Keep your religions out of public life. The religious right is trying to make America a theocracy. What a perfect medieval combination, religion and tyranny, the cross and the sword a deadly combination. Why is everything we stand for being destroyed in front of our own eyes. If we don't get our act together we are going to look and act like the failed states we denigrate. This is no time for polite critique it's time for action. No more comments.
10
Okay, so let me get this straight: if a woman calls her OBGYN to make an appointment and the 19 year old who answers the phone asks what the appointment is about, say discussing pregnancy termination after a devastating ultrasound, that 19 year old high school graduate, with no medical knowledge whatsoever, can say nope, I won't make you an appointment and I won't transfer you to someone who will.
My 30 years plus working in medicine showed me that the majority of ancillary personnel in medical settings have no real knowledge of medicine at all. But those folks can make someone's medical decisions for them, based on their "consciences"? This isn't conscience, this is religious tyranny by the minority.
21
This stuff is tricky. I can see real downsides to it. But there are, for instance, eight states that have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide (the former being a case where the person does nothing and the doctor administers drugs, the later being a scenario in which the doctor would provide the drugs, but the person would take them on their own. In my mind a distinction without a difference, but still it is legally significant.)
Should doctors be forced to help someone end their life, because a government decided it was legal? An act that would not only go against the conscience of many doctors (religious or not), but also leave a lasting mark on them. No one can take the life of someone - regardless of how well justified it might be - without being changed (and anyone that could shouldn't be a doctor.) The act transcends profession or law, it is humanity at its most basic.
Personally, I consider that I have full rights over my own existence, that no government can take away. Should a time come where my quality of life had diminished to the point where it was agony, with no hope of improvement, yes, I would choose to say goodbye - and would not even remotely care whether it was against the law or not.
By the same token, I would never hand that burden to a doctor that was not willing to shoulder it.
The issues here are far more complex than "Trump = Bad". Ethicists have been wrestling with them pretty much since the dawn of medicine.
6
Please be aware of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They fight all attempts to tear down the wall of separation. Trump has taken a wrecking ball to it. www.au.org.
8
It's preposterous to rule that conscience protections are unconstitutional. Case law does NOT back that up, any more than common sense does.
2
Good ruling.
10
Physician: "This patient needs a life-saving abortion or she will die! Nurse?"
Nurse: "Sorry, my religion demands that the patient die rather than receive an abortion."
Right, that's "conscience" for you.
17
"...Mr. Trump, who sees conservative Christians as an essential part of his support during his re-election effort, has sought to expand the office’s funding".
pay attention, please :
its NOT about saving lives, reducing suffering or ensuring safe birth ( as it would surely be in any other advanced, civilized country).
its about the essential part of his ( Trump's)support during his re election effort.
THAT, is precisely the kind of scenarios which will never make America great again. ( if it ever was).
the straight face, in the affirmative !, with which the Administration's lawyer responded to the judge's question about dropping a pregnant woman out of his ambulance - says all there is to be said about the depletion of morality in our country.
when such a question is even contemplated - how much lower could we possibly get ?!
7
In some states that have opposed the expansion of medicaid, the courts can appoint a lawyer to defend the rights of a foetus against its pregnant mother who wants an abortion. Should the mother lose the lawsuit and be forced to carry to term, she can then be sued by the state to pay for the lawyer that defended the foetus. Failure to pay those costs can result in the mother being put in jail. What happens to the baby then? These laws and the courts enforcing them have not paid much attention to that.
After all, everyone knows the Right to Life ceases at birth.
11
I’m ethically opposed to armed robbery, arson and a variety of other crimes. So, if I’m a healthcare provider I could decline to provide any service to any person committing those acts, right? Why, I wouldn’t even have to take them up in the elevator. Seems fair...
6
I’m ethically opposed to armed robbery, arson and a variety of other crimes. So, if I’m a healthcare provider I could decline to provide any service to any person committing those acts, right? Why, I wouldn’t even have to take them up in the elevator. Seems fair...
2
The federal judiciary is the only thing protecting us from a host of extreme and abusive rules this administration would impose. Unfortunately POTUS and McConnell are appointing a record number of judges who are extremists, unqualified (per the bar association), and twenty years younger than their peers. So the protection we currently enjoy from the worst of the Trump agenda will not last, nor will the federal judiciary represent the majority of Americans for decades to come.
12
What religious objections might dentists have? I'm curious about this "Christian Medical and Dental Associations."
4
You cannot force a healthcare provider to perform an abortion. Yes, doctors will change fields, retire, etc, but considering the doctor shortage, this is not a good move.
So a shooting victim in the emergency room who has lost a lot of blood had better hope that the attending physician is not a Jehovah's Witness who opposes blood transfussions? When conservatives try to force others to make sacrifices for THEIR claimed moral beliefs, as in this insane law, the results can be catastrophic.
8
Would you want your sex reassignment surgery done by a doctor opposed to sex reassignments? Does Letitia James seriously think a conscience exception is going to keep women from obtaining abortions in New York State? This suit isn’t about the rights of patients. It’s about silencing dissent. It’s about satisfying an animus against people of faith.
4
--- The judge said of DHS that the agency’s “stated justification for undertaking rule making in the first place — a purported ‘significant increase’ in civilian complaints relating to the conscience provisions — was factually untrue.”
So a President Trump agency lied?
I'm shocked. Shocked!
8
Lying about the numbers, lying about the rationale, is there anything this administration doesn't lie about?
9
Once again Republicans (who in general favor less government) are contradicting themselves by asserting government oversight of matters (and decisions) that are private and that belong only between a patient and her physician. Religious decisions are entirely individual in nature and cannot be prescriptively applied to other people who do not share such a conviction. That's not religious freedom. It's religious tyranny and a bald violation of the establishment clause. It's why we have a first amendment in the first place.
14
Imagine how complex it will become to obtain health care if rules such as the proposed one are widely adopted.
It seems that before nearly any procedure, organizations providing health care would need to survey all participating staff to verify and document that they feel OK providing the procedure. Records of those assents would need to be maintained.
Also, this would raise issues related to staff expertise. Surely there will be some members of the staff who have expertise that allow them to make informed decisions about the necessity of any particular procedure - and other staff members who do NOT have knowledge or expertise for an informed judgement regarding necessity. Would this sort of rule create a situation where staff without that expertise would then be able to essentially enforce their own judgements about whether the procedure will be provided - by virtue of their personal religious convictions?
9
This should not be based on religion. If a medical worker doesn't want to get involved in assisted suicide or abortion or something where a life or potential life is involved they should be excused.
However blood transfusings, being against all operations etc. etc. that save lives should not be permitted under any circumstances to be avoided.
3
@Paul If a medical worker takes a particular job, s/he knows in advance that some of the responsibilities to his/her patients may be in conflict with his/her religious beliefs. Solution? Don't take the job. It's not fair to a patient to have him or her find out at the moment treatment is needed that the healthcare provider refuses to facilitate that treatment
18
@metsfan agreed, if the medical worker puts religion over healing the sick, then don't take the job.
9
@Paul Have you ever heard of a health care provider who is a surgeon not operating on trauma patients, etc? What are you referring to?
2
Does this ruling also protect healthcare professionals from patient prejudice? Increasingly there are patients who refuse treatment from a male, female, black, Asian, etc healthcare professional and insist they have the right to choose.
1
@Donna Gray - you wrote that, "Increasingly there are patients who refuse treatment from [fill in the blank]."
I don't know whether that is true. I've seen no citation or statistics to bear that out.
But even if that is the case, it has ALWAYS been true that mentally-competent patients are in charge of their own health care. They are 100% free to refuse treatment for any reason or no reason. That also doesn't mean a health care facility has to provide an alternative doctor.
7
@Donna Gray Fair point but what is a healthcare professional really losing if a sick patient refuses services? There will always be more coming down the pike. The only person that misses out on anything is the patient. If they'd rather suffer or die than be treated by a woman or person of color or LGBTQ or whatever, they can go ahead and do that.
4
@TK -Because not all doctors are white males, and unless the profession stands behind all healthcare providers society loses!
1
The lawyers claim that the rule is, "forcing medical professionals to choose between their faith and their life’s calling,"
Why is this a problem? I thought giving up important things for the sake of your faith was a major Christian tradition.
Let those - not only doctors and nurses, but also drivers and cleaners - find a job where they are not obliged to do things which violate their faith. The notion that they are entitled to a job which then has to be tailored to their precise requirement doesn't match my notion of how a free market in employment is supposed to work.
Let them suffer for their faith and let patients have doctors - and ambulance drivers - whose beliefs doe not prevent them from doing their job.
27
The 100% record of Democratic judges ruling against anything Trump continues,, over 100 consecutive rulings, remarkable. And on a parallel issue, if the case is heard by a Republican judge, the ruling is the opposite, virtually 100% of the time. We clearly have kangaroo courts.
@drcmd
No; some rulings include Conservative / Republican-appointed judges, too.
But more to the point, the Trump Administration supports many actions that simply don’t hold-up to constitutional scrutiny.
Let’s start there, first.
12
Time to tax religious organizations.
18
@Tom Grimes
My worry Tom is that taxing alone won’t stop the extreme behavior.
Religious refusals have everything to do with superstition, dogma, and magical thinking, rather than medical science and evidence-based medical care.
8
"Puritanism, a.k.a Hypocrisy" got to stop.
They're pure "shenanigans...
If medical providers refuse care because it conflicts with their religious or moral convictions, they are in the wrong field!
Let other women decide what's best for them. It is NOT YOUR BODY. It is theirs!
You will do the same with yours, when necessary, and no one will judge you for that!
12
Apparently those with religious scruples who support this administration's efforts have no problem with a few lies to pursue the agenda!
12
Roger Severino is an ardent - ardent - uber-conservative Catholic from Colombia who is on a zealous mission to impose Christian Right theocracy on America. His wife Carrie is head of Judicial Crisis Network, a lobbying and advocacy group coordinating Catholic* SCOTUS appointments with Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, and was deeply involved in damage control to salvage Kavanaugh's nomination.
* All five of the GOP-apponted members of the Court are Catholic indoctrinated.
18
@Rocky there they are. The Deep State, the unholy trinity of the father, pence, the son, pompao, and the holy ghost, barr in collusion with judas, donald j trump, taking a wrecking ball to the only wall that matters to a truly durable democracy, "The Separation of Church and State"
6
Enough is enough. You don't want to perform abortions or other medical procedures on moral or religious grounds, get another job.
19
When Hobby Lobby refused to cover reproductive health for female employees, I took my money somewhere else. I have not been in the store in years. Trues, a small step, yet a step. If you work in an institution who provides reproductive health services to patients and it grates against your conscience, find a new job.
You are not required to stay and suffer under whatever moral quandary you face. I am actually pretty tired of Conservatives trying fo legislate/force thier ideas and values on everyone, give it a rest.
In the future, you might think only of working with comanies aligned with your point of view or your moral compass, that's freedom, the rest is simply "fake news," and frankly, it's getting tiresome.
18
If your imaginary friend conflicts with your life's calling, it's time to change up one or both.
9
it is simple. If your belief system is against abortion, surgical sterilization, or end-of-live, no resuscitation directives, you do not have the right to force your decisions on other people and have no right to work in those fields of medicine. If your God is telling you to harm other people then your "God" is the Devil.
13
I had always thought that medical practitioners were supposed to be part of the “caring professions.” When exactly did some of them decide that rather than caring for those in need of their services, they would appoint themselves judge and jury over other people’s life choices? Shame on these small minded and mean spirited individuals!
11
@Susan
I agree, Susan.
Perhaps we need to re-examine how the Hippocratic Oath intersects with religious belief. The procedures being discussed have undergone a rigorous process of medical and ethical evaluation, and reflect the culmination of scientific thinking: what business is it of religious providers to place superstition, myth, and magical thinking above the legitimate needs of patients, who have as much right to competent care as everyone else?
7
Anyone here ever participated in an elective 20 plus week abortion? If it is against your conscience (let's keep religion out of it) it is a really horrible experience and really, practically it can be accomplished by someone else who is willing to do it. The ridiculous comments here about "imminent" miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies make no sense. Those are not elective abortions, they are acute medical problems that MUST be resolved and WILL be resolved by physicians. I've seen those 20+ week babies dismembered and extracted and finally the head crushed and pulled out, I am Pro Choice but I would not force doing the procedure on a physician who could not bear it. They can do plenty of other good work and the hospitals or government can make arrangements to provide the abortion care with willing and capable practitioners.
7
My own recall of the Hippocratic Oath says that I, the physician, will always have the good of the patient as my goal. The only enumerated goal.
I believe the Declaration of Geneva similarly puts the welfare of the patient as the first priority.
Well, the elevator operators aren't bound by these oaths.
4
@Linda But what's affect a patient who's in process of being transported for treatment is none of that operator's business. Period.
Funny, but I don’t recall the Hippocratic Oath coming with a footnote saying that care would be provided as long as the physician had no issues with the particular situation of the patient.
This is an important ruling. If this law stood, it could have opened the door to other intrusions into the medical privacy of women, such as justifying the need for birth control, investigating miscarriages, mandating pregnancy tests before gynecological procedures...and whatever other burdens repressive legislators could concoct under the righteous umbrella of “pro-life.”
19
Surely there are enough health care workers readily available in most areas of the US to allow health care workers to follow their conscience - either because of religious or non-religious ethical grounds?
4
@Gary
There is more to it than that. Religiously-conservative medical providers also wish to impose their beliefs on everyone else — including those who do not hold their religious views.
Meanwhile — Religiously-conservative legislators are busy making such facilities scarcer and scarcer.
The US are experiencing a flurry of ‘pro-life’ legislation that, if successful, mades the logistics of accessing services moot.
8
@Gary - Nah Gary. Yuge portions of our western states are the equivalent of The Outback. Anyway, "conscience"? Read the Hippocratic Oath. If docs don't like that, they should become a plumber - and also make more money.
1
It would seem that if one chooses to take up a career in the health profession, it would be assumed at the outset that one would be ethically required to treat patients without regard to their religion, sexuality, or previous patent history. The Trump Adminstration proposed thus, violates first and foremost, patients' rights and privacy. It would seem that individuals who cannot commit to caring for all patients, no matter their private beliefs, should not be placed in a position where they can deny care to anyone. A "Conscience Rule" should rather be turned on its head as prospective health profesional employees are asked to sign a declaration that they will, in all good conscience, treat all patients professionally and to the best of their ability-no exceptions.
17
Too many religious groups are exhibiting the same "victimhood" that is espoused by our president. If things aren't going your way, it must be because people are picking on you, not because you are are doing anything wrong.
Over time, our society has become increasingly secularized as people lose their faith, stop practicing their faith and/or choose to believe in and follow a different belief system. Churches have struggled with the loss of parishioners, but some have adapted better to the changes than others. While traditional churches have lost parishioners, non-traditional churches that may be lite on christian dogma, but long on filling a social or niche religious need have in many cases flourished.
Everyone is guaranteed the right in this country to practice their particular faith. However, it was also the intent of our founders that the state not impose any particular religious beliefs on its citizens - the very thing that many sought to escape when coming to this country.
In short, practice you faith if you want, but don't impose these beliefs on others. This should be especially true for health care workers who should be expressly barred from discriminating (i.e., "practicing" their faith) on the basis of race, creed, color religion or sexual orientation.
24
Allowing people to use religion to override laws can only result in chaos.
If such thing were allowed than it should be more than someone's say so. They should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what ever it is that they object to is equivalently disallowed by their religion as defined in their book. Including questions of why they entered a profession with requirements not allowed.
Prosecutors could also use the book and witnesses to demonstrate any conflicting information or alternative interpretation that would demonstrate that the religion is not hard and fast on this ‘Conscience Rule’.
Imagine every law open to my interpretation of whether I believe I should follow it or not.
Imagine people of non-Christian religions, especially as Islam is portrayed by the right wingers, being able to do the same. Think of the things that they say about Islam - and all that would have to be allowed as a ‘Conscience Rule’.
19
Once governmental sanction -- by licensure or otherwise -- is required for one's occupation, it becomes a governmental action and free from the constraints of any religious (as well as racist, sexist and other) personal "conviction."
Since the Constitution mandates a separation of church and state separate, it may not prefer or hinder any form of religious practice or belief. A governmental license may never be used to impose one's religion in the exercise of the licensed activity. As to the other "convictions," they are just plain illegal.
17
Wait, what? "or have a history of abortion"??
Is the Trump administration trying to say that a health care provider may refuse to provide any assistance -- including live-saving assistance -- without any penalty if it says in a woman's medical record that she had an abortion 20 or 30 or 40 years ago? Seriously?
29
Isn't not treating sick people against the Hippocratic Oath? If you're a doctor, and you subscribe to this nonsense, I don't want to be treated by you in the first place, so from now on I'll just ask first.
9
Re Photo_Caption: "...A rally supporting abortion rights in Sacramento in May. California was among several states suing the Trump administration over its “conscience” rule..."
I've ALWAYS supported minding my own business where other's healthcare issues are concerned...
As a retired Paramedic, A.C.L.S. provider, I NEVER saw a 'Xian', 'Jewish', 'Islamic' NOR 'other faith' patient! All I saw were the broken bodies / minds of my fellow humans; thus, it WOULDN'T occur to me to refuse or advocate authorized treatments, medications, procedures(s) indicated for any specific patient, using 'religiosity' as excuse for, ('Pro_Birth', or other...), unprofessional interference...
15
“Judge Overturns Trump” about this or anything else is music to my ears.
24
@Marc
The NYT should be running a weekly supplement, "The Weekly Trump Court Report".
Court cases involving Trump directly, or indirectly, and privately or as a representative of the government, could fill several pages a week, easy. Maybe make it a Sunday supplement. If not weekly, at least once a month so readers could keep up.
4
This reminds me of the arguments against serving black people in restaurants or letting them integrate schools. My fellow Southerners claimed segregation of the races was sanctioned by God in the Bible. So, if we support the conscience argument, does that mean Southern states can erect new White’s Only water fountains?
28
Should a prolife doctor be forced to perform an abortion? Just wondering.
4
@Joe Borini
There are countries where doctors and health employees are permitted to be conscientious objectors.
However, following this a doctor could decide not to treat someone if the person is of a religion or a background he has negative feelings about. And on. For me they should not work in the health industry (yes, it is an industry).
It depends what you mean by "prolife". Up to now pro life has meant pro giving birth. Then what happens after the baby is born is of no interest to the "prolifers". What about help for babies with problems (down babies of varying levels, other immediately evident physical disabilities, help for the mother having had a difficult birth. Then day care, nursery school help. Pre and post natal care is not available in the US to many of the people who would be forced to give birth.
6
Please tell us in what context this decision would have to be made. I do not believe that many anti-choice doctors would be in a position where they would have to make that decision.
And make no mistake, the abortion issue is about personal liberty, and personal choice, not about "baby killers".
Everyone is pro-life, no one is pro-abortion, but some believe that the government should not intrude on this very personal decision.
4
@Joe Borini - No and it's never happened. A doctor makes a choice about what type of medicine they are going to practice and where they will work.
7
"Factually untrue" ... "yawning evidentiary gap" ... in other words, they flat out lied to the court.
41
Probably the year 2021 will be spent un-doing all of Trump's ludicrous and dangerous mandates.
20
@Dolly Patterson
we can only hope.
3
@Dolly Patterson
Maybe 2024. The first few years of the next Democratic administration will be spent bringing dozens of corrupt, criminal Republicans to justice. Just the current and past members of TrumpsCabinet will take a couple years to investigate, try, and convice.
3
@Dolly Patterson - It's (R) policy. Create so much damage to our society that the next (D) administration has to spend all their time pulling the (R)s fat out of the fire.
2
If healthcare workers object to medical procedures for religious reasons they should find another job.
52
Would someone please tell religious conservatives that their beliefs do not trump (pardon the pun) my constitutional rights? This is a naked attempt on the administration's part to keep inflaming it's right-wing base. Enough!
39
@Aunt Rosie I agree that you have a Constitutional right to have an abortion. Where in the Constitution do you find the right to have an abortion performed by a particular doctor, however?
If you want a steak dinner, a vegan restaurant should not be forced to serve it to you.
1
If she wanted a steak dinner she wouldn’t go to a vegan restaurant in the first place, duh.
1
I’m a million percent pro choice and I would prefer it if the person(s) performing my abortion were not breaking their religious convictions to do it. Same with pharmacy. If your conscience prevents you from dispensing birth control, you don’t dispense birth control. But customers/patients need to know up front. That way, the customer won’t be declined (shamed) when they need birth control. if reproductive rights are against your beliefs you can’t work for a national chain or public-funded institution that honors the right to choose. Start your own practice or pharmacy and follow your conscience. It’s like opening a vegan restaurant. Some people will go elsewhere and never set foot in your place. Some people will use what you have to offer and get their meat fix someplace else. Others are going to choose you first and most of the time people will just get what they want where they can. Like I said, I’m pro-choice. I want my medical provider to have a conscience and follow it within the letter of the law,
11
I wonder how Donald Trump would feel if he were to be involved in a terrible accident and a Jehovah's Witness trauma surgeon said, "Sorry. Blood transfusions are forbidden in my religion. But I will pray for you."
Our laws should not be guided by religion. Not mine, not yours, not anybody's. And medical workers must abide by them.
49
@KJ
"how Donald Trump would feel" - therein lies the rub... he is a shell, no interior; he neither thinks nor feels; he doesn't have the capacity.
15
If you can't do your job in good conscience, to the point where you are actively hiding information and resources from your patients/clients/customers, then maybe you should get a different job.
27
Your religious views and practices are your and yours alone.
1. If a movie violates your religion - then don't go see it.
2. If a medical procedure violates your religion don't have the procedure - vasectomy or termination of pregnancy, etc.
3. If a store supports people or ideas that violate your religious views then SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
4. If your business only supports the views of intolerance then move your business to an area that loves hate and intolerance and supports only people that look, speak, or love like you.
5. If the place you work at supports religious intolerance then quit your job and work somewhere else - you knew what they are like before you applied for the job.
6. If skimpy clothing violates your religious views then dress in a way that covers up what violates your views.
The MAJORITY of AMERICANS are fed up with a MINORITY of Americans, the GOP / trump wanting to control our government, our ways of living, our ways of worshiping our Creator, our ways of expressing LOVE, PEACE and devotion.
#ENOUGH!!
37
Re:
“Where H.H.S. claimed that the rule was justified by complaints made to it, the administrative record reflects a yawning evidentiary gap,” Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of United States District Court wrote.
This is a clear case of confusion on the part of the HHS lawyers. They were obviously thinking that they were addressing the hard core cultists for whom nothing said
by dear leader is ever ever false, and even if it were,
it just wouldn't matter in the slightest.
13
Donald Trump’s “conscience rule” is now to become the mandate for all Americans. Really!!?? Where is his conscience? The enormity of the hypocrisy and dishonesty, cruelty and evil intentions of this man are overwhelming. Donald Trump is the voice of “abstinence only.” What kind of world do we have and how much longer can it go on?
13
Sorry folks, but you can't exempt yourself from living in the United States where we have the right to live free from religion.
24
Hospital grief counselor: "Sorry, we couldn't save your wife. The obstetrician caring for her felt it was a violation of his religious freedom to abort her imminent miscarriage. He couldn't save the baby either. Hope this gives you some closure."
35
If you can't do your job, go into another line of work. No exceptions.
23
In addition to allowing health workers to opt out of procedures in the name of their stated conscious beliefs, it was an outrageous overreach in shielding those workers from their responsibility to referring a patient to another provider, inexcusably leaving vulnerable patients with no options.
That is medical malpractice, and should never be allowed.
54
If you have issues with significant duties in your chosen career, perhaps you made an error when you picked. Imagine if service employees like restaurant servers and check out clerks could pick and choose what they would and would not serve or sell you based on their personal beliefs. How would people feel about a vegan supermarket checker who refused to ring up meat, dairy, and egg products? Would we try to accommodate them or tell them to find other work?
52
I am a doctor and recently we had to let go one of the students interning in our clinic as they refused to room a patient. Why? The patient was wearing a MAGA hat and the student did not believe in serving anyone with that political affiliation. I completely supported the decision to dismiss the student from our practice.
As a healthcare provider, one does not have the right to refuse service to those we disagree with. I have done emergent surgery on people with uncontrolled HIV/Hep C, treated prisoners & pedophiles, and served individuals much different than myself. All personal religious and moral objections are left at the wayside when you start any form of medical education, and continue to the day of your retirement. It is our duty to heal all.
81
'Healing' implies that there is a medical problem to heal. An uncomplicated pregnancy is not a medical problem. No one should be forced to abort a pregnancy that is uncomplicated and proceeding normally. There are other practitioners who can do these elective procedures. I am personally pro choice but there need to be situations where physicians can step aside and let someone else electively terminate a pregnancy. In states where Capital Punishment is legal, should all physicians be forced to start eat IV, draw up the medication and administer it, just because they know how?
1
@DocG - Here's today's False Equivalency winner!
4
Thanks,
You beat me to it!
Nice legalese there:
"Where H.H.S. claimed that the rule was justified by complaints made to it, the administrative record reflects a yawning evidentiary gap"
Translated: "They're lying about the ton of complaints they claimed to have gotten that they used to justify making a law to allow religious providers to deny care. "
28
I think it's time for the courts to issue a blanket ban on all Trump-era regulations and deregulations on grounds that all of them ignore the laws of the United States. Why do it piecemeal?
19
Courts don’t work like that. There must be an actual case and controversy involving real people who have standing and the dispute must be ripe to be decided. All that is required in order for a court to have jurisdiction to take a case and issue a ruling. Courts don’t rule on theoretical conflicts. They don’t issue blanket rulings on unknown disputes. Nor should they ever do so.
2
Medical institutions run by religious entities don't get to have it both ways. Protection of their beliefs by the federal government while enjoying tax free status. Why should they enjoy tax free status for their beliefs while the average citizen doesn't? Also as a medical institution, thought they were supposed to render aid not withhold it on a case by case basis. Stop with the nonsense to make health care such a politicized issue and get on the with purpose of medicine - to aid and do no harm.
26
The "yawning evidentiary gap" cited by the judge pretty much sums up everything that comes from the Trump administration.
41
@Jessica
It’s interesting too, Jessica, especially when one looks at amici briefs submitted to courts: implications of conspiracy, misuse of statistics, quoting out of context, fear-mongering, just-so stories, and outright lying.
Any and all of those tactics prove that religious right do not have legs to stand on. I’m glad this court could see that, too.
1
Catholic hospitals that, by their conduct, impose harmful religious beliefs on patients who are not Catholic (or otherwise don't subscribe to those beliefs) embody the epitome of the tyranny that religious fundamentalism has created throughout history.
Believe what you want, but the line must be drawn where it can be rationally demonstrated that you are harming others for no good reason. Preventing cognitive dissonance inside your head over flawed beliefs is not a good enough reason to harm other persons.
17
How ironic is it that we used to lead the world in matters such as women’s healthcare of which abortion is a part of . When Ireland not only allows abortion but it’s free as well(very catholic btw) and we in this country are going over the same material from the ‘70s yet again. Vote like your freedom and rights depend on it in 2020. They really do.
37
Freedom is a two way street. You can't exercise your freedom, religious or otherwise, regardless of the impact on other people's freedom.
14
There's a bigger problem here which is that in many areas of the US hospitals are local monopolies with many being owned by church affiliated corporations. As such they are able to exercise their religious beliefs on everyone who walks through their doors effectively depriving citizens of their rights.
Imagine a hospital owned by Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore unwilling to perform transfusions for surgical procedures? As laughable as this sounds it is reality for women seeking legal abortions in America.
22
@David - Or imagine a hospital (network) owned by Mormons? Here in Utahstan, Intermountain Healthcare, which dominates UT's healthcare system, is no longer owned outright by "The Church Formerly Known as Mormon", but they're still dominated by them. Abortions are hard to come by here and many UT women just travel to a more civilized adjacent state.
But then, our LDS Senator Lee has also made the foo-bird argument that the solution to our climate crisis is, get this… to have more babies. Sheesh!
This administration was never interested in conscience and religious freedom. Think back to their signature "muslim ban".
This has much more to do with codifying hatred into law. "First they came after the transgender people, but I did nothing." This was just the beginning.
While we still have the rule of law, we need to push back on codifying hatred against "the other".
It is morally repugnant for one religious group to benefit from codifying their hatred into civil law in exchange for votes. It is inexplicable why the Catholic religious continue to support Trump.
17
This HHS rule is unsupportable.
I believe Jehovah's are against blood transfusions. How can a hospital allow their staff to get around that? What if a nurse doesn't want to treat an LGBTQ person? How would they know? Will there be a database tracking this for the sake of the medical practitioners? Will these professionals expect to be compensated if they find out they helped a lesbian get IVF treatment after the fact?
Some religions don't like contact with women while they have their menses. What then? What if you find out the patient has alleged crimes of sexual assault? I imagine you could refuse treatment based on your moral convictions, but who determines this judgement?
There has been a plane crash and it's all hands are deck. Will the administrators be picking through the gurneys trying to determine what doctors/nurses/ image technicians can treat which patients? Again, how will they know?
If you can say 'no' to one patient based on your morals, you can pretty much pick and choose who you will, and will not treat with impunity. How did the HHS not foresee what a travesty to patient outcomes this would become?
Separation of church and state, or we've lost the plot.
28
This is not “ just “ about Abortion. Citing the “conscience rule “, Pharmacists have actually refilled to fill prescriptions for Birth Control Pills. An inconvenience, if you live in a large City, and must find a different Drugstore. But what if yours Is the only Pharmacy within 50 or 100 mile ? That happens a lot, in Rural areas. And I’ve never, ever heard of any Pharmacy refusing to fill a prescription for Erectile Dysfunction Drugs. This is ALL about controlling and punishment of Women. PERIOD.
VOTE in 2020.
53
@Phyliss Dalmatian
“ REFUSED to fill ( or refill ) prescriptions “.
Sorry.
2
@Phyliss Dalmatian - Good point. It should also be noted that birth control bills are used to treat a variety of medical conditions. I'm no longer able to get pregnant but I needed birth control pills to treat ovarian cysts. Without the pills I would have been faced with expensive surgery and a week off from work.
11
What about the reverse of this law? What if a doctor at a catholic institution wanted to perform an abortion but was prevented or fired by his hospital? Shouldn't they have the right to do so?
1
@Rob
Nobody is forcing them to accept federal funds.
9
Denying care to someone who is asking for it and needs it is evidence of lack of conscience.
24
'In addition to the rule overturned by the court on Wednesday, the administration has previously also substantially revised rules established by the Obama administration that required insurers and health care providers to care for patients who are transgender or have a history of abortion.'
People don't want to care for people who have a 'history of abortion?'
What does that even mean???? And what business is it of anyone providing care today???
(And, yes, it's despicable to deny care to transgendered too.)
What is wrong with these people?
17
Full disclosure- I work in a licensed health profession.
If you as a healthcare professional cannot render quality care to each and every patient regardless of your personal biases, faith or politics you do not belong in the healing professions. We do not need you.
63
Good ruling. Trump's craven appealing to religious extremists is just one more reason why he is unfit to hold office.
20
@Baruch - So is his appointing religious extremists such as Bill Barr and Mike Pompeo to some of the most powerful and prestigious positions in our government. The two of them have more or less successfully hidden their extremism from the public but are now feeling empowered by Trump to let the reality show. It is rather frightening.
16
@Annie - You have nailed in Annie. The Deep State is the Evangelical Community lead by Pence, Barr, and Pompeo, 5 Male Conservative SCOTUS Justices, and many men in political (power) office, that have been enabled by *rump and are willing to play Judas to their morals to win their "war" and break down the wall that is "The Separation of Church and State".
We would be no different than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and a litany of other crazy mess up countries.
6
Imagine the outcry if a centralized Islamic group owned 16.6% of the hospitals in the US.
The Catholic Church needs to divest itself of the majority of those hospitals, or should be forced to; it is INSANE that so many of us who don't follow, or outright reject, their teachings are indirectly subjected to them in life-and-death situations.
14
Having been a health care worker all of my adult life, I find tRump’s attempt to shove religious beliefs down the throats of patients and their families to be an atrocious over-reach and completely off the mark of what a healthcare provider’s needs are. If one wishes to protect the civil rights of a group, then it is proper to identify their needs. How about a 40 hour work week? How about the demand that one risks one’s life to drive in ice-storms and other weather emergencies in order to provide service for elective surgeries? How about the demand that come to work sick because there is no one to replace you? A healthcare worker must risk her life in order not to be “written up” for protecting her own life and that of her family you not showing up for work. Does anyone out there know how long it took for providers to have protective garments for themselves readily available? If not for the hysteria of the AIDS epidemic, it might never have happened. Lastly, those who work in an operating room have to listen to whatever the physician has on his mind(politics, religion, abuse of oneself, sex, you name it). We are a captive audience and believe me, we get shunned for speaking our minds. So, if you want to protect my civil rights, these are much more urgent issues. No one wants to have her job threatened because she is 1) afraid to drive because the weather is bad, 2) sick, or 3) family emergency!
10
Recently I initiated an "end-of-life" conversation with one of my doctors. She was quite clear that she was not open to assisting me in that choice. (To be fair, it is not yet legal in the state). I respect her honesty and her position.
But it is frightening to me to think that I might have to endure a long period of suffering because of the religious beliefs of someone else who will not respect my decision to end life on my terms (again respecting the law of the state).
47
@Clare Feeley But your doctor will gleefully bill your insurance company through the long and very expensive period of suffering without a hint of remorse.
Again, ask them if they be cashing their paychecks during your long period of suffering.
20
Well, actually, you could just change to a physician who agrees with you.
2
Am I correct that Birth Control became available over 50 years ago? If you were a pharmacist and objected, you should have moved from retail to another setting. If you graduated from pharmacy school or became a family practice MD or RN in the past 50 years, you knew dispensing birth control was a major part of your job. If you disagree, find another profession.
89
Why become a physician or other healthcare worker if you don't want to treat everyone equally? Seems medicine has historically been centered around the best for the patient, not the best for the doctor.
96
@Karen S
"Seems medicine has historically been centered around the best for the patient, not the best for the doctor."
Yours is the single best conclusion to be drawn in a debate that has become absurd. It is short, historically accurate and profound. Everything else is self-serving fog. Congratulations.
11
In my mind there is a distinction between allowing healthcare staff to opt out of actively participating in ending a life such as abortion or euthanasia. It seems a much different case to allow staff to opt out of caring for those who are ill simply because they don't approve of their lifestyle.
24
@Ann That’s not what the Conscience Exception does. It allows healthcare staff to opt out of certain procedures. It doesn’t allow them to refuse to treat patients of whom they disapprove. Some opponents to the rule conveniently conflate the two very different cases.
3
@Joe Borini
Procedures are generally performed on patients, so if you refuse a procedure, you are refusing treatment for patients, patients who are legally entitled to the procedure.
21
@Joe Borini this paragraph in the NYT article reflects, IMO, the slippery slope of the HHS rule change: "The Trump administration proposal would eliminate such protections, leaving decisions about whether and how to treat such patients in the hands of individual medical providers and insurance companies." Specifically cited are the patients who may have had abortions or trans surgery. With one out of six hospital patients now treated in a Catholic Hospital, I could imagine a patient with complications because of a botched abortion or trans surgery, being refused care in their institutions. I would certainly hope not but who knows...
5
How wonderful that the court recognized "a yawning evidentiary gap"! but also how mind-boggling that this administration would try that kind of misinformation in an important legal case. One can only hope that hard science & facts win in other cases with regard to climate change, water purity & the like that are coming up.
111
Part of the problem is, it is very hard for Govt to distinguish a major bona fide religious objection (not performing abortion) and a biased one (not providing healthcare to children of inter racial marriages.). In the Colorado gay wedding cake case,the Supreme Court specifically noted govt and judges can’t rule on what is or isn’t a person’s religious value. It’s whatever you say it is. Normally laws trump religious beliefs (eg your religion tells you not to drive on the right or pay taxes.)
34
@Bruce Quinn : There's no such thing as a "bona fide religious objection" by those who oppose abortion. The Bible says nothing on abortion, but it says plenty about mercy and justice -- concepts that elude most self-professed pro-lifers (those who support the death penalty, oppose measures to help kids once they're out of the womb, and oppose common-sense gun-safety laws).
If someone doesn't want to uphold laws that allow women to control their own bodies, then that someone needs to choose an occupation where that isn't an issue. Likewise for those who don't want to acknowledgement the not-so-radical notion that even people who are different in some way deserve respect and equal access to all services.
How lovely it would be if these Sharia Christianists would pool their resources, buy an island far far away, live their regressive and restrictive lives -- and leave the rational, tolerant people alone.
26
@Doro Wynant
There are those who truly believe that a fetus is a person, and who object to abortion. I don't have a problem with their not participating in one. Where I have an issue with this is if they are placed in contact with patients who might need these services, and whose well-being is put at risk because the staff won't do the work that is required. People in an emergency situation come to mind.
For example, an OR nurse who objects to abortion could be scheduled exclusively for operations not involving obstetrics, and could be kept away from the emergency room. An obstetrician would be more difficult to reassign, but perhaps he or she could find another job in a hospital where they don't do emergencies, and where their policies are clearly posted (e.g.: "we don't provide abortion, and we will prefer the life of the fetus over yours if there is a problem during delivery").
I REALLY have a problem with telling people they can feel free to disregard a request for a referral to a provider who WILL meet the person's need. That should NEVER be allowed. The person needs to have access to accurate, truthful information, and referrals to the services they need or want.
9
@Andy Jo - They can "believe" whatever they dream up as long as they don't try to force it on others. Nobody knows what life is, let alone when it begins. This "fetus is a cute little baby" stuff is a recent phenomenon among the religiosity peeps.
Religionists have been all over the board on the topic. The irony is that 50 years ago the evangelicals were, get this, Pro-Choice!
A '68 a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship mag of evangelicalism, refused to say abortion is sinful, citing 'individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility' as justifications for abortion.
Also in '68, Christianity Today published an issue on abortion. Bruce Waltke, of the uber-conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote: “God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed…”
In '71, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution that abortion should be legal to protect both the life of the mother and her emotional health as well.
In '73, the president of the Southern Baptists said: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person…"
If they don't want to provide medical services, maybe they should become "pastors" instead.
2
If religious leaders want to set government policy, their tax exemption should be removed.
260
@Jules I don't know Supreme Court rulings well enough. But, I thought Supreme Court Justice Scalia (or is that Supreme Being Scalia) warned against conscience protection rulings. He cautioned that such protections could thus become individual laws unto themselves.
Such protections are unsustainable and indefensible.
There is no end to that slippery slope.
41
@Jules The sum total of taxes avoided by religious exemptions at the Federal, State and Local level could probably balance the budget!
10
@Jules
That would not be enough to stop the white evangelicals and the orthodox Catholics from turning America into a theocracy.
Religious zealots have finally taken over the GOP - a movement that started in the 80s culminating in Trump's weekly prayers in the White House.
The rest of us simply have to completely decimate the Republican party by voting them out of every elected position - federal, state, and municipal.
6
It's heartening to see more and more resistance from judicial and legislative branches against the horrendous policies this dreadful administration tries to impose on Americans.
131
Gee; Trump keeps LOSING in federal court. Glad to see it. Of course, this will go to the Supremes; who knows what will happen there?
64
@denise brown Makes me wonder if he is Tired of Losing Yet?
Quite different than his election slogan, eh? So much for winning big, he cannot even negotiate in good faith with an easy to deal with Nation like North Korea. Mostly NK needs to be treated as an equal on the International stage. That is an impossibility for the Trump admin since they are so centered on American Business Goals and have absolutely no notion of normal business between Nations as being different than running Hotels.
Anyhow, just more proof of how far off from being right Mr Trump is: Being Right Wing does not make you the 'Correct' Wing.
6
Matthew 23:27-28
″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
86
@KOOLTOZE
Republicanism in a nutshell.
4
The problem is the Religions can't control the choices of their members, so they influence the government to do that for them. Over 80% of Catholic women use birth control. Does this mean the pharmacist should be allowed to not fill these prescriptions? If someone in the first-line medical community is so restricted in the services they will provide, they need to find another job!
161
A word of advice, if you are ever in a serious accident, have a heart attack, etc and have a choice on which hospital to go to, don't go to a Catholic one if you want any say about end of life decisions. They are knowing to fight families who want to end care (supposedly on ethical reasons, but the financial ones probably explain it more).
82
@BMD
While I generally agree catholic hospitals can be problematic, the end of life issues depends are where you are. Towards the end of a long battle with cancer it was a doctor in a catholic hospital that recommended we end treatment for my husband so that he could die peacefully at home. I am not catholic, but I will be forever grateful for the care we received from the hospital and affiliated agencies even after we went home.
3
@BMD The problem is that the Catholic Church under the name "Dignity Health has been taking over most of the rural hospitals in America. If you live in a rural area and want a tubal ligation or a vasectomy, you have to go to a big city to get one. If you are a local doctor who dees outpatient vasectomies, you are refused hospital privileges for non-reproductive services too.
11
@BMD
Definitely don't go to a Catholic hospital if you have made your end-of-life decisions. They won't be implemented.
Or if you are pregnant and having a related emergency, or if you are going to give birth, or if you want to get a birth control prescription of any kind. You won't get proper care.
Or... If you have a risky pregnancy (one which could kill you). The preference for the child's life over that of the mother is still strong. My husband's mother told her sons (she only had sons) never to take their future wives to a Catholic hospital to give birth. She nearly died giving birth to her youngest.
If you have a choice... That's a big issue in some places.
14
If you are not interested in helping people and serving the best interests of your patients, get out of medicine.
207
@BMD Many a pharmacist needs to heed this, too. And it's not just nurses and doctors, it's x-ray techs, staff who draw blood...
2
Ahh. So he wants a Hypocritical Oath as opposed to the Hippocratic Oath.
134
Lies, now made in America with pride.
58
Lies Make America Great Again.
3
Apparently, Trump's HHS thinks it is acceptable to flat out lie when drawing up regulations: the "stated justification for undertaking rule making...was factually untrue."
Is there anyone left in the Trump administration that simply tells the truth, ever?
199
@It can't end soon enough - "Is there anyone left in the Trump administration that simply tells the truth, ever?"
Only accidentally, it seems.
10
@It can't end soon enough
Was there ever anyone in it that told the truth?
8
Christ said in everything, do to others what you would have others do to you.
Christians, of all people, should remember that. You seriously want to lie to women about their options? Deny them life-saving medical help? Deny them the right to decide their own future lives?
Religious liberty is important. So is liberty and justice for all!
169
@kr: But then the people in the religious power structure crucified Christ for his liberal teaching on religious and life. After all "Conservative Christian" is an oxymoron. One cannot be conservative and follow the teaching of Jesus.
108
Yes. Yes, they do.
2
@Jeff
Yes, you can follow the teaching of Jesus Christ.
your beliefs are are yours and no one can take that away from you.
NO - you do NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to FORCE your beliefs on others through violent actions or controlling the American public through government created religious laws!
9