Here are a few scenarios in which this rule can be applied:
1) Somebody goes to the doctor, learns she is pregnant and subsequently decides to have an abortion (for WHATEVER reason). The doctor believes abortion is immoral. The doctor can not only deny giving her a completely legal abortion, but doesn't need to give her information on how to get one or who to speak to for counsel on having one.
2) A couple decides that in addition to wearing a condom, they will use birth control for extra protection. The local pharmacist, however, believes using birth control is a sin and refuses to fill the completely legal prescription. Said pharmacist does not need to refer the couple to another pharmacy that will fill the prescription.
3) A woman has been living with AIDS after a blood transfusion for several years. She moves to a new town and goes to get her prescription filled a new pharmacy. The local pharmacist believes AIDS is a punishment from God and refuses to fill the completely legal prescription. Said pharmacist, again, does not need to refer this woman to a pharmacy that will fill the prescription.
In all of these scenarios, I've used a different reason that might be against somebody's religious or moral beliefs. In all of these scenarios, the procedure or medication was completely legal. In all of these scenarios, the health provider was not required to give the patient the information they need to receive their legal health care.
If you're as outraged as I am, you can take action NOW! Planned Parenthood has an online petition. Rachel Maddow has posted the phone number for the White House on her show's website (with a link to an MSNBC article) so that we can CALL, CALL, AND CALL AGAIN. We need to act now in order to send a message that we want this rule reversed as soon as possible.(Cross-posted at Jump off the Bridge)
Posts
4 comments:
Great post on an important issue. We'll jump to action ;) This is a terrible rule that could have wide repercussions.
I know we've posted on this HHS rule before, but I'm still a bit unclear about what the remedy would be should it be enacted (shudder) - can Obama reverse it when he becomes president without waiting for congressional action? Of course, the best scenario would be for it never to be enacted in the first place, so we'll write and call.
On Rachel Maddow last night, her guest was explaining that because this rule went through the entire "rule process" (as in, it was made with all of the approval needed and through the proper channels), it can't simply be reversed by Obama. It would need to go through the same legislative process it went through to become a rule. The good news is that this process is already underway, they are just waiting for Bush to be out in order to bring it up to Congress. They knew that bringing it up now would just have Bush veto it.
Check out the video from the segment on yesterday's show here.
What if you are a medical professional and decide that your moral code does not allow you to treat unrepentant and unincarcerated war criminals? Does that mean you could refuse to treat Bush and the rest of his administration?
Post a Comment