The Reason Why Pro-Abortion Groups Want no Conscience Exemption in Healthcare
April 26th, 2008 at 06:54pm Mark Noonan
This is why:
Rome, Apr 23, 2008 (CNA).- Nearly 70 percent of Italian gynecologists are now refusing to perform abortions on moral grounds, Agence France Presse reports.
A report by Italy’s ministry of health on Tuesday reported that between 2003 and 2007 the number of gynecologists invoking a conscientious objection clause in their refusal to perform an abortion rose from 58.7 percent to 69.2 percent. The percentage of anesthesiologists who refused to help in an abortion rose from 45.7 percent to 50.4 percent.
According to the report, the increase is most pronounced in the south of the country. In Campania, the region around Naples, the percentage of gynecologists refusing to perform abortions reached 83 percent, and in Sicily 84.2 percent refused.
Milan gynecologist and legalized abortion advocate Silvio Viale told ANSA news agency that “abortion law is in danger,” saying abortion procedures were “more and more resembling an obstacle course.” Italy legalized most abortions in 1978.
Medical professionals who are any good tend to stay away from things like abortion - after all, if you’re good at curing people, why spend time killing them? This is a growing problem for the pro-abortion movement; the unwillingness of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to do the deed - in some jurisdiction in the United States it is almost impossible to obtain an abortion due to lack of providers. And thus the pro-abortion people are bound and determined on insisting that as abortion is a right, doctors must be prohibited from exercising a conscientious objection - there are even moves in the United States to force Catholic hospital to perform elective abortions, and for Catholic businesses and groups to provide abortion services as part of their health care plan.
Abortion is a pestilence - a moral disease which has been allowed to infect our society after we lowered our defenses. We have to fight it out on every level, because the pro-abortion groups are fanatic in their determination that no abortion ever be prevented. No element of the abortion debate is minor - any attempt by a pro-abortion group to advance any aspect of their cause must be opposed tooth and nail; and by so doing we will slowly push these forces back, and eventually eliminate this badge of shame upon our age.
Entry Filed under: Life Issues
50 Comments
1. winnowhead | April 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
No one in this country is forced to perform abortions.
2. js | April 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
(yet)
thats the problem
it has not been addressed as a civil right, like deviant sexual behavior….
3. Beehive | April 26th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Noonan you would get more support for your call for less abortions on a liberal blog. This is a campaign wedge issue to be uncorked by the Cons like a fine wine every four years. The RNC has no intention of truly supporting measures that end abortions. To do so would cost Repug votes.
4. Cao | April 26th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
And I think what they’ve missed is - by buying into the liberal agenda - they have already cost themselves Repug votes: more and more republicans are not even bothering to go to the polls.
If Repugs don’t wake up soon, the country will be lost; some believe it’s lost already.
5. winnowhead | April 26th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
That’s funny - I must have missed the vast conspiracy to force people to perform abortions. I’ve been deluded into thinking it’s a simple matter of reading the job description before accepting a job.
6. js | April 26th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
5. winnowhead
i know…some folks would rather ignore that potential…and as to some “vast conspiracy”, simply touching on an issue that could be dead on real isnt a “conspiracy”…more like nothings been “conspired” but a possibility in a single sentence….but its a liberal habit to explode potential opposition by diminishing it through ridicule…you are so transparent…
7. js | April 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
“to be uncorked by the Cons like a fine wine every four years.”
more like its easier to ignore unless supreme court justices are close to turnover…which could upset the liberal show boat that defends Roe vs Wade…close to a million human lives are exterminated every year in america….nobody but the “cons” ever try to defend them….so tell us, how does ignoring state sanctioned mass murder become something that isnt talked about in the liberal circle…is it because you’all are out there sowin your seed and killing your offspring before they get to take a breath, or is it because your heart is stone?
8. js | April 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
whats funny is that we cry about social security becoming insolvent, yet, the 45 million abortions done in this nation that would have been americans working and raising thier own families and making social security work are ignored…abortion is not good for this country…and neither is murduring 45 million innocents without a day in court…we spend millions of dollars for people like Ted Bundy so we are sure they get every chance available…but we dont care about a million executions of humans every year that never get a chance to defend themselves….
9. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“This is a growing problem for the pro-abortion movement; the unwillingness of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to do the deed - in some jurisdiction in the United States it is almost impossible to obtain an abortion due to lack of providers.”
