Political Discussions
Senator will go to jail first if Obama repeals abortion ‘Conscience Clause’
Posted by TheBigRuski • 3/02/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: abortion, Barack Obama, life, politics, Senate
"I think a lot of us will go to jail. Let's see them prosecute the first one of us for not doing that." — Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
CNSNews.com is breaking a big one today:
U.S. Senator Says He Would Practice Civil Disobedience If Obama Repeals Abortion 'Conscience Clause'
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is also an OB/GYN, told CNSNews.com on Friday that many medical practitioners, including himself, will go to prison before agreeing to engage in medical practices they morally oppose, such as abortion.
Earlier that same day, the Obama administration had announced it was "reviewing" a Bush administration regulation known as the "conscience clause." That Health and Human Services regulation protects health-care workers at federally funded institutions from having to engage in practices that violate their moral or religious beliefs. These practices include performing or referring abortions, performing sterilizations, or giving or receiving training in these practices.
source: cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44269
My new hero! Discuss amongst yourselves!
User Comments
-
-
I can post cartoons as well!
-
Yeah, but I drew mine.
-
That's freakin' fantastic
-
And? -
pretty good:) much better than a dead chimp.
-
-
The bill that Bush introduced in the 11th hour is NOT the same thing as the church amendments.
Repealing this bill will NOT force doctors to learn how to perform abortions if they don't want to.
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-assualt-on-patients-rights.html
This proposal has greater ramifications of the field, as noted in the LA Times:
"This kind of rule could wreak havoc in a hospital if any employee can declare they are not willing to do certain parts of their job," she said.
Refusal to act, to refer patients, and to administer time sensitive emergency care to patients in need is a detriment to patients and in contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath doctors are required to take. The article goes on to state instances where religious beliefs cause undue harm and discrimination:
ACOG cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.-
Anok, what you've written here doesn't make any sense. You've stated that repeal would not require doctors to perform procedures to which they were opposed, then goes on to quote an article describing how it's important to repeal this provision because it will create chaos if doctors are allowed to decline to participate in procedures they don't believe in. That seems like a direct contradiction. Can you clarify?
-
-
"Church amendments"?
What's that?-
The "Church Amendments" are the original legislation that passed to prevent doctors from being coerced into obtaining licenses to perform abortions or sterilizations. ( edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-30134.htm SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a
final rule to ensure that Department funds do not support morally
coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of
federal law, pursuant to the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-7),
Public Health Service (PHS) Act Sec. 245 (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the
Weldon Amendment (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
110-161, Div. G, Sec. 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209). This final rule
defines certain key terms. )
42 USC 300 - Sec. 300a-7. Sterilization or abortion:
vlex.com/vid/sec-sterilization-abortion-19243285 (scroll down for an excerpt)
This legislation will NOT be removed if Bush's 11th hour bill is overturned. The 11th hour bill that Obama is looking at takes the Church amendments, and expands it to any medical procedure, research, or referrals and includes doctors, research/scientists, emergency medical services, insurance agencies and labs. -
Thanks Anok...let's hope doctors are given "pro-choice" rules when it comes to deciding not to perform, recommend, prescribe, or assist in any abortion other than medical emergency.
-
Yup - they already are, and have for years!
I personally believe that if a doctor doesn't want to perform certain surgeries/procedures then it's prudent not to pursue an education and license for that specific procedure. And this law simply means that their employer cannot force them to obtain such a license. Which is perfectly OK in my book.
The new bill however - well that one poses a lot of serious problems. You just can't have a bill that broad and far reaching without it causing a lot of trouble. -
Which specific procedures are licenses required for?
-
-
TBR:
Imagine you're a doctor. I come into the hospital with a bullet wound from a drive-by. On my admissions paperwork I truthfully fill in the religion box as Atheist. You, my doctor, see this and refuse, because of moral or religious revulsion, to treat my wound. In the ensuing chaos while another doctor is being found, I die.
Do you see the problem with letting your conscience trump the law?
If a medical procedure is legal, then any trained, qualified medical professional should be required to perform it, regardless of their personal feelings. This is the same kind of back door activism that pharmacists are guilty of when they refuse to dispense the Plan B pill or berate women buying it before relenting.
In any other position this conscience clause would never hold up; you're a construction worker and you have a moral objection to shovels, you're a public defender who has a problem with defending accused rapists, etc. If a person isn't willing to do all the LEGAL things that may be required of them in the capacity of their employment then they shouldn't be hired in the first place or, if the reluctance is discovered later, they should be fired.-
A doctor never asks about "religion" or "beliefs" when it comes to treatment. I don't understand why you would give that first example...it's not an example, it's lunacy.
