Medical Patients Rights Restricted

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-09-16 03:36pm

NEW YORK Sept. 16, 2004 — In Congress and states nationwide, anti-abortion activists are broadening efforts to support hospitals, doctors and pharmacists who citing moral grounds want to opt out of services linked to abortion and emergency contraception.
A little-noticed provision cleared the House of Representatives last week that would prohibit local, state or federal authorities from requiring any institution or health care professional to provide abortions, pay for them, or make abortion-related referrals, even in cases of rape or medical emergency.

In Mississippi, a bill became law in July that admirers and critics consider the nation's most sweeping "conscience clause." It allows all types of health care workers and facilities to refuse performing virtually any service they object to on moral or religious grounds.

And in states across the country, anti-abortion organizations and a group called Pharmacists for Life are encouraging pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraceptives, which they consider a potential form of abortion.

"We've seen increasing organization and networking to get more pharmacists to refuse to provide EC not just in the Bible Belt but all over," said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It's part of the anti-choice arrogance in which they believe they have the right to impose their ideology on everyone else."

Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, was fired by Kmart in 1996 for refusing to dispense a birth-control drug. She believes momentum now favors her movement.

"More people, including pharmacists, are becoming informed how certain drugs operate and those who want to avoid ending the life of a human being would avoid those drugs," she said.

Brauer, who lives in Lawrenceburg, Ind., and works at a drugstore in Ohio, hopes more states will emulate Mississippi, South Dakota and Arkansas by specifying that pharmacists, as well as doctors, have the right to withhold services on moral grounds. She does not believe there should be any obligation to refer rebuffed customers to another pharmacist who would fill their prescription.

"Forced referral is stupid," she said. "If we're not going to kill a human being, we're not going to help the customer go do it somewhere else."

At the federal level, abortion rights groups are alarmed by the provision that cleared the House last week, broadening protections for hospitals and insurers that seek to avoid any involvement with abortions. The provision would prevent government officials from using any coercive means such as a funding cutoff or permit denial to ensure abortion-related services are available.

Two years ago, the House passed a bill with the same goals, but it died in the Senate without a vote. Anti-abortion activists are pleased because the revived proposal was sent to the Senate as part of a broader appropriations bill and, at minimum, will go to a House-Senate conference committee.

Opponents say the provision's impact would be felt primarily by low-income women who depend on federally subsidized health care and use Roman Catholic hospitals. According to the critics, the measure would enable hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, or referrals, even if a pregnant woman had been raped or was in critical medical condition.

"That the U.S. Congress would be so callous as to add this kind of provision that affects only poor women in the most extreme circumstances is outrageous," said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice.

Kissling said she was heartened by developments in some states such as a California Supreme Court ruling that Catholic Charities of Sacramento must provide birth control options in its employee health plan. "But for women in conservative states, that's no help," she said.

Mississippi's new law provides sweeping immunity for opting out of abortion and contraception services in a state where many women seeking abortions already travel to Alabama or Tennessee to obtain them.

"We have doctors who won't even issue birth control prescriptions," said Nsombi Lambright of the American Civil Liberties Union's Mississippi branch. "It's not their job to impose their beliefs on others."

In contrast, anti-abortion health professionals say it is their beliefs that are embattled. Texas pharmacist Gene Herr, for example, was fired this year by the Eckerd drugstore chain after refusing to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a rape victim.

"They were forcing me to do something that I see is wrong," Herr said.

The American Medical Association and American Pharmacists Association support their members' right to conscientious refusal. However, the pharmacists' group says patients also have a right to obtain legally prescribed therapies.

Lourdes Rivera, who assists low-income patients as director of the Los Angeles-based National Health Law Program, worries that anti-abortion health providers are gaining too much leeway.

"Yes, we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice?" she asked. "If someone's beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else."

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-16 03:39pm

Some clarification:

When they talk about birth control prescriptions, they don't just mean the morning-after pill. Many of these "pro-lifers" are now after The Pill, claiming that since potentially there could be ovulation while taking it but because of the hormones a potentially fertilized egg wouldn't be implanted in the uterus, taking the Pill is equivalent to abortion and thus murder.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-09-16 03:54pm

Looks to me like America is fast becoming no better than the Fundyfascist countries we're bombing...

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-09-16 04:26pm

I run into this kind of stuff at work from time to time. One of our fundy pharmacists refuses to verify orders for abortions. Which in the case of our hospital is doubley stupid since around 99% of the abortions that are done at our hospital are to get rid of a fetus that is already dead. In otherwords it's for the health and welfare of the mother and is infact saving a life, and not killing anything.

The other thing that is stupid is these kinds of orders usually come to the pharmacy after the procedure has already been done. This is going to change in the future but right now the pharamcist is verifying it after the fact. That's a pretty wussy stand on principle if you ask me.

Currently when one pharmacist refuses to verify something like that it just falls to another pharmacist.

In the case of rape victims it very rarely comes down to involving the pharmacy in anything other than restocking the medicaiton. We have Ovral-28 (?), a type of birthcontrol pill, stocked in our med machines in the ER. If someone comes in as a rape vicitm the physicians in the ER make the call and the patient gets the medication.

We have a quite wide array of fundies where I work but most of them do not let that interfere with doing their job, at least for the most part.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-16 04:35pm

Mayabird wrote:Some clarification:

When they talk about birth control prescriptions, they don't just mean the morning-after pill. Many of these "pro-lifers" are now after The Pill, claiming that since potentially there could be ovulation while taking it but because of the hormones a potentially fertilized egg wouldn't be implanted in the uterus, taking the Pill is equivalent to abortion and thus murder.

WTF?!?
Oh... believe me, I will be watching this one, then. I take them as Hormone Replacement to regulate my periods, not as contraceptives. Whomever wants to take my pills away from me gets locked up in a bathroom with me when I'm going through the worst of PMS UnRegulated by Pills.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-09-16 04:42pm

Wait until the real wackos start wainting to get rid things like condoms and IUDs and the like.

It's like they need an excuse to make everyone else either stop having sex or to have tons of kids.

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2004-09-16 04:53pm

Mayabird wrote:Some clarification:

When they talk about birth control prescriptions, they don't just mean the morning-after pill. Many of these "pro-lifers" are now after The Pill, claiming that since potentially there could be ovulation while taking it but because of the hormones a potentially fertilized egg wouldn't be implanted in the uterus, taking the Pill is equivalent to abortion and thus murder.

Oh, fucking great. What about the people who take it for hormone regulation? Are they out too?

Raine

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 05:03pm

Did you notice that they want to make abortion procedures optional for medical professionals to perform even in cases of rape or medical emergency? This has gotten waaaay out of hand. A doctor has a GODDAMNED RESPONSIBILITY to do his fucking job in a medical emergency, religion be damned.

Medical licensing boards should revoke the certification of any doctor who refuses to perform such a procedure, particularly in the cases listed above. What's next? Jehovah's Witness doctors who won't do blood transfusions?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-09-16 05:21pm

Considering how pricey malpractice insurance is getting I don't think too many insurance companies would be willing to insure a doctor who refuses to do standard lifesaving procedures because of his religion.

How would you like to pay $90,000 a year in insurance premiums just so you could deliver babies? That's what it's like in Arizona

I can't imagine most juries going with the physician who refuses to save a life because of his religious principles. It would take only a few sucessful malpractice suits along those lines and some fundy physicians will be smacked into line or they'll be finding some other line of work.

Unfortunately in this case it looks like people are trying to get the laws changed to back them up.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-09-16 06:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:What's next? Jehovah's Witness doctors who won't do blood transfusions?

I highly doubt it. No devout JW would ever have the brains necessary to get in to Med school.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-16 07:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:Did you notice that they want to make abortion procedures optional for medical professionals to perform even in cases of rape or medical emergency? This has gotten waaaay out of hand. A doctor has a GODDAMNED RESPONSIBILITY to do his fucking job in a medical emergency, religion be damned.

Medical licensing boards should revoke the certification of any doctor who refuses to perform such a procedure, particularly in the cases listed above. What's next? Jehovah's Witness doctors who won't do blood transfusions?

It's obviously to demonize the doctors who would perform abortions at all, even to save a life. There are too many wacko religious morons who believe in sticking to one's ridiculous principles no matter what. If they hear that a doctor could have opted out of an abortion but did it anyway, no matter what the circumstances, they can go ostracize/isolate the doctors and after enough densisitizing of this sort murdering the doctors or at least revoking their licenses politically will be more acceptable to them. Anybody with a functioning brain can see how stupid it is, but there are a shitton of people who don't have one.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-16 08:14pm

Tsyroc wrote:Wait until the real wackos start wainting to get rid things like condoms and IUDs and the like.

It's like they need an excuse to make everyone else either stop having sex or to have tons of kids.

Repeat after me: "Every sperm is sacred..."

On a more serious not, I'm rather sure that since these people wouldn't allow an abortion to save a woman's life, they wouldn't allow women to take the Pill for hormone regulation. Because of course we're lying, and God probably intended for us to have screwed up hormones in the first place. And we'd probably get those from the relatively more intelligent people, since the dumber ones would just give a kneejerk "NO!" and not listen to anything else.

I'm kinda pissed off. Can ya tell?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-16 10:27pm

I gotta to say it's not the fucking pharmist decision wheter or not the lady wants to use a pill, any legal pill, morning after, birth control, whatever. It's the lady's in question decision. The pharmist needs to shut the fuck up and fill the damn order. If he can't fill perfectly normal orders, then he needs to get a new job.

Has for this rape business, it's the height of arrongence. Never in my wildest dreams have I thought they would be insane enough to tell a lady that has just been through one hell of a massive real life nightmare that she has to suffer futher for it.

They are not teaching this insanity in my church, and they won't unless they want to see me turn Sunday into Brawlday.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-09-16 10:38pm

Mayabird wrote: On a more serious not, I'm rather sure that since these people wouldn't allow an abortion to save a woman's life, they wouldn't allow women to take the Pill for hormone regulation. Because of course we're lying, and God probably intended for us to have screwed up hormones in the first place. And we'd probably get those from the relatively more intelligent people, since the dumber ones would just give a kneejerk "NO!" and not listen to anything else.

I'm kinda pissed off. Can ya tell?

I suppose that suffering from screwed up hormones can be lumped into the "labor punishment" that women got for getting kicked ouf ot Eden.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-16 10:41pm

Tsyroc wrote: I suppose that suffering from screwed up hormones can be lumped into the "labor punishment" that women got for getting kicked ouf ot Eden.

therefore GOD exists.

seriously though i doubt that this could withstand legal challenge. It will get shot down in the courts like all of the other stupid fundie laws do.