Just got home from a 12 hr shift and heard this being discussed. If a doctor has moral problems with abortion, he will be forced to provide that care IF he is receiving government dollars (as who is not????).

This stinks to high Heaven!!!!

 

Originally Posted by HelenRNurse

Just got home from a 12 hr shift and heard this being discussed. If a doctor has moral problems with abortion, he will be forced to provide that care IF he is receiving government dollars (as who is not????).

This stinks to high Heaven!!!!

Get some sleep IMO

Civil War 2 if this were true (no way that it is).

if you dont want to do an abortion maybe dont work at an abortion clinic? I dont understand? should you be able to be morally opposed to any procedure? what if a cardio doctor decided he was morally against heart trasnsplants? should that be his decision, or should he switch professions or go somehwhere where he doesn't have to do them? should a devout catholic cashier not have to let you buy condoms? what about a mormon who works at a liqour store? if you are morally against what your job requires you to do then fucking switch jobs.

Neeek, doctors can be morally opposed to abortions & still perform the majority of their job. Why should Obama be allowed to decide that if they accept federal dollars, they MUST also be available to perform abortions??

OBviously, we're not talking about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic! Get REAL!

where are abortions done again? just curious. last I checked they aren't done in hte labor and delivery department of hospitals.

if the law was changed to make places that don't currently do abortions offer them, then we would be on the same page.

Please Lenny, I just ate.

I love that Lenny is posting a lot again!

The amount of effort is irrelevant.

What matters is that the results are damned hilarious.

All Hail Lenny!

but it's ok to pull govt $$ from clinics that DO provide abortion? Either way, it is imprinting your own moral code

 

Originally Posted by MonkeyCowboy

 

Originally Posted by Lenny

Also, it's pure speculation and probably something someone heard on right wing radio or some equally credible source.

Please enlighten us as to where there is some credible left wing radio.

http://www.npr.org/

Obama is responding to lame duck legislation that Bush put in last month.

Bush put a morals clause into the healthcare field, that any MD, or RN if they morally object to a procedure DID NOT HAVE TO DO THE PROCEDURE. Last time I checked the Hippocratic oath, being morally opposed to any medical procedure did not exclude your responsibility for giving quality care.

Obama is overturning the incredible callousness, and moral end game that Bush tried to enact with this morals clause.

But because any legislation does not work without there being consequences for actions, he is tying this into federal funding.

 

Originally Posted by Shagadelic

Obama is responding to lame duck legislation that Bush put in last month.

Bush put a morals clause into the healthcare field, that any MD, or RN if they morally object to a procedure DID NOT HAVE TO DO THE PROCEDURE. Last time I checked the Hippocratic oath, being morally opposed to any medical procedure did not exclude your responsibility for giving quality care.

Obama is overturning the incredible callousness, and moral end game that Bush tried to enact with this morals clause.

But because any legislation does not work without there being consequences for actions, he is tying this into federal funding.

So he's doing the same thing as Bush. I get it.

<span>HelenR is referring to Obama overturning the Bush policy of giving protection to doctors for refusing to perform procedures to which they are morally opposed. Under the Bush administration a doctor (or nurse or whoever else) could not be fired, for example, for refusing to perfrom an abortion even if their job required it. in no way is Obama mandating that doctors must do abortions (lol @ that). he is simply removing the protection to keep them from being fired by a hospital if they refuse perfrom one, should their job entail it.

</span><span>under the current law, theoretically a doctor at an abortion clinic could refuse to do an abortion, but the clinic could not fire him. Obama removing this policy simply means that doctors have to do their job. if their job entails an abortion (for example), then they are required to do it. if they refuse then it will be up to the hospital to decide what to do with them. surely a hospital should have the ability to fire someone that isn't doing their job? yes, this effectively forces doctors to do things they are morally against, but only if they choose to go into the field, and then choose to work at a facility that provides the treatment. they are still free to refuse to do it, they just no longer have governmental protection to keep them from losing their job. </span>

I get to use this analogy twice in one day!

An abortion doctor who refuses to perform abortions is as useless as tits on a bull. He should be fired, and he should like it. In fact he should have already quit. Holy non-issue.