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

[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.