Yet go to the yellow pages under attorneys. Full page after full page of “personal injury”. Falls, accidents, ‘medical malpractice’, wrongful death, asbestos, auto accidents, all at no cost unless recovery!
And of course the messiah is in full support, as a legislator and likely in his nominees for SCOTUS, of sucking brains out at 99.9% of a full delivery.
10. js | April 27th, 2008 at 9:31 am
seems like you missed putting something in your post SEW…because its short on facts and way, way out in left field….me thinks your hatred is more representative of your views than reality is…
11. Telstar | April 27th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“more like its easier to ignore unless supreme court justices are close to turnover”
Did you ever stop to ask yourself why the 5-4 Con court that brought us Bush and was strengthened by Alito and Roberts has done nothing but token looks at the issue? You are being conned by the Cons.
Putting a gun to someone’s head and pulling the trigger as is beating your spouse are all illegal yet they continue. Outlawing abortion and it will all go away is another con by the Cons. We need real solutions to reduce the number of abortions; solutions that will not be found here on a conservative blog.
12. js | April 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am
sympathy for the devil will not make sin into righteousness
13. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
And what do your yellow pages have under attorneys, js? Fact, not hatred.
14. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Outside entire front page of mine, Accident & injury lawyers, auto/truck accidents death/injury claims, slip & fall…
Outside complete end cover…ACCIDENT? Free Consultation…
Outside entire back cover…CAR WRECK? No attorneys fee, court costs, or expenses unless you recover…..
And inside a full 100 pages for attorneys, page 118 to 218 within. 2008 Dallas Yellow pages.
Need more facts?
15. js | April 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
does that mean that because there are abortion clinics with full page adds that its ethical…no…does it mean that because greed overcomes good sense that its ethical…not even related…it does mean that they are protected by the constitution and able to make a choice….which is much, much more opportunity than those 45 million humans had that were slaughtered at state sanctioned abortion clinics….
about the only “facts” i can see from your post is your ignorance and inate inability to make sense…i guess the part about being “way way” out in left field just went right over your head…
16. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
js, Try an ExLax, or two.
17. js | April 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
in reality, abortion is murder; aborting a living being by killing it is murder…no dispute there…it should be illegal..and as with all illegal activities..yes people try to hide it when they commit murder….that has not changed since before the Bible was written…and it will not change afterwards…how hollow inside do they have to be when the know that the tiny little being that they kill feels the pain, responds to the mutilation of its body….to be able to do it over, and over, and over, daily, weekly….months and years….they have to grasp the first lie that comes along…and push it…and push it…to make themselves even more hollow…even less guilty for the slaughter of just one of those little ones….let alone thousands of live human beings……..
18. js | April 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
that might work for you sew….but i face the truth head on…not behind drugs…because really truthfully…..just because lawyers take out full page adds in the phone book…doesnt remove the right to live for anybody….and if you tried to really account for the truth…you would ask mark and matt to delete your idiocy and ban you for posting it….
19. phnx | April 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
What you leftists fail to realize is that this has not been a big porblem here because we do not have a single payer or socialized medical system run by the government. Under socialized medicine schemes healthcare practisioners are forced to perform whatever procedure is required, unless there is a concientious exemption.
While you blow this off as not relevant, there are already signs in the US, as far back as 2004 that this will be an issue:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
“While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.
“I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life,” says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was FIRED in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.
Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn’t give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.”
Laws have been passed and are being considered to provide exemptions for healthcare workers from a being required to offer services for which they express religious or moral objection.
So don’t be quite so quick to dismiss something on which you obviously have insufficient information.
Anyone can have an opinion, how about a little research before expressing yours.
20. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
js, If you think I am ‘prochoice’ you have a severe memory problem.
21. js | April 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
SEW…why dont you call a lawyer about that…obviously your post was missing something about that claim you are making….short of being way, way out in left field…you could claim diminished capacity….for claiming the messiah is in favor of partial birth abortion….go ahead…or maybe you could find a priest to endorse you….like maybe Rev Wright….you could tell him you are for white abortion procedures only…go ahead…get the yellow pages out…before 99.9% of your brain has been sucked out by that little tube….
22. JPL | April 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
js — Somehow I doubt SEW was using the term “messiah” literally. I think he was just making an ironic reference to the Barack Hussein Obama.
