Catholics Call on President-Elect Obama to Rescind Refusal Clause Regulation

[Don Quixote]

interesting division among catholics

Source: Catholics for Choice

“The conscience, or more correctly refusal, clause regulation issued by the Bush administration attacks the health options open to women and men throughout the United States.
“This regulation represents a low point in the administration’s eight-year campaign to restrict and deny access to reproductive health care in the US and abroad. From day one, with the imposition of the Global Gag Rule, the administration has tried to impose its ideology on the choices available to women and men seeking to exercise their legal rights in the health-care arena. Today’s regulation significantly expands the concept of refusal clauses beyond protecting the religious and moral beliefs of health-care providers. Promoted by the antichoice movement and under the guise of protecting religious freedom, this clause now serves as a means for medical professionals to opt out of providing essential reproductive health-care services and medications. It will be the poor and powerless who will be most affected by this draconian measure.
“While some have erroneously pointed to Catholic teaching to support the imposition of ever-more restrictive refusal clauses, the reality is that these clauses are anathema to the Catholic tradition. Catholic teaching requires due deference to the conscience of others in making decisions-meaning that health-care providers must not dismiss the conscience of the person seeking care.
“The goal of any reasonable conscience clause must be to strike the right balance between the right of health-care professionals to provide care that is in line with their moral and religious beliefs and the right of patients to have access to the medical care they need. At times when the conscience of an individual doctor, nurse or pharmacist may conflict with the wishes or needs of a patient, patients should not have to worry about the religious and moral beliefs of their providers interfering with the provision of the best possible care.
“As the next administration has made clear its support for reproductive rights, we call upon President-elect Obama to rescind this regulation in favor of a one that upholds the right to sexual and reproductive health.”
See also the CFC publication, In Good Conscience, available online.
Source: Catholics for Choice

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i'm pretty sure obama is not catholic...but i support their right to petition him.

 

[Don Quixote]

i'm pretty sure obama is not catholic...but i support their right to petition him.

personally, i would get rid of the rule period

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

personally, i would get rid of the rule period

why?

 

[Don Quixote]

why?

perhaps i over stated, if providers that do not have a problem providing either the medication or service are available, then let them do it, but if not such person is available, then the provider would have to provide the medication/service

it it may be a religious question, but when a person enters the medical field, they should not be able to pick and choose which services/medications they will provide EXCEPT on a medical basis


when you enter a work place you should check your religious beliefs at the door

if you do not agree, then choose a different place...or nation

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

perhaps i over stated, if providers that do not have a problem providing either the medication or service are available, then let them do it, but if not such person is available, then the provider would have to provide the medication/service

it it may be a religious question, but when a person enters the medical field, they should not be able to pick and choose which services/medications they will provide EXCEPT on a medical basis


when you enter a work place you should check your religious beliefs at the door

if you do not agree, then choose a different place...or nation

unless an absolute emergency, no other choice, could not the potential patient choose another doctor?

 

[Good Luck]

perhaps i over stated, if providers that do not have a problem providing either the medication or service are available, then let them do it, but if not such person is available, then the provider would have to provide the medication/service

it it may be a religious question, but when a person enters the medical field, they should not be able to pick and choose which services/medications they will provide EXCEPT on a medical basis


when you enter a work place you should check your religious beliefs at the door

if you do not agree, then choose a different place...or nation

Maybe the religious are getting sick and fucking tired of being told our beliefs need to be "checked at the door." The secular are getting more and more bold about suggesting that religion is something to be ashamed of and kept behind locked doors. Sorry to disappoint you anti-religion assholes, but that is not what freedom of religion is about. Nor is religion (at least if one TRULY practices their religion as opposed to giving it lip service) is about. Religion is about how one lives their life, in total, at all times, not just in church. That includes while at work. Don't like it when people bring their religion into all aspects of their lives, that's too fucking bad.

And no, you brain dead fucking totalitarian shit, I am NOT about to choose a different nation in order to accommodate your desires to be free from religion. MY nation guarantees freedom OF religion - INCLUDING the freedom to EXPRESS my religion, and the freedom of others to express their religion, or for those who don't believe in any religion, to express that set of disbeliefs. You don't like that then why don't YOU find some asshole nation (China for instance) that outlaws religious practices so you can feel safe from us religion touting weirdos.

