[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 07:52:57 07/26/08 Sat
Author: Jeannine
Subject: OK, let's look at this again
In reply to:
Terry
's message, "Redefining abortion" on 03:14:43 07/24/08 Thu
I was curious about this, mainly because it has so little media attention. Any attempt to stop the pro-abortion crowd would be front page news - even in the week of the Obama Magical Media Tour.
What I found is that there is a draft of a bill at the Dept of Health and Human Services that would require institutions that receive federal grants to certify that they hire people regardless of their views on abortion. No certification, no grant.
This appears to me to be an anti-disciminatory action. If I am a doctor, and I refuse to perform abortions, many institutions will not hire me. That is discrimination.
It also seems that the birth control issue comes into play due to the vague definition of abortion in the draft. Actually, the term used is abortifacient, which is any substance or action which prohibits development of the fertilized egg. That would and alway has included oral contraception. This is not a re-definition, it is the same definition that has been used all along.
So - my conclusion: Big bad Bush is not sitting up at night trying to find a way to stop women from getting birth control pills and aborting their babies. Beside that, at this time of year he is way too busy planning hurricanes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [>
Hee. You're too funny, Jeannine. ;-) -- sami, 17:30:17 07/27/08 Sun [1]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Jeannine, hon, i know you've been close enuff -- jayjay, 00:14:22 07/30/08 Wed [1]
to the Delta to smell it.
Wynne's over there. so's Elaine. and Parkin. you cross the river and there are TWO doctors in the entire state of Mississippi, where a woman can get a legal medical procedure. without being egged by some prolife christian crazy group. My friend Jennie went in the clinic for a PAP smear, she got egged.
I think you got it backward. Over here, the OB/GYNS that followed the Supreme Court ruling got harrassed, picketed, egged, nearly shot at. that serious.
over there in Helena, those girls don't got a chance. not to mention a bus ticket. or a prayer.
I wonder if George Bush is up tonite thinking about all the poor hungry people in Phillips County, Arkansas.
nah, he just wants to play with his cool toys.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
and JayJay, you are smart enough to know -- Jeannine, 07:19:34 07/30/08 Wed [1]
that this is the exception, not the rule. If a physician feels it is wrong to perform an abortion, would you force him to do so? Should it be mandatory for a nurse to assist in a late term abortion?
I am not going to discuss the morality of abortion - it is a waste of breath (or keystrokes in this case). OK, the supreme court has decreed it is legal. If a medical professional CHOOSES (dontcha love that word?) not to perform abortions that is their right.
I think it is wrong to picket abortion clinics. I think that it should be against the law to harrass patients and doctors that work at or go into these clinics. I agree that people that do are horrible people. ANY violation of the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Making the decision to have an abortion can be extremely traumatic and harrassment makes it that much worse. If you want to change the law, go to the lawmakers.
It comes down to respect. Respect of others and their views and beliefs. That is something that is lacking on both sides. If you want me to respect your views, respect mine. There are people that think it is horrible to demonstrate outside of an abortion clinic, but okay to demonstrate at the funeral of a fallen soldier. You can't have it both ways.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
there is nothing to celebrate or demonstrate -- jayjay, 23:01:29 08/02/08 Sat [1]
and you know i would never force or judge any health care provider to do something he/she is uncomfortable with.
i've been to the lawmakers.
Dub was sittin at the head of the table.
and ((jeannine)) as always, i respect your opinion. xooxxoo
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
We disagree, but it's not as usual. -- HF, 09:59:29 08/06/08 Wed [1]
I'm fine with picketing at abortion clinics, as long as it's peaceful and respectful. I would not support harassing the patients or staff, but picketing is protected by the first amendment (as long as it's not on private property -- but hey, picket across the street or whatever). And I'm very much pro-choice.
Picketing at the funeral of a soldier seems ridiculous to me. The soldier has nothing to do with the cause you do or don't support, and his/her family should not have to encounter your political message during their time of grief. That said, if it's public property and you really have some reason you think picketing is appropriate (I dunno, maybe there are key legislators there that you hope to influence -- though you could certainly choose to picket at that person's office or whatever)...then it's legally protected and what are we going to do about it?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
When pharmacists refuse to dispense medication, they should be fired -- Caren, 09:07:20 08/12/08 Tue [1]
The federal law is not harmless and it's all about cutting off lower income women's rights to health care.
The Paris Hiltons will always be able to fly to Canada or Europe to get what they "need". Poor women, not so much.
We have a law here in Illinois that requires pharmacists to dispense BC. You can't claim to have a moral problem with doing your job and keep your job. If you can't do your job, there has to be another pharmacist on staff who will do the job or you have to refer the patient to another pharmacy within a reasonable area (no good telling someone to go 100 miles). If you are the only one on staff, tough cookies. You do your job and give out the birth control.
If you are so ignorant as to believe either the pill or emergency contraception causes abortion instead of simply preventing ovulation, too damn bad. Believe away, but the facts are if there's no egg, there's no fertilization.
If you refuse to acknowledge the facts and continue to believe the pill kills, then you shouldn't apply for jobs where you will be required to do something you find morally reprehensible.
It's not like all women have lots of access to birth control anyway. Most counties in the US do not have abortion providers and most rural areas do not have a wide variety of pharmacies to choose from. If you live 100 miles from the next big city pharmacy and your local options refuse to dispense birth control b/c they think it's "evil", what are you supposed to do?
If you don't like black people, can you refuse to serve them or give them CPR? If you don't like gays, can you refuse to dispense their AIDS medication? Same thing, refusing to dispense medication b/c it violates your religious belief is NOT a protected right.
Christian Scientists don't work as phlebotomists. They don't take jobs as surgeons and then refuse to use transfusions b/c they violate their faiths.
Same thing goes for forced-birth proponents. If you don't believe anyone should use birth control, fine. Don't use it and refuse to take a job where you have to dispense it. But don't go taking a job where your job IS DISPENSING MEDICATION and then refuse to do it on moral grounds and then DEMAND THAT THE GOV'T PROTECT YOUR JOB.
Pharmacists have years of education and training. It is important for them to understand medication and to warn you if you are taking something and a new prescription may interfere. They do not have a right to interfere with any medical decisions you and your doctor make. They don't have the right to prescribe medication and they shouldn't interfere with a dispensing properly prescribed medication.
Pharmacists have been known to take the scrip for EC (Emergency contraception) and not only refuse to fill it, but refuse to return the scrip, requiring you to get back to your doctor and get a new prescription. Every MINUTE counts with EC as it prevents ovulation, so delaying it increases the risk of pregnancy. How's that for your rape victims? Thank God and my governor this is illegal in Illinois.
This new federal law would allow pro-forced-labor people to apply for jobs at Planned Parenthood, a group that dispenses birth control as well as provides prenatal care, PAP smears, and other health care for women and then refuse to do their jobs. They can refuse to dispense birth control b/c it violates their religious beliefs, and they can't be fired for refusing to do their jobs.
Think about it. People applying for a job they have no intention of doing, that they in fact plan on subverting, and then reaching for the federal government to "protect" them from the job they were hired to do.
Forced-birth proponents have been sending people to pharmacy schools for years trying to do just this...make it impossible for women to make responsible choices.
I'm glad that they are finally coming out in the open with their aversion to birth control. It's not about "protecting babies"; it's about controlling women's sex lives. You can't legitimately be against abortion and against birth control unless you intend to force everyone to hold to your faith and moral values.
If you really want to reduce abortions, you would be FULL BORE pro-contraception and sex education. You would want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, b/c if a woman wants to be pregnant, she's not likely to terminate.
And, yes, on another note, I think doctors should be required to learn D&C and D&X procedures and that if that forced-birth nurse doesn't want to assist in an abortion, especially a late-term abortion, she should not take a job as a nurse in an emergency room or obstetrics wing.
Women who have late term terminations do so b/c of health risks. Either their lives are at risk (placenta previa, placental abruption, pre-eclampsia, toxemia just off the top of my head things that can kill you) or the baby is unviable--anacephaly: no brain, severe brittle bone syndrome--can't survive even a c-section; a fetus that has ALREADY DIED. Should a woman be forced to carry the dead fetus and simply hope it doesn't decay to the point of killing her? That's barbaric.
I trust women to know what is best for them. If a woman and her doctor decide on a medication for any reason or purpose a pharmacist should have no right to interfere with the dispensing of it That's the job. If you don't like it, you are free to do something else. You shouldn't be free to interfere with someone else's religious and medical beliefs just b/c you have the power to hand out the drugs.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Well said! -- scooter, 10:23:09 08/15/08 Fri [1]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Thank you Caren! -- LAwoman, 13:15:22 08/16/08 Sat [1]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Caren you should check you facts -- Minnie, 12:38:42 08/26/08 Tue [1]
there is no medical or legal issue with baby that have died in-utero. No woman in this country is being forced to carry a dead baby. And there are late-term abortions for things other than the health of the mother and child.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
as a registered rph, i totally agree with most -- ozzie, 18:14:45 08/30/08 Sat [1]
of what you posted but i DO have to add, that those rph's that refuse are in the minority. most pharmacists that i have encountered along the way don't let their views get in the way of their job. i have encountered WAY too many times where i WANTED to say things but went the professional way so i think i speak safely when i speak for the majority. just like most doctors and nurses or any in the medical profession, we have to keep an open mind. we have a few that have very strong views and they are the ones that get the news headlines. my only objection to your post is that don't categorize all pharmacists as doing this which i know you weren't implying personally. most of us DO get it and have huge hearts ;)
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
