Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act

[Tracy in Ky]

Interesting link.

 

 

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-and-freedom-of-choice-act.html

[Jugglin'5]

Yep, That is why the other topic is really a red herring.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Interesting link.

 

 

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-and-freedom-of-choice-act.html

 

Here is the bill.

[Mrs Mungo]

The president cannot pass a bill into law. If you are against it, let your members of Congress know. This one was introduced in 2004 and hasn't made it into law yet.

 

On the other hand, the Bush administration has used every resource at hand to restrict women's reproductive rights, even rights to birth control.

 

Plus, even McCain says he wouldn't want Roe v. Wade overturned because he wouldn't want to see women to seek illegal operations.

 

There's no cut and dry easy choice in this arena.

[Sharon in SC]

Thank you for sharing this, Tracy.

[Nestof3]

On the other hand, the Bush administration has used every resource at hand to restrict women's reproductive rights, even rights to birth control.

 

I was not aware of any restrictions on birth control. To my knowledge, my doctor still offers birth control pills, and I still see condoms in the health and beauty section.

 

Of course, I'm assuming you mean "pregnancy prevention" and not the destruction of the zygote stage of a baby. The term "birth control" never made any sense to me.

[Mrs Mungo]

I was not aware of any restrictions on birth control. To my knowledge, my doctor still offers birth control pills, and I still see condoms in the health and beauty section.

 

There is a huge national debate going on right now because there are a number of pharmacists who have decided that dispensing the bcp is against their religion. Some pharmacists went so far as to lecture their patrons. In one case a woman was denied Plan B by a pharmacy after she had been raped (they were later reprimanded by the pharmacy board and that reprimand was upheld in court).

 

After several of these instances made the news, some states passed laws requiring pharmacies to have a pharmacist on duty at all times who can dispense it.

 

Bush recently (as in last month) passed a measure through the Department of Health and Human Services that would withhold federal funds from pharmacies that refused to hire pharmacists because they refused to dispense birth control. It's potentially a *huge* issue for women.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

There is a huge national debate going on right now because there are a number of pharmacists who have decided that dispensing the bcp is against their religion.

 

And then there is this little gem

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405801,00.html

[lighthouseacademy]

Bush recently (as in last month) passed a measure through the Department of Health and Human Services that would withhold federal funds from pharmacies that refused to hire pharmacists because they refused to dispense birth control. It's potentially a *huge* issue for women.

First of all personally I don't believe the government should be giving federal funding the pharmacies, but that is another topic.

 

I don't see this as

[using] every resource at hand to restrict women's reproductive rights, even rights to birth control.

I see this as pulling out the old "separation of church and state" argument. I see this as akin to not refusing to hire a person because he or she is black or deaf or Jewish. If a pharmacy has someone always available who will dispense of the abortion pill then whether one pharmacist has a personal problem with dispensing it is not a

a *huge* issue for women

.

[Mrs Mungo]

First of all personally I don't believe the government should be giving federal funding the pharmacies, but that is another topic.

 

You disagree with medicaid in all forms? You disagree with the military getting medical insurance? Do you realize *why* those pharmacies are getting federal dollars?

 

I don't see this as I see this as pulling out the old "separation of church and state" argument. I see this as akin to not refusing to hire a person because he or she is black or deaf or Jewish. If a pharmacy has someone always available who will dispense of the abortion pill then whether one pharmacist has a personal problem with dispensing it is not a .

 

Not all states have implemented such measures. So, not all women would be protected. If you're in a tiny town and all of your pharmacist say it's against their religion then it *is* a huge problem.

[Peek a Boo]

I was not aware of any restrictions on birth control. To my knowledge, my doctor still offers birth control pills, and I still see condoms in the health and beauty section.

 

Of course, I'm assuming you mean "pregnancy prevention" and not the destruction of the zygote stage of a baby. The term "birth control" never made any sense to me.

 

yup.:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

And then there is this little gem

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405801,00.html

 

oh brother.

 

""It was an awful thing to go through," Benitez said. "It was very painful — the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family."

 

um, they didn't DENY her the "right to be a mother." --they referred her to another doc.

 

I gotta side w/ the docs on this one.

[Laura in VA]

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

yup.:iagree:

 

Seriously? This is like me saying I've never had an abortion so I don't think it's a problem.

 

If you don't stop this sort of interference with women's reproductive rights by the time it affects *you* it will be too late.

[Slartibartfast]

I have used birth control for health reasons and not anything to do with preventing pregnancy.

 

A lot of people use it for endometriois or other issues.

