Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray introduce legislation to block HHS Rule
By John Amato Friday Nov 21, 2008 1:00pmThis new legislation is so disgusting that I'm surprised Bush didn't try to get this passed at the beginning of his second term. It's no shock that the right-wing freaks always target women with their extreme anti-choice agenda. Now they are trying to set back the medical world 200 years.
A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.
The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”
Medicine should be religion free in America. Have you ever wondered why they don't ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?
From a press release:
In light of reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women and families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent the HHS rule from going into effect. The proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. The proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.
"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most.
The House is also introducing legislation to fight this too.
DeGette and Slaughter Introduce Legislation to Stop HHS Rule
Login or Register to post comments.
You go Hillary! You go Murray!!!
When I get all cranky and start wanting to form a leftist militia I watch this and I feel better.
...and suddenly all procedures become a matter of religion in order to permit insurers denying the procedures.
Hopefully it doesn't stick. This is one reason I'd like Big H to stay in the Senate.
I think Hillary's skills and temperment are much more suited to being a strong legislator rather than a diplomat carrying out another person's foreign policy. There's too much work that Congress needs to do to get us out of all the crap Cheney/Bush dumped on us.
I'm still hoping maybe Obama won't ask or she won't accept.
Sure it's the 11:58 hour but it's sure nice to see you shitting on Bush for a change!
There are ways to prevent them imposing this kind of regulatory crap...
one way is to find out the name of the person who is charged with implementing it and super-gluing their desh shut with their tongue in the drawer...
another is through the Congressional Review Act of 1996.
I think i prefer the former, but if the latter works, ...
And as such, employers shouldn't be expected to employ people whose mental illness makes them incapable of doing the job properly (or thinking rationally).
A law requiring everybody to go to Sunday School?!
And fight the NFL HA!! never
I seriously thought you were talking about the legislation in the title. I had to go back and read it again.
but reading with comprehension is a good thing.
;o}
In the field of medicine you dont get to tell the patient what they are going to do, you can only advise. If you are a vegan, dont work as a butcher. If you have problem giving out birth control, dont be a pharmacist, your job is not to dictate what I get to do to my body, just to dispense my medicine. I work in a field where there are people that I find disgusting in the choices they make, and yet I still have no problem getting what they want. If it is that big a moral problem for you, then get out of the biz.
Word. I honestly can't understand how someone would want to be an OB surgeon and have fundamental problems with providing a requested tubal ligation after a c-section. BASED ON RELIGION.
Seriously, fuck that self-aggrandizing shit.
One has to wonder about the timing of this bill with Hillary's resignation from the Senate today to be Sec of State.
Either, she wanted to get it on the record before leaving, or did so knowing that if it failed, it wouldn't be on her watch.
Just asking.
PS: Richardson as "Commerce" Secretary? What a waste!
...or maybe she's horrified that there's the potential for very difficult-to-overturn rules changes to go into effect in short order that could RUIN THE LIVES of countless women?
Regardless of your stand on abortion, contraception isn't a matter for public debate. A woman should always have the right to decide whether to get pregnant, and allowing surgeons to determine whether a woman can get her tubes tied based on their own religion is VILE.
Trying to be the Best Reprehensible Piece of Shit 'Leader' the world has seen in eons.
"Heh. Heh heh heh. Just one more fucking over before I go. Heh. Heh heh heh"
Gotta love America... Disgusting.
Can't wait until the "strongly held" beliefs include not treating Republicans.
Soon it will almost be the logical thing to do, under the Hypocratic oath.
We have a winner!!!!!
But I can still get my Viagra, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ
I'm waiting for right wing doctors and pharmacists to refuse Viagra and Cialis prescriptions unless the patient can show proof of marital status...
when men can have abortions.
Threaten to take away a MAN's right to have sex (versus a slutty woman's desire to have sex) and you will never hear the end of how wrong it is.
If it wasn't for the pharma's, this would get us equality faster than anything. That little blue pill (or lack thereof) would be one mighty powerful persuader.
"Have you ever wondered why they don't ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?"
Because 99.8% of all the legislay-tors are Men!
Isn't it the case that even if this did pass, including passing procedural filibustering from the already-voted-out Focus on the Family deadenders who have exactly zero electoral motivation now to compromise, that the bill would have to then be signed by W, himself? Is anybody giving odds on a continuance of the lame-duck session being held over the holidays in order to override the guaranteed veto? What am I not seeing? Or is this bill a symbolic gesture?
It pains me to say it, but this bill is DOA. Hopefully it gets resubmitted ASAP in the 111th Congress.
Religion not only poisons medicine but religion is poisoning morality.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
that's Steven Weinberg, the noble prize winner in physics. Here's another dandy from him.
"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."
Hey all of you "men" who are making these archaic and disgusting laws-
Why don't you pass one that says if a woman has your baby then you ARE FORCED to stick around and help raise them BY LAW.
Here is what happens when you don't. PRICKS.
Economy Hitting Women Hardest, Say Experts
The effects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis on women are exacerbated by other, pre-existing problems, according to the panelists. Sara Gould, president and CEO of the Ms. Foundation, said that out of the 37 million Americans living in poverty, 27 million are women and children. In fact, she added, single mothers and their families are more likely to live in poverty than any other demographic group in the United States.
Panelists agreed that there is not an adequate support system to help these women living in poverty. Fully two thirds of the minimum wage and below-minimum wage workforce in the United States are women, said Gould. For many of these workers, the laws are inadequate to protect their rights.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20081121/wl_...
but the vast majority of those women and children are white.
... not to stereotype all white people as being lazy and on welfare and having babies they can't afford to support. Just because lots and lots of white people act like that doesn't mean they all do.
that women have doughy, jowly male crackers to tell them what is best for them.
