Posted on 11/18/2008 12:54:16 AM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON — 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.
But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.
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.”
Mr. Ishimaru and senior members of the commission staff said that neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the White House had consulted their agency before issuing the proposed rule. The White House Office of Management and Budget received the proposal on Aug. 21 and cleared it...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You’ve got this one right, Pres. Bush!
Ya Know the Euthanasia law just passed in Washington?
Well most of the Hospital Chains are CATHOLIC... meaning no/not gonna happen in their facilities.
If someone wants to make that God forbid choice they will do so.
We do not need laws to ok suicide we need more outreach/careproviding/assisting those who cannot care for themselves (as in a quad/or other severe care need) and not state funded as the money NEVER funnels down to that human in need.
We can help neighbors without getting INVOLVED we can assist neighbors and share resourses with out being CONDITIONAL.
I see it coming to Light here in our “hood” (20yrs of the same neighbors) where we all moved to acres of land but we all check in and whom ever is doing topps for the week will pick up meds/veggies or as in our situation we cook and or have dog food by a month supply to those severely infirmed.
See post 3.
My prayer is that this idea of unconditional care for nieghbors spreads like Wild Fire.
As we move into the Season.
:D
It's amazing--the left is always telling us that anti-abortion laws will FORCE women to have babies even if these women have beliefs which allow them to have an abortion, but they have no problem at all with FORCING doctors to kill.
I think I may be missing some pages from my copy of "Why Libs Are Never Hypocrites."
“Mr. Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives.”
mr. obama, stuff it.
mr. obama knows, darn well, that staffing problems will be rampant in his health care scheme. Having worked as a nurse in a hospital, I know that bad staffing leads to being “written up” if one is not able to perform up to the standard expected in understaffing craziness scenerios. There will be *no* excuse for religious beliefs. Going against the system will be futile. Healthcare workers are serfs.
I'm not a practicing Catholic. I still follow my conscience. The First Amendment still has priority. I did take an oath to the U.S. Constitution more than a few times. Nobody told me about an expiration date, just discharge dates.
Consiencious objectors can only be liberal and do it for political reasons, not real ones.
While I appreciate and agree with the intent of this rule, one effect will be that muslim dr.s can refuse to treat the opposite sex, can refuse to perform any number of procedures they find offensive. Britain has had a heck of a time with muslim dr.s and nurses in their system.
You get what you pay for: Britain's socialist system has driven out other doctors and nurses. If we let our country go down the same road as Britain and Canada, we can't say we didn't know better.
Gracious Transition?
What social liberals embrace is tribalism.
Extra “rights”, entitlements, and privileges for some tribes (identity groups) and vengeful deprivation of rights et al from other groups.
It isn’t that they are hypocrites to standards that apply to everybody.
Rather, it is that they are opposed to standards that apply to everyone equally in the first place.
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.