Obama admininistration to end "conscience" rule for health workers - Page 3 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » Obama admininistration to end "conscience" rule for health workers


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

 
Sponsor:
Lionheart Virtual Estate - Experience the Difference!
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2009, 11:18 AM   #51 (permalink)
asks for the canter
 
Arilynn's Avatar
Ninja of love
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,732
My Mood:
SL Join Date: July 3, 2008
Business: Wandering about in a daze. Tabbing out.
Client: Viewer 2
Blog Entries: 5

Awards: 1
Special Achievement in LOLZ 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
(1) We have a lot of straw men going here.

I don't think we actually have a very big problem with medical professionals refusing to respect a DNR order. I've not heard of hospitals refusing to provide life-saving or other treatment to criminals, either.

I believe this rule has mostly to do with abortion and, to a lesser extent, contraceptives.

It doesn't seem to be about a raft of doctors refusing to stop pounding the chests of old people breathing their last, or any other such scenario imaginable.

I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps I'm simply unaware of the burning issue of all the doctors who believe in resuscitating everyone, and take a strong and controversial stand about it, and equally unaware of all the criminals turned away at the door by fastidious medical personnel.

(2) My standards don't extend to deciding for doctors that abortions are the best possible standards (for one thing, the fetus dies as a result), and they must provide them on demand.

Refusing to perform abortions based on their personal views, religion, or ethics alone, would seem to me perfectly consistent with being a doctor, whose raison d'etre is to enhance life, not to cause deliberate death.

Having said that, I also understand doctors who provide them, and don't demand that those doctors adhere to the view that what they are doing is wrong - anymore than I would demand that doctors not doing them adhere to the view that they are the best possible standard.

(3) Like I said, I don't understand this ruling; I *gather* that the problem was the old rule could be interpreted poorly; but that the issue of not having some sort of such rule is that people feel doctors or hospitals could be forced to provide abortions.

I tend to conclude it's a little too early to tell if that would be a problem, and I tend to think it wouldn't.

coco

Off topic: It's snowing in Hotlanta!
There is a problem with doctors not respecting DNR orders. Here is just one article that discusses it - if you use Google you can find many more:

Quote:
NY Times: At Life's End, Many Patients are Denied Peaceful Passing

...Although millions of Americans have signed living wills and power-of-attorney documents, thinking the papers would help them avoid unwanted treatment and prolonged deaths, in many cases those measures turn out to be useless. There are many reasons that the documents, known collectively as advance directives, can fail: people lose or forget them; living wills are too vague to interpret; relatives disagree about what the patient wanted; hospital staff members mistakenly fear prosecution for stopping life support; or doctors overrule the family and refuse to stop treatment. Some experts say the very idea of living wills is flawed, because the course of illness is too unpredictable to be anticipated in a simple document.
...
"...the issue of not having some sort of such rule is that people feel doctors or hospitals could be forced to provide abortions..." Again, this is a non-issue. If the Bush rule is rescinded, there is still legal protection for health care workers who refuse to do something because of religious beliefs. Taking away the Bush rule doesn't take this away.
Arilynn is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Said Thanks :
Old 03-01-2009, 11:44 AM   #52 (permalink)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
 
Trout Recreant's Avatar
Incomprehensible gibberish
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 6,184
My Mood:
Blog Entries: 3

Awards: 1
Comedy Gold 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arilynn View Post
First, I wouldn't presume to even attempt to formulate a rule if I thought a new one was necessary. I agree that this is an issue that poses some difficult questions, which doesn't diminish my support for ending Bush's rule.

Second, I don't think the Bush rule is as broad as your questions indicate. It is limited to those who accept federal funds. This provides one exit: Don't accept federal funds.

Third, without the Bush rule, physicians (I'll stick to physician obligations as those are the ones I have read the most) can still refuse to engage in behavior that conflicts with their religious beliefs, except in an emergency. This is acceptable both under the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics and federal law. But if they refuse, from what I understand a court will weigh the hardship to their employer in deciding whether a reasonable accommodation to their religious beliefs was offered. To me, this means that if you work for an abortion clinic, for example, you can't refuse to participate in most legally available abortion services as this would be too much of a hardship on your employer.

