you are only against it because it is the bush plane. if this was the barry plan, you would be jumping up and down with joy. give it up murky.
On Dec 24, 8:26 am, "mike [ happy holidays ] 532" <[email protected]> wrote: > i am against the bush plan not for it . > > On Dec 24, 8:23 am, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > why don't you keep your freaking lack of a conscience out of my health > > care murky. > > > On Dec 24, 8:19 am, "mike [a nasty combo ] 532" > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > that is where the problem pops up lew . suppose you get hurt and need > > > blood or some other procedure the doctor / nurse doesn't agree with > > > for what ever reason . they not only don't have to treat you they > > > don't have to tell where you can get the help you need to survive . > > > > On Dec 24, 8:09 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Go to different health care providers. > > > > > I'ts a free country. > > > > > Freedom doesn't mean "your way or the highway." > > > > > On Dec 24, 7:53 am, "mike [a nasty combo ] 532" > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Keep your freaking conscience out of my health > > > > > carehttp://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1663 That’s > > > > > quite a goodbye kiss George W. Bush just blew America (not to mention > > > > > a big wet one to the Religious Right). This from the Washington > > > > > Post:: > > > > > > The Bush administration yesterday granted sweeping new protections to > > > > > health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their > > > > > personal > > > > > beliefs, setting off an intense battle over opponents’ plans to try > > > > > to > > > > > repeal the measure. > > > > > > Critics began consulting with the incoming Obama administration on > > > > > strategies to reverse the regulation as quickly as possible while > > > > > supporters started mobilizing to fight such efforts. > > > > > > The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or > > > > > local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that > > > > > does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees > > > > > who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or > > > > > religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, > > > > > abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, > > > > > disciplined or penalized in other ways. > > > > > > It would be hard to overstate the damage this absurd regulation could > > > > > cause. Let’s say, for example, you want to fill a prescription for > > > > > birth control pills? Maybe you even view this as your right, given > > > > > Griswold v. Connecticut and all that. > > > > > > Silly girl. It isn’t up to you (or your doctor) at all: it’s entirely > > > > > up to the personal beliefs of the pharmacist on duty. If he (or she) > > > > > disapproves of contraception in general, or simply disapproves of you > > > > > getting contraception — because, say, you’re unmarried (you hussy) — > > > > > he has an absolute right to refuse to fill the prescription. > > > > > > And you’ll be left with no recourse, except perhaps to fume, unless > > > > > you’re prepared to drive from pharmacy to pharmacy (assuming you have > > > > > that option) until you find a less “morally committed” pharmacist. > > > > > > It’s a question of priorities, I suppose. According to Bush and his > > > > > new regulation, the pharmacist’s ethical objection to, well, you > > > > > know, > > > > > doing his job is more important than your constitutional right to > > > > > privacy, not to mention your dignity as a person. > > > > > > Even more troubling, of course, is the impact this rule could have on > > > > > the rights of rape victims, some of whom will inevitably face > > > > > interference in efforts to obtain emergency contraception. Given the > > > > > time-sensitive nature of such treatment, an arbitrary “act of > > > > > conscience” by a key hospital employee could doom the victim to an > > > > > unwanted pregnancy by her rapist. > > > > > > But then that’s the idea, isn’t it? > > > > > > And we haven’t even touched on the most absurd aspect of this > > > > > particular act of Bush & Co. stupidity. Under the literal language of > > > > > the regulation, birth control clinics would be prohibited (at the > > > > > risk > > > > > of losing federal funding) from “discriminating” against job seekers > > > > > who have moral objections to birth control. In other words, clinics > > > > > could be forced to hire and retain employees who refuse, for alleged > > > > > ethical reasons, to carry out the basic functions of their jobs. > > > > > > It isn’t hard to see where this is going. If the regulation stands, > > > > > antiabortion groups will soon begin sending “undercover” job seekers > > > > > to abortion clinics associated with health care providers that > > > > > receive > > > > > federal funds, with the specific intention of sabotaging the clinics’ > > > > > operations. “It is going to cause chaos among providers across the > > > > > country,” predicted Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, quoted in > > > > > the Post article. > > > > > > But then that’s the idea, isn’t it? > > > > > > Hopefully, Congress and/or the Obama Administration will find a way > > > > > to > > > > > quickly repeal this monstrosity. In the meanwhile, join me in praying > > > > > for the rapid and safe arrival of the 20th of January- Hide quoted > > > > > text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
