In another late rule change from the outgoing administration, is a change that would allow people in the medical “profession” to not perform tasks they find morally objectionable. Abortion is what everyone is concentrating on, but the rule also would mean that things like the RU-486 pill could be hard to come by, if the doctor a woman visits finds it to be against their religion to dispense such a drug.
From the outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary, Mr. Levitt “This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.” I wonder if this means we only have to pay the bill if we find the medical care to be in accordance with our consciences.
I cannot wait to see how long it will take the insurance companies to start informing medical practitioners how to not take care of people, in the hopes of saving money.
But what are the limits of such rules? If a medical professional doesn’t like Puerto Ricans, can they refuse to help them, even if their problem has nothing to do with a pregnancy? Or could a gay doctor refuse to care for a bigot, since they believe this world would be a better place without them?
The rule states that providers of medical care, including hospitals, pharmacists, and universities can be charged with discrimination if someone is pressured to help or participate in care that is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs. And what could possibly go wrong with a law that is worded so broadly that it could easily be interpreted to mean that if a doctor/nurse/whatever didn’t like someone, they didn’t have to care for them.
The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops took time off from hiding pedophile priests to praise the new rule, also praising this crap were the Christian Medical Association and Americans United for Life. They are also eagerly awaiting the return of bloodletting to cure most ills. O.K., I might have made the bloodletting part up. Then again, maybe not.
The ACLU pointed out that this would impact lower income people the most, since they are unable to shop around for medical care. We already have cases where people were denied care, based on mythology someone’s beliefs, a few recent cases include; In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim’s prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital. (From the Los Angeles Times, December 2, David Savage)
I cannot understand how people are so sure that the limits of this rule changing would be limited in scope, the language used is frighteningly broad, and even if the language were precise, it would still be an imbecilic new standard of care.
Dark ages, here we come.