23. Tractatus | April 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I’ve been deluded into thinking it’s a simple matter of reading the job description before accepting a job.
Well, yes, but as Noonan will gladly tell you, conservative Christians shouldn’t have to do their jobs if they don’t want to.
24. JPL | April 27th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“Well, yes, but as Noonan will gladly tell you, conservative Christians shouldn’t have to do their jobs if they don’t want to.”
But that’s illogical, Tractatus. When did “killing unborn humans” become a job requirement for the job of “medical doctor”?
25. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
“for claiming the messiah is in favor of partial birth abortion….”
The messiah meaning the messiah of the libs, BO. If I had meant The Messiah, it would have been capitalized. And it is well known BO is legislatively in favor of partial birth abortion.
26. SEW | April 27th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
“And of course the messiah is in full support, as a legislator and likely in his nominees for SCOTUS, of sucking brains out at 99.9% of a full delivery” SEW#9
js, either your attention or your reading comprehension is lacking. Above is my quote. Now which messiah is a legislator and will have nominees for SCOTUS if elected? Fairly obvious that BO is the reference.
27. Health Professionals on T&hellip | April 28th, 2008 at 1:59 am
[...] The Reason Why Pro-Abortion Groups Want no Conscience Exemption in …the unwillingness of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to do the deed - in some jurisdiction in the United States it is… [...]
28. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I guess the comment I posted yesterday afternoon was too long, so I’ll post it in smaller pieces today. Hopefully the longer post won’t appear later, but if it does, sorry for the repetition….
“That’s funny - I must have missed the vast conspiracy to force people to perform abortions.”
Then you haven’t been paying attention, winnowhead. Many groups are trying to take away doctors’ right to refuse to perform abortions and/or to refuse to refer patients to abortionists. Just a few examples:
In Europe:
In the People’s Republic of California:
In the People’s Republic of New York:
29. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 8:03 am
In Hawaii:
In Oregon:
In New Jersey:
In Florida:
In The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
30. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 8:05 am
In the U.S. Congress:
In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:
31. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
“I’ve been deluded into thinking it’s a simple matter of reading the job description before accepting a job.”
So you’re saying that doctors who refuse to perform abortions shouldn’t be allowed to practice medicine? Bad idea.
First, if that were to happen, there wouldn’t be enough doctors left to perform non-abortion procedures. According to the February 8, 2007 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, 52% of modern U.S. doctors oppose abortion for failed contraception.
SOURCE: “Religious, Conscience and Controversial Clinical Practices,” by Farr A. Curline, M.D., et al. Link: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/6/593
Second, there’s something monstrous about forcing a doctor to destroy human life against his or her conscience.
32. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
In Hawaii:
In Oregon:
In New Jersey:
33. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
In Florida:
In The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
34. js | April 28th, 2008 at 8:35 am
9. SEW “Yet go to the yellow pages under attorneys. Full page after full page of “personal injury”. Falls, accidents, ‘medical malpractice’, wrongful death, asbestos, auto accidents, all at no cost unless recovery! And of course the messiah is in full support, as a legislator and likely in his nominees for SCOTUS, of sucking brains out at 99.9% of a full delivery.”
wake up SEW…you didnt opt to describe Obama Osama or even Howard Dean in you post…there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension…you should try instead to identify who you are talking about instead of disrespecting the Messiah…and who would capitalize it if they disrespect it? WAKE UP….
35. SEW | April 28th, 2008 at 9:00 am
js, Like I stated, and you missed that as well, you are full of it. Try an ExLax, or two.
36. js | April 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
really, i dont give a hoot how much you disrespect me….it only feeds to motivate me to overcome another obstacle….but i f you dont want to disrespect the Messiah…you should seriously identify that by names, not insinuation that “the messiah” did anything but what he did….instead of applying the proper title to an act of partial birth abortions…like a half wit satan worshipper or an athist would do…
37. js | April 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
and by the way….for someone recomending exlax…you sure have a way of letting shxt rip through you like a man that has a paper a/hole…could be that you should stop using it and maybe use your head instead…no?
38. Tractatus | April 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Are you seriously arguing, JPL, that when doctors become abortion providers, they don’t know that part of the job is to…provide abortions? That doctors have to be suckered into the position with a bait-and-switch? Is that seriously what you’re arguing, JPL? It’s the only thing that would make your screeds make sense, in which case…yikes.
