This is completely ridiculous, and I can't even imagine what it'd be like if this shit ever passed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs-moves-to-define-contr_b_112887.html


In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services.
In the "Definitions" section of the HHS proposal it states,
"Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.
"
The proposal continues,
"Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.
"
Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science.


The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to ******* the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims.
In 1999, the physicians -- who, like the movement at large, define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization-- released an open letter to community stating:
"Recently, some special interest groups have claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods of contraception may have an abortifacient effect...The 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error...if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient.
"
As the HHS proposal proves, the absence of fact or evidence does not slow anti-abortion movement attempts to classify hormonal contraception as abortion. With HHS' proposal they have struck gold. Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding -- even in the form of Medicaid -- and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so.
As the HHS proposal details,

"Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. As discussed above, both definitions of pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical community. The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion.

" (emphasis mine)
So HHS proposes that anyone can enforce his or her own definition of abortion "within the bounds of reason." And, it would seem the bounds are pretty far flung. Most dangerously, perhaps, this new rule establishes a legal precedent that may eventually be used as a basis for banning the most popular forms of birth control along with what is, in fact, abortion.

we'd become a third world country.

Banning abortion is ridiculous itself, this proposal is beyond words.

i'd define it as murder but ok

i'm sure it's a completely truthful article from the huffington post

I've never seen you debunk a huffington post article so why do you assume its not true?

by the way, the story is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

NYT is a bastion of liberal bias, too.

Also they hire fake reporters who write fake stories.

I don't see what the controversy is. It seems to me that all this little stunt is doing is saying that just because someone takes federal money it doesn't mean they can have their own morality overridden by the government. We don't force doctors who take Medicare money to abort babies even if they're morally opposed to it, so why shouldn't the same logic apply to contraception? Granted, the attempts to equate contraception and abortion fall flat...but from what I can tell here those comparisons aren't being made in order to say "contraception = abortion." It seems to me that the comparison is being made in order to (clumsily) say that the moral issues of abortion and contraception are similar enough to treat in the same manner.

Regardless, nothing in this comes off to me as any grand attempt to start us down the slippery slope of wiping out abortion and contraception in one glorious right-wing swoop like it seems people want to suggest.

Regardless, nothing in this comes off to me as any grand attempt to start us down the slippery slope of _____________________ in one glorious right-wing swoop like it seems people want to suggest.

isn't this like every single corganist post

I don't see what the controversy is. It seems to me that all this little stunt is doing is saying that just because someone takes federal money it doesn't mean they can have their own morality overridden by the government. We don't force doctors who take Medicare money to abort babies even if they're morally opposed to it, so why shouldn't the same logic apply to contraception? Granted, the attempts to equate contraception and abortion fall flat...but from what I can tell here those comparisons aren't being made in order to say "contraception = abortion." It seems to me that the comparison is being made in order to (clumsily) say that the moral issues of abortion and contraception are similar enough to treat in the same manner.

Regardless, nothing in this comes off to me as any grand attempt to start us down the slippery slope of wiping out abortion and contraception in one glorious right-wing swoop like it seems people want to suggest.
Fuck you.

isn't this like every single corganist post

It's completely scripted, yes.

isn't this like every single corganist post

It's not my fault that I'm constantly having to throw water on paranoid alarmist bullshit on here. If people weren't so goddamn ridiculous all the time, then I wouldn't have to point it out so much.

I can't see anything like this actually passing, but just the idea of it pisses me off enough.
There are plenty of places around the world that offer free birth control and free abortions. I really don't understand how attempting to make certain kinds of birth control less available is a "good idea". Instead of thinking how to restrict access to birth control, we should be educating people and making it widely available and cheaper. Maybe then we'd have less stupid girls getting knocked up and bringing their little douchebag children into the world.

I can't see anything like this actually passing, but just the idea of it pisses me off enough.
There are plenty of places around the world that offer free birth control and free abortions. I really don't understand how attempting to make certain kinds of birth control less available is a "good idea". Instead of thinking how to restrict access to birth control, we should be educating people and making it widely available and cheaper. Maybe then we'd have less stupid girls getting knocked up and bringing their little douchebag children into the world.

That's all well and good, but surely we can think of ways to make contraception more available without coercing health care providers to do so whether they want to or not. Ultimately, that's all this issue is about.

if they take away the condoms we can always substitute with doubled sandwich baggies and twisty ties

That's all well and good, but surely we can think of ways to make contraception more available without coercing health care providers to do so whether they want to or not. Ultimately, that's all this issue is about.


