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

charver said:
What if your religion forbids you from paying taxes, for instance?
Click to expand...

I would say that the rule against paying taxes was invented by someone who didn't want to pay taxes.

What if the government ordered everyone to kill all children under the age of 5?

There are always "what if..." situations, but they are really not part of the problem here. Just because a medical person has a religious belief that precludes them from performing certain procedures, they should not be forced out of their vocation or threatened with jail.
 
Solitary said:
I would say that the rule against paying taxes was invented by someone who didn't want to pay taxes.

What if the government ordered everyone to kill all children under the age of 5?

There are always "what if..." situations, but they are really not part of the problem here. Just because a medical person has a religious belief that precludes them from performing certain procedures, they should not be forced out of their vocation or threatened with jail.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe the medical person should have read the job description when they applied for the job. Then again, maybe their employer should be hiring people who will do the job they are being hired to do. Is it so complicated?
 
DonQuixote said:
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
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity.... assuming euthanasia becomes legal... by your standards doctors would be required to take a life?

Saying that a person should check their religious beliefs upon going to work is rather easy to say and hard to do. No doctor should be forced to perform an abortion or forced to give medication or other treatments they find morally objectionable. If a persons life is in danger, the doctor is obligated by their oath to provide service. But if it is not life threatening, then the PATIENT can go elsewhere for treatment/medication.

The patient does not have the right to force their beliefs on the doctors.
 
uscitizen said:
So invading a city and killing all who do not flee before you is just cause ?
Man woman and child ?
Read about Jericho and the other battles of the Jews conquering the "promised land"
500 years of warfare to create the Jewish empire.
Click to expand...

Apparently so, they were burning their kids as offering to their Gods.

There is also the instance of God killing every man woman and child other than Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. Wiped the whole planet out with a flood.

It might be a good time to point out, the translation from Hebrew to English in the Bible, replaces 'murder' with 'kill' in the 10 Commandments. It is a sin to murder people, not to kill people.
 
DonQuixote said:
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
Click to expand...

If you want an abortion... go to a doctor who is willing to kill the child. You don't have the right to force a doctor to murder a kid. Which is exactly what pro-life doctors believe is occurring during an abortion.


"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"

This is pure idiocy, because that is exactly what you are trying to do. You are saying, 'all doctors must check their beliefs at the door to accomodate MY beliefs'.
 
Superfreak said:
If you want an abortion... go to a doctor who is willing to kill the child. You don't have the right to force a doctor to murder a kid. Which is exactly what pro-life doctors believe is occurring during an abortion.


"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"

This is pure idiocy, because that is exactly what you are trying to do. You are saying, 'all doctors must check their beliefs at the door to accomodate MY beliefs'.
Click to expand...


The law already protects doctors that refuse to perform abortions. The key issue here is really contraceptive services and the morning after pill for rape victims.
 
Superfreak said:
Out of curiosity.... assuming euthanasia becomes legal... by your standards doctors would be required to take a life?

Saying that a person should check their religious beliefs upon going to work is rather easy to say and hard to do. No doctor should be forced to perform an abortion or forced to give medication or other treatments they find morally objectionable. If a persons life is in danger, the doctor is obligated by their oath to provide service. But if it is not life threatening, then the PATIENT can go elsewhere for treatment/medication.

The patient does not have the right to force their beliefs on the doctors.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't people be able to choose where they work? If Euthanasia becomes regular practice, would not a doctor choose to be in that line of work?

For instance, a pediatric oncologist would have little cause to practice abortion, but may be called on to practice euthanasia. A proctologist would have no cause for either, if they find cancer they send you to an oncologist.

I would never choose to work in any capacity against my philosophical beliefs. It wouldn't happen. I would never be in a place where I would have to refuse to abort a child because I would not accept a job where that was part of my duties.
 