And the CFCs are wrong, anyway. One's relationship with God is paramount. God comes first in all aspects of life, for without God there would be no life. No profession, nor other socio-political consideration can/should be put above one's relationship with God. This belief is core to most religions and denominations, no matter which religious text (Torah, Bible, or Quoran) one's religion uses to guide one's religious practices. To force by LAW one to abandon their religious beliefs because of the rare circumstance in any given profession where one's beliefs are at odds with the demands of a client (who is free to choose any other professional in the field) is at odds with the first amendment which states that no law shall be written that abridges the free expression of religion.

BTW: Your title is (deliberately?) misleading. Catholics for Choice are knowingly at variance with the official stand of the Church on matters of "reproductive rights" (Boy I just LOVE how creative people get at naming when defending the practice of killing unborn children.) They do not represent the official position of the Catholic Church, nor even a significant minority of the Catholic membership.

 

[charver]

One's relationship with God is paramount. God comes first in all aspects of life, for without God there would be no life. No profession, nor other socio-political consideration can/should be put above one's relationship with God.

Weren't you a military man? What happened to "thou shalt not kill"?

 

[Don Quixote]

unless an absolute emergency, no other choice, could not the potential patient choose another doctor?

possibly, but the major problem is pharmacists refusing to dispense morning after pill, e.g., a woman who had been raped went to a pharmacy to get a morning after pill and got a lecture about how she should have 'keep her legs together'

also, the physician maybe her primary care provider and her insurance required her to see that doctor without going through a lot of red tape

perhaps you cannot relate to how a woman may feel under the circumstances and having a doctor or pharmacist deny her needed care, they should grit their teeth and do it without a lecture


or do you think that medical providers should be above the law

 

[Don Quixote]

Maybe the religious are getting sick and fucking tired of being told our beliefs need to be "checked at the door." The secular are getting more and more bold about suggesting that religion is something to be ashamed of and kept behind locked doors. Sorry to disappoint you anti-religion assholes, but that is not what freedom of religion is about. Nor is religion (at least if one TRULY practices their religion as opposed to giving it lip service) is about. Religion is about how one lives their life, in total, at all times, not just in church. That includes while at work. Don't like it when people bring their religion into all aspects of their lives, that's too fucking bad.

And no, you brain dead fucking totalitarian shit, I am NOT about to choose a different nation in order to accommodate your desires to be free from religion. MY nation guarantees freedom OF religion - INCLUDING the freedom to EXPRESS my religion, and the freedom of others to express their religion, or for those who don't believe in any religion, to express that set of disbeliefs. You don't like that then why don't YOU find some asshole nation (China for instance) that outlaws religious practices so you can feel safe from us religion touting weirdos.

And the CFCs are wrong, anyway. One's relationship with God is paramount. God comes first in all aspects of life, for without God there would be no life. No profession, nor other socio-political consideration can/should be put above one's relationship with God. This belief is core to most religions and denominations, no matter which religious text (Torah, Bible, or Quoran) one's religion uses to guide one's religious practices. To force by LAW one to abandon their religious beliefs because of the rare circumstance in any given profession where one's beliefs are at odds with the demands of a client (who is free to choose any other professional in the field) is at odds with the first amendment which states that no law shall be written that abridges the free expression of religion.

BTW: Your title is (deliberately?) misleading. Catholics for Choice are knowingly at variance with the official stand of the Church on matters of "reproductive rights" (Boy I just LOVE how creative people get at naming when defending the practice of killing unborn children.) They do not represent the official position of the Catholic Church, nor even a significant minority of the Catholic membership.

does this mean that religious people are above the law - i seem to remember "render unto god that which is god's and unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

it is a difficult problem no matter which side you are on

but, the law of the land is currently on the side of the pro-choice not the pro-life

follow the constitution and the law or change it - or move to a nation with a christian theocracy

i do not deny yours or anyone else's beliefs as long as you do not try to break the law or impose your beliefs on me

if you oppose abortion, do not have one

 

[Don Quixote]

Weren't you a military man? What happened to "thou shalt not kill"?

it is ok, as long as god is on your side

however, as a military man, i believe that you swear an oath to preserve and defend the constitution

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Doctors take an oath to protect life and to save it, abortion destroys life. I can't see how a doctor who believes abortion is wrong, could be forced by government to perform them. If we are talking about birth control, I think that is a different matter. I do believe doctors should not be allowed to 'opt out' of prescribing birth control, based on their personal beliefs. However, I also think any service professional should have the right of choice in who they provide services to.

