Mikey: Instead of the Bush plan, let's change the name to the Smith Plan or the Jones Plan.
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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
