U.S. Gvmt Tries To Limit Women's Access To Health Care

[amilyn]

kirbyfest said it better than I can and linked to maho_kiwi, who said it better than either of us and gave a number of courses of action we can take to oppose this discriminatory and anti-woman law that is going to go into effect in 30 days. This is the law's wording.

This legislation states that all medical facilities that receive government funding would

Comments

[kirbyfest]

"I don't like women with dark curly hair! I am going to say I have a MORAL OBJECTION to them due to some obscure passage in Leviticus, and then I'm not going to give her her birth control OR her allergy medicine! That bitch can sneeze and get pregnant and I will be safe in my morally superior castle!"

Seriously. This is where we're headed.

[amilyn]

Indeed. What's next? People GOING INTO professions in order to evangelize their beliefs by refusing services they thing certain people oughtn't have? The DMV not being required to issue driver's licenses to anyone that worker doesn't think should be allowed to drive? Teachers not having to teach students they don't feel should be in their class?

The more I think about the various angles of the slippery slopes leading from this, the more pissed and terrified and indignant and scared and disgusted I become.

[lizamanynames]

...I will be over here in Canada, fuming impotently and feeling sick (and fluffing up the cusions on my US Refugee crash pad, AKA my couch).

[amilyn]

Oooh, Can-a-daaaa...

My husband started singing when I told him about how angry I was over this.

ETA: And sorry for poaching space in your LJ to rant even more about this.

[lizamanynames]

Hey, don't be, I got a lot out of both those conversations!! :)

[dotfic]

Nicely said. I made my own post on the subject figuring it can't be said too often but I hope I explained the situation clearly and the moral implications therein. This isn't about forcing someone to do something against their conscience. It's about making health care freely available to those who need it.

[amilyn]

I'm just SO ANGRY. I mean, in the guise of "respecting people's consciences," this law sounds like it would prohibit firing of (and, it sounds like, disciplinary action against) medical providers who refuse treatment to their patients if the provider does not personally agree with that treatment.

What if the provider doesn't agree with the lifestyle of the person being treated?

< scarcasm> Because it's an ATTACK on U.S. Christians to "make them" do something that violates their conscience...since doctors already can't be forced to provide abortions under the current conscience laws on the books

[dotfic]

My anger all burned up a few years ago -- I'm too drained to get angry, although I feel the anger in a kind of detached, "my, I'd be really pissed off if I weren't so damned tired of this shit" kind of way. Which is exactly not what I should give into -- apathy.

What if the provider doesn't agree with the lifestyle of the person being treated?Word. One big problem with the regulation wording is it's too vague and too broad. "Violates their conscience" could encompass any kind of objection, not just an actual medical procedure, but right down to the denial of literature on safe sex practices or information on STD's, if, say, the medical professional in question felt that the gay lifestyle was wrong, and so they refused to give out information that might protect that patient's health, even preventive information. It just opens a very dangerous door. This is confined to withdrawal of gov't funding if the institution or health care provider violates it -- but how many people are dependent on a gov't funded clinic? (There is also a clause

[amilyn]

I'd give a bit to have that numb detachment.

This one's just too personal in so many ways. And it's such a HUGE step right into fascism and...arg!

I am with you. Please, please, Senator Obama: GET ELECTED.

[dewwta]

I, on the other hand being a health care provider, know of instances where people have been fired for not providing medications or treatment for something they find goes against their beliefs in God and His expectations. Some of the current issues have arrived years and years after their training and formal education in the health care industry. If you deny these people their right to object you are also creating a similiar atmosphere that you have described. The problems have arisen because ethics and people issues have not kept up with currect technologies and medical treatments. Being a nurse I have nursed compassionately many people with aids, cancer and other devastating illinesses. Many nurses care very much and ask for the "Hard" patients, those that are going to die to give them the compassion and care they so desperately need in their dying process. To deny a caregiver the right to object on moral isssues, makes you very uncompassionate and uncaring and judgemental about something you may not understand very well.

[imbri6]

Some of the current issues have arrived years and years after their training and formal education in the health care industry. If you deny these people their right to object you are also creating a similiar atmosphere that you have described.I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this. When the laws of this country change to permit treatments to patients which had formerly been illegal I see it as the obligation of caregivers to make the hard choice to either provide the treatment or to shift within their careers to a type of caregiving which separates them from the necessity of violating their conscience. If an obstretics careperson joined the profession before Roe v. Wade, and as a result of that judgment was forced to begin participating in abortions, it might cause a severe moral dilema, I totally GET that. However, in our secular society, the rights of the patient to receive care are above the rights of the health care provider to deny care based on religious or moral considerations. I see it as an obligation of the health care

[tv_elf]

But, isn't there a difference between objecting due to personal beliefs and refusing to provide treatment to someone who needs it. I have no problem with a caregiver that may object to some of the medications I take because their church leader says it is sinful. I have serious issues with a medical practitioner that would refuse me the medication because they disapprove. I take birth control for a variety of reasons, none of which include sex. But what is my recourse if my pharmacist refuses to fill my order?

I welcome the opinion of my caregivers, but being refused treatment? Treatment that allows a person to live longer or in less pain? Isn't that making the caregiver judgmental and uncaring?

[amilyn]

I have watched you nurse since before you had a license. You are one of the most generous and compassionate and giving caregivers I've ever met. I know that you treated and treat others with care and dignity no matter what, that you offered your skill, your empathy, your kindness, your faith, yourself to all your patients (official and unofficial), no matter your personal convictions about their beliefs, lives, choices, etc