Both sides over-reacting on birth control

MarginOfError · #1 (**permalink**) 07-31-2008, 07:30 AM

Both frightening and amusing.

New HHS Proposal News Story

JcDean78 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-31-2008, 12:24 PM

As long as it is before the conception then I have no issue. After conception then it is murder.

MarginOfError · #3 (**permalink**) 07-31-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

As long as it is before the conception then I have no issue. After conception then it is murder.

Did you read the article?

HEthePrimate · #4 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcDean78

After conception then it is murder.

Maybe according to Jerry Falwell, but not according to the LDS Church.

HEthePrimate · #5 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008, 01:27 PM

Since abortion is legal, why don't they take the opposite approach and deny federal funds to those who refuse to perform abortions? Is it impossible for, say a Catholic hospital to operate without receiving federal funds, and they therefore would not have to perform abortions? (If so, so much for the free market being super efficient!) Or is this merely Bush's way of trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade without having enough support from the American people to actually change the law?

MarginOfError · #6 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Since abortion is legal, why don't they take the opposite approach and deny federal funds to those who refuse to perform abortions? Is it impossible for, say a Catholic hospital to operate without receiving federal funds, and they therefore would not have to perform abortions?

Ha ha ha ha...that's hilarious!

On the one hand, I see the need to protect doctors who choose not to perform procedures that they have personal moral obligations to. On the other, I see the need to ensure access to health care for patients. I was really annoyed by the case in California where a doctor refused to perform an abortion, gave a reference to a doctor that would, and was then sued for discrimination. What bothers me more is that the doctor lost!

So, the guidelines that Bush is proposing are supposed to help prevent that. But they do seem to be a bit over reaching. I think the regulations need to be that if a person's doctor chooses not to perform the procedure (or prescribe the medication) then he is safe from litigation as long as he refers the patient to someone who will perform or prescribe. Furthermore, if the referred doctor isn't covered by the patient's insurance, the insurance should have to pay the bill anyway.

This way, patients have all the access they expect when they go to the doctor, and doctors don't have to break their ethical/religious boundaries. And the doctors are protected unless they refuse to give a reference.

Moksha · #7 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008, 02:04 PM

Could the Bush Administration hold hold an equal position on colonoscopies?

HEthePrimate · #8 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

I was really annoyed by the case in California where a doctor refused to perform an abortion, gave a reference to a doctor that would, and was then sued for discrimination. What bothers me more is that the doctor lost!

Someone sued the doctor for discrimination because he wouldn't perform an abortion? I fail to see the logic behind that. Weird case.