Nice to see you don’t think people should have to do their jobs if they don’t want to, either. Interesting concept of “personal responsibility” you wingnuts claim to be all about.
39. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
The subject of abortion has prompted even less coherence here than it usually does. No physician in private practice (the vast majority) can be compelled to perform an induced abortion anymore than any physician can be compelled to treat a broken arm. They are independent business people who happen to provide medical diagnosis and treatment. Physicians who are employees in certain health-care settings might be compelled to treat patients as part of their job performance, however, a physician who is an employee cannot plead ignorance of their job description in the unlikely event that their job description includes the medical specialty of gynecology.
Pharmacists are almost all employees. The fact that they will be employees is no secret to people who are studying to be pharmacists. To be surprised that you may be called upon to fill a prescription for whatever drug is to display a disdain for reality. If you don’t want to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, then the answer is simple. Don’t be employed as a pharmacist. Otherwise, you have a responsibility to fulfill the requirements of your status as a licensed professional and an employee unless the employer provides for an exception that does not prevent the employer from fulfilling their ethical responsibilities to patients who seek to have their prescriptions filled.
40. js | April 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
thats going way over the line…simple birth control pills are not designed nor intended to kill a fetus…like the new 24 hours pill is designed to do…yet…there are tens of thousands of pharmicists who have had their jobs for extended durations….and having this pill introduced to society as a means to kill unborn human beings didnt exist when they took this jobs…and does not exist as a contention of employment…so consciencious objection of the distribution of such pills under a moral code is justified…and nobody should lose thier job over religious beliefs that killing is wrong…
41. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Diana Powe and Tractatus,
You’re completely (and I suspect intentionally) evading the point of my post. My post is NOT just about doctors who work for abortion providers. It is about ALL doctors, especially those who are self-employed and those who work for religious hospitals that don’t offer abortion services. My point is that such doctors should NOT have to face criminal prosecution, board de-certification, or a cut-off of federal or insurance monies, simply because they refuse a patient’s request to perform an abortion or to refer the patient to an abortionist.
But criminally prosecuting, de-certifying and de-funding these doctors is EXACTLY what many groups are trying to do, and that was the point of my post. As I said at the very beginning, “Many groups are trying to take away doctors’ right to refuse to perform abortions and/or to refuse to refer patients to abortionists.” Then I provided numerous examples to support my point, and NOTHING in your posts refute it.
For example, as noted, the California Attorney General clearly thinks that California law gives him the power to criminally prosecute any doctor in that state who refuses to perform an abortion, and he’s suing the United States to overturn a federal law so that he can start criminally prosecuting such doctors. Obviously, that is an effort “to take away all doctors’ rights to refuse to perform abortions.”
In addition, as I also noted, the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology issued a rule that doctors who refuse to perform abortions must give patients a timely referral to an abortion-performing doctor or possibly risk losing his or her board certification. Obviously, that is an effort “to take away all doctors’ rights to refuse to refer patients to abortionists.”
Similarly, as also noted, Sen. Arlen Specter introduced language into the Senate version of an appropriations bill that would allow agencies that receive federal dollars to force pro-life doctors to refer patients to other facilities for abortions. This, too, was an effort “to take away all doctors’ rights to refuse to refer patients to abortionists.”
Importantly, NONE of these efforts are directed just against doctors who work for abortion providers. To the contrary, they’re directed against ALL doctors, including those who are self-employed and those whose employers don’t provide abortions, such as religious hospitals. So your posts not only completely evade the point of my post, they’re also factually wrong.
Worst of all is Tractatus’s ridiculous comment to the effect that “doctors who become abortionists can’t complain when they’re asked to perform abortions.” Well…duh, yeah, but as noted, I’m not talking about doctors who intentionally become abortionists. I’m talking about doctors who become OB-GYN specialists because they want to treat pregnant women and deliver babies. If such doctors conscientiously object to aborting the unborn, they should NOT be criminally prosecuted, and should NOT lose their board certification or be de-funded, simply for refusing a patient’s request for an abortion. That patient has the right to see another doctor, period.