-
I don't see how you can equate an emergency situation with anything else.
Yes, in an emergency, the doctor should be required to treat everyone. Look at the military, they treat wounded enemies too you know. That is not a problem.
And yes, if there is an emergency abortion to be carried out to save the life of a mother, then I would support that being a requirement as well.
A normal, planned abortion, isn't an emergency though. You have more than enough time to find another doctor. -
TBR:
"A doctor never asks about "religion" or "beliefs" when it comes to treatment. I don't understand why you would give that first example...it's not an example, it's lunacy."
Hospital intake forms still ask for religion to be disclosed and, since part of the chart an ER doc would see IS that intake form, the situation is certainly not impossible let alone lunacy.
But you're right, I used an extreme example to get my point across; just like the people protesting this law's examination conjure the images of rivers of baby blood being the only byproduct of it's being overturned.
I am glad you brought up lunacy though. Lunacy is behaving in ways that negatively impact other people while having no evidence or proof to support your behavior. For example, if a doctor whose religious beliefs on the nature of a human fetus conflict with his patient's perceived need (and constitutionally guaranteed right) to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy AND said doctor chooses to let his belief override his patient's need, that doctor is a lunatic.
In any other scenario, if a person's beliefs (non religious but otherwise unprovable) caused behavior that negatively impacted other people, we would have them committed as a danger to themselves and others. Why do we call it crazy when it's about pink elephants but conscience when it's about god? That's lunacy. -
csiunatc:
I answered your objection in my response to TBR below; not ignoring you, I just don't see the point in saying the same twice.
Cheers -
You are talking about a patients needs. However, an abortion could be considered a want. Couldn't it?
If a doctor is forced to carry out procedures that they don't want to based on a patients wants. Then we have a whole new set of problems.
This would place a physician in a position not to oppose someone like "octo-mom".
Also, do you propose that doctors be forced to kill patients if Euthanasia would be allowed?
In the end, I don't see the problem at all here. These are elective / non emergency procedures. And I for one, want a doctor that doesn't have a problem with it operating on me, wether that is for an ingrown toenail or something more serious. Just makes good sense to not have someone who isn't 100% into the procedure they are performing.
On the other hand, I've heard of people complaining that they weren't given abortions at Catholic hospitals. Now we have a catch 22. Anyone going to a catholic hospital asking for an abortion should be given one immediately followed by sterilization. Preventing them from passing those genes on. -
csiunatc:
First, totally agree about people seeking abortions at Catholic hospitals, it's bad enough there's no lifeguard for the gene pool, we should definitely be able to stop the stupids before they have a chance to dive in.
Second, on the needs/wants issue. Doctor's are service providers, ergo the wants of patients always come before the wants of their care givers. Again, we're talking about a completely legal procedure here, that patients have a right to access. If doctor's have a moral stance against the procedure they should find something else to do for a living.
To use your example of euthanasia; yes, I believe if the laws changed to allow it, doctors should be forced to comply with family and patient wishes. They make decisions every day that result in either deaths or life, I don't see why they should get squeamish when the decision comes from the patient instead.
Or maybe that's where the problem comes from in the first place. -
So that means that you think a physician should be forced to create Not only "octo-mom 2" but what about deci-mom.. Tetradeca-mom?
You think that since this is a legal procedure, a doctor has no right to refuse this? -
csiunatc:
Absolutely! Bring on litters of 20! Look, when something like Octo-Mom happens, governement immediately moves to put more stringent regulation in place. For example, when it became public knowledge that Tom Cruise bought an ultra sound machine and was subjecting Katie to daily screens, the California legislature immediately drafted a law prohibiting private citizens from purchasing advanced medical equipment. The legislature did this. The legislature. Those whose job it is to make and change laws. Not doctors.
If it's legal and a patient wants it, the doctor does it. If he doesn't like it, he quits or lobbies to have the law changed but he doesn't get to legislate from the inside of an operating room. -
And meanwhile, we bring how many children into the world, Don't for a second think that artificial insemination laws are going to be as easy to implement as who can purchase what equipment.
How many kids should function as legislation bats for one side to swing against the other until they settle on a political bargain of how many embryos should be implanted. 9 3/4 unless they are fraternal twins in which case only 5 1/4 can be implanted. Unless they are fraternal with red hair in which case the "red-headed stepchild amendment prohibits more than 1.. Which negates the fraternal twin possibility so in other words no redheads.