 

So...since I am married and having "relations" with my husband, does that mean I should be denied something that is for my health and well being because it might prevent a blastocyst from implanting?

 

I am just trying to point out here...it isn't just for preventing pregnancy.

 

 

 

 

No, I am not currently using it I just had a baby. :lol:

[Kate CA]

So, not all women would be protected. If you're in a tiny town and all of your pharmacist say it's against their religion then it *is* a huge problem.

 

Clarifying - you seem to be referring to abortion here: "...not all women would be protected." Is that right? Are you saying it is every woman's fundamental right to have access to Plan B or birth control (or both)? I just wanted to understand exactly what you were saying.

 

Thanks.

[Mrs Mungo]

Clarifying - you seem to be referring to abortion here: "...not all women would be protected." Is that right? Are you saying it is every woman's fundamental right to have access to Plan B or birth control (or both)? I just wanted to understand exactly what you were saying.

 

Thanks.

 

Plan B is birth control. It works in exactly the same way that birth control works. I'm talking about access to birth control. I'm not referring to abortion or RU486 (which cannot be administered by pharmacists so shouldn't be part of the discussion).

[Kathy in MD]

There is a huge national debate going on right now because there are a number of pharmacists who have decided that dispensing the bcp is against their religion. Some pharmacists went so far as to lecture their patrons. In one case a woman was denied Plan B by a pharmacy after she had been raped (they were later reprimanded by the pharmacy board and that reprimand was upheld in court). ...........

 

 

 

Years ago I heard of pharmacists who refused to dispense birth control. Here it would be no be deal, at least for a decade or so, because one could just walk across the street to a competitor. But in rural areas, these pharmacists could be denying birth control to large areas of the country.

 

I had not heard of the move to restrict pharmacies from hiring parmacists who refuse to dispense legal, prescribed drugs.

[Kate CA]

Plan B is birth control. It works in exactly the same way that birth control works. I'm talking about access to birth control. I'm not referring to abortion or RU486 (which cannot be administered by pharmacists so shouldn't be part of the discussion).

 

Thanks for clarifying. I have to take issue though, that Plan B is just like every other BC. There are many folks that consider it the earliest way to abort. I would be one of them.

 

I found the articles on the proposal you are referring to, but since I cannot see the proposal itself I will reserve judgment. I am not really convinced that Pres. Bush could accomplish anything along these lines anyway. There are a great many barriers in place.

 

[Jugglin'5]

And then there is this little gem

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405801,00.html

 

 

:nopity: Why should the doctors be forced to give them an, ahem, artificial ins*m*ination treatment? This is not really something covered under the Hippocratic oath.:glare: If I were I doctor, I couldn't do it in good conscience. I doubt my current OB could either. I'm surprised that you want to trample on people's religious convictions this way.

 

ETA: When I first saw the headline, "Doctors Cannot Refuse Care to Gays" I was horrified to think some doctor was refusing to give medical treatment to a sick or dying gay person. Then I read along and find out that the article is about artificial ins*m*nation for lesbians. If that isn't a case of a misleading headline, then I don't know what is.

[Kate in Arabia]

There was a story a while back about some taxi drivers in Chicago (was it? or Detroit?) who wanted to refuse to transport people from the airport who were carrying alcohol, because it was against their religious convictions as Muslims to carry alcohol. There was a big outcry at the time at how wrong they were to try and impose their religious sensibilities on others. I realize the stakes here are not exactly on par (a car ride vs birth control), but isn't the base issue the same?

[Mrs Mungo]

Thanks for clarifying. I have to take issue though, that Plan B is just like every other BC. There are many folks that consider it the earliest way to abort. I would be one of them.

 

Plan B mainly works by inhibiting ovulation, thickening the cervical mucus which prevents the sperm and egg from joining but it can also thicken the uterine lining and prevent a blastocyst from implanting in the womb. That's also exactly how bcps work. Plan B works *exactly the same* as regular combination bcps. If you think preventing the implantation of a blastocyst is the same as an abortion then you shouldn't be using the combination bc pill or an iud. Plan B *will not* and *cannot* cause what most people think of as a chemical abortion (as RU486 does). In fact there is now a progestin-only version of Plan B that won't prevent implantation. Plan B is bcps that are packaged to give you high doses to help it work faster but it *is* made up of regular bcps. Anyone who thinks Plan B works differently than other bcps (or iuds with hormones) is just plain wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

There was a story a while back about some taxi drivers in Chicago (was it? or Detroit?) who wanted to refuse to transport people from the airport who were carrying alcohol, because it was against their religious convictions as Muslims to carry alcohol. There was a big outcry at the time at how wrong they were to try and impose their religious sensibilities on others. I realize the stakes here are not exactly on par (a car ride vs birth control), but isn't the base issue the same?

