Feds to strengthen protection for Doctors who refuse to be involved with Abortions?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=mswas]
No it is to give them disproportionate representation. What you’re talking about is hte opposite, having the majority states impose their views on the minority ones. I see no good argument

Der Trihs You have a problem with understanding fundamental premises here. No one is FORCING anyone to have a baby. In fact you are talking about FORCING someone to murder someone. You’re the one advocating force. I am advocating a right to passivity. The Doctor didn’t force her to nail her redneck boyfriend in the back of his pickup in South Dakota without a condom. She made that choice on her own. He’s not stopping her from driving to Minneapolis for her abortion, if she can’t do it, that is due to her circumstances, and is not his responsibility. You’re the one advocating force and the restriction of people’s rights.

The Doctor wasn’t trained and hired to commit murder. ‘First do no harm.’ You have heard of the hippocratic oath right?

However, if it is medically necessary that’s one thing, but generally people are not refused treatment if it is medically necessary. That’s a strawman from your side of the debate in the same way that the idea of people running out for third trimester abortions is a strawman from the other direction. The Pro-Life side generally wants to save the life of the Mother because if she dies so does the baby, so there isn’t a whole lot of benefit in not saving her life.

As for whether or not she can get to a Doctor, that’s complete and total bullshit. My In-Laws live far from a serious hospital in Texas, they have to be airlifted in the event of a life-threatening emergency, which is generally how it works when you live far afield. If it were seriously a life-threatening condition the person could have a helicopter from the city come and airlift her to a hospital. You’re just creating strawmen to support your argument by conjuring a false dilemma.
[/QUOTE]

Who cares what happens in the Fly Over States? That seems to be your opinion. Especially if the people involved are In-Laws–not actual blood relatives.

62

This thread drifts around, partially because some posters are confusing two issues:

  1. Can an employer place a requirement for employment that a physician be willing to perform abortions.
  2. Can the government place a requirement for licensing that a physician be willing to perform abortions.

I have no issue with #1 - you should be allowed to set whatever employment requirements you like. Of course, discrimination against people for their religious beliefs in the hiring process seems to run right into this requirement. As another note, doctors do not always work for hospitals - they instead have hospital priveledges based on meeting certain criteria.

I have a huge issue with #2, but that is because I always have an issue with the government having too much power or control.

63

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Who cares what happens in the Fly Over States? That seems to be your opinion.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, I care quite a bit. I think they should have the right to make their own decisions. I think abortion is vile and disgusting and completely the responsibility of the parents involved, but I wouldn’t legislate against it. I think it is murder, but I don’t think it should be illegal because forcing people to bear children they don’t want is ludicrous. The idea that they are innocent victims is just fucking retarded. I don’t think that abortion should be treated as a consumer option where you just drive down to the local abortiplex and get it right before you go to get your nails done. If no one in your region wants to perform it then you are SOL. There are plenty of flyover states where you can get an abortion, only SD has a problem. Drive to Minneapolis, take some responsibility for your own abortion.

64

[QUOTE=Algher]

  1. Can an employer place a requirement for employment that a physician be willing to perform abortions.
    [/quote]

Absolutely

Absolutely not

65

[QUOTE=mswas]
Der Trihs You have a problem with understanding fundamental premises here. No one is FORCING anyone to have a baby.
[/quote]
Yes, you are.

[QUOTE=mswas]
In fact you are talking about FORCING someone to murder someone.
[/quote]
No, I’m not. Abortion isn’t murder, and there’s no “someone” there to kill.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I am advocating a right to passivity. The Doctor didn’t force her to nail her redneck boyfriend in the back of his pickup in South Dakota without a condom. She made that choice on her own.
[/quote]
And again, it’s the “Let the slut suffer” argument. Once again we see how the anti-abortion agenda is really about the hatred of women, and nothing else.

And I note your assumption that birth control is perfect. And, that she was allowed to get any - by your rules, pharmacists might well refuse her that too.

[QUOTE=mswas]
He’s not stopping her from driving to Minneapolis for her abortion, if she can’t do it, that is due to her circumstances, and is not his responsibility.
[/quote]
Since he’s created those circumstances, yes he’s responsible.

[QUOTE=mswas]
The Doctor wasn’t trained and hired to commit murder. ‘First do no harm.’ You have heard of the hippocratic oath right?
[/quote]
The only PERSON he’s harming is the woman.

[QUOTE=mswas]
However, if it is medically necessary that’s one thing, but generally people are not refused treatment if it is medically necessary.
[/quote]
They are where people like you get their way. If they aren’t refused care due to the desire to punish them, they are refused out of the fear they might miscarry and the doctor be accused of abortion.

[QUOTE=mswas]
The Pro-Life side generally wants to save the life of the Mother because if she dies so does the baby, so there isn’t a whole lot of benefit in not saving her life.
[/quote]
No, they don’t. They care nothing for the baby; it’s all about hurting the woman.

