MarginOfError Posted July 31, 2008 Report Posted July 31, 2008 Both frightening and amusing. New HHS Proposal News Story Quote
JcDean78 Posted July 31, 2008 Report Posted July 31, 2008 As long as it is before the conception then I have no issue. After conception then it is murder. Quote
MarginOfError Posted July 31, 2008 Author Report Posted July 31, 2008 As long as it is before the conception then I have no issue. After conception then it is murder.Did you read the article? Quote
Guest HEthePrimate Posted August 1, 2008 Report Posted August 1, 2008 After conception then it is murder. Maybe according to Jerry Falwell, but not according to the LDS Church. Quote
Guest HEthePrimate Posted August 1, 2008 Report Posted August 1, 2008 Since abortion is legal, why don't they take the opposite approach and deny federal funds to those who refuse to perform abortions? Is it impossible for, say a Catholic hospital to operate without receiving federal funds, and they therefore would not have to perform abortions? (If so, so much for the free market being super efficient!) Or is this merely Bush's way of trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade without having enough support from the American people to actually change the law? Quote
MarginOfError Posted August 1, 2008 Author Report Posted August 1, 2008 Since abortion is legal, why don't they take the opposite approach and deny federal funds to those who refuse to perform abortions? Is it impossible for, say a Catholic hospital to operate without receiving federal funds, and they therefore would not have to perform abortions?Ha ha ha ha...that's hilarious!On the one hand, I see the need to protect doctors who choose not to perform procedures that they have personal moral obligations to. On the other, I see the need to ensure access to health care for patients. I was really annoyed by the case in California where a doctor refused to perform an abortion, gave a reference to a doctor that would, and was then sued for discrimination. What bothers me more is that the doctor lost! So, the guidelines that Bush is proposing are supposed to help prevent that. But they do seem to be a bit over reaching. I think the regulations need to be that if a person's doctor chooses not to perform the procedure (or prescribe the medication) then he is safe from litigation as long as he refers the patient to someone who will perform or prescribe. Furthermore, if the referred doctor isn't covered by the patient's insurance, the insurance should have to pay the bill anyway. This way, patients have all the access they expect when they go to the doctor, and doctors don't have to break their ethical/religious boundaries. And the doctors are protected unless they refuse to give a reference. Quote
Moksha Posted August 1, 2008 Report Posted August 1, 2008 Could the Bush Administration hold hold an equal position on colonoscopies? Quote
Guest HEthePrimate Posted August 2, 2008 Report Posted August 2, 2008 I was really annoyed by the case in California where a doctor refused to perform an abortion, gave a reference to a doctor that would, and was then sued for discrimination. What bothers me more is that the doctor lost!Someone sued the doctor for discrimination because he wouldn't perform an abortion? I fail to see the logic behind that. Weird case. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.