So according to the administration the conscience of an athlete engaged in the mere act of kneeling is a mortal threat to the nation but it’s ok for some medical professionals to cite their consciences to violate the hippocratic oath and refuse treatment to the ailing.
Aside from being abominable this appears to run afoul of the First Amendment right out of the gate.
But here’s what’s really fucking bizarre:
Thursday’s announcement comes a day before the annual anti-abortion march in Washington by abortion opponents. Religious and social conservatives are a core constituency for the Trump administration. The president plans to address the march by satellite from the White House Rose Garden.
The goddamn march is in D.C., fer chrissake.
But here’s what’s going to be really funny: The following day whatever numbers the child-hating fetus protectors muster on Friday will be completely dwarfed by the Women’s March the following day.
Fun Fact: The president will NOT be addressing the Women’s March by satellite or any other means.
and the need for this comes from where? Have I missed reporting on threats to physicians who do NOT provide abortions? I know the forced birthers will and do threaten and kill doctors who provide requested/required services, but never have I seen reporting that says doctors who refuse to perform services have been harassed.
So this is the office I should go to for help when I get in trouble because my sincerely held belief in the teachings of the koran lead me not to treat patients who consume alcohol or pork products? Or my buddhist commitment to nonviolence prevents me from treating members of the military or the police forces?
(Not saying adherents of those religions would actually behave in such egregious ways, albeit the religious connection would be at least as strong as that of the forced-birthers.)
There have been stories about pharmacists who have been disciplined for stealing prescriptions from women getting RU486 (or whatever its current name is). But I think that other than just a shout-out to the more-dead-women marchers, this is probably intended to provide cover for medical “professionals” who refuse to even mention to their patients that abortion is an option. Which sometimes leads to the death of that patient.
I have not heard of pharmacists stealing birth control medications. I have heard of many of them refusing to fill them on religious/moral grounds. The Supreme court refused to hear the pharmacist’s appeal to allow them to refuse to fill prescriptions in July of 2016:
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rejected a case brought by Washington State pharmacists citing religion in refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.
SCOTUS’s refusal to consider the appeal leaves in place regulations adopted in 2007 by the Washington State Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission specifying that pharmacies must dispense all FDA-approved drugs to customers regardless of religious or moral reasons.
The plaintiffs involved in the case in Washington State objected the use of emergency contraception, so they didn’t want to stock Plan B and Ella for religious reasons. The pharmacy involved in the matter is Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia, Washington. The other 2 plaintiffs were Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen—pharmacists who work elsewhere but similarly believe that the morning-after pill is a form of abortion.
I’m guessing they or someone else may try again now that Gorsuch is on the court.
Where does this end? So if a firefighter is a non believer they can refuse to extinguish a fire in a church?
Sorry, I was unclear. I didn’t mean the meds but the actual (paper) prescription. Women reported handing the prescription to a pharmacist to be filled and the pharmacist refusing to fill it because Evil Whore of Babylon. Then: asking for the piece of paper back so they could get the prescription filled at a non-crazy-evil pharmacy, and the pharmacist refusing. Sure, you might be able to explain to someone at your doctor’s office why you needed a new scrip and make another appointment to go pick it up and maybe not even have to cough up another copay, but it’s still deeply evil and likely unlawful behavior.
My guess is that anyone but a “christian” trying to injure women in some way (OK, maybe gay people) will not find much help from this new office.
Please let this go in some direction completely unforeseen by these Konservative Kristian Kuckoos–same for the allowance of FEMA funds to go to non-taxpaying churches–that has them crying foul because in a fell swoop of schadenfreude they lose bigtime.
That makes more sense.
I am going to spend a lot more time reading books for a while and try to limit my computer time. I wear yellow tinted reading glasses and use the magnifying function at 200%. Still, I still have a hard time telling the difference between a comma and a period. I have a 17 inch laptop, so it’s not too small of a screen. Something about computer glare makes my right eye to water and makes things blurry after a short time. I can read regular sized print in books without the reading glasses if I sit outside and use natural sunlight. These past couple weeks have been worse with computer glare and my eyes. I catch mistakes sometimes right after posting but leave them because I have to limit time looking at the screen.
You might want a new prescription. Needing (lots of ) natural light is a sign for me that I’m having trouble with optical focusing.
I heard that he will actually attend the Women’s March in person, so that he can grab the women by their pu$$ies, because, you know, he’s a star.
For all the screaming we hear from evangelicals about granting “special rights” to LGBTQ people by letting them marry and adopt kids, they want to have their cake and eat it too. This is about special rights for religious Christians, plain and simple. This action is an issuance of the license to discriminate and an effort to sustain religious privilege. It’s disgusting.
Addressing the anti-abortion people in person would take away from his executive time and Big Macs.
Ask Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Protecting the rights of providers is one thing.
Advancing their ideology is unconstitutional.
So if I were a doctor and had moral objections to treating a Republican, that would be protected, right?
What a wonderful idea! I am sure that they will be protecting the religious rights of all the other religions in the US, too.
What a country!