[QUOTE=mswas]
My In-Laws live far from a serious hospital in Texas, they have to be airlifted in the event of a life-threatening emergency, which is generally how it works when you live far afield. If it were seriously a life-threatening condition the person could have a helicopter from the city come and airlift her to a hospital.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, poor women are evil and should be forced to bear children they can’t support. And I expect you’ll then rant and rave about the evils of women who have children they can’t support.

66

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, you are.
[/quote]

Nope, you clearly need to look up the definition of force. You are the one advocating force not me.

In your opinion.

Nope, I’m saying, “Let the slut drive to Minneapolis.”, she’s not suffering for being a slut, she’s suffering for living in the sticks. There are plenty of things besides abortions that are not available in South Dakota.

That’s not the Doctor’s responsibility. And a small percentage of pharmacists would refuse it.

Are you working with a scenario where the Doctor is the Father of the child, because if you’re not, he had no hand in creating the circumstances.

No, he’s not harming her, he’s simply refusing to help her unfuck herself. (pardon the pun I couldn’t resist.)

:rolleyes:

Misrepresenting the oppositions views to make them seem evil is empty rhetoric.

:rolleyes:

67

[QUOTE=mswas]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
It’s the only rational, ethical opinion.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Nope, I’m saying, “Let the slut drive to Minneapolis.”, she’s not suffering for being a slut, she’s suffering for living in the sticks.
[/quote]
and if she doen’t have a car ? Or can’t afford to leave that long - twice at least, since so many places have waiting periods, also to punish poor women.

[QUOTE=mswas]
There are plenty of things besides abortions that are not available in South Dakota.
[/quote]
And if they aren’t available because someone has decided not to provide a legal service, that’s wrong.

[QUOTE=mswas]
That’s not the Doctor’s responsibility.
[/quote]
Yes, it is.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Are you working with a scenario where the Doctor is the Father of the child, because if you’re not, he had no hand in creating the circumstances.
[/quote]
He’s creating the circumstances by refusing to do his job.

[QUOTE=mswas]
No, he’s not harming her, he’s simply refusing to help her unfuck herself. (pardon the pun I couldn’t resist.)
[/quote]
Pregnancy in harmful. UNWANTED pregnancy is MORE harmful. And your misogyny is again noted.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Misrepresenting the oppositions views to make them seem evil is empty rhetoric.
[/quote]
I’m not misrepresenting them and they ARE evil.

[QUOTE=mswas]
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Ah, a nonanswer.

68

[QUOTE=mswas]

Absolutely not
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s just factually incorrect. Sure they can. Licensure laws place requirements for licensed professions all the time, including the scope of practice and what sort of procedures someone holding that license must - or must not - perform. There’s no logical, medical or legal reason why abortion should be any different.

*Should *they? Whole 'nother question.

69

Wait a minute, are you guys saying that if a Muslim waitress in a Hooters restaurant insists on wearing a burka over her uniform and refuses to sell or serve alcohol or any food containing pork the owner shouldn’t be able to fire her?

If you want to say that a Doctor shouldn’t be forced to open an abortion clinic there might be an argument there, although I’d want to take a look at the amount of public money that went into his/her education, but if you’re working for wages and your boss wants you to perform a legal procedure, do it or hit the road.

It’s like those cabbies that didn’t want to transport the duty free alcohol back from the airport in, what was it, Minneapolis? If I owned a cab company and these guys were turning away fares they’d be out the door.

70

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
The doctor is being hired to provide medical care. If he refuses to perform some small but significant part of that job on the basis of personal morals, I have no problem with him being fired and replaced by someone who is will to perform all the required duties. Let the doctor seek employment elsewhere that better suits his beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
I tend to agree with this, moral concerns about abortion aside. If my clinic offers abortions, and I tell you as a condition of employment that you need to assist in this practice, you’re free to work elsewhere if you have moral issues with this policy.

Alternatively, if my privately owned clinic refuses to provide abortions, I don’t believe “But I really want one” transforms itself into a right I must respect. The fact that someone wants an elective procedure does not compel me to provide it. If no one’s available to perform the procedure, you’re out of luck. Anyone working at my clinic who feels a moral duty to provide abortions is free to seek employment at an establishment more amenable to this sentiment.

It’s comical how often in this particular debate how many people see only one right, one so primary that it actually assigns a duty to the government or to unrelated citizens to make sure that this right is accommodated upon demand. The government has to either force doctors to perform abortions or shuttle those who want one to the nearest clinic. You don’t just have the right to an abortion, you have the right to force someone else to make it happen. That’s one badass right.

It’s similar to the zealots who think that a television network caving into public pressure on a sensitive topic by cancelling a program has somehow violated someone’s free-speech rights. You have the right to express your opinion. I don’t have to be the guy who gives you the forum, regardless of how inconvenient this is for you.

