THIS MAKES ME SO MAD!

Email Print posted by AnaKasparian 07/17/2008 09:21:54 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Bush Administration Continues to Comply With Religious Right. Why is Anyone Suprised?

I wish I could just copy and past my blog...but AOL doesn't let me. So just click here to read.
< McCain's Age | Here Comes Slick Willy oh Snap... >
 Display:
THIS MAKES ME SO MAD! | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden)
Good blog Ana! (none / 0)
I agree with you and it SHOULD piss everyone off. 

Spaking of which, I left a comment over there that will probably piss off the resident conservatives (i.e. 80% of AOL commenters), but only because it's true and points out their hypocrisy.

by ihavenobias on 07/17/2008 09:41:27 PM EST

TOM! (none / 0)
I can always depend on you to defend me. You're the best : )

Ana

by AnaKasparian on 07/17/2008 09:44:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks Ana (none / 0)
But I'm not defending you, just praising you for a good blog!

PS---Those A(ssh)OL(es) will come out of the woodworker over there and leave their normal, obnoxious comments. Ignore them.

by ihavenobias on 07/17/2008 10:41:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not Such a Black and White Issue (none / 0)
Ana , read your blog and I can understand your frustration. I'm ambivalent about this regulation, and here's why. In my professional life, I have helped a lot of women have safe elective abortions and medically indicated abortions over the years, and I don't have a problem with it. But I have had co-workers who found these procedures morally reprehensible and I respect their views, as I as then to try to do for mine. They usually decline to care for a patient undergoing a termination procedure, and those of us who are OK with it, just take over that patient's care. 
 
Hospitals have more than one pharmacist on staff, and there is enough variety in opinion among nurses and physicians in any given community that I've never seen a problem, even in the buckle of the Bible belt where I live. Catholic medical institutions will not allow abortions to take place on their premises, so it's not as if this is a new issue.
 
Of course we have protesters at the local abortion clinic in our town, but there have also been some productive common-ground meetings between the local medical providers and the protesters. And believe it or not, there has been some headway made in our community on respecting each other's views - so anything's possible if people work hard enough toward an accomodation.
 
The problem comes when there are no other providers in the area. I understand the idea that if someone is willing to take a woman's Medicaid card to pay for her medications, then morning after pills or an abortifacent should be dispensed if her physician or nurse practicioner orders them.
 
But what if you were the pharmacist and you honestly believed you were commiting an immoral act by providing the means of terminating what you considered to be a sacred human life? You or I may not feel that way, but is it right to demand that someone violate their moral code? I don't know the answer yet. But I feel unwilling to force someone to do what he or she honestly feels isn't moral or ethical.
 
It's a gray area for sure. Part of the problem with religious concerns in this day and age is that Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, among others, have politicized religion so greatly, that we tend to confuse religious bigots with normal people who may be very much to the Left and who also hold deep spiritual beliefs. It's not all black and white, and we have all been victimized in this country by Limbovian thinking that would try to convince us that the Right wingnuts speak for God and the rest of us are going to burn in Hell.

by Verified1 on 07/18/2008 07:23:22 AM EST

My honest response is (none / 0)
then DON'T go into that profession.

That may sound harsh, but it's not. My GF is in dental hygiene school. Let's say she was an extreme Muslim and couldn't be anywhere near pork of any kind, and she refused to work on any patient that had bits of bacon, pork chops or pork rinds stuck in his/her teeth (and that it was a relatively common occurrence)?

I would say it's simply not the right field for her because her personal beliefs are interfering with her job.

It's like a fast food worker denying the super-sized fries to an obese customer and arguing that they don't want to enable the fat guy to kill himself slowly with food, etc. Look, I get it, and I understand the hesitancy but he's an adult and he's not breaking the law.

Denying him sets a horrible precedent and I have no patience for it, and I award it no special status just because it's born of religion (as opposed to coming to the same conclusion some other way).

That's my opinion anyway.

by ihavenobias on 07/18/2008 10:48:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Furthermore, (none / 0)

the thrust of abortion opposition is religiously based.  This is belief in myth.  Medical procedures, and hence public health should be based on the latest, tested and scientifically sound procedures.  Patient choice, if not detrimental to the body of that patient, should then trump belief in myth in a free society.