DonQuixote said:
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
Click to expand...

if she got a lecture, out of line IMO. as to giving the mornign after pill, IMO, it violates the the first amendment to force a doctor to give the pill. the dr. whose religious beliefs are against abortion of any kind, most likely have that belief as they believe they are killing a child/person.

if the physician is her primary care doctor, she should have known his stance. further, her insurance company should have explained all her benefits and those to which she is not entitled and she should also have found this out. it is entirely feasible to go with an insurance plan that allows the pill, number one, and if so, the insurance would know the doctor would administer it.

i will say though, it is not a nice situation, rape is never nice. in order to get the pill, she may have to drive out of the area if she lives in rural area with one or two doctors. but, living in a rural area aslo means you drive to other areas for many things, including other healthcare issues at larger hospitals, so this is not an unforeseen burden, IMO.
 
Dungheap said:
The law already protects doctors that refuse to perform abortions. The key issue here is really contraceptive services and the morning after pill for rape victims.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it does. The point is the same. They should most definitely not have to perform any contraceptive services, nor should they be forced to prescribe the morning after pill. Patients lives are not at stake in those cases and can choose to find a doctor that chooses to perform those services. Their convenience does not outweigh the doctors rights of freedoms of religion and expression.

Question... is it just for rape cases on the morning after pill or is it anyone who wants the morning after pill that they are forced to fill?
 
Damocles said:
Wouldn't people be able to choose where they work? If Euthanasia becomes regular practice, would not a doctor choose to be in that line of work?

For instance, a pediatric oncologist would have little cause to practice abortion, but may be called on to practice euthanasia. A proctologist would have no cause for either, if they find cancer they send you to an oncologist.

I would never choose to work in any capacity against my philosophical beliefs. It wouldn't happen. I would never be in a place where I would have to refuse to abort a child because I would not accept a job where that was part of my duties.
Click to expand...

If it is HOSPITAL policy that all such services be provided, then I agree with you, the doctor has the right to choose not to work their or to choose to work their under those guidelines.

But if it is a case where ALL doctors are required to perform such services, regardless of where they work, then that is wrong. It should not be mandated by law. It should be up to the facilities.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, I know it does. The point is the same. They should most definitely not have to perform any contraceptive services, nor should they be forced to prescribe the morning after pill. Patients lives are not at stake in those cases and can choose to find a doctor that chooses to perform those services. Their convenience does not outweigh the doctors rights of freedoms of religion and expression.

Question... is it just for rape cases on the morning after pill or is it anyone who wants the morning after pill that they are forced to fill?
Click to expand...


So a rape victim that doesn't want to become pregnant with the child of her rapist that is seeking a pill to prevent that form happening that must be taken within a relatively short period of time after the rape is seeking a mere "convenience?" And if the patient doesn't like it she can take her business to another ER, wherever that may be, and hope that she finds another doctor that will provide her the necessary treatment (Note that the conscience rule also permits a doctor to refuse to inform a patient of where such services are provided)? And an ER that doesn't want doctors that refuse to provide necessary treatment cannot discriminate on the basis of a doctor refusing to provide the necessary services? Nor can a place like Planned Parenthood?

And this is really just the tip of the iceberg with this regulation. I'm not buying it and neither are lots and lots of other people. There's a reason it was done now: it's a fucked up regulation and even the people that promulgated it know it.
 
Dungheap said:
So a rape victim that doesn't want to become pregnant with the child of her rapist that is seeking a pill to prevent that form happening that must be taken within a relatively short period of time after the rape is seeking a mere "convenience?" And if the patient doesn't like it she can take her business to another ER, wherever that may be, and hope that she finds another doctor that will provide her the necessary treatment (Note that the conscience rule also permits a doctor to refuse to inform a patient of where such services are provided)? And an ER that doesn't want doctors that refuse to provide necessary treatment cannot discriminate on the basis of a doctor refusing to provide the necessary services? Nor can a place like Planned Parenthood?

And this is really just the tip of the iceberg with this regulation. I'm not buying it and neither are lots and lots of other people. There's a reason it was done now: it's a fucked up regulation and even the people that promulgated it know it.
Click to expand...

If a person is taken to a hospital, what are the odds that NONE of the doctors are willing to prescribe the pill. You again are using the extreme case as if it were the norm.

