Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Rebecca
Is this you? Claim Profile »
7 months ago
in The Midnight Regulation Express on The Washington Independent
number 3 on the list. It says that it "clearly refers to contraception." I'm sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. True bush is an ass, true he's pushing through some crap, but number 3 is a tricky one, because with all of our desire for rights, privacy, and non-discriminination, doesn't it seem odd that this liberal article is trashing the one thing that he is trying to do that actually is working to protect the rights of some doctors who happen to not want to perform certain procedures? He is not attacking the right of a lady to go elsewhere for a procedure, simply keeping the doctors from getting "discriminated against" for THEIR own beliefs. It's a tricky two-way street, eh? Great Article!!
show all 3 replies
3 replies
Jordan
"Right of a lady to go elsewhere for a procedure" is a hollow argument throughout much of the country. If you live in North Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, or any of another dozen states, you likely don't have a Planned Parenthood or similar clinic that provides free/discounted contraception within miles, towns, or even between you and the next state. Considering how funding has been pulled from clinics like Planned Parenthood under the last administration, there are even fewer branches of facilities able to keep their heads above water and provide patients with what the PATIENT wants. People in this country forget that healthcare providers provide a service to consumers. Their personal beliefs should not be able to overrule your needs as a patient. You pay them for their medical expertise, not their opinions or leanings. So "going elsewhere" is hard enough these days, and considering the budget woes facing the Obama administration, will likely not be a priority in the near future. Contraception has gotten much harder to come by - federal funding is no longer provided for colleges to have it available to students at a discounted rate, for example. I have no problem with doctors refusing to provide contraception IF they actually know another doctor they can refer the patient to who will. Under this new rule, I fear the sense of obligation to assist the patient with what the PATIENT wants will continue to flicker out.
Just-Say-NO
Yes, a thoughtful article. Re #3 on the list.
"Working to protect the rights of some doctors who happen to not want to perform certain procedures"? Let's consider personal integrity for a moment. If a particular procedure is morally repugnant for a doctor, he/she is not FORCED to do it.
Is it greed or fear of losing patients that keeps a doctor from saying "I don't perform 'ZZZ' procedure, let me refer you to someone who does," or putting up a sign in his/her office stating the services he/she provides?
"Working to protect the rights of some doctors who happen to not want to perform certain procedures"? Let's consider personal integrity for a moment. If a particular procedure is morally repugnant for a doctor, he/she is not FORCED to do it.
Is it greed or fear of losing patients that keeps a doctor from saying "I don't perform 'ZZZ' procedure, let me refer you to someone who does," or putting up a sign in his/her office stating the services he/she provides?