Do not let the Flying Spaghetti Monster choose your health plan! 

by gdoud on 07/20/2008 01:26:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Can he at least choose (none / 0)
between meat or marinara sauce?

by ihavenobias on 07/20/2008 04:36:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes IHNB, It Does (none / 0)

Sorry Tom, but it does sound harsh to me. Are physicians/nurses/pharmacis ts supposed to become automatons without individual moral codes? I don't see a domino effect with this issue, as many people have seemed to suggest in this thread. The point of dispensing drugs can be argued in this specific instance, just like many other regulations are.

A private retail company, such as a pharmacy, can set a policy that says pharmacists may not refuse to dispense abortifacents. If the individual pharmacist who works for that company disagrees, and refuses to fill the prescriptions, then he or she could be fired for breaking company policy or choose to work elsewhere because of his or her individual belief that conflicts with the policy. We do this sort of thing all the time in our society - private schools, religious organizations, and clubs that say - these our our beliefs and here's what we'll do and not do. I personally lean toward the idea that if you are going to take federal money for dispensing drugs, then someone should always be available in your pharmacy who will dispense the legal drug.

There are plenty of excellent medical providers in current practice who refuse to perform abortions or prescribe abortifacent drugs. I wouldn't use them for my care, but that's my right to choose. There are plenty of medical providers who do provide abortions as well, and there are plenty of pharmacists who have no qualms about dispensing abortifacent drugs. The problem for me comes when the patient does not have a choice due to geographical isolation or no access to providers who will honor her choice. I also have a problem if the objecting provider refuses to refer to someone else who can meet her needs.

by Verified1 on 07/26/2008 06:09:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's agree to disagree (none / 0)
I feel very strongly on this issue, and I resent someones personal religious beliefs interfering with their job.

If you don't want to kill people, don't become a hit-man.

If you despise lactose, don't work with dairy products.

More to the point, if you believe that Bigfoot is real and you refuse to patrol the woods at the forest preserve, DON'T try and get a job as a forest ranger, etc.

by ihavenobias on 07/27/2008 08:27:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ethics Committee (none / 0)
Like all good members of an ethics committee, our agreeing to disagree sounds like a good fix for the moment until the details can be sorted out. I would love to have you join up with such a committee that I was serving on any day. Aw...
 
Hopefully the issue won't be Sasquatch, or God forbid, a lactose intolerant Sasquatch. That's where I'd draw the line when it comes to committee work.

by Verified1 on 08/01/2008 04:46:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)
:)

by ihavenobias on 08/01/2008 11:07:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't agree (none / 0)

This is an issue of control, plain and simple.  The purposes for prescribing medication are a private matter between a patient and a doctor.  If a doctor has ordered a standard prescription for medical reasons a pharmacist has a responsibility to dispense the medication in the correct measures and make a patient aware of the proper dosages.  The decisions to provide birth control are never the pharmacists to make.  By refusing a properly authorized prescription they are voluntarily injecting their superstitious opinions and beliefs into a situation where they have no right or authority.  If they want to make these decisions they ought to go to medical school and become a doctor, then they can simply refuse to see these patients or write these prescriptions.   The patient can simply choose another doctor.  In what other context do we allow pharmacists to interfere with what a doctor is prescribing?  (Assuming there aren't illegal or health related issues) You let them pull this kind of crap and there's no end to it.  You'll have scientologist pharmacists refusing to issue anti-depressant prescriptions next.

"Part of the problem with religious concerns in this day and age is that Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, among others, have politicized religion so greatly, that we tend to confuse religious bigots with normal people who may be very much to the Left and who also hold deep spiritual beliefs."

No, I do NOT agree with this thinking.  In the end one is as bad as the other.  Simply because they more gently refuse to fill the prescription or are "to the left" doesn't mean they aren't butting their noses into other people's business and forcing someone else to live within their mythological constraints.  Let them live with their mythology and leave the rest of us out of it.

by bfaul on 07/18/2008 11:18:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Choice (none / 0)

bfaul, I read your post with interest.