 

And can you imagine if the government wanted to protect those cab drivers by imposing legislation protecting them?

 

What if I ran a butcher shop? Would I have to hire a Jewish or Muslim person who refused to sell pork or other unclean meats? I don't think so.

[Kelli in TN]

And then there is this little gem

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405801,00.html

 

Oh. Please.

 

Did she get pregnant? Did she have children? Did a doctor refuse care in a life threatening situation?

 

I think she is a whiner.

 

My GP refuses to dispense birth control of any sort. I'm okay with that because I don't need birth control anymore. If I needed birth control I would not sue her. I would go to a different doctor.

 

This is story is not on par with the rest of this thread. It is not even in the ballpark.

[Mrs Mungo]

My GP refuses to dispense birth control of any sort. I'm okay with that because I don't need birth control anymore. If I needed birth control I would not sue her. I would go to a different doctor.

 

But it's not about doctors, it's about pharmacists who fill prescriptions written by doctors. I've been on birth control several times due to bleeding that wouldn't stop. I once had a period last for around 3 months and it was extremely heavy (as in going through the biggest tampon *and* pad in one hour). I was so anemic they threatened me with a blood transfusion. My mom takes bcps to help with her menopause issues and she no longer has ovaries or a uterus. It's not the pharmacist's job to decide what medications patients may or may not need. And while going to another pharmacy is a fine option for some people it is not an option for people in small towns.

[Kelli in TN]

But it's not about doctors, it's about pharmacists who fill prescriptions written by doctors. I've been on birth control several times due to bleeding that wouldn't stop. I once had a period last for around 3 months and it was extremely heavy (as in going through the biggest tampon *and* pad in one hour). I was so anemic they threatened me with a blood transfusion. My mom takes bcps to help with her menopause issues and she no longer has ovaries or a uterus. It's not the pharmacist's job to decide what medications patients may or may not need. And while going to another pharmacy is a fine option for some people it is not an option for people in small towns.

 

The article I was referencing WAS about doctors and whether THEY should be required to provide treatment against their beliefs in a non-life-threatening situation.

 

The article was not about pharmacists and it was not exactly the same thing as if a doctor refused to save the life of a personal with an alternative lifestyle.

 

It was an article about a doctor's right to live out their own beliefs in their practice and what happens when such a doctor crosses paths with a whiner.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Why should the doctors be forced to give them an, ahem, artificial ins*m*ination treatment?

 

Because she went there, paid her money just like everyone else, and should receive the same care as any other patient.

 

Next people will be arguing it would be okay if we made the woman and others like her drink from a separate water fountains. If they complain, we will just call them whiners.

 

TRAMPLE on someone's religious convictions? Am I at your house right now holding a gun to your head and forcing YOU to be a lesbian? What are you so scared the big bad lesbians are going to do to hurt you? How about so called "Christians" trampling on other people's rights? That's okay because whatever god you worship says so? You have the right to be whatever religion you want- but just like being a vegetarian- if you are going to make that choice there are going to have to be some lifestyle adjustments out in the real world where not everyone believes the same thing you do. You can't expect the whole would to just lay down at your feet and cater to each and every one of your individual religious beliefs. And you shouldn't take a job if your religious convictions are so overbearing that you can not perform the duties of that job. These Drs could very easily go set up a "Christian" clinic but they wanted to take everyone's money and therefore owe everyone the same standard of care.

 

If a Dr. decided not to give someone a procedure they paid for because the patient was a Christian, OMG there would be 10000 posts on this thread calling "Off with his head!"

 

And the headline is not misleading- they refused to give medical treatment based on religion.They are just as guilty of discrimination as they would have been had they refused to treat on the basis of color.

[Kate in Arabia]

Another article on the Benitez case mentions that she had to go to a dr outside her insurance plan, so it appears to me (could be wrong) that there weren't two clinics equally convenient to her and both on her medical plan so she could just go to the other one without any difference.

 

Come to think of it, I wonder whether she approached her insurance provider on this issue.

 

And about the use of "whining" to describe her complaint, I have to say I find that a borderline offensive depiction. I personally have been refused service because of someone's "convictions" towards someone of my religious persuasion. Obviously I could (and did) go to a different establishment, but if I came here and complained and described the humiliation I felt, would I be accused of whining? What about homosexuals who post on these boards (I assume there must be, at least lurking if nothing else)?

