Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1-Yes,
2-the executive branch should have NOTHING to do with that decision.
the only ironic part is an executive order had to be put into effect to allow this to occur. It is not up to the Government to fire any professional. How is that?
When did the Government fire any professional prior to Bush's order?
Government professional standards outweigh a person's moral standards.
Here it is folks the New way of life in the world.
Clean,
If it is against your moral standards to preform an abortion, dont become a gynocologist
If it is against your moral standards to dispense birthcontrol pills, dont become a pharmasist
If it is against your moral standards to teach evolution dont become a science teacher
If it is against your moral standards to serve alcohol dont become a bartender
As someone stated, if moral or religious issues prevent you from doing what is expected of you in your job, you should find another calling. This situation reminds me of the days I was working in a bar. We hired this girl and a few nights later she quit because contributing to the consumption of alcohol was against her moral fiber. Thats fine and dandy, but why did she apply for a job in a bar!
Funny. I hate smoking, but I was so eager to find a job when I first moved here 15 years ago, I went to one of those bartenders schools. As I was filling out the paperwork, the instructor lit up and, although I didn't complain, he could tell I was very uncomfortable. So he said "If you're allergic to cigarette smoke, why would you ever work at a bar?"
Getting back to the subject, you're right. Our economy stinks right now, but the one place there are many openings is in the medical field, especially here in Florida.
When I lived in NH I was traumatized by a nurse who was a religious freak. Before anyone attacks me, it wasn't about getting an abortion, but if it was, it would have been my business. She was fired (or quit) thank goodness.
Obama is the one taking the Governmental involvement away.
I cannot see how that is possible, unless there are other laws on the books about this that Bush used the Executive order to override. What those laws state I have no idea and right now I cannot look up.
I see it as the government can now have a person fired. The government should not be involved in private organizations firing professionals for any reason. If the organization, in this case a health organization, feels it needs to fire an individual it is their decision. If that is the case now great. If it is the case where Government can step in and fire a medical professional right now then it is terrible.
Clean,
If it is against your moral standards to preform an abortion, dont become a gynocologist
If it is against your moral standards to dispense birthcontrol pills, dont become a pharmasist
If it is against your moral standards to teach evolution dont become a science teacher
If it is against your moral standards to serve alcohol dont become a bartender
I understand what you are saying but laws are changed so people in certain careers can get screwed. Plus there are more to those careers then what is stated.
I cannot see how that is possible, unless there are other laws on the books about this that Bush used the Executive order to override. What those laws state I have no idea and right now I cannot look up.
I see it as the government can now have a person fired. The government should not be involved in private organizations firing professionals for any reason. If the organization, in this case a health organization, feels it needs to fire an individual it is their decision. If that is the case now great. If it is the case where Government can step in and fire a medical professional right now then it is terrible.
Thank you.
Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals can't practice without a license in the first place. Who do you think grants those licenses? It's the government, stupid. So yeah, by the mere fact that medical professionals are licensed by the government, the government is already involved in regulating these professions. Are you saying we should stop licensing doctors so anyone can just set up shop in the street corner and practice medicine? Practicing medicine is a privilege, not a right. Show me where it says in the Constitution that practicing medicine is a right.
My Two Cents Worth: I urge HHS to Revise, but not Revoke the Bush "Conscience Clause" Regulation
What I would like to see:
In revising the rule, I urge the following principles to be embodied into an amended Conscience Clause:
-- It should protect medical professionals against being discriminated in their employment because they refuse to perform--or be complicit in, as in referral requirements--medical procedures that are intended to terminate the life of a human organism or human being, whether an embryo, fetus, or born member of the species. To put it succinctly, no medical professional should be forced to take, or participate in the taking, of a human life.
--It should distinguish generally between elective procedures--e.g., interventions not immediately necessary to save the patient's life or prevent serious physical harm--and non-elective procedures. Refusing elective procedures should be granted greater protection then non elective procedures.
I conclude with a call to bridge the bitter divisions that are rending our society.
President Obama has made a point of declaring that his administration will seek to enact policies that bridge the cultural divides that rend the American culture. Revising the Bush Conscience Clause would accomplish this worthy goal by respecting the morality and values of medical professionals who, in good faith, disagree with the current course of law and medical ethics, while not binding professionals of different views from following the same course.
This last point, I think, is quite telling about President Obama's pledge to bridge our differences. But this revocation, coupled with his actions revoking the Bush "alternatives" stem cell funding rule, demonstrate to me that he intends to divide and conquer, not compromise and heal. If the HHS merely revokes the Bush conscience clause, my suspicions will be more than confirmed.Labels: Wesley J. Smith. Discovery Institute. Comment to HHS. Bush Conscience Clause
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