At some point shouldn't health care providers be expected to, I duno, provide health care?

The idea of someone being able to rrovide health care according to their own personal moral standard and not to some sort of wider one seems insane to me.

At some point shouldn't health care providers be expected to, I duno, provide health care?

The idea of someone being able to rrovide health care according to their own personal moral standard and not to some sort of wider one seems insane to me.

ding ding ding

At some point shouldn't health care providers be expected to, I duno, provide health care?

The idea of someone being able to rrovide health care according to their own personal moral standard and not to some sort of wider one seems insane to me.

What seems insane to me is that you're actively encouraging the idea that a particular morality be imposed on health care providers by the government. Look, we're not talking about providers refusing to provide life saving care (or even disease treating care) here. Contraception and even abortion most of the time are purely elective. And there are all sorts of elective procedures that certain health care providers won't provide even though they could. Should we start forcing plastic surgeons to provide sex changes and other cosmetic surgery of questionable necessity if they don't want to? Surely not.

Sure, it's silly and highly inconvenient if a health care provider has some moral qualm with dispensing contraception. But it's not silly and inconvenient enough for the government to strong-arm the provider into violating his morality just because he/she accepts federal money. That's pretty authoritarian if you ask me.

What seems insane to me is that you're actively encouraging the idea that a particular morality be imposed on health care providers by the government. Look, we're not talking about providers refusing to provide life saving care (or even disease treating care) here.

eh, but where does it end? someone could have the idea to not provide treatment to hiv-positive gays, because, you know, being gay is an abdomination and so on...plus, if you're pregnant and not married, that's like, morally not ok, so we won't help you with your pregnancy....plus we don't give a shit about if you want to have live-prolonging machines turned of, because we don't hold with playing god, no matter what you say or wish...

oh, and just so you know, sometimes, an abortion is a live-saving treatment

eh, but where does it end? someone could have the idea to not provide treatment to hiv-positive gays, because, you know, being gay is an abdomination and so on...plus, if you're pregnant and not married, that's like, morally not ok, so we won't help you with your pregnancy....plus we don't give a shit about if you want to have live-prolonging machines turned of, because we don't hold with playing god, no matter what you say or wish...

It's one thing to say that someone has a general right to receive a certain health care service. It's quite another to say that they have the right to demand that service from a particular provider. In any service profession, there are all sorts of reasons that one might not want to deal with a particular client or customer and might turn them away. I don't see why health care is any different. Sure, outright discrimination is not to be tolerated, but short of that are we really going to say that a doctor must provide any treatment to any person who demands it if the doctor is capable of providing it?

More importantly, I'd argue that a provider letting his morals interfere with taking on certain patients is doing himself as a great a disservice as he is his potential patients. An obstetrician can certainly turn away unwed mothers if he feels his morals compel him to..but he's cutting himself off from business and word of mouth by causing potential patients to find other providers. But why not let providers assume that risk instead of forcing them to furnish care they're obviously not committed to providing? And who wants a health care procedure performed by a doctor who's essentially under duress anyway?

What's so hard about saying that if a patient wants a health care provider who'll give them contraception, or an abortion, or HIV treatment, or euthanasia, etc., that they'll have to go out and find one? Surely that can't be as onerous as getting the federal government to bear down on some small-town doctor's office to force them to provide certain treatments.


oh, and just so you know, sometimes, an abortion is a live-saving treatment


I know. That's why I said it's elective "most of the time."

are we really going to say that a doctor must provide any treatment to any person who demands it if the doctor is capable of providing it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Modern_relevance

#2 To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.

#6 To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

Of course the government shouldn't impose a certain kind of morality when it doesn't need to, it shouldn't require police to be atheists or anything ridiculous like that, when a person's beliefs don't affect their line of government related work. But in this case a person's beliefs do affect their work, and if law proceeds from morality then the law should support the moral choice, in the case of abortion it shouldn't be treated as potentially moral, or immoral, simply moral and a viable option.

And abortion as an 'elective' procedure is pretty ridiculous, the basis for this elective nature should be rooted in morality and rationality, and for the health care provided by the government, the law shouldn't consider any doctor's morality contrary to abortion a valid consideration in determining a person's eligibility for an abortion. Moreover I don't see any rational way for a doctor to conclude that someone's pregnancy is not medically serious enough to warrant abortion, there are plenty of conditions that are far less serious which you'd receive treatment for without much question, rashes, hemorrhoids, acne, I mean what the fuck.

From a physical standpoint alone, pregnancy is serious enough to warrant abortion, it screws up your body for 9 months and then provides you with the most painful experience of your life. Suppose you had some kind of tumor that did precisely the same thing, without a doubt you'd be provided treatment to get rid of it if you wanted to, there's no question that it's not an elective procedure, in the same way that life or death scenarios aren't elective.

It's one thing to say that someone has a general right to receive a certain health care service. It's quite another to say that they have the right to demand that service from a particular provider. In any service profession, there are all sorts of reasons that one might not want to deal with a particular client or customer and might turn them away. I don't see why health care is any different. Sure, outright discrimination is not to be tolerated, but short of that are we really going to say that a doctor must provide any treatment to any person who demands it if the doctor is capable of providing it?

More importantly, I'd argue that a provider letting his morals interfere with taking on certain patients is doing himself as a great a disservice as he is his potential patients. An obstetrician can certainly turn away unwed mothers if he feels his morals compel him to..but he's cutting himself off from business and word of mouth by causing potential patients to find other providers. But why not let providers assume that risk instead of forcing them to furnish care they're obviously not committed to providing? And who wants a health care procedure performed by a doctor who's essentially under duress anyway?

What's so hard about saying that if a patient wants a health care provider who'll give them contraception, or an abortion, or HIV treatment, or euthanasia, etc., that they'll have to go out and find one? Surely that can't be as onerous as getting the federal government to bear down on some small-town doctor's office to force them to provide certain treatments.




I know. That's why I said it's elective "most of the time."

That would all be fine with me, if we're talking about completely private institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Modern_relevance

#2

#6

Even if the Hippocratic Oath was somehow binding on doctors, it still doesn't require them to provide any treatment to any patient who approaches them for it. After all, a person doesn't become a doctor's "patient" until the doctor decides to take them on.


Of course the government shouldn't impose a certain kind of morality when it doesn't need to, it shouldn't require police to be atheists or anything ridiculous like that, when a person's beliefs don't affect their line of government related work. But in this case a person's beliefs do affect their work, and if law proceeds from morality then the law should support the moral choice, in the case of abortion it shouldn't be treated as potentially moral, or immoral, simply moral and a viable option.

And abortion as an 'elective' procedure is pretty ridiculous, the basis for this elective nature should be rooted in morality and rationality, and for the health care provided by the government, the law shouldn't consider any doctor's morality contrary to abortion a valid consideration in determining a person's eligibility for an abortion. Moreover I don't see any rational way for a doctor to conclude that someone's pregnancy is not medically serious enough to warrant abortion, there are plenty of conditions that are far less serious which you'd receive treatment for without much question, rashes, hemorrhoids, acne, I mean what the fuck.

No one's saying that doctors can be allowed to say pregnancy isn't "serious" enough to warrant an abortion. I don't think anyone is suggesting that doctors' morality be allowed to color their actual diagnoses of patients. But just because a doctor may see that an abortion is medically reasonable shouldn't mean that he should be required to perform the procedure against his own personal judgment or morality. It's quite disingenuous to suggest that giving someone an abortion is at all similar to the old "take two of these pills and call me in the morning" routine. There's a much much greater moral question to all of it. Again, what's so wrong with a doctor saying "You can get an abortion/contraception/etc. if you want to, but you'll have to get it from a different doctor."?

From a physical standpoint alone, pregnancy is serious enough to warrant abortion, it screws up your body for 9 months and then provides you with the most painful experience of your life. Suppose you had some kind of tumor that did precisely the same thing, without a doubt you'd be provided treatment to get rid of it if you wanted to, there's no question that it's not an elective procedure, in the same way that life or death scenarios aren't elective.

This is beyond ridiculous. And it's besides the point. Just because some people might consider pregnancy something they want "treated" doesn't make it non-elective. The fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases, people either elect to "treat" the pregnancy...or they don't.

If the government genuinely viewed abortion as moral, any doctor who doesn't want to perform an abortion should be treated like a doctor who has a phobia of seeing blood, in that they're less competent and less helpful at what they do for irrational reasons.

That said, there are probably very few situations in which anything worthwhile could be done to prevent a doctor from practicing that belief, it's not like it would ever be worth firing them. Although, if there were some situation that hinged on giving more financial support to a doctor who practices abortion and one who doesn't, when both are precisely equally qualified, the former would probably be preferred.

As for 'electing', I was using your apparent meaning of the word. Non-elective as in, something health care should provide for without question.