[LisaNY]

Because she went there, paid her money just like everyone else, and should receive the same care as any other patient.

 

Next people will be arguing it would be okay if we made the woman and others like her drink from a separate water fountains. If they complain, we will just call them whiners.

 

TRAMPLE on someone's religious convictions? Am I at your house right now holding a gun to your head and forcing YOU to be a lesbian? What are you so scared the big bad lesbians are going to do to hurt you? How about so called "Christians" trampling on other people's rights? That's okay because whatever god you worship says so? You have the right to be whatever religion you want- but just like being a vegetarian- if you are going to make that choice there are going to have to be some lifestyle adjustments out in the real world where not everyone believes the same thing you do. You can't expect the whole would to just lay down at your feet and cater to each and every one of your individual religious beliefs. And you shouldn't take a job if your religious convictions are so overbearing that you can not perform the duties of that job. These Drs could very easily go set up a "Christian" clinic but they wanted to take everyone's money and therefore owe everyone the same standard of care.

 

 

 

I am assuming this is a private practice? If the doctors have a fundamental belief, and performing certain procedures compromise that belief, why don't they have the right to refuse to perform that procedure? Aren't *they* being forced to cater to the beliefs of another? I'm sorry, but I don't think the government has the right to mandate this at all - *especially* if it is a private, non-government funded practice. As long as a business is not looking to the gov't for funding, they should have the right to run their business as they see fit.

 

They were refusing to perform a *procedure*. To me, that is different from refusing medical *care*. IOW, if they had refused medical care/treatment for a lesbian because she was sick, hurt, etc., then that would clearly be wrong, of course.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I am assuming this is a private practice? If the doctors have a fundamental belief, and performing certain procedures compromise that belief, why don't they have the right to refuse to perform that procedure? Aren't *they* being forced to cater to the beliefs of another? I'm sorry, but I don't think the government has the right to mandate this at all - *especially* if it is a private, non-government funded practice. As long as a business is not looking to the gov't for funding, they should have the right to run their business as they see fit.

 

They were refusing to perform a *procedure*. To me, that is different from refusing medical *care*. IOW, if they had refused medical care/treatment for a lesbian because she was sick, hurt, etc., then that would clearly be wrong, of course.

 

They had no problem taking her money.

[genie]

I am not really convinced that Pres. Bush could accomplish anything along these lines anyway. There are a great many barriers in place.

 

I agree completely. And that is why I have such a hard time understanding everyone's fear of Obama. Even if he had some sort of extremist plans, he couldn't just go into the White House and wave a magic wand and things automatically go his way. That's not how it works. :confused:

[LisaNY]

They had no problem taking her money.

 

The money they received was for the fertility drugs, no? Are you saying that they took payment for the insemination procedure without performing it?

[Peek a Boo]

Seriously? This is like me saying I've never had an abortion so I don't think it's a problem.

 

 

 

I am absolutely serious.

 

I do not have a RIGHT to kill a human whenever I want.

I hold myself accountable to the same principle I am espousing.

And i would want others to explicitly counsel me that way.

 

more in detail at my post in the other thread.

If you don't stop this sort of interference with women's reproductive rights by the time it affects *you* it will be too late.

 

and the flip side of that would be "if you don't stop this killing of innocent lives by the time they decide that YOU are inconvenient and worthy of disposal it will be too late."

[Peek a Boo]

The money they received was for the fertility drugs, no? Are you saying that they took payment for the insemination procedure without performing it?

 

This is what i was wondering too --it appeared that they expressly told her they would only perform certain parts, not the whole thing, and referred her to someone that WOULD.

[Peek a Boo]

I am assuming this is a private practice? If the doctors have a fundamental belief, and performing certain procedures compromise that belief, why don't they have the right to refuse to perform that procedure? Aren't *they* being forced to cater to the beliefs of another? I'm sorry, but I don't think the government has the right to mandate this at all - *especially* if it is a private, non-government funded practice. As long as a business is not looking to the gov't for funding, they should have the right to run their business as they see fit.

 

They were refusing to perform a *procedure*. To me, that is different from refusing medical *care*. IOW, if they had refused medical care/treatment for a lesbian because she was sick, hurt, etc., then that would clearly be wrong, of course.

 

 

This is my position too.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

The money they received was for the fertility drugs, no? Are you saying that they took payment for the insemination procedure without performing it?

 

What they did was take as much of her money as they could before they let her know she wasn't going to get the same treatment as other patients. It's not like they send the fertility drugs and the sperm home with her after just one office visit.

 

If the doctors have a fundamental belief, and performing certain procedures compromise that belief, why don't they have the right to refuse to perform that procedure?