No, let doctors work after their originl commitment to the hippocratic oath, and do no harm. And then let them decide what harm is. Just like they always have. -
The extermination of a black race is upon us. Its unbelievable how many abortions they get compared to everyone else. Why do we let this happen? Because America is full of baby killers.
-
csiunatc:
Sorry sir, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I prefer to let lawmakers decide what harm is, not doctors who already have god complexes.
But, on the flip side, thank you for shining some reason into the room and not just making it about abortions.
jhixon2:
Yay! Welcome! I was dissapointed that we hadn't yet heard from the loon contingent yet. Now that you're here...
Where do you get your statistic on the frequency of black abortions compared those of other ethnicities?
Are you talking about African Americans or "the black race" everywhere? Because, the last I checked, on the actual continent that homes the majority of "black race", the people are doing a good enough job exterminating each other without bringing abortion into it.
And on what do you base your opinion that "America is full of baby killers? Oh, you meant embryos or fetuses, NOT babies? Glad you cleared that up, we wouldn't want your personal opinions on what constitutes a human and what constitutes a cluster of cells getting in the way of a rational discussion, now would we?
Bah. -
Heres your sources
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18471304
www.nbccongress.org/features/abortion_silent_no_more_01.asp
articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/23/science/sci-abortion23
www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/08/13/index.html
Abortion Statistics - U.S. (Compiled by The Alan Guttmacher Institute)
Approximately 1,370,000 elective abortions occur annually in the U.S.
· 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
· 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
· 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
· 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").
Abortion Statistics - Demographics
· Age - 52% of women getting an abortion are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
· Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
· Race - 63% of abortion patients are white. African-American women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.
· Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion identify as Protestant & 27% Catholic.
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
· 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil 115/Stats_on_abortion.htm
Need I post anymore statistics or are you satisfied?
In the first 6 to 12 weeks are where most abortions occur. So if we say an abortion happened at 12 weeks. About 3 months. That "useless" cluster of cells will be a baby in 6 more months. Who are you to say it isn't a baby? Its goal is to live and survive and killing it prevents that. O I am sorry if you get offended by what I say. I don't lay down like a b@tch like some people when you and others try to gang bang people with your version of how the world should be in your eyes. Get over it. -
You answered my questions with your statistics very nicely.
1)"63% of abortion patients are white" and yet, in your previous post you implied that black people had the highest percentage of abortions.
2)"88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy." and then you said, "That "useless" cluster of cells will be a baby in 6 more months. Who are you to say it isn't a baby?"
By your own words you agree with me, you say, "will be a baby." Which means it isn't one yet.
I'm sorry that you feel "gang banged" by the use of logic and reason; perhaps there was an early childhood incident with a scientist? In any case I will not "get over" my desire to live in a world free from misinformation, unsubstantiated opinion, and paranoid delusion.
I'm so glad you decided not to "lay down like a b@tch", it's much more fun when the information you're basing your misguided opinions on doesn't even support you. -
Blacks only make up 13% of the population.
That also explains why women have 100% of abortions, even though they only make up just over 50% of the population.
You can't measure occurence without understanding statistical representation.
So that means that black women are much more likely to have an abortion than white women. -
csiunatc:
Meh, you say tomato...
There are more more black women getting abortions than white women, but most abortions are had by white women. I think this is one of those issues where statistical representation within a subgroup can be ignored. The majority of abortions are had by white, christian women under 25, and while the fetus is under 12 weeks old (which by most people's standards doesn't constitute babyhood yet.) This doesn't really sound to me like the kind of data that can be used to support the statement:
"The extermination of a black race is upon us."
There are 43 million or so African Americans living in the U.S. Even if you accept the figure of 1 370 000 elective abortions annually the total loss of black lives to abortion is at a rate of less that 1 percent per year (and we're not actually talking about shrinkage but lack of growth). Since I'm guessing their population is growing by more than that...
It's the melodrama that I was reacting to, as well as the easy target. -
You barely read into the statistics. Right beside what you said was.
"African-American women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely." -
Thats still 1,370,000 babies that didn't get a chance to grow up and live. You act like that is such a minute figure. The state of Alaska and the District of Columbia combined don't have that many people.
And
Where is your source that says MOST woman don't constitute a fetus as a baby at 12 weeks? I don't buy that.
