I knew Bush would try to slip one under the wire...

[mousme]

To be honest, I expected another war. What he's slipping under the wire, however is legislation that would allow any medical professional to refuse their services to a woman needing an abortion, on religious or ethical grounds. No matter who: the doctor, the nurse, the anaesthesiologist, anyone could walk away from a woman in need, even if they're the only one for two hundred miles who can perform the job.

Clinics that receive government funds would have to abide by this rule, and could not fire someone for not doing their job, even if they are the only person in a hundred miles who could do it. Even if it is the only abortion-providing facility in the state.

It's sneaky, in a brilliantly twisted way. No need to make abortion illegal, which would be a messy legal tangle. No, instead, you can just make it impossible to obtain the service.

Props to the_xtina for pointing me to this entry, which explains it better than I can, and also gives many handy links to follow if you want to take action. Please, if you're an American citizen in particular, take a few moments to write an email, at the very least.

Comments

[talyesin.livejournal.com]

I'm forced to wonder how much actual effect it could have. I mean, if you object that strongly to abortion, why would you work at a clinic were abortions were provided?

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Americans increasingly think that freedom of religion means they should get all the benefits of a job without any of the consequences of the job. Pharmacists who insist that if their religion prohibits birth control, then they don't have to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, are a good example.

It's such bullshit.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

There appears to be a growing medical and legal movement of "conscience" in which the practitioners are deliberately choosing this field of medical practice in order to promote their religious views and impose them on their patients. They appear to feel that it's part of their religious calling.

Now I'm officially scared.

[pdaughter.livejournal.com]

I find this absolutely disgusting!

Although I'm not american I will still take some time to either send off an email or a post through one of the links.

I'm mind boggled and did I say disgusted!

I can't get my head around this... sheesh! This is just another one of those things that makes me SO glad I live here.

[chasingthenuns.livejournal.com]

you do know that in that thing he wants to pass the definition of abortion is so wide that it could also be used to describe most forms of birth control? Yet, no one here seems to care.

[miseri.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing. If you believe that action X is horrifyingly immoral, unethical and wrong, would you accept a law that insisted you do it?

Consider that a lot of the people who are against abortion see it as no different from killing babies -- would you kill a baby because its mother told you that, for whatever reason, it had to be done? You may say that it is in fact not the same thing at all, but put yourself for a moment in the shoes of someone who really and truly saw it as exactly the same thing.

To force a doctor to provide a service that he or she considers immoral would be to force your own version of morality on him: legislating morality, in other words, and no different from any law that forbids willing doctors from performing abortions. I'm no fan of Bush, but as I see it, this law seems eminently sensible.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Sorry, no. It's one of the job duties. If they don't want to do that particular duty, they need to get a different job.

I have no sympathy for people who say that they should not have to do a basic job duty just because their religion says they shouldn't. They want to have their cake (the job) and eat it too (their religious preferences).

Pick one.

[miseri.livejournal.com]

Just so we're clear: you're talking specifically about doctors who *specialise* in pregnancies and/or gynecological issues, right? Because it seems to me that GPs and heart specialists and various other breeds of medical professionals shouldn't have to have this forced into the scope of their work. Even if they have the know-how -- just as an architect specialising in hospitals might know how to design a church, but choose not to.

And even then, is it part of their job? What do you say to someone who argues that it isn't? What about a doctor who says, "my business is healthcare and the saving of lives; if the woman's life is at stake, of course I will do it, but not otherwise. Also, I won't do cosmetic surgery, that's frivolous and does not fall under the heading of 'healthcare and the saving lives'."

[mousme.livejournal.com]

For one, this statement doesn't apply: if the woman's life is at stake, of course I will do it, but not otherwise. Under the legislation, a doctor (or worker of any kind) could refuse to provide the service that would allow any woman at all to have an abortion. Whether or not her life was at stake, whether or not she was raped, whatever.

