![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh bother.
Aug. 22nd, 2008 10:18 amDragonCon is next weekend. I was rushing around in 91 eastbound traffic last night to make an evening shipment deadline tonight that doesn't exist.
D'OH.
D'OH.
Aug. 22nd, 2008
Oh bother.
Aug. 22nd, 2008 10:18 amDragonCon is next weekend. I was rushing around in 91 eastbound traffic last night to make an evening shipment deadline tonight that doesn't exist.
D'OH.
D'OH.
Oh bother.
Aug. 22nd, 2008 10:18 amDragonCon is next weekend. I was rushing around in 91 eastbound traffic last night to make an evening shipment deadline tonight that doesn't exist.
D'OH.
D'OH.
Because it's there -
Aug. 22nd, 2008 01:06 pmOkay, riddle me this Batman. Would the REAL issue please stand up?
Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?
...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.
The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.
No problem, right?
Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?
The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.
"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."
The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.
Guess why.
Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.
Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.
Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.
The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.
Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?
...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.
The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.
No problem, right?
Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?
The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.
"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."
The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.
Guess why.
Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.
Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.
Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.
The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.
Because it's there -
Aug. 22nd, 2008 01:06 pmOkay, riddle me this Batman. Would the REAL issue please stand up?
Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?
...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.
The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.
No problem, right?
Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?
The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.
"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."
The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.
Guess why.
Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.
Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.
Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.
The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.
Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?
...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.
The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.
No problem, right?
Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?
The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.
"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."
The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.
Guess why.
Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.
Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.
Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.
The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.
Because it's there -
Aug. 22nd, 2008 01:06 pmOkay, riddle me this Batman. Would the REAL issue please stand up?
Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?
...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.
The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.
No problem, right?
Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?
The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.
"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."
The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.
Guess why.
Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.
Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.
Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.
The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.
Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?
...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.
The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.
No problem, right?
Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?
The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.
"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."
The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.
Guess why.
Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.
Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.
Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.
The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.