Common ground, issue representation
I believe he answered that point right after the ellipsis in your quote of his post:
A doctor in private practice chooses what medical services he or she offers. That's why I keep asking people to look at it from an employer's standpoint.
Incidentally, in 1999, Kmart fired a pharmacist, Wal-Mart made a business decision to not carry the drug Preven, and the League of American Families asserted that pharmacists shouldn't be obliged to refer a patient to another pharmacy. "Our position is, pharmacists who oppose abortion shouldn't be forced to make a referral to kill," said LoAF head John Tomicki. The lobbyist framed the question simply. "Doctors have a right to refuse to perform an abortion. Why shouldn't pharmacists have the same right?"
This isn't a new argument, although some things have changed in the last ten years. Or seventeen. The demand for a pharmacist's conscience clause at some point began conceding the need to refer patients to other facilities. While that has been part of the American Pharmaceutical Association's consideration of the issue, we don't hear as many religious lobbyists or conservative pundits demanding the right to refuse referral.
But doctors have a protected right in Washington state to refuse to perform abortions. They've had it since 1992, when we pretty much settled our abortion policy. It was candy for the anti-abortion crowd that lost a bitter fight that day. And Washington isn't the only state. By 1999, the doctors' right to refuse is part of the conservative argument on behalf of pharmacists.
And this is important because look at the argument put forth in this thread:
Or is that driving the point a little too hard?
But here's the thing: What Obama is looking to overturn is a Bush administration regulation, one that came into being in January, 2009. So things will go back to the way they were on January 18, 2009, which is, in the words of League of American Family's John Tomicki, "Doctors have a right to refuse to perform an abortion."
In other words, what the Bush administration did was say to health care facilities receiving federal funding, "Regardless of what these professionals have signed on for, you must allow them to refuse to provide services for conscience reasons."
And this is the central issue. Doctors in private practice can offer whatever services they feel like offering. This is about employees of certain facilities. There is obviously common ground:
That accented part about the contract; that's essentially what Bush changed. What Obama is striking is a regulation that said even if you applied for and accepted this job knowing what was involved, you now have the right to refuse to provide those services.
I think the issue has been misrepresented by the source, the Be Heard Project.
___________________
Notes:
"Pharmacists Debate Pro-Life Conscience Clause". Bergen Record. April 29, 1999. Euthanasia.com. Accessed March 25, 2009. http://www.euthanasia.com/pharm2.html
Feit, Josh. "The Drug War". The Stranger. June 7, 2006. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=37399
Lite, Jordan. "Conscience clause and relaxed environmental regs among Bush's lame-duck rulings". 60 Second Science. ScientificAmerican.com December 19, 2008. http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second...onscience-clause-and-relaxed-envir-2008-12-19
Baron Max said:
I believe he answered that point right after the ellipsis in your quote of his post:
Milkweed said:
A doctor in private practice chooses what medical services he or she offers. That's why I keep asking people to look at it from an employer's standpoint.
Incidentally, in 1999, Kmart fired a pharmacist, Wal-Mart made a business decision to not carry the drug Preven, and the League of American Families asserted that pharmacists shouldn't be obliged to refer a patient to another pharmacy. "Our position is, pharmacists who oppose abortion shouldn't be forced to make a referral to kill," said LoAF head John Tomicki. The lobbyist framed the question simply. "Doctors have a right to refuse to perform an abortion. Why shouldn't pharmacists have the same right?"
This isn't a new argument, although some things have changed in the last ten years. Or seventeen. The demand for a pharmacist's conscience clause at some point began conceding the need to refer patients to other facilities. While that has been part of the American Pharmaceutical Association's consideration of the issue, we don't hear as many religious lobbyists or conservative pundits demanding the right to refuse referral.
But doctors have a protected right in Washington state to refuse to perform abortions. They've had it since 1992, when we pretty much settled our abortion policy. It was candy for the anti-abortion crowd that lost a bitter fight that day. And Washington isn't the only state. By 1999, the doctors' right to refuse is part of the conservative argument on behalf of pharmacists.
And this is important because look at the argument put forth in this thread:
Or is that driving the point a little too hard?
But here's the thing: What Obama is looking to overturn is a Bush administration regulation, one that came into being in January, 2009. So things will go back to the way they were on January 18, 2009, which is, in the words of League of American Family's John Tomicki, "Doctors have a right to refuse to perform an abortion."
The so-called "right of conscience" rule allows workers at more than 584,000 U.S. medical facilities that receive federal funding to refuse to provide patient care that involves procedures with which they disagree. Critics say the decision will mostly affect the provision of reproductive-health services to women, including abortion, birth control and emergency contraception. They also say it could complicate states' ability to enforce laws requiring hospitals to offer those treatments, especially the morning-after pill for rape victims.
"In just a matter of months, the Bush administration has undone three decades of federal protections for both medical professionals and their patients," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "It replaced them with a policy that seriously risks the health of millions of women, then tried to pass it off as benevolent."
(Lite)
"In just a matter of months, the Bush administration has undone three decades of federal protections for both medical professionals and their patients," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "It replaced them with a policy that seriously risks the health of millions of women, then tried to pass it off as benevolent."
(Lite)
In other words, what the Bush administration did was say to health care facilities receiving federal funding, "Regardless of what these professionals have signed on for, you must allow them to refuse to provide services for conscience reasons."
And this is the central issue. Doctors in private practice can offer whatever services they feel like offering. This is about employees of certain facilities. There is obviously common ground:
Copernicus66 said:
That accented part about the contract; that's essentially what Bush changed. What Obama is striking is a regulation that said even if you applied for and accepted this job knowing what was involved, you now have the right to refuse to provide those services.
I think the issue has been misrepresented by the source, the Be Heard Project.
___________________
Notes:
"Pharmacists Debate Pro-Life Conscience Clause". Bergen Record. April 29, 1999. Euthanasia.com. Accessed March 25, 2009. http://www.euthanasia.com/pharm2.html
Feit, Josh. "The Drug War". The Stranger. June 7, 2006. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=37399
Lite, Jordan. "Conscience clause and relaxed environmental regs among Bush's lame-duck rulings". 60 Second Science. ScientificAmerican.com December 19, 2008. http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second...onscience-clause-and-relaxed-envir-2008-12-19