What the Bush rule threatened to do according to the EEOC was to make an absolute right to religious accommodation. So even if it was a crushing hardship to your employer, an employee could refuse to do something if it conflicted with their religious belief. This would mean that an abortion clinic would have to retain as an employee someone who refused to engage in any activity related to abortion services if they claimed a religious basis. I think that is wrong, both financially and ethically. A person can refuse something based on religious beliefs, but the employer should have the right to fire them if their refusal makes it impossible to perform the basics of their job or there is no other available employee to do the task the person refuses to do. This places a bigger burden on people working in underserved areas as there might not be alternate employees to do the work one person objects to. Given the importance of health care access, I find this acceptable.

More broadly, in terms of ethics, I agree that a physician should be allowed to determine who they treat, except in emergencies. And I agree that this should be limited to the area of training. Even if you are the only MD for 300 miles, you shouldn't be forced to provide abortions if it is against your religious beliefs or you are untrained to do so. Ending the Bush rule wouldn't change this.

Did I answer your questions? If not, the quick answer is: No, legal protection already exists that allows for a more flexible, reasonable protection, IMO. The Bush rule makes it too difficult to replace someone who couldn't do the basics of their job due to religious objections, and this could threaten care in underserved areas. If the DHHS kills the Bush rule, another one is not needed as a replacement.
You don't happen to need a job, do you? We could use an intern. Willing to relocate? Good pay, horrid hours, but it's very nice in the NW. There's a couple law schools nearby - I could get you into the really good one, or you could try the UW if your standards are low. ( ).

This answer is perfect.
Trout Recreant is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Yay!:
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 03-01-2009, 03:39 PM   #53 (permalink)
Script Kitty
 
Jahar Aabye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between our dreams and actions, lies this world
Posts: 10,456
SL Join Date: 2/16/2007
Business: Black Operations
Client: Singularity
Just to chime in on the DNR issue, one of the toughest weeks of my life was when I was responsible for researching our organization's existing policies on the use of AEDs by nurses in the absence of a clear DNR in terminal elderly patients. This is, in and of itself, not necessarily a religious issue, it actually tends to become a very complicated ethical issue in the absence of DNRs. But even with DNRs, they're often ignored, either intentionally or unintentionally.

As I understand it, this "conscience" regulation was aimed primarily at individuals, not organizations as a whole. It's not necessarily about the right of a facility to choose which services to offer (obviously not all facilities offer all available services), with the exception of emergency cases where facilities that accept Part A payments do have requirements for treating emergency cases.

As I understand it, this "conscience" regulation that was repealed was about "protecting" (and I use that term very loosely) the "rights" (again, I don't believe this is a right) of individual healthcare workers to refuse to provide treatment or services that their facilities or employer requires them to perform.

In these situations, the individual worker was interfering with the medical treatment of a patient, and in those situations the facility should have a right to fire the worker, both because it compromises patients' care and because it could otherwise leave the facility open to legal action as a result of an employee's willful inaction.

Furthermore, I don't believe that this was a major problem for physicians, and I noted that the AMA was strongly in favor of repealing the "conscience" rule. Most physicians already understand their ethical obligations. Where this rule stemmed from was more the issue of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or (before it was made available on a non-prescription status) Plan B contraceptives.

In these situations, the problem with an individual pharmacist refusing to fill the prescription (which is also separate from the pharmacy not stocking the drug) is that the pharmacist is then choosing to override the medical treatment decision made by the physician. This is outside of the pharmacist's scope of practice, pharmacists are not qualified or licensed to diagnose or prescribe treatment for a medical condition. Their training involves checking for drug-drug interactions and other contraindications, as well as interpreting physician's orders, verifying information in the case of discrepancies or possible mistakes, and safeguarding controlled substance medications.

So those are situations in which the pharmacist is acting far beyond their scope of practice, actively interfering with the physician's treatment decisions for the patient, and in the process failing to do their job. It would be one thing for a pharmacist to ask a woman over 30 who was taking contraceptives whether she smoked tobacco and advising her on the risk factors that this entailed, or double-checking with her physician if she was taking oral contraceptives concomittantly with certain antibiotics that are known to interfere with the action of contraceptives. However, refusing to dispense contraceptives is not an acceptable option for a pharmacist. It is not a grey area and it is not an issue where the pharmacist should have recourse. A pharmacy may make an attempt to staff an extra pharmacist to assist and dispense the medication instead, but if this is not possible, then the pharmacist must do so.

