Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule (for health services)

Post Reply New Topic

Which I gather would still be illegal. And even if they do ... umm... call the doctor, explain that the pharmacist is being an ass and have them write out a new scrip or call it in to another pharmacy where the pharmacist isn't being an ass... it's not rocket science.

Umm... no I'm not incorrect... again. I sat in a Catholic mass around the time I was 19 or 20 with my fiance (now ex). I was just out of high-school. You were probably just not quite out of high-school yet. And I listened to them talking about it being a real problem that there was a law being passed that was going to force them to perform abortions... They may have repealed that law or it may not have been finalized, but it was considered a serious threat. It was close enough for them to be concerned about it becoming a possibility in the future even if it did pass and hence, working toward this. There was a big "call to action" to fight the new law. I remembered it being passed -- I may have remembered that much inaccurately.

And what is your obsession with stating that another person in a discussion is incorrect? You can't just state your side, you feel the need to reinforce it with an arbitrary additional "you're wrong" just for emphasis? Just to try and make the other person feel bad or something?

Hypothetical situation:
a woman is raped Thursday night. She takes several hours to calm down enough to call her doctor, but manages to get an appointment for Friday afternoon. She goes in, gets a scrip for EC, and the doctor faxes it to the woman's pharmacy. After her appointment, the woman goes to the pharmacy to get the EC. The pharmacist refuses, and won't release the scrip. The woman calls the doctor's office, but it is now closed and the on call physician isn't familiar with her case. He tells her to go to the ER if it's an emergency, which EC is not considered to be. The doctor's office does not reopen until Monday, and EC is most effective when taken less than 48 hours after intercourse; after 72 hours, it's basically ineffective.

I have heard reports of this happening, but haven't seen them in the press.

The hospital I work at, and indeed the entire health system I work for, prohibits abortions in its facilities. There is not now and never has been a law that forces Catholic-owned hospitals to perform abortions, regardless of what you heard in mass. There *are* laws that require Catholic hospitals (including mine) to include birth control in their employee health plans, which many Catholics consider a form of abortion, so maybe that's what you remember.



It's the nicest way I can think of to say, 'You're full of s**t and don't know what the hell you're talking about. You think that listening to a biased preacher makes you informed. You are stating factually incorrect data to support your opinion.'

I *did* read all you wrote. And quoted it. Did you read that?

My objection was specifically tailored to your idea of forcing certain people to work at only certain designated places. That's unacceptable.


A more exact analogy would be to tell a vegetarian working at a salad restaurant to go in the back and get the hog, butcher it, cook it, and make bacon-bits so that the meat eaters can put some on their salad.

I respect (though I do not share) the beliefs of vegetarians. Requiring them to kill, cook, eat, or even handle meat would be wrong.


In none of the numerous examples in the links you cited did they actually object to regular birth control. They objected to Emergency Contraception -- aka the "abortion pill".


Your artificial insemination example *still* doesn't ring true. The article you reference that mentioned this type of incident also mentions the doctor who refused treatment getting sued over it. (Rightly, in my opinion.) Again, nothing I have seen or heard has suggested that the new rule allows moral objections to people or behavior. It allows people to *not participate in* a procedure that is against their conscience.

Using the salad/vegetarian/bacon-bits analogy, giving out the "abortion pill" is kind of in a grey area, just like a vegetarian distributing bacon bits, without actually killing or eating himself, is in a bit of a grey area. Society should not make such delicate moral judgements for people.

Society does not. The vegetarian can do whatever he or she wants, just not wherever or to whomever he or she wants. This rule allows religious people to impose their beliefs on others who are dependent on them, nothing more and nothing less.

BTW:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... denied-ec/

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topic ... ed_001.pdf

http://www.ppatp.org/Obstructing%20Acce ... 20Room.htm

No, that's not what I remember. I remember abortion being discussed very specifically.

Last edited by ike on 24 Dec 2008, 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Find me a source that says that Catholic hospitals are legally required to perform abortions, and I'll believe you. I won't just take your word for it because I work at a Catholic hospital, and abortions are not performed here, nor at any of the other hospitals in our system. A difficult record to keep if it were actually illegal, no?

I have yet to see you post any resources to back up what you claim. Besides which, you have failed to respond to any of the sources that I have posted.

speaking of which:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 80_pf.html

http://www.feministing.com/archives/011744.html

http://www.pfli.org/
( http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law )

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/ ... cy-access/

Last edited by LKL on 24 Dec 2008, 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

If factually incorrect data is being used, point it out. If logically flawed arguments are being used, point them out. If someone appears to be a jerk or a moron, politely omit pointing this out.

If you're right, then everyone else will also see that they are a jerk and/or moron anyway.

If you're wrong, then you are the jerk and/or moron.

Whether you're right or wrong, flaming someone about it will only make them want to flame you back.

Funny, I thought that saying, "That is false," or "That is incorrect,"
was a polite way of pointing out that something was factually incorrect. I guess I was wrong.

I said before that I may have been mistaken that the law was actually passed. I'm not mistaken about what I remember being discussed. And it was considered a serious enough threat that the church as a whole made a point of trying to get the message out specifically to fight the proposed law. If it was only proposed and I was mistaken about it having been passed, then there wouldn't be any records of abortions having been performed at any of the hospitals because it never would have gotten to that stage. It would however be reason enough for them to campaign for stronger laws in the opposite direction out of the fear of the possibility that it might be passed at a later date. They were already upset about the outcome of Roe v. Wade to begin with. I do know they were really afraid of it happening. Whether or not it was actually signed into law I'm willing to admit is where my memory is fuzzy.

I'm sorry that I overreacted, that was uncool.

Indicating that you believe something is incorrect is fine. I don't think that I would have reacted the way I did if I'd read the comments stated as an opinion, rather than as a fact. I.e. "I don't believe x is correct" versus "x is false". But as in this case, often not possible for a person to know because, none of us are omnipotent (which is what imo statements of fact such as this imply that the person making them believes themselves to be omnipotent, at least with regard to the subject matter). I try to be very careful myself about phrasing these kinds of comments as my opinion ... usually... I do slip up from time to time (as I think I did toward the beginning of this thread and then later clarified that my memory of the event is fuzzy in some areas). The repetition of the statement "that is false" or the addition of the word "again" to me also is an indication of goading, because your position had already been well established.

I'm sorry also about the earlier "it's not rocket science" comment. Today seems to have been a challenging day for me, I'm sorry that I let it get the best of me.

I think a great metaphor can be made here:


Let's say that I am religiously opposed to fun. All types of fun. Thus, I try and stop everyone from having fun. If I wanted there to be a law that gave me the right to deny fun to everyone, people would think I was stupid. Because, just because I don't like fun it doesn't mean I have to ruin it for everyone else, does it?

Not really, if that pharmacy is (literally) the only game in town ....

Bush is just trying to wreck as much as he can before he's thrown out in January.

Right.