(Again, this sets moral issues around abortions aside for me–I don’t happen to believe one has the right to an abortion.)

71

[QUOTE=Algher]
This thread drifts around, partially because some posters are confusing two issues:

  1. Can an employer place a requirement for employment that a physician be willing to perform abortions.
  2. Can the government place a requirement for licensing that a physician be willing to perform abortions.

[/quote]

Huh. I was under the impression the issue was goverment interference with #1, threatening to cut off federal funding if an employer set a list of job requirements than an employee was uncomfortable with, and in a very obviously specific way, too. I don’t see how #2 is relevant at all.

72

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
(Again, this sets moral issues around abortions aside for me–I don’t happen to believe one has the right to an abortion.)
[/QUOTE]

I find myself in agreement with everything else you said, but this requires a tiny bit of clarification. There’s a difference between having a right and the requirement that others participate in the exercise of that right. I do believe in the right to have an abortion, but that doesn’t mean the state has to pay for it. In this particular case, though, a big caveat is being added federal funding that serves no purpose than to throw a barrier in the path of a particular procedure, and it’s not like this procedure is unwanted (it is very wanted) and not that’s its unsafe (it’s very safe) and not that’s it’s illegal (it’s legal), but because of a purely moral objection. Personally, I’d like to see a state government simply declare that if Health and Human Services is going to do this, then HHS has made itself useless and the state will no longer recognize federal regulation of any health matter. Of course, only a wealthy state can adopt this stance, but I’d be cheering them on. While “states’ rights” gets a bad rap for backwoods-hicks abuses like segregation and creationism-teaching, I’d like to see a governor stand up in defense of an important issue and say “Y’know, my constituents aren’t idiots. Help us, or don’t help us, but in any case get the fuck outta our way!”

73

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Well, that’s just factually incorrect. Sure they can. Licensure laws place requirements for licensed professions all the time, including the scope of practice and what sort of procedures someone holding that license must - or must not - perform. There’s no logical, medical or legal reason why abortion should be any different.

*Should *they? Whole 'nother question.
[/QUOTE]

My poor word choice aside (yes, I should replace can with should), what professions have licenses that say what you MUST do (other than cleanliness / health stuff)?

Barbers can choose not do mohawks, or punk colors.
Bartenders can choose not to make certain drinks, and bars can choose what to stock.
Mechanics can specialize in certain cars, and even certain types of work - to the exclusion of others.
Stores can choose exactly what they sell.

Doctors themselves specialize. A pediatrician can deny giving you an abortion, so why can’t an ob/gyn limit their specialty to the exclusion of abortion?

Again - focusing on medical licensing, not the issue of whether a doctor’s group would hire or if a hospital would grant priveledges.

74

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Huh. I was under the impression the issue was goverment interference with #1, threatening to cut off federal funding if an employer set a list of job requirements than an employee was uncomfortable with, and in a very obviously specific way, too. I don’t see how #2 is relevant at all.
[/QUOTE]

That is the OP, but others brought in employment issues. We also added the recent California case where fertility docs were told that they can not choose WHO to give fertility treatments to (in regards to the protected class of Lesbians specifically).

I wanted to understand where some where coming from in regards to what should be allowed in terms of requirements by the employer, and what should be allowed in terms of requirements by the government.

It is an interesting debate, and puts the lie to the signage that says “we reserve the right to reserve service to anyone.” After all, that sign does not work for protected classes under the law. In regards to physicians, some here would seem to want to make it not applicable for certain procedures either.

My interpretation of what some here are saying is that if you are trained in giving abortions, you should be required to give abortions.

75

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I find myself in agreement with everything else you said, but this requires a tiny bit of clarification. There’s a difference between having a right and the requirement that others participate in the exercise of that right. I do believe in the right to have an abortion, but that doesn’t mean the state has to pay for it. In this particular case, though, a big caveat is being added federal funding that serves no purpose than to throw a barrier in the path of a particular procedure, and it’s not like this procedure is unwanted (it is very wanted) and not that’s its unsafe (it’s very safe) and not that’s it’s illegal (it’s legal), but because of a purely moral objection. Personally, I’d like to see a state government simply declare that if Health and Human Services is going to do this, then HHS has made itself useless and the state will no longer recognize federal regulation of any health matter. Of course, only a wealthy state can adopt this stance, but I’d be cheering them on. While “states’ rights” gets a bad rap for backwoods-hicks abuses like segregation and creationism-teaching, I’d like to see a governor stand up in defense of an important issue and say “Y’know, my constituents aren’t idiots. Help us, or don’t help us, but in any case get the fuck outta our way!”
[/QUOTE]
I personally advocate the elimination of virtually any Federal regulation that is not associated with the protection of a US constitutional right (where such protection is needed), with some inherently inter-state matter, or with any matter of a scale or nature that legitimately requires oversight or administration by the Feds (e.g., national defense matters). Everything else? None of the Feds’ business. It’s not their job to oversee every aspect of everyone’s life, nor is it their obligation to make sure everyone is happy. And that includes matters related to the economy.

