Jennifer R. was raped last night. Date rape. She gets a prescription for the morning after pill from the Doctor and rushes to the pharmacy. Sure she lives in a bible belt town, but a prescription is something privileged between patient and doctor. Or is it?
Under Bush's Health Care Worker Opt-Out, the pharmacist on duty who belongs to a fundamentalist church and is staunchly right to life, refuses Jennifer her prescription based on religious beliefs. Since he is the head pharmacist, no one else will fill it either.Jared T., a gay man, goes to his physician's office and is seen by an associate because his regular doc is off that day. Jared is HIV positive. The associate refuses to treat Jared based on the Opt-Out protection. The associate cites his religious beliefs that gays are amoral and HIV is God's punishment for their sins. Jared has a sinus infection. The clinic will not reprimand the associate, but offers Jared another physician.
Where the law allows teens to legally obtain contraceptive devices, Cary W. makes an appointment at the free clinic because she does not want her mother to know. The Physician Assistant Cary sees lectures her on abstinence v. birth control. She will not give Cary the pill, nor any other device because she thinks Cary is too young, and believes that life begins at conception. The PA does not belong to a church, nor are they in a bible belt state. It was just Cary's bad luck to get this particular PA on this day. Cary is too inexperienced to know she could ask for another health worker in the clinic. Two weeks later, Cary is pregnant, but doesn't know it yet. She is 15 years old.
These are all wild and crazy, but ultimately perfectly possible examples of what would happen with the Bush Health Care Worker Opt-Out rule. In his last minute ditch to make his conservative mark he threw these and more out into the world so that the Obama administration would have to plow the road back to sanity one piece at a time.
Family planning clinics in the original 30 day comment period were able to get the language that defined when life begins (hello, supreme court?) tossed out. It merely left it ambiguous.
In California, for example, and I am sure in other States as well, the rule conflicts with State law. A women who is the victim of incest or rape can get the morning after pill immediately according to law. Yet, out there supported by the Opt-Out insanity is a pharmacist who can legally not fill that prescription.
The Obama administration will rescind the rule, called the Provider Conscience just like it did for the funding of foreign family planning clinics who provided services the administration didn't like (abortion etc.).
Funny enough, there already were protections for health care workers to opt out of procedures based on their beliefs. This just took it to another level of incredible ambiguity that was just meant to appease a group that was losing the election. I can only imagine how many more of "these" the Obama administration will have to undo.
Comments
Great post L&P ~ I really hadn't thought it all the way through ...
I'm afraid undoing Bush policies will dominate long after Obama leaves office. Thought provoking post! --rated--
Amazing, isn't it? And we call our foes "religious extremists."
Gosh darn it! That Bush was such a moral guy! Blood for oil is OK by him, leaving Katrina victims to die is OK, allowing Israel to kill Palestinian children is OK, ruining the economy and looting the Treasury in his last months is OK....but he was so gosh darn concerned about the possibility of abortion and prescriptions for birth control because he "honors life". Remember his "Sanctity of Life Days" during his presidency, the hypocrisy of which made me vomit!!
Bush and the RC Church have a lot in common, don't they? Bush raped the nation and RC priests raped children....but both are just so gosh darn holy and moral, because after all, the REAL problem is those whores who have abortions!!!
Bush and the RC Church have a lot in common, don't they? Bush raped the nation and RC priests raped children....but both are just so gosh darn holy and moral, because after all, the REAL problem is those whores who have abortions!!!
This is really good. . .the absence of thought in policy AGAIN rears it's ugly head. I want my newspaper to feature essay's like this!
Thanks Ann. I heard a little snippet and began to investigate. Scares the crap out of you when you realize what they did.
Thanks MM. Yes, I am afraid it is a big tiger.
Yep M. We do, don't we.
SBAmy - hypocrisy is right. I also fear this is the tip of a very large melting ice- berg
Roger - thank you. It does need to get out there. This stuff is buried under the economy stuff and now the torture memos, all important, but so is this.
by the way people, let me also jump on the bandwagon and send everyone to Dennis Loo's post today. It is important.
Thanks MM. Yes, I am afraid it is a big tiger.
Yep M. We do, don't we.
SBAmy - hypocrisy is right. I also fear this is the tip of a very large melting ice- berg
Roger - thank you. It does need to get out there. This stuff is buried under the economy stuff and now the torture memos, all important, but so is this.
by the way people, let me also jump on the bandwagon and send everyone to Dennis Loo's post today. It is important.
You know, that whole thing is a crock of dookie, isn't it? I mean, if you can't dispense because of your religion, you shouldn't become a pharmacist. If your religion prevents you from completing your oath as a physician, you can't be a physician. You don't get the perks of those careers, including the oh so decent money, if you can't actually complete those careers as they need to be completed.
O - I couldn't agree with you more!
Great post L&P. I was just talking about this with a good friend the other day, it is pure craziness.
An idea for a future post if I may: I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Redding case currently under consideration by SCOTUS. This article has some good info and a link to the oral arguments: http://www.slate.com/id/2216608 .
An idea for a future post if I may: I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Redding case currently under consideration by SCOTUS. This article has some good info and a link to the oral arguments: http://www.slate.com/id/2216608 .
No comments:
Post a Comment