technically and abortion only the fetus is no longer viable and this is necessary to prevent infection or other complications in the future.
if you refuse treatment based on moral grounds only you should be fired and banned from practicing ever again.
Posted by: Cherie | December 22, 2008, 3:37 am 3:37 am
Why is it that abortion rights groups and “gays” aren’t happy unless their complaining about something! They’re like a bunch of old nags! Enough already!!!
Posted by: brannigon1 | December 22, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am
I love the peace loving “pro-Life” people who bomb places that don’t toe the line. Shoot the people that disagree with them. Oh yah I forgot we are killing people so they don’t do it here.
But of course don’t disagree because you are a murdering gay person that as far as I know the bible that they preach to save lives does say love your neighbor as yourself and turn the other cheek!! But yes that book can be turned into a book of hate by anyone, but Christ only preached love for EVERYONE and did not single ANY group out not even those who nailed him to that cross! I am wrong because everyone girl that is old enough to convcieve should be pregnant no matter who makes them that way!!!!
Be careful what you wish for!!! That doctor may not like the color of your skin next because it is morally wrong to have mixed marriages!!
Posted by: mike | December 22, 2008, 9:32 am 9:32 am
As a registered nurse, I am glad that Pres. Bush has issued this. I wanted to go into Labor and Delivery as a graduate nurse and because I did not want to assist with abortions, I was not allowed to work in L&D. The hippocratic oath that physicians take says “First do no harm”. That means to the momo or her fetus which in latin means “little person”. I am sure that the Jews in Hitler’s death camps that were FORCED to undergo sterilization, and medical procedures wished that the medical professionals that did those procedures to them, had stood up and said “No I will not do this.” This topic is so emotional, but if you think it through logically, how is destroying life good for a society?
Posted by: Patti | December 22, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
…and just one more thought: Don’t I also have the right to choose not to assist with abortions? Our society has become so engrossed in “I have a right to…whatever”. So then don’t I have the right to choose life and not death? Yet I was discriminated against because what I chose did not agree with their policy. Isn’t that wrong too?
Posted by: Patti | December 22, 2008, 10:44 am 10:44 am
NEVER MENTIONING THEIR IS ANOTHER PERSON INVOLVED,,,,HUM… maybe a baby…do ya think….. ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT YOURSELF,,,ME ME ME
Actually Tim, an abortion would not be a choice I would personally make. I just simply think our government should stay out of our personal lives. This is a deeply personal choice and no offense, but one a man should not be making for us.
Also, you should have used the spelling “there” instead of “their”. Please endeavor to be more accurate.
Posted by: christine | December 22, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am
Go Bush, go. It’s about time you put some heat on the left and help some other than them to have their rights.
Posted by: Reba | December 22, 2008, 10:59 am 10:59 am
I can’t wait for that idiot Bush to get out of the White House. Of course the lowlife took away more women’s rights! This isn’t about abortion – it’s about women’s rights. He sure hates women. Good ridance to him.
Posted by: Susan | December 22, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
If a doctor/nurse/provider/pharmacist does not want to find himself/herself in the position to advise, refer, dispense or provide a woman with medication, emergency contraception or abortion, then he/she should not be in the field of women’s health.
Woman’s medical issues encompass birth control, emergency contraception, abortion, assisted fertility, treatment of STDs, hormone therapy among other standard diagnostic and surgical procedures. These issues are an integral part of gynecologecal practice. Woman go to a doctor for complete and sound care and advice. Refusing to address the medical issues in your own field, when those issues are perfectly legal, based on your morals which may be different from the legal standard is unacceptable.
If this absurd law is put into practice, then at the very least, anyone refusing women sound medical advice should be forced to inform their patients of their positions at the time of making an appointment.
Posted by: Susanne | December 22, 2008, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
“And the morals that they worship will be gone.” Abortion seems like a personal issue. I can understand both sides. If a doctor doesn’t want to perform an abortion, he shouldn’t, nor should he be forced to. No big deal. Find another doctor. Same with Planned Parenthood – surely they don’t hire people against abortion? Do they? Sounds like much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Jim | December 22, 2008, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
Yeah, Bush is protecting the rights of unborn babies, so he can send them off to war to die in a war he started by lying to us.
Posted by: mulder | December 22, 2008, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
To VF,
Encourageing your patients to stop smoking is fine. To refuse to treat them because they are smokers, and you don’t like smokers, is not!
Posted by: mulder | December 22, 2008, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
I am a 30 yr. old professional female with an IUD, which is an abortive form of birth control and is a fabulous way to assure no children without taking dangerous drugs. I WORK, I have a career that means so much to me, I am married to a wonderful man who also does not want children. If a doctor, or his staff, choose to not treat me it better be stated UP-FRONT before they take my money for an office visit or I will sue their pants of for theft.
Don’t want to treat women for our birth control choices then you better not take our money. You people who support this law sicken me. Perhaps I should go get a job at a meat packing plant then refuse to do my job because of my “conscience” or how about our soldiers, they are not allowed to refuse to do their job.
Just one more reason the xians lose more and more members every year.
Posted by: Dawn | December 26, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm