As I said your entire argument is a straw man.

Abortions are performed in abortion clinics for the most part where the “doctors” are hired to perform abortions.

You guys want to force people who find that morally repugnant to perform abortions at all providers.

Do we want to try to find a pharmacy that doesn’t take medicare?

They said they were particularly worried that patients would not be given full and complete information about their medical options. For example, they said, an antiabortion doctor in a federally funded clinic might refuse to tell a pregnant patient that her fetus had a severe abnormality. Or an emergency room worker might withhold from rape victims information about emergency contraception.

…so the Republican party finally provided me with the upside for Obama’s election. Let’s keep pushing the moral agenda, thin out our ranks a bit more.

So you’re saying that a private pharmacist shouldn’t have choice?

A private pharmacist already has the choice. This rule only affects institutions that accept Federal funds (like public hospitals).

To answer your point if some Muslim or gay guy didn’t want to see me I don’t want them as a doctor

So then you’re not going to give that hospital your patronage. But the hospital won’t be able to fire them for driving away patients. Then a few years later, we’ll add to the Bank and Auto Bailout with a Hospital Bailout.

Oh. And now government is denying employers the choice to choose their employees based on certain criteria (like willingness to do the job). So your choice arguments are not so hot either.

we want a good lawyer.

lol. At government pay you’re stuck with hobbyists

To answer your point if some Muslim or gay guy didn’t want to see me I don’t want them as a doctor.

You’re just using that employer thing as a straw man.

The fact is the lefties wanted to pull doctor’s licenses if they didn’t perform abortions.

That’s wrong and anyone with a brain knows it.

we want a good lawyer.

Not sure where I said I agreed with the auto bailout. I don’t. I just don’t think we need to reduce the pay of workers to $2.00/hour so they can survive.

Thanks for seriously considering what I said. I agree with you, I don’t think states should be legislating this stuff either.

While I, as you know, have no moral qualms with abortion, I can definitely imagine what a doctor must feel like if he is forced to perform what he thinks is murder. We just need to be careful not to embrace government solutions to government created problems… it leads to bad things. It’s probably best to fight this on the state level if we don’t agree with it.

Don’t want to perform abortions ? Don’t take a job with an abortion clinic.

I think that shows a bunch of stupidity. What you’re talking about here is the right of a doctor who delivers babies the right to NOT perform abortions.

Two points:
1) Health care providers are BUSINESSES. They are not some majic ponies or unicorns that are to be guaranteed by the government. Healthcare is not a right, but a service purchased. It is not a government’s business, pun intended, to mandate what a business can or can not do. For the ostriches with the heads in the sand I recommend to look at the government’s “success” in mandating subprime loans, thru legislature and legal persecution of the financial institutions who were reluctant.
2) Second point is the reply to DINO above who stated that the doctors “should do the job they were hired to do”. Doctors, outside abortion clinics, are not hired to MURDER. And no my dear fool, you cannot prove that fetus is not a human being and a child.

Also, please allow me to run a nightmare legal scenario by you:

If you go by the Fundamental Interests branch of the Equal Protection theory, you see that government cannot discriminate against people with regards to their fundamental interests. The First Amendment says that people have a fundamental interest in expressing their beliefs.

Well now that government has opened the door to protecting the interest of doctors who don’t believe in abortions, let’s see who else has a case to prove that government is favoring (protecting) one value over theirs:

1. Muslim doctors opposed to treating Christians and women.
2. Christian doctors opposed to treating Jews, Muslims and athiests.
3. Athiests opposed to treating all of the above.
4. Gay doctors opposed to treating straight people.
5. Vice-vera.

etc… They all now have decent cases.

If you think that I’m making a slippery slope argument. Remind yourself of what you know about the ACLU and tell me that these lawsuits are unfathomable.

Bush just created a lot of work for lawyers. I’ll have to thank him if ever I should see him.

Rob,

Here’s how it should be.

Medicare care providers can decide whether or not they want to perform certain procedures, give out certain medications, etc.

Medicare care employers (hospitals, etc.) are free to fire anyone based on their refusal to do a certain procedure, etc.

But… but that was how it was before Bush passed this rule you’re all applauding! Medicare care providers could decide to refuse. Medicare care employers (not the government) were free and often did fire those medicare care providers for refusing.

Now the rule says that providers can decide, but employers can’t fire. That’s like the opposite of your “how it should be.”

What you’re talking about here is the right of a doctor who delivers babies the right to NOT perform abortions.

No. What we’re talking about here is the right of an employer not to hire employees who refuse to perform a service that the employer offers. It’s a free market argument.

What’s wrong with it ? It’s their fucking job, that’s what. Don’t want to perform abortions ? Don’t take a job with an abortion clinic. Don’t want to fill certain prescriptions ? Don’t become a pharmacist. It’s really quite simple.

I thought this party was about individual responsibility. You know, like when you take a job as a pharmacist, your responsibility is to do the job, whether you agree with birth control or not.

Then the pharmacist should find another line of work. Kind of a moot point since the republicans’ favorite store, Walmart, has destroyed the independent pharmacy.

If the institution has policies against certain procedures and lets everyone know that, fine. But individual workers at places like Walgreens or medical places that peform procedures or treat all people should not be given a pass anywhere but to the unemployment line.

Individual workers who refuse to treat certain people will only result in major lawsuits against the organization should the refusal result in damages. Lawsuits that the organization will lose. That’s why they would be stupid to even hire zealots who refuse to do their jobs.

you can’t change the fact that we just expanded the government role in the workplace.

I actually regret that the government had to get involved. However you have pressure on them to act in one way use federal power to force people to violate their morals.

Now you have the federal government having to make it explicit.

The best thing would have to kept government out of this particular issue altogether.

Let’s consider a different issue so we leave the hot topic of abortion. Let’s say we have a “married” lesbian couple that wants to be artificially inseminated. They go to a doctor that performs this for traditionally married couples.

The doctor refuses. Frankly I think he should do what he thinks is right. Maybe his employer disagrees, but if he’s a good doctor they’ll probably tolerate his beliefs.

Either way this is better suited in the market as the lesbians find a doctor in a different town. The doctor and perhaps his employer if he’s not an independent lose but they can probably deal with that.

This is a better solution than the lesbians suing the doctor or clinic or the licensing board threatens to pull the doctors license.

Then the pharmacist should find another line of work.

So you’re saying that a private pharmacist shouldn’t have choice?

Is that really in keeping with the ideals of freedom, Dino?

You do realize that the BIll of Rights stops pretty much at the door of the workplace, right?

Says the moron who thinks bailing out the automakers is the solution for an auto industry being killed by absurd labor contracts.

If they don’t like performing the job they were hired to do, let them find a new one. No one is forcing them to do that job.

I’m fine with a hospital firing a doctor that would do certain procedures. Everyone has a choice. Bush’s policy shouldn’t preclude hospitals from terminating doctors, etc. who won’t do a certain procedure.

But what if it’s a Catholic hospital? Or a pharmacist that owns his/her own pharmacy?

A private pharmacist already has the choice. This rule only affects institutions that accept Federal funds (like public hospitals).

Private pharmacists often take Medicare/Medicaid payments for prescriptions.