"I'm sorry that you feel "gang banged" by the use of logic and reason; perhaps there was an early childhood incident with a scientist? In any case I will not "get over" my desire to live in a world free from misinformation, unsubstantiated opinion, and paranoid delusion."
"I'm so glad you decided not to "lay down like a b@tch", it's much more fun when the information you're basing your misguided opinions on doesn't even support you."
Yes it does support what I said you dope. You probably didn't even look at the other links that I put up which support what I said to. I guess you disagree with facts. Yea a free world where everyone agrees with you.
-
-
Good let them go to jail. What's next.. refusing to give out blood pressure medicine because you feel that god gives people high blood pressure for a reason?-
Ya...blood pressure medicine and abortion...that's a pretty close comparison!
Again, another example of bias against Christians. -
Remember, it's not abortion anymore. It's impeachment. -
"And I especially want to hear from those with opposing views." - Barack Obama, victory speech on election night.
Get ready Obama, here it comes! A tidal wave of "opposing views" like you have never seen! -
"Again, another example of bias against Christians."
Ummm, not to be an ass, but I thought the bias you were concerned about here was about pre-formed humans, or maybe doctors who shouldn't have gotten into medicine if their morals were going to get in the way of their professional obligations. When did this become about Christians? Is it because Cooper said god? Did I miss a memo; when did Christianity corner the market on god? -
JFinn, you must learn how Ruski operates. You have to wait a little bit before he reveals his true motives in a discussion thread that he starts. It's a little tricky to tease it out sometimes, it always is when dealing with the passive-aggressive, but patience will eventually prevail.
Then again, sometimes he'll just blurt something out like the Obama quote above, apropos of nothing. But I think that's just to throw the rest of us off. -
Renal:
No I've run into him before; he threw down a gauntlet and said I should read a few sample chapters of his favorite book before criticizing his philosophy, which I did. I then wrote a line by line rebuttal of his source material and haven't heard from him since lol. I just swung by to see if it was possible he was having a strictly political conversation, or if it was going to bleed into the realm of, "Poor us, poor us, we the majority have it so bad, everyone's against us and all we want to do is bludgeon you with our "morals." "
Sigh, guess which it turned out to be? -
You guys act like pompous jerks just like how you describe Rush.
-
The principle of freedom of conscience cuts both ways. It means that you are not obliged to violate it. From what I understand this bill will not force anyone to violate the rights guaranteed under the first amendment.
-
-
That would be like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. At least some of these senators would be on the right side of the bars for awhile. -
You guys (and gals) just be too intelligencia for me!
BTW...here's a more recent quote from my new hero:
"I will do nothing against my conscience in the practice of medicine ever regardless of what any law is at any time, " Sen. Tom Coburn told FOX News. "And I can tell you that there are a lot of physicians that feel exactly that same way across the country."-
I think we might be lol Everyone knows that you don't take the opinions of people who talk to FOX "News" seriously. Ye gads.
And you still haven't answered my question about where the bias towards Christianity was. -
Your "everyone" is not my "everyone."
You gave an example that didn't make sense (You later said it was an extreme example). Let's just leave it at that.
I may have erred when saying "Christianity." Sorry.
You obviously have a skeptic's heart. I hope it leads you well someday. -
"You obviously have a skeptic's heart. I hope it leads you well someday."
I have a reasonable heart, and a logical heart, but I'm not a skeptic. I just don't believe in fairy tales. And it leads me well now, thank you very much. -
"fairy tales"
Time to re-evaluate! -
"Time to re-evaluate!"
Based on what, precisely? You'd consider belief in Zeus or Odin or Mithras indulgence in fairy tales; how is your belief anymore valid? -
Keep sinning, buddy!
Do not have any other gods before me. -- Exodus 20:3 -
"Do not have any other gods before me. -- Exodus 20:3"
Ummm, what? What does that have to with anything?
1) I don't worship any gods; nor do I worship Unicorns, Elves, Dwarves, Dragons or reasonable Republicans, and all for the same reason; they don't exist.
2) Once again, and we've had this chat before, you get no points from me for using a book written by drooling primates as "proof" of your misguided beliefs; you might be able to make a case that I can't prove the lack of any form of design in the Universe, but the second you bring scripture into it, you lose all credibility.
But since you did:
3)The reason that particular commandment is phrased that way is a direct acknowledgment of the fact that pre-Judaism Semites worshiped a pantheon of which Yahweh was just a small part. This is why god isn't saying here, "worship no other gods," but rather, worship me first.
It's the height of ignorance for a Christian to call me out for "sinning," your entire faith is based on the concept of absolution of sin; you can't be absolved if you haven't sinned, you collosal ignoramus.
-
-
The issue isn't in large cities where people have a choice. It's more in small towns where there might only be a few doctors and none will perform a certain procedure. Or a doctor might deem an abortion necessary to save the mother's life, but the nut-jobs in town might ostracize him for performing it.
-
Can you show me any facts about this. Any stories about someone who ended up giving birth because finding a doctor that would do it was impossible?
Is this just non-factual emotional rhetoric. Or do you have any proof at all that this is actually a problem? -
It's called logic.
-
Any stories about someone who ended up giving birth because finding a doctor that would do it was impossible?
There probably are, but there definitely are stories of women dying from having back-alley abortions because they couldn't get a legal abortion. -
find me one.. a recent one.. not one from before R v. W.
Because i've been looking, and i can't find a single note that this is a problem. -
Shorter CSI: If it never happened before, it can never happen ever.
-
Shorter,
If it isn't a problem, don't fix it.
-
-
This whole issue is about the government trying to control social norms. The government mandating that certain doctors be forced to perform abortion is a gross violation of individual rights. I think that Sen. Coburn is making a good point (though a bit extreme), that doctors do not want the government mandating the definition of medical ethics, which I would certainly agree with. Doctors are supposed to act in the best interest regarding the HEALTH of the patient and not necessarily what the patient WANTS (that is called cosmetic surgery). Just because a doctor will not perform a certain procedure does not make that person a bad doctor. The government is run by a bunch of knuckleheads that know virtually nothing about medicine and should not be telling the medical community what they can and cannot do. -
OK - No one is forcing doctors to do abortions. There are already laws in place (and have been for a while) to protect doctors from being coerced into obtaining a license to perform abortions.
If a doctor does not want to perform abortions, then all they have to do is not get a license to perform abortions.
The bill in question is NOT about abortions, but about "any medical act, medical referral, or medical research that goes against the person/research lab/insurance company's religious views.
ANY.
The bill Obama is looking to over turn is too broad and has the potential for serious health care patient need repercussions.
And no Erik - an octo-mom insemination case is based on the health of the mother. Carrying 8 fetuses poses a serious risk of health to the mother and the fetuses. Inseminating a woman with too many eggs is a dangerous practice. Opposing that has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with reproductive science. This law has nothing to do with doctor's risking the health of a patient just because the patient wants it, or just because the doctor wants it, or just because it makes a buck or two.
Doctors can and are protected by law - allowed to refuse patients "medical care" that would endanger the patient. Such as prescription medications for people who aren't sick, or elective surgeries that pose a high risk.
They are not allowed to refuse medical treatment of patients simply because of the doctor's religion.
If their job requires them to do things that are against their religion, they should seek alternative employment.-
Anok, this is the second time you've mentioned licenses to perform abortions--can you clarify? I've never heard of a license to perform abortions. Medical doctors can perform abortions. In some states, other medical professionals such as nurse practitioners can perform abortions. Are you actually saying that someone who doesn't wish to perform abortions should not obtain a license to practice medicine, or am I missing something?
-
Not all medical licenses allows a doctor to practice all medical procedures. Perhaps "licensing" is the wrong term - certification would probably be more correct.
For example, a gynecologist goes to school for female reproductive health, and can legally perform check ups, exams, and minor procedures (such as cervical freezing) as well as write prescriptions and do fittings for barrier contraception. If they went to school only for gynecology, they are not obstetricians, nor are they abortionists. Nor is a midwife a licensed obstetrician (Capable of performing surgery or abortions or writing prescriptions).
Technically speaking, yes they can perform such procedures as I'm sure they know enough to do it - but they are not specifically licensed to perform them regularly.
There is also strict licensing procedures for places that do or plan to perform abortions.
The Church Amendments outline the fact that employers cannot coerce doctors into receiving such training and certification (although I swear it said licensing) to perform abortions.
-
-
TBR, what's this about prison? I haven't seen the actual text, but this kind of provision is typically tied to funding and would only impact employability. If there is really an issue of criminalizing refusal to perform procedures, that's a huge issue--but seems very unlikely. If there isn't, I'm disappointed that this politician either doesn't understand the difference or is misrepresenting the situation to make his statement more dramatic.
-
The link to the story is posted in the topic header text.
It's very simple. If there is a law that says he must be a part of an abortion procedure in any way, he said he will not abide by that law.
