Skip to comments.CNN Reruns Year-Old Interviews on the Problem of Pro-Life Doctors
Posted on 12/04/2008 2:57:17 PM PST by Pyro7480
On Tuesday nights Campbell Brown show, CNN raised liberal worries about the Bush administrations plan in the final days to broaden the conscience clause for medical professionals who object to performing abortion and sterilization procedures. But Randi Kayes report questioning a Catholic doctor in Virginia for daring to refuse to provide "care" (translation: abortion or contraceptives) to female patients was most notable for its lack of timeliness: the interviews are now more than a year old, first appearing on Anderson Cooper 360 on November 26, 2007. CNN did not disclose to viewers that its story was largely a rerun.
Theres a reason this story sticks out in my mind (twice): the doctor interviewed, Scott Ross, is my family physician and a fellow parishioner at my church. The two stories are mostly the same (with some Bush updates), featuring the same pseudonymous "Melissa" complaining about her Catholic doctor (not Dr. Ross, but a doctor whos not identified) refusing her "care" as Kaye sympathetically interviewed her, while Dr. Ross is pressed about whether hes improperly judging his patients and denying them their "health care," even if they were raped and want an abortifacient pill....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
This issue has or will become a major fundraising issue for the choicers, they see money rolling in during the last days of Bush but probably think that once Obama ascends their faucets will dry up. Expect this issue to expand into the media for the next few weeks.
“Choice” doesn’t include the “choice” of doctors to say “no,” apparently.
No one needs birth-control pills to live or even to be healthy. People use them for convienence. Why should a doctor be forced to prescribe them? Go to a different doctor lady.
Catholic and pro-life ping!
She did, but she was so traumatized by being "judged" by the previous doctor that she wants him put out of business, by the government, for upsetting her.
What if she'd been a smoker, and the doctor suggested stopping smoking? What if she were morbidly obese, and he gave advice on weight loss? Are the health risks of promiscuity and contraceptives the only ones doctors shouldn't be allowed to mention?
Someone else is behind this.
Quite so. Both promoters of promiscuity, contraception, and abortion, AND promoters of nationalized medical care. “Government has to take over healthy care, because some doctors won’t prescribe birth control bills!”
Of course, in that fine example of nationalized medical care, Great Britain, there’s a growing issue with Moslem NHS doctors who won’t treat women patients, won’t perform abortions, won’t deal with ob/gyn issues for single women; and with the Moslem nurses who won’t wash their hands because that requires showing their wrists.
The showdown between the sexual-revolution left and the Moslems is going to be very interesting.
Fleep! That would be “health care” and “birth control pills.” Who’s typing with these fingers, anyway?
Good point. And the larger point (or one of the larger points) is, contraception is not healthcare at all.
Healthcare, medicine, is the art of health: curing diseases, healing wounds, alleviating pain, correcting malformations, strengthening weakened physiological processes, restoring organs and systems to their healthy function. Contraception does none of these things.
In fact, it does the opposite. Its purpose is to temporarily or permanently impede the processes of healthy normal female sexuality.
Quite true. Should a doctor have to amputate a healthy arm because a patient requests it? If not, why should he have to mutilate a healthy reproductive system because a patient requests it?
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.