Reversal of Bush Conscience Clause

by sammielee24 15 Replies latest jw friends

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    White House set to reverse health care conscience clause

    By Saundra Young
    CNN

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.

    The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

    The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

    The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.

    It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."

    Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

    "We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions, according to an official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The official declined to be identified because the policy change had not been announced. "We want to ensure that current law protects them.

    "But we do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."

    Many health-care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe health-care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. Critics of the current rule argue there are already laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.

    Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."

    "Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama took the first steps today to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."

    But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "Protecting the right of all health-care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances.

    "President's Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them."

    An announcement reversing the current rule is expected early next week, the HHS official said. Any final action would have to be taken after a 30-day public comment period.

  • jeeprube
    jeeprube

    It's so nice to see sanity returned to the White House.

  • Athanasius
    Athanasius

    Big Brother is watching.

  • beksbks
    beksbks
    It's so nice to see sanity returned to the White House.

    Ain't it the truth!

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    It sounds to me like they are keeping the healthcare workers ability to refuse to PARTICIPATE in certain procedures but removing the healthcare providers ability to refuse to TELL them that such procedures are available...

    If that is what this means then I am all for it.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I believe it has to do with the fact that for example: if I went to the hospital as a rape victim and the abortion pill was legally available for me as a choice, the health care provider, nurse, guard or other peson would no longer have the right to even discuss or let me know that I had the option of taking that pill. Bush had allowed everyone the right to simply not disclose any information if they felt it was against their moral beliefs. This will place the onus on those with strict fundamental beliefs to either find another line of work, find someone more suitable to discuss these options with the patient or abide by the rules of the employment they have or line of work they decided to work in.

    sammieswife.

  • ColdRedRain
    ColdRedRain

    You libs are all about "tolerance" and "diversity" and "fairness" so of course, you should be tolerant of another person's belief that destroying somebody's future for viable life is wrong. Lemme flip the coin on the other side. What if a staunch and committed vegan didn't want to give a pill to somebody because the capsule was made out of geletain and he or she would be fired for following their concience? The same said vegan would let another Dr fill the RX but wash their hands of the situation. Well, according to your beliefs, that vegan should be forced to go against their beliefs. Typical lib,you only want tolerance for thee, but not for him her or me.

  • dinah
    dinah

    I think Obama just realizes that every American isn't a fundamental bible thumper.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    The same said vegan would let another Dr fill the RX but wash their hands of the situation. Well, according to your beliefs, that vegan should be forced to go against their beliefs. Typical lib,you only want tolerance for thee, but not for him her or me.

    Typical fundy type answer - without even understanding the context.

    According to 'this' point of view, the vegan if it was against their beliefs, would be able to defer the situation to another doctor to give the pill but he would not be allowed to refuse to divulge or explain that the pill exists so that the patient has options and can make her/his own choice whether or not they want the pill. and that vegan. Totally different scenario.

    See - when a fundy point of view is the only point of view allowed to exist, you take away the choices in the lives of all people in order to push your ideals ahead and smother those of everyone else. Fundy's have zero tolerance. If a person is more liberal in that they believe ALL choices should at least be explained and offered, then that's a good thing. Call that liberal, call it fair, call it tolerant - those aren't bad things to be but it really means that if you don't want to hand out that pill because of your beliefs you don't have to - instead of an absolute piece of power over me because of your beliefs - you now have to share the power so I can make my own choices.

    sammieswife.

  • ColdRedRain
    ColdRedRain

    "

    Typical fundy type answer - without even understanding the context.

    According to 'this' point of view, the vegan if it was against their beliefs, would be able to defer the situation to another doctor to give the pill but he would not be allowed to refuse to divulge or explain that the pill exists so that the patient has options and can make her/his own choice whether or not they want the pill. and that vegan. Totally different scenario."

    Libs are so fun. He/she automatically thinks I'm a bible thumper because I think that anybody should *gasp* not be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

    So answer me this, why should a doctor do the job of what pamphlets in front of the doctor's office (Assuming it's a public hospital and not a private one) should do? The doctor finds life to be of value, no matter at what stage and he/she will stick to it.

    And FYI, I'm personally against abortion as a procedure but I think that legistlating it away is the wrong method to reduce it. Want to paint me into another corner based on a stereotype? I'll give you another stereotype. I eat jerk chicken and I have dreadlocks. Happy now?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit