Thursday, December 18, 2008

No health care: I don't believe in it

Well, they did it. They passed an extended rule about conscience clauses.

Now, remember, no one forces a physician to perform an abortion NOW. But ironically it is perfectly legal to FORCE a physician who supports a woman's right to choose, to have to read a scientifically inaccurate document that tells lies about the consequences of abortion. THat's where we were, yesterday.

Now, under the new Bush rule, if the receptionist doesn't like gay people, she can refuse to ring up anti-HIV drugs.

A pharmacy assistant who doesn't believe in birth control can deny a woman the Pill. Now, let me remind you that there are legitimate medical reasons for the Pill that have nothing to do with contraception (I know this as a woman, and a lesbian--trust me, birth control is not a conern). So the assistant gets to make the decision whether I "need" this medically?

Don't like black people? It's legal for you, the clerk, to refuse to fill someone's prescription for insulin.

AND it's legal for you NOT TO TELL THEM where any alternatives are.

This is run amok. Seriously.


Göran Koch-Swahne said...

In Europe the equivalent would mean to brake the employment contract.

MadPriest said...

You live in a country where there is a serious campaign to ban women who are pregnant due to rape from having abortions or even taking the morning after pill. The next step after this will be to ban a woman, whose pregnancy threatens her life, from having an abortion (something the RCC has already achieved in Nicaragua and elsewhere. Therefore, I think these cretinous pharmacists would just tell women wanting to take the pill in order to control extreme pain and stuff, to go away and suffer!

David said...

Since this exec order comes so close to the end of Bush's term, it's subject to a law which allows Congress to review and overturn it (can't find the reference right now, but this was reported on NPR yesterday).

There's just no way this will stand...

IT said...

Given that the Senate Democrats can't even push turncoat Joe Lieberma out of his chairmanship, I don't rely on Congress at all.


Arkansas Hillbilly said...

Well, we also know that the incoming President can rescend and executive order, so there still may be hope.

IT: to qoute Will rogers, if the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of progress is.....


David |Dah • veed| said...

This is not an executive order. It is a set of rules propagated by a department of the Administrative branch of the US government under a set procedure of proposal, hearings and final publishing of the resulting rules. It will take the Obama Administration many months of following the same process to undo this.

However, I understand that there is a provision for an act of the US Congress to set aside enactments of the outgoing administration in its final few months in a fell swoop.

(Your resident Mexican Statesonian-o-phile!)

Marshall said...


Let's write our Representatives and Senators nonetheless. How the Democratic Caucus might feel about Lieberman (which seems to be "better in the tent pissing out...."), the balance is different after January 1, and very different after January 20. If Congress presents the appropriate law to the newly-sworn-in President, the administrative rule will be reversed.

This set of rules is, of course, the result of another "straw man" argument, the sort that social conservatives delight in using to frighten and rally their supporters. Professionals have always had a right to refuse to provide care they considered unethical. The corollary in the codes of ethics of the professional organizations has been to refer, so that care is not prevented. The step we need to get to is to see health care as a civil right. When we can do that, we can address refusals of referral or reasonable accommodation.