JohnnyD

This has gotten off track. The purpose of the bill was to require physicians to _inform_ rape victims of all their options. Nothing more. Some hospitals have level 1 trauma centers, most don't. Some don't have ERs at all. Some provide services that others do not and that is fine. The bill does not suggest that a hospital will be required to provide a service that it either can't or does not desire to provide. Only that the physicians inform the patients of all their options. They may decide for themselves to seek treatment elsewhere or not. Its not about religion. Its about minimum standards of care.

But his existence is just as meaningful as yours. Chris True. Very true. But that doesn't excuse his being so irritatingly whiny. I hate it when people whine incessantly about whiny people.

Yep. And their hair color, height, weight, gender, smell, tattoos, piercings, etc. As much as we try not to, its human nature.

It is the doctors who are forcing their morality on the patients. By intentionally withholding information about treatment options, the doctors are influencing the decision of the patients based on the doctors' views of morality. Once the patient has all the information, they will make whatever decision is best for them. The purpose of the bill is to ensure they get all the information. Nothing more. I disagree, this is going both ways I don't know how else to explain it. The state medical board requires a certain level of care to be maintained. No one is forcing doctors or hospitals to provide non-emergency care that is inconsistent with their beliefs. They would have been forced to inform - not provide - patients of all their options, which is the level of care they are required to maintain. There is a distinction between informing and imposing that I don't think you are able to make due to your personal religious beliefs.

It is the doctors who are forcing their morality on the patients. By intentionally withholding information about treatment options, the doctors are influencing the decision of the patients based on the doctors' views of morality. Once the patient has all the information, they will make whatever decision is best for them. The purpose of the bill is to ensure they get all the information. Nothing more.

Absolutely. We are talking about an emergency setting. There is no procedure to be performed there, only giving information out. The bill doesn't say the hospital is forced to treat the patient in a manner that is inconsistent with their beliefs and I agree that they shouldn't have to in a non-emergency setting. But they should have to at least inform you of all your medical options, even if they are not willing or even able to provide the course of treatment you select for yourself. That is a level of care that all medical professionals should be held to. So you think it is an acceptable level of care that if a woman comes into an ER raped and beaten that she be given a bandaid and a liabrary card? - or just the bandaid? If that is the law, you have to follow it. If you don't agree with it, you work to change it or move if its that important. In this case, the bill that passed is in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state according to polls and the fact that it passed the house and senate by large margins and we elected those people. The governor chose to veto the bill against the wishes of the people of the state based on his personal religious beliefs. I hope the people will hold him accountable at the next election.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for the government to be involved at all. If there is something wrong with you and you go to a doctor, you get the best medical care possible. Unfortunately in the real world, we need laws to ensure that we are getting the best medical care possible.

I think you are missing the point completely. The ones who are having something forced on them are the patients. It is the duty of the physician to care for the patient. Period. Man, woman, black, white, green, child, catholic, muslim, atheist. None of it matters. The physician provides the best medical care possible, as required by the state medical board - NOT the church medical board. If a physician is unable to provide such care, his/her license should be suspended. The problem in this case is that the governor is condoning a level of care that is potentially harmful to some women due to his personal religious beliefs. If your daughter was raped and impregnated by a man that escaped from a mental hospital and while receiving treatment in the ER, information about the morning after pill and any other means of terminating the pregnancy were intentionally withheld from her, you would be calling lawyers and scheduling press conferences. You would be screaming at the top of your lungs for the state medical board to pull the doctors license. No wait - of course you wouldn't, because this is the internet and not real. When it becomes real, that is when people change their minds and quit leaning on the crutch of religion. I guess its a good thing we don't have Jehovah Witness hospitals, or that you don't get inadvertently routed to the holistic only ER. The good news is that its not over yet. The veto can still be over ridden and the governor can be voted out in the next election.

The public has a reliance on the medical profession, as they also do with other state licensed professionals. If a doctor knowingly withholds information from a patient because of their religious views, they are forcing their views on the patient. The bill was trying to stop that. It would have required physicians to inform the patient of all their medical options (which shouldn't be an issue in a perfect world), they can refer the patient to another doctor if they don't agree with the course of treatment. The bill was specifically trying to prevent doctors from forcing their religious views on patients. Religion and the practice of medicine under license of the state are two entirely separate things. Edit: I'll keep going A doctor is only allowed to practice medicine at the will of the state in which he/she is licensed. That license can be revoked by the state medical board. It is a sad day when a law is on the table that would require a doctor to _inform_ a patient of all their medical options and it is vetoed. I hope if nothing else, this serves as a wake up call that you have to be very proactive in your own medical care. Your doctor, who you most likely have given your unquestioned trust, may not be telling you something that he/she doesn't know. They may even be intentionally not telling you what all your options are because they don't agree with them religiously. We go to doctors when we are broken. We are scared. We are vulnerable. We are clinging to life and to hope. We are reliant on their knowledge and expertise to help us and guide us. We need them to make us better, because we can't do it for ourselves. Any medical professional that violates that bond should never be allowed to practice medicine again. To think that the governor of Colorado supports the violation of this trust makes me very sad to say I live in this state.

The bill wouldn't force a doctor to treat anyone. It would only mandate that the doctor inform a rape victim of all her options. I can't imagine a physician intentionally withholding information from a patient about treatment options, but it happens all the time. We now know which hospitals do this and hopefully boycotting them will make a difference - but probably not, this is Colorado after all. Quote from a nurse I know: They are an embarrassment to the medical profession. If I got hit by a car on their doorstep, the words floating on my dying breath would be fuck you.

He vetoed. I hope the CO congress has enough support to over ride the veto and still get this passed. I know that some medical professionals are actively boycotting these hospitals now.

Nice racial slur.

Thats why I still lurk Speaker's....Bawaaahaaa! You guys are funny! D'oh! Actually, thats a good point. I meant to say that Denver (where I live) is a lot colder than SoCal. If a hybrid has decreased performance in Denver, how bad would it be in Canada or Alaska?

Bill, Living in SoCal, how fast does the car go 0-65? Thats pretty important there. Also, is it a front wheel drive? Can a full sized person sit in the back if a full sized person is sitting in front of them? How viable is this car in colder climates (lets say Denver perhaps)? Reason I ask is that I'm intrigued by this car, but there just aren't any here to actually look at.

No shit. Tough to imagine spending all your free time and money to be in the middle of this crap.

Dude, thats about an 8.5 on the unintentional humor scale.

Otay - the really green version?

Of course this all depends on the DZ and the TI, but I've never had a problem with guys that may or may not have been out pretty late the night before (or still drinking when they showed up at the DZ). Just remember - don't hurl on anything and get video so you can watch it later. -Good times

1369.......unlucky cocksucker.

good idea, i give the pope three to two odds If I put 5 on the chick, can I double down if there is a political intervention?

JDFGI Go with the eight pound ball.

Kansas City Barbeque is a cool place to drink a few beers of you're going downtown. Its where they filmed the bar scenes in Top Gun.

Nice article. That may be the most ironic thing I've ever read.

It may never prove to be necessary, but just something to keep in mind and keep an eye out for.