Obama may rescind Healthcare Conscience Rule

Not surprising, Obama is strongly pro-abort. I think it's distressing news.

I thought that you could get this over the counter now? I'm personally in favor of emergency contraception for rape victims.

That being said, hardline prolifers think it's murder. They're supposed to refer the patient to another provider, that was my understanding.

i am glad for this, also.

"Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, as well as two family planning groups, have filed suits challenging the Bush rule, arguing it sacrifices the health of patients to religious beliefs of medical providers."

what i have bolded is the issue here.
when you go into health care, i believe that you either need to push your biases aside and be nonjudgemental in your care--- or step back and find someone who is.

being culturally sensitive goes in all directions....
forcing your beliefs on someone as a health care provider is not cool.

For those who support forcing health care practitioners to provide abortion services against their moral and religious beliefs, do you likewise support forcing health care providers to discontinue life support against their beliefs? How about mandating participation in assisted suicide against one's beliefs? How about being prohibited from prescribing antibiotics for an elderly person's pneumonia because his/her care is deemed too expensive for the common good?

I agree that it is wrong to deny necessary and legal services to a patient. That's why we refer.

I believe that this is the beginning of Obama's agenda on abortion, which seems to be any time, any place, for any reason, regardless of gestation. While in the IL House, he consistently voted AGAINST the provision of emergency medical care and/or comfort measures to live-born infants who survived abortion.

His lack of regard for the frailest of human life is beyond my comprehension, and goes far beyond supporting a woman's choice of termination of pregnancy to the denial of basic human rights to a live-born infant.

New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

full text at http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2..._news_n_1.html

Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

If healthcare workers have an objection to a procedure or medication, then they should try not to work for an employer where they will be forced into a situation where they will deny access to a legal service. For instance, if a pharmacist really doesn't believe in birth controll pills, then he or she should not apply for work in, say, CVS or Walgreeens, where they will be exposed to women in the local community bringing in numerous prescriptions for the pills.

However, I thought that healthcare providers could not, for instance, keep a prescription for birth control or emergency contraception in order to prevent a woman from getting a referral. I don't see any justification for that, conscience or not. And exactly how far should the personal beliefs of healthcare providers override the rights of patients to have access to their healthcare? This isn't just about being forced to help with an abortion if a nurse or doctor objects to one.

this is beyond an abortion argument.
the thing about not prescribing the elderly abx is totally irrelevant to the religious/moral beliefs argument. expensive drugs is not the the issue.

i've participated in codes on 100 year old people with g-tubes, multiple bed sores, contractures, etc, etc and honored the wishes of family members who insisted everything was done until a doctor told me to stop. it is my duty as a paramedic and a nurse to do so, and if i am not ok with it, i need to step back and ask someone else to participate on the code team in my place.

as far as the assisted suicide argument goes, again, don't put yourself in the situaion if you don't agree with it. as of right now, nurses in oregon are the only ones faced with this dilemma, and nurses in this state should not work in a clinic with a doctor that they know will prescibe a lethal cocktail if they are going to have an opposition so strongly to it they cannot care for the patient.

nurses who work in areas where abortions are performed should be able to refuse assignment on the patient if they cannot put their biases aside and see that woman as what they are-- a grieving, emotional woman who is at risk for infection and post-procedure bleeding and is a patient under their care. would you deny her pain medicine because she made the choice to have an abortion?

pharmacists who do not agree with birth control or emergency contraception should honestly not have any right to refuse to dispense these medications. they are not in any position to tell a woman what method of birth control she should use and if she should be forced take her chances to carry an unwanted pregnancy. that, in my opinion, is absolutely rediculous.

like i said before, the argument goes beyond being prolife and prochoice--you can't keep clinging to that.
the argument that when you get that nursing/medical/pharmacy license in your hand, you need to put your personal biases aside and work in the interest of the patient. if you don't religiously/morally agree, step aside and let someone who is willing to be nonjudgemental and willing to work in your place.