As I was saying to talyesin above:

There appears to be a growing medical and legal movement of "conscience" in which the practitioners are deliberately choosing this field of medical practice in order to promote their religious views and impose them on their patients. They appear to feel that it's part of their religious calling.

Also, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to place abortion on par with cosmetic surgery as something "frivolous [that] does not fall under the heading of 'healthcare and the saving of lives,'" but it kind of comes off that way. :P

[miseri.livejournal.com]

I sometimes draw parallels between big, important things and small, inconsequential things, in the hopes that an examination of the small thing will help facilitate an understanding of the big thing. Thus, if a doctor is allowed to refuse to do cosmetic surgery, why should he not be allowed to refuse to do (say) heart surgery, or brain surgery, or abortions?

Also, I think you may be making an assumption here that any doctor who chooses not to perform abortions, will necessarily refuse to do it in all circumstances. As far as I can see, the legislation merely gives the doctor the choice of saying "no" -- but he can still say "yes" if he decides that the situation calls for it. I know at least one pro-lifer who has agreed that an abortion was necessary, when presented with the circumstances that led to said abortion.

Sure, it's unfortunate that a bunch of people may be trying to flood the gynecological pool to crowd out pro-choice doctors, but I honestly don't think their tactics are going to work. Unless the US regulates the number of people who can become gynecologists (a la communist China), what we'll see instead is the appearance of a lot of small, independent women's clinics where abortions are provided while bigger hospitals and already-established clinics cease to provide the service.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I would say, "Find another profession."

[miseri.livejournal.com]

After all those years of medical school, and all those student loans! Easy to say, but I'm rather surprised that you of all people should be the one to say it.

Unless you mean, "find another branch of the medical profession where this is not expected of you, assuming you are a young professional still capable of switching specialties", in which case, yeah, agreed. As long as we also agree that there *are* places within the medical profession where it is not expected.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Either-or, as long as it removes them from a position where their personal value system dictates someone else's medical choices.

[kino-kid.livejournal.com]

Appalling.

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

Don't worry. There's still plenty of time for Dubya to drop the bomb on Iran.

We really should hold a party for when he's out of office, whenever his replacement gets sworn in. Light a fire and drink some whiskey and let off some fireworks or something in celebration of the chimpanzee no longer having the power to fuck things up.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

I was just going to say — there's four months yet until January. Plenty of time to for another war yet.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm surprised that medical professionals aren't *already* allowed to refuse to perform abortions. To me it's very obviously a matter of conscience: how can anyone say a doctor should be forced to provide a non-theraputic abortion against his or her beliefs?

[mousme.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, they're proposing that doctors/anyone at all can refuse to perform any kind of abortion, on religious grounds: so if a woman was raped, or her life is at stake, they can still refuse.

Also, as chasingthenuns pointed out, the wording is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted as referring to providing any kind of birth control: so the only pharmacist in a small town (for instance) could refuse to sell birth control.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Furthermore (egads I'm chatty today), as I was saying to a couple of people further up:

There appears to be a growing medical and legal movement of "conscience" in which the practitioners are deliberately choosing this field of medical practice in order to promote their religious views and impose them on their patients. They appear to feel that it's part of their religious calling.

While in theory I'm all on board with doctors who take their Hippocratic oath seriously behaving according to their conscience, I can't in good faith support legislation that would open the door to denying women this kind of care. It's easy enough to say "Well, just don't become an OB-GYN." The problem is that 1) Some people appear to be choosing that path specifically in order to promote their religious views, and 2) Sometimes there isn't any choice when it comes to which doctor to see, in remote communities for instance.

In the case of the U.S., there are added complications (which I don't think we even have in Canada). As ebonypearl put it:

Except the patient doesn’t get to have a choice. For many women, we already have to travel long distances to get to a single doctor who can or will perform necessary female medical procedures. In some cases, women have to travel out of state to get to the nearest doctor to help them – and, oh yeah – some states have made it a criminal offense for women to cross state lines for medical care.

On the face of it, the legislation makes a sad sort of sense. Once you start scratching at the surface, it looks really open to abuse.