I'm not convinced it is an "issue of control, plain and simple." Nor do I think it is worthwhile to call other people's beliefs mythological - it doesn't go anywhere toward a solution except to devalue and dismiss others' convictions - something we are always railing against the righties for doing. It seems to me that a more productive expenditure of our energy would be to try to find some accomodation for others' beliefs and try solve the problem to the satisfaction of most parties instead of just restating it.

Pharmacists in most cases provide a retail service - they sell pharmaceuticals - and are human beings who make moral decisions just like you and I do. Would you be OK if a pharmacist said "I do not sell this in my pharmacy." And if the patient had the choice to go elsewhere to buy the product, would you be more accepting of the pharmacist's decision? The issue of choice seems to be the main one here for me.

 

by Verified1 on 07/26/2008 05:26:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
AOL commenter nailed it (none / 0)

The commenter cdnbirch wrote a reply on Ana's AOL blog that I think sums it up well. He/she takes the argument further to include all government licensed professionals.

Doctors are licensed by the gov to perform a service. Unless they are willing to perform all lawsful acts, they should have their license revoked and find another job.

Otherwise, what happens, is that a small group gets to foist its religious beliefs on other people.

If this passes, then the Muslim taxi drives in Minn who have demanded the right to refuse to transport people carrying alcohol would be entitled to impose this belief on the traveling public. At present, if they refuse a fare, they have to go to the back of the line and wait hours for another chance to make money. But even with this penalty, it has gotten so bad than many passengers cannot find a taxi to transport them. They wanted to do away with the penalty on the basis of their religous freedom.

How about an evangelical firefighter wants the right to refuse to put out a fire at a home where "gays" live?

What if a Quaker doctor refuses to treat a soldier because Quakers are absolute pacifists?

What if a Muslim doctor refuses to treat a woman unless she is wearing a head scart?

Nope. This is a really stupid law.

by mr science on 07/18/2008 10:57:22 AM EST

I don't agree with this either (none / 0)
I think there is a difference between a doctor refusing to provide a service and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription.  It is the doctor's actions that authorize and initiate a treatment.  If it's a legal procedure and they won't do it a person can travel to another place and find someone who does.  Once that has taken place a pharmacist has no business interfering in a valid and legal decision already made between two other parties, especially not for religious reasons.

by bfaul on 07/18/2008 11:33:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
still bad reasons for refusing proper care (none / 0)
It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see how this can go wrong. Take for example EMT or ER personnel who don't choose who the next patient may be. Any emergency situation in a hospital could get sticky if the on-duty medical staff are allowed to deny care for religious reasons. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a licensed professional to treat all patients equally based on their medical needs.

by mr science on 07/18/2008 11:59:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)
And don't get me wrong, I'm strongly against this legislation.

by bfaul on 07/18/2008 01:18:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Quaker Care (none / 0)

Mr. Science, I am a nurse and a Quaker. We are not absolute pacifists, although I daresay most of us would rather submit to being shot than to shoot, especially if it would help to protect someone else. We make decisions about actions and circumstances based upon our beliefs and most choose to not participate in violent solutions to conflict. In fact, we tend to abhor absolutes, and find them to be dogmatic in themselves.

We don't refuse to treat soldiers, nor do we reject people from our society simply if they feel led to participate in what they might consider a "just" war. Most Quakers would argue that there is no such thing as a just war, however.

I think you are missing the point here by confusing dogma with individual moral choice. Additionally, it's not sound logic to bring in such unrelated comparisons to the original argument.

by Verified1 on 07/26/2008 05:44:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Questions (none / 0)

Will these people and the facilities who hire them be clearly labeled?

Will I have the right, through my insurance, to reject these facilities and be provided with an alternative?

Will I know the nurse or doctor or pharmacist I am dealing with is one of these people?  Shouldn't they have to wear a big sign.  Will they have it as part of their voice greeting when they answer the phone?  Or will I be forced to be ambushed by these folks with, on occasion, no alternative.

And finally, if I belong to one of those religions that don't believe in medical care at all for religious reasons couldn't I then go apply to be a doctor or nurse or pharmacists, have the company be forced to hire me and then spend my entire career doing absolutely nothing except picking up my paycheck?