Any job that is a direct result of scientific discoveries, including medical as those are also scientific in origin, since just about every religion some objection about it.
What about the religious and philosophical beliefs of the patient? That should supersede the medical practitioners. No one is asking/telling the pharmacist/doctor/nurse to undergo the procedures, so they should shut up and do their jobs and keep their religion out of it.
Obama's first order of business had better be to nullify the Global Gag Rule.
BigD145 writes: "Obama's first order of business had better be to nullify the Global Gag Rule."
I think that was already mentioned in the MSM a week or so ago; they listed several issues that O. is going to give high priority to with Executive Orders.
there are much larger implications with bush's
fucking attitude and signing disasters. this
signing by bush could easily lead to anyone who
has aids or needs hiv+ meds to be refused their
meds because the pharmacists or doctors object
to someone lifestyle.....and it can get worse from
there....think about this......bush is trying to
not only take away women's and families' rights, he
is effectively trying to set up a precedence for
medial discrimination based on whatever someone
wants to decide offends them.
Republicans hate women.
Well I have been thinking about this for awhile. I was watching TV catholic channel one night and a couple were on the show talking about her abortion that she had held back from a husband that she had before she met him and got married. They were talking, talking and she said she felt such guilt about it. The conversation kept on going until the priest had mentioned that even birth control was a form of abortion. Right there and than I thought these bastards are going to try to stop birth control pills. Sure enough look now at Bush trying to stop. I wonder how many of these evangelicals realize that they want to stop birth control of any type. I bet they wouldn't be to happy.
By all means let the doctors, nurses and pharmacists make whatever moral choice they want, but don't extend that right to the doctors practice nor the pharmacy. In fact, specifically exempt the doctors practice and the pharmacy from the rule.
In other words, allow the doc, but not his practice. So if the doc wants to exercise this right, then he has to also have on board in his practice, another doctor WHO WILL write those prescriptions. If the pharmacist refuses to fill such prescriptions then the pharmacy must have on duty another pharmacist who will.
And don't exempt doctors in a practice of one person, nor a pharmacy owned and run by a single pharmacist. Even they would be required to have someone available to provide this service. And rules need to be written that spell out that availability. The Doctor or pharmacist would not get off the hook simply by saying they can go elsewhere. The elsewhere needs to be so convenient to the patient as to be trivial additional burden for them to obtain the care that they need.
Thus we maintain the freedom that Americans should be allowed to enjoy. But the doctor's practice would have a moral responsibility to provide proper medical care regardless of how he or she exerts his or her personal freedoms.
You can be as free as you want, but there are consequences to that freedom.
They will try ANYTHING ....
so how ridiculous will this crap get ..
will religious freak doctors begin to deny women in labor a spinal because the Bible says that in pain we will give birth ... and to give pain medication would violate their religious beliefs?
If this crap were coming from our side the right would say
"Don't become a doctor or a pharmacist then if you aren't prepared to do what the job requires even if it going against your religious beliefs."
These are the same nut cakes who freak out when Muslim women hospitals in Maine get modified johnnies that provide them modesty.
I'm glad that Hillary and Pat are there .. these Republican religious loons are dangerous.. especially in these last weeks
protecting people who REFUSE to do their JOB? WTF?!
I used to be diplomatic about it. I don't feel the need anymore. Sure, most religious people aren't STUPID stupid, but anyone who unapologetically touts their devout dedication to an inherently-contradictory Bronze-Age self-slavery is basically asking to be thought of as credulous, ignorant and authoritarian.
As Forrest Gump said about a dozen times, "Stupid is as stupid does." So by those lights, I think I'm within my rights -- at the risk of being un-PC -- to say that the more religious you are, the stupider you are. The degree to which you pride yourself on indulging your desire to be a slave and to ignore inconvenient truths to that end is the degree to which you can legitimately be accused of being a fucking knucklehead. No offense.
Although many people view Bush's policy as anti Abortion it makes it possible for Religious hospitals to keep their independence.
There are many hospitals operated by Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists and Catholic church organizations that refuse to allow Abortionists use of their facilities.
If you want possibly the only hospitals in your area to shut down go ahead and force them to perform medical treatment that violates their Moral Ethics.
Uh, no. What this is about isn't just abortion. It's also about voluntary contraception or sterilization. Can you read?
and then watch as the people who work at these places start determining - on an individual basis - what their "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong" tell them which part of their jobs they should and should not do.
WE know what they meant by, "traditional religious views", they mean THEIR religion and ONLY their religion. But, that mote in their eyes has apparently stopped them from noticing that it's mighty crowded on the "My Way or the Highway" bus to Godland.
I'd love to see a Native American nurse or doctor go to court and argue that they should be allowed to strictly adhere to the medical beliefs in line with their traditional religious views, the Righties would twist themselves in knots trying to figure out how centuries older Native American traditional religious views aren't as real or valid as the 21st century abomination of Christianity the Fundies practice.
Imagine how long a hospital will function when each nurse, each doctor, each tech, gets to decide for themselves which task they will or will not do.
And if the patient has one set of traditional religious views, and the doctor another and the nurse a third? Then what?
Who would get to be the arbiter on these cases? Who will say whether the individual is correctly interpreting these "traditional" religious views when they refuse to do their job, or let a patient die because THEY have decided it's God's Will? Who will appoint this arbiter? Will they be a government official or a religious official?
Trust a right-winger to come up with something as Palinesque as this.
I say let it become law, the Supreme Court will knock it down before you can say, "I'm your doctor and I practice a centuries old religious tradition called Santaria. Somebody get me a live chicken, STAT."
Login or Register to post comments.