Posted on 12/18/2008 11:50:55 PM PST by malkee
The Bush administration issued a sweeping regulation Thursday that protects a broad range of health care workers — from doctors to janitors — who refuse to participate in providing services they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.
The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor's office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their "right of conscience." It would apply to more than 584,000 health care facilities.
"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.
The regulation was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.
Women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists, members of Congress and others condemned the regulation, saying it would create major obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research.
The 127-page rule is the latest in a flurry of federal regulations the administration is implementing before President George W. Bush's term ends.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
So abortion is a “health service”. I wonder if the baby agrees!
Thank you, God bless you, Pres. Bush!
Their labor services are protected if they morally object? Can they opt out of collective union bargaining? Social Security? Medicare? Those are all morally objectionable.
This is great news! I just read an article that said that Obama’s people are already looking into how to overturn it, but at least it’s a start and makes the issue public. I’m glad he included non-medical personnel who might also be forced to be involved in these “procedures.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2151301/posts
Apparently, “HOPE!” and “CHANGE!” mean the state telling people to violate their moral and religious beliefs.
Don’t worry, Obama’s plan will fail if we can find a couple of Muslims who object to it.
Perhaps some day we will have a similar rule for paying taxes.
Otherwise known as the “CAIR Sharia Compliance Act of 2008”
That is too bad. We need more Christians working in our nursing homes and hospitals, not less. How many Christians will be tempted to sign away their belief for employment?
Government solutions always carry a hidden clause.
Two things for sure that President Bush did right during his Presidency:
1) Remained strong on the war on Terrorism
2) Remained strong on Pro-life issues!
For that - he needs to be commended!
Pingola
This would come under the heading of religious discrimination in hiring, would it not?
In health care it is a valid question.
You may list procedures that you have moral objections to working but if you do not get the job, proving religious discrimination was the reason will be hard to do.
Unfortunately, the “0ne” will reverse it immediately - “stroke of the pen, law of the land”.
How long before the moslems(may pig shit be upon the prophet’s head) use this to refuse treatment to say, I dunno, Jews? Or Infidels?
The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor's office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their "right of conscience." It would apply to more than 584,000 health care facilities.
"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.
Ok, here's a quick thought: Does this provide protection for a Muslim to refuse to treat an "infidel"? Does this protect a homosexual from treating a "breeder" or the reverse scenario? I know the intent here, however without going deeper into details, this seems like a double-edged sword. Sorry to be a wet blanket, however if they want to fight abortion, a direct confrontation might be a better approach than abstract reform.
That being said, I'll look further into the details.
Glad the rule was issued…
…but why in the world was it issued
now???
(vice 2, 4 6, or 7 years ago)
I'm sorry, but it seems rather Clintonesque (i.e., style over substance) to me...in an effort to legacy-build.
You know that Øbama is going to nullify that rule within 48 hours of his innauguration (regardless of what the news article states)...the whole thing seems sort of pointless to me.
Oh, and by the way, the rule is not 127 pages long, it's only 22 pages long (the actual rule begins on page 105 of the linked document...the preceding pages are just discussion)
It's already been an issue in hospitals in the U.K..
So he issues this law now, and then in a month Obama reverses it? Unless someone can show me that by issuing it later Obama is powerless to overturn it immediately, I’m not impressed by the timing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.