Obama removing regulations protecting health care workers part two: discrimination does exist
But what has changed is the advent of the various "abortion pills" and of euthanasia.
So it is no longer a matter of a physician or nurse not going into Obstetrics so they won't be forced to do abortions, it is now a matter that can affect every physician, nurse and pharmacist in the country.
There is a second thing that has changed over the past 30 years: In the past, physicians and pharmacists often were independent, running their own practice or pharmacy.
Nowaday, however, they often work for large corporations. It will cost these companies money to hire extra employees when some employees won't cooperate with abortion; of course, like Walmart, they might just say no, but even Walmart was forced to give in after pro abortion pressure groups and the state of Conneticut threatened lawsuits if they did not make abortion pills available in all their pharmacies.
Finally, by removing the regulations, which required the corporations to document that they were following the law protecting the conscience of their employees, it makes it easier to fire the employee. It removes the ability for employees to document that he or she is being fired for refusing to go along with abortions.
There are supposedly "civil rights" laws to protect employees that date back to the 1960's, but those laws didn't do much to protect folks back then, and one doubts they will continue to protect health care personnel now.
As a medical student in the mid 1960's, I was ordered to "assist" on abortions as part of my training. Even though abortions were illegal, one physician in that hospital was doing abortions, often listing them as normal surgery.
I refused to assist him with his abortions, and ended up being ridiculed in front of the other students for the refusal. That didn't bother me as much as you'd think: back then, only 5% of the medical students in my school were women, so we put up with a lot of what is now called "sexual harassment".
But as revenge, the physician sent in a bad evaluation saying I refused to assist in surgery, and that I had failed the course.
When I was informed of this by the Dean of Students, I explained what had happened, and that my objections were based on religious grounds; in the end, they did allow me to pass the course.
But as a result, I did not take an OB/Gyn residency. I had learned my lesson.
However, three years later, right after Roe V Wade passed, my best friend was confronted with a similar threat.
She had deliberately taken a residency at a Catholic hospital because as a pious Hindu, she did not believe in taking life.
Part of the training required them to "rotate" for three months to the local university hospital, supposedly to learn advanced surgical techniques. In reality, the residents were doing lots of abortions, making money for the hospital.
So my friend was ordered to perform abortions. When she refused, she was told to do them or she would lose her residency position (which would mean she would have to return to India).
She appealed on religious grounds, but the head of the University residency program instructed her that abortion was not illegal for Hindus, so she could not claim a religious exemption.
Not knowing the law, and fearing deportation, she complied, fasting and praying on those days to make up for her sin.
Ironically, at the same University, some of her fellow residents were Muslim. They too were threatened with loss of their residency if they would not do abortions.
So all of them said: We are Muslim. We will not do abortions. And if you try to force us, we will all quit.
Since no residency is so large that they can afford to lose several residents at the same time, the Muslim physicians were allowed not to do abortions.
For nurses, the pressure was different. They had no choice. If one of the ladies was sent in to pass a second trimester abortion in her ward, she would simply be fired if she left the job or refused to care for that patient.
But many nurses did object, and some nurses were unionized, and made their objections heard.
So hospitals decided mandatory "retraining", to change the minds of the nurses about abortion. Those that refused to be brainwashed or coerced were reassigned.
But the hassle became so bad that the abortion business quickly moved to private clinics.
Now, fast forward 30 years.
Thirty years ago, the "morning after pill" was thought to be contraceptive, by stopping ovulation.
Newer research shows that it also stops implantation of a fertilized ovum, so it is considered abortifactive, especially if given days after intercourse.
IN the past, the only time physicians used the "morning after pill" was for rape; nowadays, it is being pressed as an ordinary means of contraception and there is a lot of pressure for the pill to be sold "over the counter" without a prescription. This is bad medicine for a lot of reasons (STD risk, the patient may already be pregnant, no counseling)
So fast forward to the year 2000. I was a Federal physician, and a patient presented to the emergency room at 2 am for the "morning after pill".
I refused, not only for moral reasons, but because of good medical reasons (the risk of STD from casual sex). And the next day I was reprimanded for it, and one employee even hinted that I could be fired for it.
I shrugged, and said: Been there, done that..."
And indeed, nothing happened.
Ironically, Federal physicians in the military refused to cooperate when the Clinton administration tried to mandate abortion in military hospitals. And in the US Indian Health Service, many tribes object to abortion except to save the life of the mother, because many (but not all) tribes see abortion as against their traditions, so again, no problem.
But what about modern HMO's?
Again, physicians are hard to replace, but what about pharmacists or nurses who refuse to go along with abortion? They are easier to replace, although many are unionized.
Which brings up another question: Why haven't the Unions supported guidelines to protect their prolife employees?
But the most vulnerable will be those in training, especially for OB/Gyn or midwife training, where pressure groups are trying to mandate abortion training as part of ordinary prenatal care training?
The end result, of course, will be fewer and fewer pro life physicians in Ob/Gyn. And if euthanasia spreads, the pro life physicians and nurses may soon start leaving acute care wards and hospices rather than cooperate with killing their patients.