 

[Don Quixote]

Doctors take an oath to protect life and to save it, abortion destroys life. I can't see how a doctor who believes abortion is wrong, could be forced by government to perform them. If we are talking about birth control, I think that is a different matter. I do believe doctors should not be allowed to 'opt out' of prescribing birth control, based on their personal beliefs. However, I also think any service professional should have the right of choice in who they provide services to.

the medical community has decided that a fetus becomes a baby when it can live without life support

if another medical professional is readily available, then a medical professional can 'opt out' by referring the patient to said medical professional

if not then it is said medical professionals' duty to preform the service

i say this as it is the law and a persons' personal beliefs may not transcend the law

ps i do not know what your beliefs are, but i have posted a poll asking if i am condemned to hell because of my beliefs or lack of beliefs

 

[Cancel7]

It doesn't matter what GL or Dixie believe - Obama is going to overturn this. This is in the trashcan come January, no matter how much some insecure men emote.

I saw Katha Pollit on tv last night. She's one of my favorites ever since I read her book "learning to drive" where she wrote that her bf had broken up with her complaining that she never woke him up with a blowjob. And she wrote, "and it's true, I never did wake him up with a blowjob". I still laugh when I think about that.

She pointed out some very valid things to be outraged over regarding Rick Warren. Some of them no one really knows about because of all of the anti-gay stuff he is up to. For one thing, he believes in divorce for only two reasons; infidelity or abandonment.

You don't see abuse there do you? In fact, I think Muslims can divorce for infidelity and sexual abandonment too. Well, you know, the important half can.

And so Pollit is right, she really is. Except that yesterday I had my niece and nephew over so their mother could wrap their gifts from santa. They were "helping me" bake. Which meant they were taste-testing after things were done. When the sugar high kicked in, they would keep bothering each other, and then when I stopped them, one or the other would complain to me "she's smirking" "he's smirking". "No but look - she's smirking!"

I think I see a lot of that on the left today. A lot of us are very perturbed because the right is smirking.

But this "right of refusal" is going to be shitcanned, and beginning in 2009 if you are hired to serve women's health, you will do your fucking job or you will get the fuck out and go get a job at McDonalds, period.

The global gag order - also gone.

Bush gave a lot of sweet talk to women - who can forget his fierce defense of the right of ob-gyn's to "practice their love on women all over this country (and I don't know one woman who didn't shudder upon hearing this news) - but he took away their rights, little by little, every year. I don't care about talk. Show me policy.

Maybe I have matured, but I couldn't care less who is smirking. Won't last long anyway.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the medical community has decided that a fetus becomes a baby when it can live without life support

if another medical professional is readily available, then a medical professional can 'opt out' by referring the patient to said medical professional

if not then it is said medical professionals' duty to preform the service

i say this as it is the law and a persons' personal beliefs may not transcend the law

ps i do not know what your beliefs are, but i have posted a poll asking if i am condemned to hell because of my beliefs or lack of beliefs

Well, Don, the "medical community" doesn't overrule science and biology. It becomes human life at the point of conception, and "aborting" or "terminating" said life, is in fact, killing it. Now maybe YOU have determined it is something else until it can live on its own, but I have an 18-year-old who isn't capable of living on their own yet. I don't think you can establish this as a criteria for "life" over the facts of science and biology, it just doesn't fly.

It doesn't matter if I am a Christian and you are an Atheist, science and biology are not changed. It doesn't matter if I think you will burn in hell, or you think you are helping someone out, and it doesn't matter if Duhla thinks she has the "right" to murder the innocent, science and biology do not change. What we have to do, is face the truth about what we are doing. Many of you wish to remain in denial of the truth.

 

[uscitizen]

Weren't you a military man? What happened to "thou shalt not kill"?

But god also ordered mass murders of women and children.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But god also ordered mass murders of women and children.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

 

[Cancel3]

A person's religious principles are not something the government should be able to compromise.

If you have a profound belief that says you should not perform certain medical procedures, then you should be able to refuse to perform them.

 

[charver]

A person's religious principles are not something the government should be able to compromise.

What if your religion forbids you from paying taxes, for instance?

 

[Damocles]

A person's religious principles are not something the government should be able to compromise.

If you have a profound belief that says you should not perform certain medical procedures, then you should be able to refuse to perform them.

I would never take a job in a place that did things that were against my philosophical principles. This does limit me somewhat, and would more so if I were say a lawyer or something...