This was especially important before Plan B was given non-prescription status, where a refusal to dispense the drug in a timely fashion would make a life-altering difference....and ironically, refusing to dispense that medication in a timely fashion might very well lead to an abortion being performed later.

And the thing is, this rule was definitely ripe for abuse. Can you imagine that problems that a Scientologist pharmacist would cause? And under this rule, the pharmacy would not be able to fire them.

But even leaving aside the potential abuse issues, or the rather unlikely potential for a Scientologist Pharmacist or Jehovah's Witness working at a blood bank, this rule was a clear example of people with very little medical training or experience enacting a regulation that was opposed by the medical community. It is understandable that there are medical practices that those outside the medical community find discomforting. DNR requests are one of them, as are things like abortion and contraception (but for some reason, no one has a problem with Viagra, sexism much?), and I can see how someone outside the medical community might look at some practices and think "I could never do that," or "this would clearly go against my beliefs." However, and I cannot stress this enough, medicine cannot ever be an issue of "belief" or religious conviction. There is no room in medicine for one's personal beliefs to enter into decisions regarding medical care. Just as an attorney cannot divulge priveledged information when he finds a client's actions repulsive (onging-crime and other exceptions notwithstanding), a medical professional cannot compromise patient care simply because they find something repulsive either.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava Glasgow
But I cannot take your arguments seriously when you back them up with links to ridiculously bad information. It's not bad because I disagree with it, it's bad because it really is bad. These sites demonstrate zero knowledge of the science they are discussing, they link almost exclusively to other non-information, and when they DO link to an authoritative source, they misrepresent what the source actually says.
Jahar Aabye is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Said Thanks :
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-01-2009, 05:06 PM   #54 (permalink)
That template guy
 
Chip Midnight's Avatar
Meshing Around
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,305
My Mood:
Business: CMFF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahar Aabye View Post
Furthermore, I don't believe that this was a major problem for physicians, and I noted that the AMA was strongly in favor of repealing the "conscience" rule. Most physicians already understand their ethical obligations. Where this rule stemmed from was more the issue of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or (before it was made available on a non-prescription status) Plan B contraceptives.
I believe the Bush rule had little to do with protecting the rights of workers and everything to do with providing a loophole that activists could use to obstruct women's access to contraception and abortions.
Chip Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2009, 11:37 PM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arilynn View Post
There is a problem with doctors not respecting DNR orders. Here is just one article that discusses it - if you use Google you can find many more:

"...the issue of not having some sort of such rule is that people feel doctors or hospitals could be forced to provide abortions..." Again, this is a non-issue. If the Bush rule is rescinded, there is still legal protection for health care workers who refuse to do something because of religious beliefs. Taking away the Bush rule doesn't take this away.
Hmmm. Well, that was in the year 2000. Since then, I found a NYT piece written by Jane Brody, in 2008, I believe, that you might prefer to use.

In general, though, from doing some very brief Googling, I got the impression that while it's not unheard of for some doctor to refuse a family or patient's request, by far the more common problem is a lack of proper legal documents.

This is made more difficult by the fact that the law varies from state to state, but I think the laws have been considerably tightened since 2000.

Several of the pieces I found gave specific advice on how to make sure your legal documents are well in order, and make sure they will be properly recognized in any state or locale.

Another problem seems to be paramedics (or at least was at one point), who aren't equipped to make these sorts of determinations in the ambulance, and whose companies didn't want to get sued.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2009, 11:39 PM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Midnight View Post
I believe the Bush rule had little to do with protecting the rights of workers and everything to do with providing a loophole that activists could use to obstruct women's access to contraception and abortions.
Well, I don't think you can successfully fight for more access to abortion through the mechanism of forcing doctors or hospitals to provide it against their beliefs.

I think you would just succeed in getting rid of those doctors and hospitals.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2009, 11:48 PM   #57 (permalink)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
 
Trout Recreant's Avatar
Incomprehensible gibberish
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 6,184
My Mood:
Blog Entries: 3

Awards: 1
Comedy Gold 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
Hmmm. Well, that was in the year 2000. Since then, I found a NYT piece written by Jane Brody, in 2008, I believe, that you might prefer to use.

In general, though, from doing some very brief Googling, I got the impression that while it's not unheard of for some doctor to refuse a family or patient's request, by far the more common problem is a lack of proper legal documents.

This is made more difficult by the fact that the law varies from state to state, but I think the laws have been considerably tightened since 2000.

Several of the pieces I found gave specific advice on how to make sure your legal documents are well in order, and make sure they will be properly recognized in any state or locale.

Another problem seems to be paramedics (or at least was at one point), who aren't equipped to make these sorts of determinations in the ambulance, and whose companies didn't want to get sued.

coco
W/ re: the paramedics. I just found out recently about something called a POLS - pronounced approx, "pulse". I think it stands for "Physicians Order on Life Support". If someone has a chronic or terminal condition, you can get one. It's a very brightly colored paper that you can post on your fridge or somewhere that the paramedics are supposed to look for if they find you in a satate where you can't make your desires known to them. It spells out whether they should resuscitate you or not, and what measures you want taken (or not taken) to prolong your life.

I don't know how I feel about this. I hate putting more of a burden on paramedics than they already have. But I'd like someone to know what my wishes are if I'm terminal.
Trout Recreant is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-02-2009, 03:02 AM   #58 (permalink)
Script Kitty
 
Jahar Aabye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between our dreams and actions, lies this world
Posts: 10,456
SL Join Date: 2/16/2007
Business: Black Operations
Client: Singularity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
Well, I don't think you can successfully fight for more access to abortion through the mechanism of forcing doctors or hospitals to provide it against their beliefs.

I think you would just succeed in getting rid of those doctors and hospitals.

coco

Again, I think that the issue with the "conscience" rule had more to do with pharmacists than physicians, since the AMA was adamantly opposed to it. Also, the "conscience" rule was more an application of policy restricting the ability of a facility, pharmacy, or hospital from firing a physician, pharmacist, or technician who refused to perform a procedure or provide treatment.

I think that you're getting hung up on the issue of hospitals providing abortions, which really wasn't the main issue related to the "conscience" clause, and ignoring the much more common issue of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and (back when it was prescription-only) Plan B contraceptives.

The main issue that the "conscience" regulation was issued to deal with, if I remember correctly, were several high-profile cases of pharmacists being fired by their pharmacies for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and Plan B oral contraceptives.
Jahar Aabye is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-02-2009, 03:35 AM   #59 (permalink)
Tired

*SLU Supporter*
 
Brenda Archer's Avatar
Watery
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 8,716
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 4/28/2005
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trout Recreant View Post
W/ re: the paramedics. I just found out recently about something called a POLS - pronounced approx, "pulse". I think it stands for "Physicians Order on Life Support". If someone has a chronic or terminal condition, you can get one. It's a very brightly colored paper that you can post on your fridge or somewhere that the paramedics are supposed to look for if they find you in a satate where you can't make your desires known to them. It spells out whether they should resuscitate you or not, and what measures you want taken (or not taken) to prolong your life.

I don't know how I feel about this. I hate putting more of a burden on paramedics than they already have. But I'd like someone to know what my wishes are if I'm terminal.

Many many thanks. This is useful knowledge.
Brenda Archer is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-02-2009, 06:50 PM   #60 (permalink)
Backroom Bureaucrat
 
Gigs's Avatar
Not troll; Possibly Orc
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,191

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
DNR orders would be a lot less relevant if assisted suicide were legal.
__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes
Gigs is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-02-2009, 07:32 PM   #61 (permalink)
Script Kitty
 
Jahar Aabye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Between our dreams and actions, lies this world
Posts: 10,456
SL Join Date: 2/16/2007
Business: Black Operations
Client: Singularity
Actually no, Gigs. There's a definite difference between "I want to die" and "I want to live out my days, but if the end comes, so be it."

A DNR doesn't mean that you're suicidal. It means that you know what full-on resuscitation looks like and don't want to have that happen to you. It means that you'd rather not spend the last hours or days of your life hooked up to half a dozen tubes with another half dozen needles in you, and more computers monitoring you than the tech room in The Matrix.

And then there are related issues like advanced directives, where you say that you would rather have someone pull the plug than live trapped on a bed hooked up to a ventolator for the rest of your life in a semi-conscious state.

It's not at all the same as physician-assisted suicide. It actually has very little to do with suicide at all.
Jahar Aabye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 09:09 PM   #62 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Colette Meiji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,193
My Mood:
The problem with a conscience law is that an employer could easily coerce their employees to "develop" said conscience.

Making a situation where an entire clinic or hospital doesn't offer a service. Not a big problem in Chicago or LA, just go somewhere else.

But in Frostbite Falls, Minnesota with only one clinic, it is a real issue.

It would have to be a lot better written than it was to be useful.
Colette Meiji is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-03-2009, 08:42 AM   #63 (permalink)
That template guy
 
Chip Midnight's Avatar
Meshing Around
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,305
My Mood:
Business: CMFF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
(2) My standards don't extend to deciding for doctors that abortions are the best possible standards (for one thing, the fetus dies as a result), and they must provide them on demand.
Doctors weren't forced to provide abortions against their will to begin with. I really don't think this was about that. However there are many religious activists that go out of their way to obstruct access to contraception and abortion, to the point of opening "abortion clinics" with deceptive names (Crisis Pregnancy Center, Pregnancy Aid, Birth Right, Open Door, Pregnancy Counseling Center, etc) sometimes located in the same buildings as real clinics, that deceive women into entering believing it's an abortion clinic and find themselves being proselytized to instead. Those are the kinds of people this law was intended to serve. It wasn't about protecting religious people from discrimination, rather it was intended to help them discriminate against others with impunity.
Chip Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-03-2009, 11:50 AM   #64 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Midnight View Post
Doctors weren't forced to provide abortions against their will to begin with. I really don't think this was about that. However there are many religious activists that go out of their way to obstruct access to contraception and abortion, to the point of opening "abortion clinics" with deceptive names (Crisis Pregnancy Center, Pregnancy Aid, Birth Right, Open Door, Pregnancy Counseling Center, etc) sometimes located in the same buildings as real clinics, that deceive women into entering believing it's an abortion clinic and find themselves being proselytized to instead. Those are the kinds of people this law was intended to serve. It wasn't about protecting religious people from discrimination, rather it was intended to help them discriminate against others with impunity.
Well, I'm saying the fear is apparently that they WILL be forced to provide abortions, or forced to stop practicing medicine.

In fact, however, the problem seems to be around being forced to mention abortion in counseling, from what I read around on the web last night.

So I'm not sure how realistic that fear of being forced to actually provide abortions is.

***

Now - the Crisis Pregnancy Center you mention - hey.

My kids are from Catholic Social Services, and I believe they have a name for that arm that is called something like "Crisis Pregnancy Center."

In point of fact, an unwanted pregnancy is often a crisis (and often, a crisis of conscience), and I don't see these names as deceptive.

The only way one CAN see these names as "deceptive" is to come from a position where the default is abortion, and any other plan for a crisis pregnancy is some kind of usurper.

Indeed, one could claim by that same argumentation that "Planned Parenthood" is a deceptive name (and I believe some have claimed just that).

I believe the Catholics should not be prevented from having a Crisis Pregnancy Center and from having it wherever the heck they want to. Wherever the heck they want to.

Right next door to an abortion clinic seems a pretty good place to me (if indeed, they have any in such places), unless a person feels that "choice" actually means no choice, but rather, "abortion without anyone else telling you any different."

The types of people being served by all these organizations are those who are in the midst of an unplanned pregnancy. The solutions to that aren't limited to abortion, nor should they be.

***

I don't consider Catholic Social Services to be a bad organization, or to be performing a bad service by helping women to make adoption plans rather than helping them get abortions.

I don't believe they discriminate against anybody, unless one believes that their very existence is discriminatory, and they should not exist.

I can't even possibly see how the existence of Catholic Social Services is discriminating against other people in any way.

Needless to say, I'm a firm believer in adoption. VERY firm, I can't tell you how firm! hehe

I dislike adoption agencies such as Catholic Social Services being painted as the bad guys, out to fool and take advantage of others - which is the gist I gathered in your post here, although you may not have intended that.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 01:00 PM   #65 (permalink)
That template guy
 
Chip Midnight's Avatar
Meshing Around
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,305
My Mood:
Business: CMFF
I'm not against religious counseling services. I'm sure some of them do wonderful work for women who want it. I am against using deceit to trick unsuspecting women into visiting thinking it's an actual clinic. In those cases they're not there to help the women but to browbeat them with their own agenda. It's not at all an uncommon practice.
Chip Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 03-03-2009, 01:05 PM   #66 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Richie Waves's Avatar
"jon" he does it!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Offaly, Republic of Ireland
Posts: 17,251
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 27/06/2005
Client: Phoenix & imprudence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
Indeed, one could claim by that same argumentation that "Planned Parenthood" is a deceptive name (and I believe some have claimed just that).
hmm.. could call it the Abortion Center for Eugenics of America or ACEA!

or am I listening to Eboni too much?
__________________
Quote:
‎In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. -Anatole France
Richie Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Laughed:
Old 03-03-2009, 01:26 PM   #67 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Catholic Social Services and the adoption arm thereof, are a religious organization that provides a crisis pregnancy service, which doesn't include abortion, but offers alternatives to abortions. The pregnancy crisis service is not different from their other services; for instance, to immigrants.

The immigrant services are also a service offered by a religious organization which helps immigrants.

In other words, the emphasis is not at all on proselytizing, just to be clear.

Here is a list of their services:

# After School Tutoring and Summer Camp
# Crisis Pregnancy Counseling
# Disaster Preparedness and Response
# Employment Assistance
# English as a Second Language Classes
# Financial Literacy
# Healthy Marriages
# Housing Counseling
# Immigrant Juvenile Program
# Immigration Detention Project
# Immigration Legal Services
# Marriage/Couples Counseling
# Outpatient Mental Health Counseling
# Path-to-Success
# Play Therapy for Children
# Refugee Parents Program
# Refugee Resettlement
# Thresholds
# Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

In those services - if they are anything like our experience with the crisis pregnancy service - there is no attempt to convert people whatsoever; only to serve. These people are really quite invested in helping others in all kinds of ways - not trying to convert them. I know, because I met their foster parents and a whole slew of them when we were adopting our babies, and service is key; not proselytizing.

I'm sure, of course, that when they talk to pregnant women, they would try to guide them towards continuing their pregnancy; however, I doubt many people would come to Catholic Social Services expecting to get information on abortion in the first place.

Course, that is putting rather too fine a point on your description of them as "religious counseling services" - but, heh, I felt like it.

***

I understand there are less scrupulous people who apparently set up things that a person could mistake for an abortion clinic, and then try to talk them out of an abortion without actually offering any adoption services?

I seem to remember some such. I know there are very aggressive people trying to stop women from having abortions. But I'd have to look it up to be certain that there are such organizations, particularly any that don't actually offer adoption services.

In any case, most services with names such as you listed - including Catholic Social Services - are not like that, and I don't believe there is any reason for them to change their name.

Catholic Social Services does do wonderful work for pregnant women who (obviously) don't want abortion. This includes both services to help them keep their babies, and services to help them adopt.

Too many women think they will have no help with either of these options, and it looks daunting. Actually, there is a lot out there to help a woman either keep her baby or make an adoption plan for it, but you have to know about it.

CSS also does wonderful work for the babies. We who like to see abortions avoided, and good plans made for the babies where possible, are not a small or fringe group.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 03-03-2009, 01:27 PM   #68 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie Waves View Post
hmm.. could call it the Abortion Center for Eugenics of America or ACEA!

or am I listening to Eboni too much?
Yeah, that's the problem! You'd have to call everything "Abortion Center" or "Adoption Center."

Which would at the very least be unfair, since both types of organizations offer more than just adoption or abortion.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 03-03-2009, 01:39 PM   #69 (permalink)
That template guy
 
Chip Midnight's Avatar
Meshing Around
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,305
My Mood:
Business: CMFF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
I understand there are less scrupulous people who apparently set up things that a person could mistake for an abortion clinic, and then try to talk them out of an abortion without actually offering any adoption services?

I seem to remember some such. I know there are very aggressive people trying to stop women from having abortions. But I'd have to look it up to be certain that there are such organizations, particularly any that don't actually offer adoption services.
Here's a good article about them:

Quote:
According to a recent Planned Parenthood email, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a crisis pregnancy center thinking it was Planned Parenthood, which was next door. "The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their 'other office' (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby)."


When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to abort. The crisis pregnancy center staff followed up this harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even talking to her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her.


I contacted Jennifer Jorczak of Planned Parenthood of Indiana to verify this story, and while she was unable to provide details out of respect for the patient's privacy, she confirmed that everything in the initial action alert email was true.


This humiliating and frustrating experience seems, by all accounts, to await more American women in the near future. And the best part? It's funded by your tax dollars.



continued: Exposing Anti-Choice Abortion Clinics | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet
Chip Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:07 PM   #70 (permalink)
Lady Amber

*SLU Supporter*
 
Ranma Tardis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,714
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 08-November-2005
Client: Second Life Viewer
Blog Entries: 39
Post freedom of choice

What is going to happen is doctors and health care providers will avoid putting themselves in situations where they would be forced to provide health care choices repugnant to them.
The doctor will stop volunteering to work in the downtown clinic, positions in Emergency Rooms will be harder to fill and require a higher salary. Maybe there will be NO doctor on some shifts.

I do not think the government can force them to provide these services by force. They will take unemployment or transfers to positions where it is not a possibility to perform. Pro choice loudly proclaim the women s freedom to do what she wants with their bodies. The health care professionals demand the same.

Demanding doctors and health care professionals to perform abortions will not lead to more choice. In fact it will lead to less. I suspect these doctors will willing undergo unemployment and even jail before doing such. There are not enough medical facilities, doctors, nurses and other medical providers.

It is very easy to make your postings. This is a freedom issue but while they have the freedom not to participate they also have the duty not to interfere.
__________________
I'm looking for someone to change my life,
I'm looking for a miracle in my life
And if you could see what it's done to me,
To lose the love I knew
Could safely lead me through.
Ranma Tardis is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Groaned:
1 User Disagreed:
Old 03-03-2009, 02:14 PM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Midnight View Post
Here's a good article about them:
Dreadful behavior.

coco

P.S. But on the other hand, now that I think of it, Planned Parenthood has been caught on tape also engaging in some dreadful behavior. Specifically telling an underaged girl (who wasn't actually 13 or 14 or whatever it was, but was saying she was, and looked it) not to tell the name of the supposedly 30-something year-old guy who knocked her up, because then they would have to report it to the authorities.

And tapes showing them telling presumably underaged girls where they could go out of state for abortions, while saying, "I can't tell you this, so I'm not." And circling the place where they wanted her to go. "See." THEN circling the others.

Anyway, yes, there is bad behavior on both sides.

Last edited by Cocoanut Koala; 03-03-2009 at 02:19 PM.
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:23 PM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
"This humiliating and frustrating experience seems, by all accounts, to await more American women in the near future. And the best part? It's funded by your tax dollars."

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, guess what - I don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding abortions! Either here or overseas.

I feel terribly guilty and sad about it, as a matter of fact. But I can't figure out how to get out of it. Somebody on another thread on the topic convinced me that Planned Parenthood doesn't actually offer abortions.

I felt a lot better about it. But then I started thinking, that can't be true.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:25 PM   #73 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Harvey Swenson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,187
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 24th May 2006
Business: The Pose Shop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
And tapes showing them telling presumably underaged girls where they could go out of state for abortions, while saying, "I can't tell you this, so I'm not." And circling the place where they wanted her to go. "See." THEN circling the others.
I don't see this as bad behaviour. I think if an underage girl wants an abortion and they can't do it, giving her somewhere safe to have the procedure done is much more responsible than making a 13 year old have a baby.
Harvey Swenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:25 PM   #74 (permalink)
Backroom Bureaucrat
 
Gigs's Avatar
Not troll; Possibly Orc
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,191

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala View Post
telling an underaged girl not to tell the name of the supposedly 30-something year-old guy who knocked her up, because then they would have to report it to the authorities.

telling presumably underaged girls where they could go out of state for abortions, while saying, "I can't tell you this, so I'm not."

Anyway, yes, there is bad behavior on both sides.
That doesn't sound like bad behavior, that sounds like them working around laws that violate patient confidentiality and laws that prevent people from making informed choices.
Gigs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:32 PM   #75 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cocoanut Koala's Avatar
Retired
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,563

Awards: 1
Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Swenson View Post
I don't see this as bad behaviour. I think if an underage girl wants an abortion and they can't do it, giving her somewhere safe to have the procedure done is much more responsible than making a 13 year old have a baby.
It's not only bad behavior, it's illegal behavior.

coco
Cocoanut Koala is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Groaned:
2 Users Disagreed:
Reply

Tags
bush cleanup, do your f'ing job

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On