RARGH.
Read this. Right now.
I've already written my
I seriously oppose this ruling.
Secretary Leavitt stated in his blog that, "Our nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience. This proposed rule is a fundamental protection for medical providers to follow theirs."
On the first two points, he is correct. However, the last point is patently ridiculous, and I am stunned that anyone in office would have the foolishness to misrepresent free speech with refusing to do your job.
Free speech goes along with principles such as conscientious objection: if one believes that an action is immoral, one does not perform said action. However, for a doctor to refuse to perform the duties required by her job means that she should not be doing that job.
If you think that you will not or cannot do a job, do not attempt to. No one would tell a lawyer that she was allowed to only take cases that she approved of. No one would tell a pilot that she was allowed to only fly to cities or countries she liked. No one would tell a cop that she was allowed to only protect those areas of the cities she felt were deserving and leave the rest of them to rot. No one would tell a cashier that she was allowed to refuse service to a customer because she was vegetarian and the customer wanted meat.
Lawyers, pilots, cops, cashiers, and doctors all have jobs. You may disapprove of certain aspects of your job. Fine. Quit.
This proposed rule is not protection for anything or anyone except people who want only to force other people to do what they want. "'Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure,' Leavitt said, noting that a patient could go to another provider." But! In a state with only one abortion clinic, what can a woman do if her doctor refuses to provide the abortion she needs? In a rural town with one Wal-Mart, what can a woman do if her pharmacist refuses to provide the birth control medication she needs? Leavitt assumes that everyone in the country could simply afford to switch providers, driving to another city, another county, perhaps another state in order to receive the care they need. Such a mindset is appallingly revealing of a man who has no idea what poverty and desperation mean.
Refusing to do your job is not free speech. It is the act of a child throwing a tantrum, and I see no reason whatsoever why the federal government should use the stick of funding to force clinics into bowing to the whims of self-righteous children.
Please, *please* write a letter of your own. Send it to consciencecomment@hhs.gov, make sure to put Provider Conscience Regulation in the subject line.
Guys. A *month*. We have a month before someone could be trained and certified to do a job which they have no intention of doing and could not be fired for refusing to do. A job on which the health or life of any American woman you know could depend on.
I've already written my
I seriously oppose this ruling.
Secretary Leavitt stated in his blog that, "Our nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience. This proposed rule is a fundamental protection for medical providers to follow theirs."
On the first two points, he is correct. However, the last point is patently ridiculous, and I am stunned that anyone in office would have the foolishness to misrepresent free speech with refusing to do your job.
Free speech goes along with principles such as conscientious objection: if one believes that an action is immoral, one does not perform said action. However, for a doctor to refuse to perform the duties required by her job means that she should not be doing that job.
If you think that you will not or cannot do a job, do not attempt to. No one would tell a lawyer that she was allowed to only take cases that she approved of. No one would tell a pilot that she was allowed to only fly to cities or countries she liked. No one would tell a cop that she was allowed to only protect those areas of the cities she felt were deserving and leave the rest of them to rot. No one would tell a cashier that she was allowed to refuse service to a customer because she was vegetarian and the customer wanted meat.
Lawyers, pilots, cops, cashiers, and doctors all have jobs. You may disapprove of certain aspects of your job. Fine. Quit.
This proposed rule is not protection for anything or anyone except people who want only to force other people to do what they want. "'Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure,' Leavitt said, noting that a patient could go to another provider." But! In a state with only one abortion clinic, what can a woman do if her doctor refuses to provide the abortion she needs? In a rural town with one Wal-Mart, what can a woman do if her pharmacist refuses to provide the birth control medication she needs? Leavitt assumes that everyone in the country could simply afford to switch providers, driving to another city, another county, perhaps another state in order to receive the care they need. Such a mindset is appallingly revealing of a man who has no idea what poverty and desperation mean.
Refusing to do your job is not free speech. It is the act of a child throwing a tantrum, and I see no reason whatsoever why the federal government should use the stick of funding to force clinics into bowing to the whims of self-righteous children.
Please, *please* write a letter of your own. Send it to consciencecomment@hhs.gov, make sure to put Provider Conscience Regulation in the subject line.
Guys. A *month*. We have a month before someone could be trained and certified to do a job which they have no intention of doing and could not be fired for refusing to do. A job on which the health or life of any American woman you know could depend on.