sfc

Nope. Still wrong. In that analogy, the house is on fire. That is an EMERGENCY. I have already stated that if the patient had a medical condition (and even gave examples) that I would agree that the procedure would NEED to be done and would even do it. but... as an elective termination is NOT an emergency, she can go some where else. I don't impose my beliefs on her. My patients NEVER have to do what I tell them. So why should HER beliefs be imposed on me? And don't say "cuz you're a doctor" because, for the reasons outlined above, I don't HAVE to do what the patient tells me to. There are others out there willing to do abortions. She should go to them. the proposed rules will allow an ER doctor to refuse emergency contraception after rape, that is an emergency and in that situation the victim would have little choice over the doctor they get.

I have been thinking about this.... and to some point you are correct. If I worked in a Planned Parenthood and my nurse didn't want to assist with terminations, then it would be better for her to find a job more suited to her. Would I "fire" her? I don't know. Are there other tasks that she was needed for? Or is she the only nurse and I rely on the help and support of someone with reservations about her job? If she didn't like it, I would help her find work in a different clinic. But I wouldn't FORCE her to do something she was morally against. My current practice. My nurse would, at times, decline to go into the room and assisst with certain patients when she was pregnant. (examples being recent miscarraiges or infertility patients) She did this out of respect for the ladies cuz she had this big ole tummy and didn't want to put it in their face. She always had someone covering and available if I needed it. There is NO WAY IN HELL that I would fire her for that. In fact, I think it shows very highly of her compassion. But... in either situation, I would not FORCE my nurse to do something that they had objections to. You have highlighted the heart problem with this new rule. Federal aid would be refused to an a practice that fired an employee who refused to provide birth control to a patient. A person with ulterior motives could get a job at a planned parenthood or other such clinic and cause problems. Who benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers.

Still a wrong analogy. In the military, you surrender some of your rights. You follow the UCMJ. As a soldier, you can CHOOSE to act against that signed contract but then there are consequences for that decision. The needs of the military out weigh the needs of the individual. To be an OB/Gyn, although I am trained to do D&C's (laymans terms - "abortion"), I can CHOOSE not to do any elective cases that I don't agree with. In fact, I don't HAVE to do a hysterectomy just cuz some woman walks in and wants it out... and in fact I typically have to have a medical reason and pathology (meaning "bad stuff") as a reason to do the surgery. If you read my post to which you replied, you will see that I was referring to the employees claiming their rights were being violated by being expected to do their job. When one takes a job, they also surrender some rights and freedoms, just like occurs in the military. An employee can CHOOSE not to do their job, but then there are consequences to that decision. The needs of the employer sometimes outweigh the needs of the individual. If an individual is not happy with the sacrifices they have to make for a particular job, they are free to seek alternative employment. Totally agree with you, it would be like a fireman refusing to put a fire out because the house on fire belonged to an unmarried couple and he believed living together unmarried was a sin. With certain jobs comes responsibility over and above ones beliefs. This bush administration change of policy allows right wing Christians to get away with not fulfilling those responsibilities.

This is the part of your argument that I disagree with. COCP or "the pill" doesn't work by preventing implantation, it prevents ovulation (and therefore conception.) It can't be considered "abortion" even under the language of this proposal. You'd have to come up with a "zeroth" or "negative first" trimester to make it fit the definition. Or just... you know... become a devout Catholic. It is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way.

This is pulling out stops for hospitals (including state-funded institutions) to refuse to perform abortions (as defined above) as a general policy. First it was, "abortion is wrong and therefore illegal," and that failed. Then we had, "leave it up to the states," and that didn't work. Now it's, "leave it up to the [potentially state-funded] hospitals." I guess we'll see what happens on this one. Maybe I'm reading too much into this part, but it really looks as though someone is trying to boil a frog. What is worse, redefining abortion to include taking the pill means they can refuse some forms of birth control. You will end up with the situation you have in some states where there the nearest abortion clinic is hundreds of miles away and wrapped up in red tape requiring multiple appearances except this time it will for birth control. Some hospitals get funds from local institutions and religious organizations, pressure gets applied by these people to set hospital policies. Basically if you have cash and disagree with birth control you will be able to make a large donation and have the hospital change its policies with these new rules.

I agree, but don't think that the redefinition could lead to an opportunity to create a poll with misleading questions?

No, what will happen is that the poll will return the same result as always as people won know or buy into the pill as abortion, the neo-cons will then use this "data" in pushing for the ban of the pill. This stuff gets spun continuously by the neo-cons, look at how long RU-486 took to get approved and look at the abstinence programs, they are trying to push their view on us and any muddying of the water, like this, will aid their cause.

yes hot, but I wonder how far her boobs would sag if you removed the top of that bikini.

Either you or I misunderstand the basic function of birth control pills. My understanding is that, except when used in high doses subsequent to unprotected sex, they work by preventing conception, i.e. an egg is not shipped to the uterus, therefore conception cannot occur. Such a mechanism would place birth control pills outside the timeline I bolded in your quote. Blues, Dave Neither of us misunderstand the function of birth control, That is the point here. The bush admin is redefining what you and I think of abortion, they are saying that preventing a fertilized egg from getting to the uterus is abortion, that is what I am pissed about. The keys words are "between conception and natural birth" & "whether before or after implantation" My understanding is that conception is the process of a sperm fusing with an ovum, not when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

Do you think that a doctor or psychologist should be forced to use shock treatments to "cure" a homosexual if it is against their beliefs to do so? wtf has that got to got to do with abortion? i can't even begin to draw a parallel? Unless you are a gay and a freedom of choice hater.

It would allow a ER doctor to not mention and refuse to supply emergency contraception to a rape victim, do you think a doctor should be allow to have a say over the victims care based on his religious/personal belief and not hers. It would also prevent the hospital/state to set up standards of care that require a doctor in this situation from providing an informed choice to the victim.

Not to bust up your rant, but I missed that quote-could you highlighted it for me? It still seems like the article is on employee rights and not being able to hire only people that present certain views. If it were were stated that you couldn't discrimate against abortion supporters, then your reaction would be 180 degrees different and that is what the law will actually do-remove that criteria no matter what side of the fence the applicant is on. This is what you missed "The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” This includes the pill. I did misrepresent Bush, it was the bush administration not bush personally that stated this

No, what has happened is that bush has said using the pill is having an abortion. he is setting back womens health rights by years. He has been chipping at the womens right to choose ever since he has got into office, this is just another example. He would like to see a federal ban on abortion and with this redefinition that would include a ban on the pill. This is the thin end of the wedge, thank god he is going to be out of office before he has time to get that far.

That article is more about protection of employee rights. If they are getting Federal money, then they can't discriminate and not hire/fire someone based on his/her religious belief. Now... if that person fails to give appropriate care to a rape victim with appropriate non biases by religious belief counselling.... that you can fire them on. Just another way for the religious right to impose their views on other folks. If you are not prepared to give out drugs for personal reasons get a different job, people have the right to have a prescription filled. The feds have no business getting involved in this stuff. This is just another example of religious extremism from bush camp, just the Terri Schiavo fiasco when Bush went out of his way to sign unconstitutional legislation. Can't wait for him to be gone, I just wonder how much more of this we will have to deal with in the next few months.

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion. I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave. Bush is such a prick. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?ref=us

a fitting tribute to our dear leader. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_fe_st/presidential_putdown;_ylt=AlXlID2k0XWgqusd75tVYHYDW7oF Although I will avoid taking a shit in san francisco going if it is approved, I don't want bush to process my turds even if it is in name only.

Sure, why not ? Stay tuned, just 188 days to go. 187.5 and counting.

me too, it is amazing how much he has fucked up everything possible, what I don't get is why some people can get their heads out of where it don't shine and see all the damage he has done to this country. And yes CGOBJ and lied to congress to cover it up, and I don't give a flying fuck about that, it has nothing to do with bush and does not go any way to justify bush's actions. He has walked all over the constitution, he fucked up in iraq, he is fucking up Afghanistan (insufficient resources) he fucked up the economy in so many ways, hes doubled the national debt, just to mention a few and the next president is going to have to figure out how to get out of the worst recession that we have had since the 1920s. And still some people will support him because they are dick heads who are too proud to admit they were wrong or so single issue focused that they cant see the whole picture. I can't wait until January and the recovery can begin. I think both candidates individually have more integrity than the entire bush administration. When i came to the USA I supported the idiot, I am embarrassed to have made such an error of judgment.

i would vote for you Vinny, any day, the only issue being tha I'm not a citizen yet. the only promise I would exact is that we get funding for h-town and that you get posted back to CA. I really want to see you jump off the roof again.

i think it is a silly idea, I really don't see the point, I think they are sore about loosing, they may as well ban pink handguns for all the use it will do. I do agree about the legal stuff though, it will probably never get enacted on the way to the supremes and it will provide a useful barometer as to what they meant by "reasonable".

Yeah, mostly I wrote this out of frustration, I think the only reason we went in was oil, 550 tonnes of yellowcake is nothing in comparison, the thief in the white house has smashed Iraq and grabbed much from the USA tax payer already. They would find a way to spin it so it sounded OK to their neo-con supporters. My kids taxes are going to be paying down this war debt and probably my grandkids too.:( You are right on the money though, the only way to get respect back would be to pull out, and i hope the next president does.

That would have been quite a lot like armed robbery. like we didn't fuck up the country anyway going in with gun and bombs just like an armed robber does, the real reason we went in was the oil anyway it is about time we started to profit from it or get the fuck out, i'm sick of the national debt climbing to finance this war The whole thing was a fraud anyway, no-one believes the reason we went in was noble (except 2 or 3 ultra-right wing fanatics who post here), may as well have the iraqis pay for what we did to get sadam out of office.

I'm glad the stuff did not find its way to iran or other bad place, i'm pissed that the iraqi government made money on this while we are poring billions of (borrowed) tax dollars into the country, i wonder if they financed the operation to move it to canada. this should have been spoils of war and we should have had the cash from the sale of it. I am so tired of seeing the debt that my children will inherit climb and other nations (and individuals) getting rich of it.

I hadn't heard, but he has to grasp at something. Last I heard the kittens are live and healthy at the McCain ranch.

Nothing wrong with that? Ouch. Post a pic of your wife, eh? err, I don't think so, she is not a public figure. But you correct, there is nothing wrong with not having any for years.