![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Read this on the day it came out and have been meaning to post it. RAWR! This type of bullshit really pisses me off. How can you accept a job when you can't do the job or a portion of the job? It isn't like a disability that can be accommodated... it is a personal preference. If people are hired on false pretenses? Get rid of their asses. If their preferences have changed over time, they should be moved to a position (if possible and that position exists) that will not have this conflict arise.
Reminds me of my Mum, who accepted a job as a receptionist (or secretary or something) with the Air Force (or some military associated company) where she said she would accept the job if she wasn't involved in the weapons side of the business. When she found herself transcribing/typing stuff that had to do with missiles... she quit, after having a talk with her superior and being told to just do her job. I definitely think that she was naive to believe that she could work for a "war monger" type of employer and NOT be involved with the mongering...
Religious freedom, in my mind - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - is the freedom to believe in what you want and to worship in the way you want as long as no other is harmed in the process. Is that caveat not true? Is one group allowed, or going to be allowed, to oppress another because their organized beliefs are more important? Is a society doing well when this kind of imbalance allowed to occur?
How PC is anti-discrimination becoming? Twisting the original intent so that special, privileged groups can use anti-discrimination for their own ends is not something we should just lay down and accept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Proposal Stirs Birth Control Debate
By ROB STEIN
Washington Post
July 31, 2008
WASHINGTON —
A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health care workers who object to abortion and birth control methods they consider tantamount to abortion has escalated a bitter debate.
At issue is the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.
The Health and Human Services Department is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to medical centers that don't allow employees to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.
But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women's health activists and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.
There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would — apparently for the first time — define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.
The expanded definition of abortion would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD.
Most major medical groups believe such practices do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.
"The breadth of this is potentially immense," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "Is this going to result in a kind of blessed censorship of a whole host of areas of medical care and research?"
The proposal is outlined in a 39-page draft regulation that has been circulated among several HHS agencies. The FDA has not objected, but several officials at the National Institutes of Health said that the agency had expressed serious concerns.
"This is causing a lot of distress," said one NIH researcher. "It's a redefinition of abortion that does not match any of the current medical definitions. It's ideologically based and not based on science and could interfere with the development of many new therapies to treat diseases."
HHS defended its actions in a statement, saying it was "exploring a number of options" as a part of its duty to enforce anti-discrimination laws protecting medical workers.
What do YOU think?
Enjoy your collective weekends.
Reminds me of my Mum, who accepted a job as a receptionist (or secretary or something) with the Air Force (or some military associated company) where she said she would accept the job if she wasn't involved in the weapons side of the business. When she found herself transcribing/typing stuff that had to do with missiles... she quit, after having a talk with her superior and being told to just do her job. I definitely think that she was naive to believe that she could work for a "war monger" type of employer and NOT be involved with the mongering...
Religious freedom, in my mind - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - is the freedom to believe in what you want and to worship in the way you want as long as no other is harmed in the process. Is that caveat not true? Is one group allowed, or going to be allowed, to oppress another because their organized beliefs are more important? Is a society doing well when this kind of imbalance allowed to occur?
How PC is anti-discrimination becoming? Twisting the original intent so that special, privileged groups can use anti-discrimination for their own ends is not something we should just lay down and accept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Proposal Stirs Birth Control Debate
By ROB STEIN
Washington Post
July 31, 2008
WASHINGTON —
A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health care workers who object to abortion and birth control methods they consider tantamount to abortion has escalated a bitter debate.
At issue is the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.
The Health and Human Services Department is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to medical centers that don't allow employees to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.
But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women's health activists and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.
There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would — apparently for the first time — define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.
The expanded definition of abortion would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD.
Most major medical groups believe such practices do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.
"The breadth of this is potentially immense," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "Is this going to result in a kind of blessed censorship of a whole host of areas of medical care and research?"
The proposal is outlined in a 39-page draft regulation that has been circulated among several HHS agencies. The FDA has not objected, but several officials at the National Institutes of Health said that the agency had expressed serious concerns.
"This is causing a lot of distress," said one NIH researcher. "It's a redefinition of abortion that does not match any of the current medical definitions. It's ideologically based and not based on science and could interfere with the development of many new therapies to treat diseases."
HHS defended its actions in a statement, saying it was "exploring a number of options" as a part of its duty to enforce anti-discrimination laws protecting medical workers.
What do YOU think?
Enjoy your collective weekends.
