"sensible conscience clause" - what do you think?

[lobolance]

From theNew York Times article; the Prez delivered a speech at Notre Dame, and decided to take on abortion as a topic:

In his address, Mr. Obama did not engage on the merits of the debate on abortion; he instead made an appeal to each side of the issue. He said he supported a “sensible conscience clause” allowing health care providers to withhold abortion or other services that conflicted with religious beliefs.

-- Um. This is a frustrating moment for me; the downside of our moderate president (still, I am very  happy he's in the White House!). Instantly springing to my mind are images of teen girls in Tinyville USA, unable to get an abortion 'cause she doesn't have the means to get to Bigtown, and can't get one locally. Or even in Bigtown, a number of trans and gay people don't get the health care they need, as the folks at the local clinic have religious reasons not to provide service.

Is that a valid concern?

And on the other side, would one want to receive services from a practitioner who hated what they were doing? And people should do what they want to do (a basic belief of mine), as long as no one else is harmed. - hmm, 'harm' as the out here, the reason a practitioner must provide whatever service?

Nothing new in the conversation, I know. I'm curious as to what others think.

Comments

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

I firmly believe that health care providers shouldn't get into that line of work if they don't want to provide all the safe, legal procedures to anyone who needs them. Period, end of story.

OB/GYNs should be taught & be able to perform abortions. It's part of their business. If they don't like it, don't take that job. All doctors should offer services to trans, gay, black, white, young, old, ALL ppl, or don't become a doctor.

Just like a police officer should uphold the laws for everyone or a firefighter should put out fires in any person's house, a doctor is providing a vital public service for all ppl. They're not artistes or something!

[lobolance.livejournal.com]

oo, I like that last comment very much.

Though of course, firefighters, EMTs, etc have been known to stop providing services once they find out the victim is trans. At least that seems to be happening less often now.

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

That's still not right, dangit.

I mean, really, even in my job, I've had to edit things that I didn't agree with -- my first job out of college was at a defense contractor. But I had agreed to do the job, so I did it to the best of my ability. When I could, I got out. I didn't say "I'll only do these parts of it bec. I don't agree with the other bits." I could have refused the entire job, but I didn't bec. I needed the money. I'm not proud of it, but I did what I signed up for.

[inflectionpoint.livejournal.com]

You write it well. One of the other things that drives me mad is that there are people who are uncomfortable with things like the RU486/misoprostol abortion method. (That's the early, non-surgical method.)

Some anti choice folks couch this in terms of "safety," and bring up the fact that a few women have died following one. But that wasn't because RU486 was dangerous, it was because the tissue wasn't expelled all the way and they didn't get follow up care and got infection. That could happen after many kinds of procedures and has nothing to do with RU486 and everything to do with getting follow up.

It makes me really angry when I encounter anti choice sentiment disguised as a concern for my "safety."

[ladycelia.livejournal.com]

Trystan summed it up quite nicely. If you don't want to do the various aspects of the job, then don't go into the work.

It's a valid concern, I think.

[the-ogre.livejournal.com]

The problem is "where do you draw the line?"

Imagine a fundamentalist, racist, homophobic pharmacist, fr'ex. Won't fill prescriptions for certain meds at all. Won't fill any prescriptions for anyone that he doesn't feel he should, due to his perceptions - if he thinks a patient is gay, or trans, or jewish, or whatever, even if he doesn't actually *know*, he would have the right to refuse service on religious grounds.

Now make the same person a surgeon.

Or a pathologist.

actually, that is already happening

[inflectionpoint.livejournal.com]

there are pharmacies that won't fill emergency contraception prescriptions for women who need them.

if it's the only place in town, and you can't get somewhere in time, then you're looking at needing an abortion maybe, when before, the option was EC.

for bonus fun, there are pharmacies and pharmacists who won't fill birth control scrips either. what makes me angry about this is not just that they're turning their job into a place to play out their own religious choices, but also that if this is coming from a zygote and fetus saving mindset, it's wrong - a lot of people end up on birth control pills for reasons that have nothing to do with contraception.

and it's already happening to some same sex couples - everything was fine for doing an artificial insemination, until the physicians in the group learned that they were a lesbian couple and suddenly it was no go.

I have no room for medical providers using a conscience clause to not do their jobs - if you can't do the job, don't apply for it.

[allanh.livejournal.com]

I think he's trying to please too many people at once.

It's my opinion that for medical issues, NO religious loopholes for withholding treatment are appropriate. If you're a medical professional, your job is to treat ALL people...not SOME people.