 

Do you believe that doctors in private practice should be able to turn away patients because they are African American too?

[LisaNY]

What they did was take as much of her money as they could before they let her know she wasn't going to get the same treatment as other patients. It's not like they send the fertility drugs and the sperm home with her after just one office visit.

 

 

Is that what happened? They took as much as they *could*, or did they take as much as they *would* comfortably? Could it have been because they were treating her as much as they could, and remain true to their convictions? Perhaps this was new territory for them, and they let it go to a certain point and then stopped? I don't know the exact details of what happened. The Fox News article doesn't seem to go into that, unless I missed something. The main point for me is no private practice should have to submit to gov't authority in matters like this.

 

 

Do you believe that doctors in private practice should be able to turn away patients because they are African American too?

 

This case is a matter of religious conviction, so I'm really not clear on where you are coming from with this question.

[genie]

Is that what happened? They took as much as they *could*, or did they take as much as they *would* comfortably? Could it have been because they were treating her as much as they could, and remain true to their convictions? Perhaps this was new territory for them, and they let it go to a certain point and then stopped?

 

It seems awfully unethical to give the first portion of the procedure, the part they were "okay" with, but not finish the procedure. Fertility drugs are one step in the insemination process. If they knew they weren't going to complete the procedure, ethically they shouldn't have started it.

[5kidsforME]

 

Do you believe that doctors in private practice should be able to turn away patients because they are African American too?

 

This has nothing to do with this discussion. This is about abortion not Racism. Its about not wanting to give care for certain things because it goes against what you believe in.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. I think it is really uncool to throw racism out there when it has nothing to do with the discussion.

[genie]

This has nothing to do with this discussion. This is about abortion not Racism. Its about not wanting to give care for certain things because it goes against what you believe in.

 

 

That's why I see the comment as relevant. Because this hasn't been a thread about abortion, it's been about discrimination. Whether you don't believe in something for religious reasons, or for personal reasons, picking and choosing what people you will or won't treat IS discrimination.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

This case is a matter of religious conviction, so I'm really not clear on where you are coming from with this question.

 

If my religious conviction teaches me that African Americans are inferior, should I have the right to refuse to give the same treatment to an African American as I do Caucasian patients?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

That's why I see the comment as relevant. Because this hasn't been a thread about abortion, it's been about discrimination. Whether you don't believe in something for religious reasons, or for personal reasons, picking and choosing what people you will or won't treat IS discrimination.

 

:thumbup1::iagree:

[genie]

That's why I see the comment as relevant. Because this hasn't been a thread about abortion, it's been about discrimination. Whether you don't believe in something for religious reasons, or for personal reasons, picking and choosing what people you will or won't treat IS discrimination.

 

Let me amend this a little. I think the thread has taken a couple of directions. The particular strand that Jedi brought into the discussion is what I was referring to.

[5kidsforME]

If my religious conviction teaches me that African Americans are inferior, should I have the right to refuse to give the same treatment to an African American as I do Caucasian patients?

 

I think we can pretty much all agree that this is Racism, you can hide behind a religion with it but it is racism plain and simple.

[LizzyBee]

They had no problem taking her money.

 

I read the article twice, and I can't find any reference to payment for procedures that were not performed. :confused:

[LizzyBee]

If my religious conviction teaches me that African Americans are inferior, should I have the right to refuse to give the same treatment to an African American as I do Caucasian patients?

 

That's a red herring. That's not what the case was about and no-one has suggested that would be okay.

[5kidsforME]

That's a red herring.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[genie]

I read the article twice, and I can't find any reference to payment for procedures that were not performed. :confused:

 

The article doesn't specify, but for me the payment issue comes down to when they told her they would not do the insemination. It said they gave her fertility treatments and then instructed her on how to do the insemination at home. (That's entirely laughable.) If she received the fertility treatments knowing they had no intention of doing the insemination, that's not so much an issue (payment-wise). But if they did the fertility treatments first, and THEN told her they wouldn't do the insemination, that's completely unethical.

[genie]

I couldn't agree more.

 

How is discriminating against someone based on their skin color different than discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation? If the only difference is that the latter is due to religious beliefs and should thus be allowable by law, then it seems by that logic the KKK just need to change their wording a little bit.

[5kidsforME]

How is discriminating against someone based on their skin color different than discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation? If the only difference is that the latter is due to religious beliefs and should thus be allowable by law, then it seems by that logic the KKK just need to change their wording a little bit.

 

Well we would have to open a whole other controversial discussion now wouldn't we?