Of course there is drama to it! However, he feels strongly enough about it that he is willing to oppose it in any way he can. That's the point...not jail time or not. -
But if there's a law that doesn't provide for any criminal penalties (and none are mentioned in the story you linked to), why would he be talking about going to jail? Just to make himself look like a hero, when in fact there's no risk to him at all? That doesn't seem very noble. -
No risk at breaking a law when it's passed and signed? Wait, I don't understand.
Yes, his statement was all about drama. However, the truth is he would not abide by if it became law. Seems more than noble to me because there is a higher law. -
Ruski, it's not "breaking the law" to refuse to comply with funding mandates--you just lose funding. The only way this law would even apply to this particular person would be if he were practicing medicine in one of those federally funded programs and refused to perform certain procedures. The "risk" in that case would be that the program would have to decide either to fire him or to lose federal funding. There is no provision for sanctions against an individual doctor and certainly no criminal penalty that could under any stretch of the imagination ever lead to jail time.
I absolutely agree that medical professionals should stand their ground on this, but I can't see anything noble in pretending that you're taking risks and giving things up when in fact the law doesn't impact you at all. That seems more about "look how dedicated I am" than about the issue.
-
-
Sheesh give the rights to this decision back to the states so people have choices, and if you don't like what options you have go move somewhere that supports your views.-
Because that whole states' rights thing worked so well with segregation...
-
wow another blow to southerners. your on a role.
-
wow, another blow to proper syntax, vocabulary, and the English language as a whole. You're on a roll.
-
Like it really matters. i think bashing southerners is more important that misspelling a word.
-
jhixon2:
Renal's point isn't bashing, it's perfectly valid. If certain states (and here I'm thinking mostly those south of the Mason/Dixon line) didn't have such an appalling track record of abusing minorities every time the choice has been left up to them, maybe the Federal Government wouldn't feel the need to babysit you. -
the whole country had an appalling track record of abusing minorities.
-
The fact is that states' rights is what this country was founded on. Our system of government explicitly left many powers in the hands of the states and provided for a small federal government with a very limited reach. That system has been systematically broken down over time, through large blows (The shift under Lincoln from a voluntary association of states to a unified country that would be held together by force) and small (Supreme Court rulings that have worked too hard and stretched too far to achieve good purposes through dangerous processes).
-
well put
-
In my opinion, Individual rights come before states rights. That is, the 9th Amendment trumps the 10th. That being said, the federal gov't hasn't had the best record on race relations either. Transcontinental Railroad was chartered by Lincoln's Union after all.
-
The trail of tears to where so many Indians were murdered. thanks Andrew Jackson
-
I bet you refuse to have money given to you in twenties because of that. And no fives or pennies because of that dastardly Confederacy-whoopin' Lincoln either. Dimes must also be a sore subject too with that socialist FDR on them too. Tens and ones only! And all change must be in nickels and quarters!
-
wow......no
-
-
Amen!!!
-
...and Amen!!!
-
thats true conservatism.
-
Ahem is religion
conservatism is an idea -
its not a religion, I could say that liberalism is a religion and thats not true either.
-
The republican party is a cult
-
@satijournal
I agree. -
Prove that the Democrats aren't a cult
-
Prove that the republican party isn't a cult.
-
Neither party is a cult because what you are talking about isn't in association with the group entirely. It is about the ideals and what you find in that group is community. Community is an extra benefit. The ideals are of their own the ideals aren't the community. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican parties are cults, and declaring the contrary is merely useless partisan propaganda.
-
exactly
-
-
I am the cult of personality!
Stay out of my bedroom and let me make my own bad choices. I am tired of the abortion fight.
How can you one be pro war, pro death penalty and anti abortion? That would cover most republicans/conservatives..... right?-
Heh.
I once dated a girl whose father was a military officer and a devout Christian.
I asked him how he'd feel if his daughter brought home a Jewish, homeless hippy peacenik with a foot washing fetish.
He said he'd punch him in the throat and toss him out on his ass.
Gotta love consistency. lol -
@ gmoney
It is an assumption to say that Republicans are pro war. Some may yes but most in almost all situations not so much. Anti-abortion? Some yes but most no as they are Pro Life and there is a difference - just as in most Democrats there is a difference between some that are pro-choice and pro-abortion (and obviously most there are pro choice not pro abortion). And as far as the death penalty? Need I say Obama has been pro death penalty? Too many assumptions. Don't stereotype unless they are majority figures.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