42. Tractatus | April 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
For future reference, JPL, is there anybody group aside from doctors and pharmacists who shouldn’t have to do their jobs if they don’t want to? And is it only conservative Christians who are allowed to not do their jobs if they don’t feel like it? How far does this whole “you only have to do your job if you want to do it” thing extend?
43. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
You must use a different dictionary from normal people, Tractatus. To normal people, the word “job” essentially means whatever your employer says it is. But you’re using the word “job” to mean “whatever leftist attorney generals, academics and politicians say it is.”
Here, maybe a simple example will make it clear, even to you. Now, let’s suppose that I’m a Catholic OB-GYN in California, that I work in a Catholic hospital, and that my employer has a strict rule that employees “are never to perform an abortion, or even refer patients to abortionists.” Let’s further suppose that a patient asks me to perform an abortion on her, and that I say “no” and don’t refer her to an abortionist, because of both my moral beliefs and my employer’s rule. Have I failed to do my “job”?
That’s right, Tractatus, I haven’t failed to do my “job.” In fact, I’ve done my job very well, indeed. But precisely because I’ve done my “job” so well:
1.) the California Attorney General wants to prosecute me under California law and put me in jail;
2.) the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology tells me they may revoke my OB-GYN board certification; and
3.) Arlen Specter wants to de-fund the hospital I work for.
Are you starting to get that this issue has NOTHING to do with whether doctors do their “jobs”? And EVERYTHING to do with politicians being willing to screw people of faith simply for the sake of the pro-abortion lobby? Or are you just a dense, stupid tool who can only repeat (over and over again) the mindless talking points given to him by others?
44. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Uh, Hello, Tractatus? Cat got your tongue?
45. js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
all this political shuffle over killing unborn human beings….next they will pass a law that outlaws sharp instuments in abortion clinics…..you libs suck so bad….its beyond reason…
the innocent are crying out for revenge…
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (rev 6:10)
how long…..45 million innocent lives…..have they no conscience…the same judgement our nations courts passed upon these innocent who have been slaughtered….the breath of innocence denied…the blood of our nation poured out upon our lands…the life our fathers gave to us…cut off….how long do can this continue..
46. Diana Powe | April 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
It often makes a difference if one reads the source material rather than accounts about the material. For instance, from the conclusion of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics opinion in proposing recommendations (my emphasis):
Not word one about revoking any physician’s board certification.
47. JPL | April 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Sorry, Diana Powe, but your knowledge, research skills, and honesty are seriously lacking.
#1, the reason that The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“ACOG”) ethical opinion doesn’t say “one word about revoking any physician’s board certification” is that ACOG has no authority to certify or de-certify doctors. That authoirity belongs to a completely different organization, called The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (“ABOG”). ACOG’s role in the process is limited to issuing the ethical standards that all OB-GYN doctors are required to follow. But if an OB-GYN doctor violates one of ACOG’s ethical rules, ABOG can and will de-certify that doctor.
Here’s the relevant ABOG rule on “Revocation of Diploma or Certificate”:
#2, the part of ACOG’s ethical opinion that you put in bold is irrelevant, because even if the doctor obeys that part, he or she is STILL required by the ethical rule to refer the patient to an abortionist. This is made clear in the part of the ethical opinion immediately following the part you quoted (and which you conveniently omitted):
Even worse, the very next part of the ethical opinion (which you also conveniently omitted) says that in some situations, the pro-life doctor is actually required to perform the abortion himself / herself, even though doing so may violate his or her employer’s rules and will obviously violate his or her own personal moral beliefs:
So the bottom line is that if a pro-life OB-GYN doctor fails to refer the patient to an abortionist, or fails to perform the abortion himself/herself in situations described in the ACOG rule quoted above, then he or she has violated ACOG’s ethical rules, and is subject to possible revocation of his or her board certification by ABOG. Period, end of story.
#3, until you learn to honestly quote source materials, please spare us all the lecture about the importance of “read[ing] source material rather than accounts about the material.” You won’t look like such a hypocrite.
48. Diana Powe | April 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
JPL,
In contrast to standard practice by other commenters here, I will heartily commend you on your research and reference to the original materials. I neglected to follow up on the connection to the Board and, as a result, provided an incomplete argument. It’s a fair cop.
49. JPL | April 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
A gracious comment, Diana Powe, thank you.
50. Diana Powe | April 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
JPL,
You’re most welcome. Thank you for your diligence.