I love the government gridlock everyone is so eager to eliminate. Nothing would make me happier than if at the end of every Congressional session, a Rep sheepishly came out on the steps to announce to reporters that yet again, not a single bill was passed, not one government program was voted in. :wink:

76

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It’s the only rational, ethical opinion.
[/quote]

I know, just like all of your others.

It’s not the Doctor’s fault she chooses to live in the sticks. No one is punishing her. She is responsible for her own actions. It’s funny how you are diminishing women like this and saying they are poor victims rather than rational adults capable of dealing with the consequences of how they live their lives.

No it’s not, the Doctor is just doing what everyone else in that area is doing. There is no moral reason to do something just because it is legal. There are plenty of things I don’t do on a daily basis that are legal. This argument makes no sense at all.

If he didn’t knock her up, it’s really not.

You think that’s his job, he doesn’t. He maybe took his job to save lives, not end them.

I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of life.

meaningless hyperbole.

Of course, what you said was just silly.

77

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I personally advocate the elimination of virtually any Federal regulation that is not associated with the protection of a US constitutional right (where such protection is needed), with some inherently inter-state matter, or with any matter of a scale or nature that legitimately requires oversight or administration by the Feds (e.g., national defense matters). Everything else? None of the Feds’ business. It’s not their job to oversee every aspect of everyone’s life, nor is it their obligation to make sure everyone is happy. And that includes matters related to the economy.
[/quote]

Okay, how would you you feel is a state banned abortion? That’d be a pretty intrusive act of oversight, depending to what degree they staged police raids on OB/GYN practices and subjected travelling women to pregnancy tests before they left and upon their return to the state. If there was ever a “none of their business” issue, this is it.
Anyway, I’d guess this is a matter of deciding who works for whom. Are the state medical providers obliged to adhere to HHS policies (ultimately set by the President) or does the HHS exist to just shut up and hand out money to states to use as they see fit? There’s no indication this particular HHS policy is based on good science or good social policy. It’s not like refusing to fund Lousiana’s voodoo clinics or Oregon’s homeopathy practices or some other quackeries.

78

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Okay, how would you you feel is a state banned abortion? That’d be a pretty intrusive act of oversight, depending to what degree they staged police raids on OB/GYN practices and subjected travelling women to pregnancy tests before they left and upon their return to the state. If there was ever a “none of their business” issue, this is it.
Anyway, I’d guess this is a matter of deciding who works for whom. Are the state medical providers obliged to adhere to HHS policies (ultimately set by the President) or does the HHS exist to just shut up and hand out money to states to use as they see fit? There’s no indication this particular HHS policy is based on good science or good social policy. It’s not like refusing to fund Lousiana’s voodoo clinics or Oregon’s homeopathy practices or some other quackeries.
[/QUOTE]

I think that the state should have control over social issues personally. As long as there is a Federal Law saying that no state can punish someone for doing something that is legal in another state in another state.

79

Could I have some clarification please?

In the UK doctors are proteccted from having to perform elective TOPs if they don’t want to, but are ethically obliged to refer to a colleague who will.

They are also ethically obliged to perform a TOP as a life-saving measure and MUST provide medical care for women who have had TOPs, including treatment of any complications arising from the procedure.

So:
I could refuse to perform Mary Jo’s termination, but I’d have to send her to Dr Bill who would do it.
I must treat Mary Jo’s ectopic pregnancy.
I must perform Mary Jo’s termination if she would die before another doctor could be found to perform it.
I must treat Mary Jo’s pain, bleeding and infection after her termination.
I must clerk-in Mary Jo, take her bloods and give her good care prior to the procedure, even if I refuse to perform it.
If the doctor performing the termination has a heart attack halfway through the procedure and there isn’t another doctor available to complete Mary Jo’s surgery, I must do it.

Is the American law going to hold doctors to that standard, or do you get to wash your hands completely and let people die in front of you?

As a doctor your first priority is your patient. While you can opt out for moral reasons, it should only be up to a point. In this case it means you only get to opt out of a truly elective termination, and only out of the procedure itself, not out of the aftercare, nor the work up.

80

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And your misogyny is again noted.
[/QUOTE]
Ah. Now I get it. You hate women so much that you are hoping desperately that they either die on the abortion table or get ravaged so they may never conceive again, which is why you encourage them to have abortions. It’s the only possible conclusion to make. Any other option is outside the realm of consideration.

Quite frankly, the moral depravity of your position is horrifying.