These people wanted to force Ali into the army despite his religious beliefs but this crap they decide to "protect".

by ProfRich on 07/18/2008 11:52:57 AM EST

Insurance (none / 0)

"Will I have the right, through my insurance, to reject these facilities and be provided with an alternative?"

Excellent question, Rich, and one that I think should definitely be included in debate over the proposed law. 

by Verified1 on 07/26/2008 06:28:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This up to women Ana (none / 1)

This will never, ever get resolved if women don't take charge and fix it.  Suppose that some follower of the Dalai Lama was working at a Wal-mart behind the sporting goods counter and refused to sell guns to customers because of religious beliefs.  What do you think would happen?  If you guessed that the customers (mainly male) would get infuriated and refuse to do business with the store and get up in management's face and make a public outcry until the employee was moved or fired then you've already guessed what the solution to this problem has to be.

Women have to take control and get up in their faces.  They've got to stop doing business, any business, with pharmacies that permit this kind of religious control.  Women provide a majority of a pharmacy's business and it's up to them to get it done.  Vote with your wallet.  Make sure you let them know why.  If you wait around for pasty white males to fix it you're going to be griping about this for a long, long time.  White males didn't "grant" women the right to vote, they surrendered it only after a long fight.   That being said I can promise you that a lot of us are on your side, enough to change it, but only if women stand up and fight, it won't happen any other way.

Now if someone starts refusing to fill Viagra prescriptions on religious grounds you'll see the shit really hit the fan. 

by bfaul on 07/18/2008 11:57:33 AM EST

E-mail I received from CFI (none / 0)

Here is a call-to-action on this proposed regulation from the Center For Inquiry:

Your immediate action is needed to stop the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from implementing an ideologically motivated regulation that would undermine women's access to health care by allowing federally funded health service personnel to refuse to provide services based on their personal religious beliefs.  

The impact of this proposed regulation would be doubly harmful.  Not only would it redefine "abortion procedure" to include normal forms of contraception, it would allow health care providers to withhold information and care options from their patients simply because these options conflict with the providers' religious beliefs.  Religious doctrine is given priority over patients' needs.

Not only does this regulation represent bad science,
it's a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Pick up your telephone now - call Secretary Michael Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services at 202-690-7000 and Christina Pearson, HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at 202-690-7850, and urge them to stop this proposed rule.

The regulation would require anyone who receives funding under federal health programs to certify in writing that they will NOT refuse to hire any medical personnel who object to providing services related to abortion or contraception.

Medical personnel who refuse services are usually motivated by religious beliefs, so allowing their personal objections to interfere with the delivery of reproductive services represents a violation of the separation of church and state as well as of common sense about abortion and contraception.

The proposed regulation means that hospitals, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists could refuse to provide reproductive services and still receive federal funds.  State and local governments could not deny grants of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that object to abortion for religious or ideological reasons.

The regulation includes a definition of abortion so broad that it includes much that is normally regarded as contraception.  Abortion is defined as: "any of the various procedures that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This is a transparent attempt to redefine emergency contraception as abortion.

In addition, the regulation is so sweeping that it would allow an employee whose job is to clean surgical equipment to refuse to do so because of personal belief.  A health center staff person who objected to contraception could refuse to schedule appointments for women (and men) seeking help.  This would cause chaos in the delivery of reproductive services, because those in most need—17 million women who rely on publicly supported health care—could not be sure of receiving information or medical aid.

Please telephone Secretary Michael Leavitt of HHS at 202-690-7000 and Christina Pearson, HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at 202-690-7850, and tell them that the proposed regulation must not be enacted.

Ask them to schedule a period of public comment on the proposed rule.  You can refer to the rule as the extension of the Church Amendments, the Public Health Service Act Paragraph 245, and the Weldon Amendments, which purport to protect personal conscience.

Stop this regulation.

It is an attack on responsible public health, science, and separation of church and state.

by mr science on 07/18/2008 12:47:50 PM EST

real problem (none / 0)
The real problem is religion. Its gonna keep causing stupid shit to happen until its gone :(

Don't talk about religion or politics, my ass!

by TheRob91 on 08/01/2008 02:51:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
THIS MAKES ME SO MAD! | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: