Obama removing regulations protecting health care workers part one: The spin
The latest news is that President Obama is to remove the recent Bush regulations that protect health care worker's who refuse to cooperate with abortion or other death making.
The Bush regulations require employers to document that they are following earlier laws that allow physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to refuse to perform, advise people to get, or assist with abortions and other "medical proceedures" that go against their religious beliefs.
"This policy of potentially allowing providers to refuse to provide contraception or family planning runs counter to the administration's goal of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies," an HHS official said on background. "It also could lead into other areas of medical care."
Orwell would be proud.
Since when is aborting babies early by using an abortion pill "reducing abortions" and since when do we stop "unwanted pregnancies" by eliminating the kid who is "unwanted"?
Not only does the story come out on a busy weekend, when fewer people watch the news, but the coverage of the story has been underwhelming to say the least: Google News only report 389 stories about it, and within hours, the story has disappeared from their major headlines.
But if you run across the stories, you might notice that some of the stories out there are subtly biased to confuse the issue.
For example, if you read the NYTimes story, it's not until paragraph six that you find out that the Bush rules "void state laws" that require hospitals and pharmacists to provide "contraception", including "contraception" for rape victims.
Translation: the Bush rules void state laws requiring Catholic hospitals to give out abortion pills (not to mention that they protect the jobs of Catholic, Christian, and Muslim pharamacists not to give out these pills).
If you look at the "progressive blogs" you will find they all are repeating the same "talking points" almost word for word: i.e. that the Bush rules enable anyone in a hospital to "refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it."
The stuff on blood transfusions and vaccines are put in to ridicule those who are prolife. They use the "blood transfusion" and "vaccine counseling" merely to confuse the issue, since although some Jehovah Witness patients do refuse to receive blood transfusions, I cannot think of any reported case of a Jehovah witness who is a physician refusing to give a patient a blood transfusion.
But it goes beyond that. Notice the part of the quote about refusing to give "information" or "advice"? That part goes far beyond abortion.
You see, a recent California law requires physician to discuss "all options" for end of life care. All you need is to legalize assisted suicide (as nearby Washington and Oregon have done ) and physicians, including those in Catholic hospitals, will be required by law to tell patients that they can kill themselves, and might even be forced to give them a prescription for the pills.
That's what the last part of the Obama official's statement about "other areas of medical care" referred to: euthanasia.
The final spin of the story you'll see is that by removing the Bush rules, we now empowers patients to make choices.
One article even says: "President Barack Obama is moving to tilt the balance of power back to patients in the struggle over whether health care providers must provide controversial services, regardless of whether they violate religious or moral principles. "
Italics mine.
Ah, but who will "force" them to violate their consciences?
You see, as most news articles mention, the Bush rules are merely to remind employers of earlier laws such as the 1964 Civil rights bill that protect the jobs of those working in health care. Employers cannot fire someone because of their religious beliefs: Employers have to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace...or do they?
Ah, but that is another story...(to be continued in part two).
The Bush regulations require employers to document that they are following earlier laws that allow physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to refuse to perform, advise people to get, or assist with abortions and other "medical proceedures" that go against their religious beliefs.
"This policy of potentially allowing providers to refuse to provide contraception or family planning runs counter to the administration's goal of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies," an HHS official said on background. "It also could lead into other areas of medical care."
Orwell would be proud.
Since when is aborting babies early by using an abortion pill "reducing abortions" and since when do we stop "unwanted pregnancies" by eliminating the kid who is "unwanted"?
Not only does the story come out on a busy weekend, when fewer people watch the news, but the coverage of the story has been underwhelming to say the least: Google News only report 389 stories about it, and within hours, the story has disappeared from their major headlines.
But if you run across the stories, you might notice that some of the stories out there are subtly biased to confuse the issue.
For example, if you read the NYTimes story, it's not until paragraph six that you find out that the Bush rules "void state laws" that require hospitals and pharmacists to provide "contraception", including "contraception" for rape victims.
Translation: the Bush rules void state laws requiring Catholic hospitals to give out abortion pills (not to mention that they protect the jobs of Catholic, Christian, and Muslim pharamacists not to give out these pills).
If you look at the "progressive blogs" you will find they all are repeating the same "talking points" almost word for word: i.e. that the Bush rules enable anyone in a hospital to "refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it."
The stuff on blood transfusions and vaccines are put in to ridicule those who are prolife. They use the "blood transfusion" and "vaccine counseling" merely to confuse the issue, since although some Jehovah Witness patients do refuse to receive blood transfusions, I cannot think of any reported case of a Jehovah witness who is a physician refusing to give a patient a blood transfusion.
But it goes beyond that. Notice the part of the quote about refusing to give "information" or "advice"? That part goes far beyond abortion.
You see, a recent California law requires physician to discuss "all options" for end of life care. All you need is to legalize assisted suicide (as nearby Washington and Oregon have done ) and physicians, including those in Catholic hospitals, will be required by law to tell patients that they can kill themselves, and might even be forced to give them a prescription for the pills.
That's what the last part of the Obama official's statement about "other areas of medical care" referred to: euthanasia.
The final spin of the story you'll see is that by removing the Bush rules, we now empowers patients to make choices.
One article even says: "President Barack Obama is moving to tilt the balance of power back to patients in the struggle over whether health care providers must provide controversial services, regardless of whether they violate religious or moral principles. "
Italics mine.
Ah, but who will "force" them to violate their consciences?
You see, as most news articles mention, the Bush rules are merely to remind employers of earlier laws such as the 1964 Civil rights bill that protect the jobs of those working in health care. Employers cannot fire someone because of their religious beliefs: Employers have to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace...or do they?
Ah, but that is another story...(to be continued in part two).
posted by Nancy Reyes at
2:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home