As far as my convenience comments... I was referring to the contraceptive services and Morning after pill outside of rape cases.

As I said in response to Damo, if it is HOSPITAL policy (or other facility) that they do not hire anyone who won't perform those services, then I am fine with that. That is the facilities choice. As long as it is not mandated by law that all facilities perform in such a manner, then I am good with the individual decisions being made. Likewise, if a facility makes it optional for doctors, then I am good with that as well.
 
Superfreak said:
If a person is taken to a hospital, what are the odds that NONE of the doctors are willing to prescribe the pill. You again are using the extreme case as if it were the norm.

As far as my convenience comments... I was referring to the contraceptive services and Morning after pill outside of rape cases.

As I said in response to Damo, if it is HOSPITAL policy (or other facility) that they do not hire anyone who won't perform those services, then I am fine with that. That is the facilities choice. As long as it is not mandated by law that all facilities perform in such a manner, then I am good with the individual decisions being made. Likewise, if a facility makes it optional for doctors, then I am good with that as well.
Click to expand...


Hospitals and healhcare providers cannot do that though. The regulation prohibits it. Basically, Planned Parenthood cannot discriminate against a doctor that refuses to provide contraceptive services. Which is totally fucked up and the reason why the regulation was promulgated when it was.
 
I don't believe in God. I think religion has basically fucked up everything that it has touched since man got scared that the sun went away at night. That being said, no doctor, pharmacist or nurse should EVER be required to provide a service that violates their religious beliefs. Let the market decide if they will be successfull or not.
 
Good Luck said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's right the official position of the Catholic Church is to conspire with pedophile priests to hide their crimes, move them to new places so they can commit those crimes again, and to have the now sitting pope write a memo when he was a Cardinal telling the Bishops to hide the crimes until the Statute of Limitations runs on them. If this was ANY OTHER organization in the US they would have had their leaders arrested, their property siezed, and Cardinals and Bishops and Priests would have gone to prison. Everything else being equal, if this had been the Boyscouts of America, the BSA would no longer exist. The Catholic Church has lost any authority it may have had in the past to make ANY moral judgements about anything. When they reveal the names of EVERY priest that has ever molested a child then maybe they can once again make moral decrees.
 
DonQuixote said:
the medical community has decided that a fetus becomes a baby when it can live without life support
Click to expand...
Actually it was the LEGAL community that forced this scientifically unsound definition on the medical community. Scientific fact does not support, in any way, this bullshit definition. But lawyers are very, very good at ignoring reality in favor of "law".

It is also a very suspect definition, since the medical community is required to treat other conditions of "accepted" human beings wherein life support is required. In fact the individual must have arranged, in advance, refusal of heroic (ie: full life support) measures to save their life if they are not conscious to refuse service at the time of a life threatening emergency. Why is it only unborn humans are not accorded human rights due to the need for life support?

Ans: because the law, as usual, ignores the reality of science in order to support the legal homicide of unborn children.


DonQuixote said:
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
Click to expand...
So law is paramount? Even when the law violates the Constitution? Fuck that. The First Amendment specifically states Congress shall write NO LAW that abridges the free expression of religion. The 14th Amendment applies that proscription to state and local governments.
 
Dungheap said:
Hospitals and healhcare providers cannot do that though. The regulation prohibits it. Basically, Planned Parenthood cannot discriminate against a doctor that refuses to provide contraceptive services. Which is totally fucked up and the reason why the regulation was promulgated when it was.
Click to expand...

Then I agree that the regulation is wrong. They should absolutely have the right to dictate terms of employment in that regards. The doctors can then choose to work there or to work somewhere else depending on personal beliefs.

amendment... I will state this though... if it is a government run facility, then they do not have the same right of policy.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahh .. excuse me, but your God only exists in your mind and the minds of people who believe as you do. NOWHERE else does your God exist.

In a society of many religions, your God has no authority over a government that must create equality, or the resemblance of equality, for all religions and people.

You are free to practice your faith .. in other words a belief in something you do not know to be true .. among people who believe as you do and when it does not interfere with people who don't.

It's real simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top