Does Bush proposal threaten access to the pill?

"...as effete, elite, and equivocal through a daily blitz of sound bites and Web videos that were carefully coordinated..."

Dominionists rock! Welcome to the rapture. We will now be controlled by folks who are willing to put the second coming before the woman's right to choose about events within her body. I cannot imagine a world in which this would be standard. Maybe there could be a counter movement by which Doctors and Pharmacists deny health to those seeking Rapture.

It is mostly immigrants coming to this country that are doing this, maybe we should look at what kinds of jobs they're allowed to have here. I work with several immigrants & they are constantly breaking rules at work. They figure that they're safe & can't be fired because of discrimination. This really sucks, because if they aren't following the rules, they should be fired. They should be allowed warnings like Americans are, but then fired like Americans are. They're also trying to ruin Christmas for Americans, they don't think there should be Christmas trees in publics places, etc., this is our country, not there's, they need to learn to speak & read english & accept our ways if they're going to live here. If they don't like it they can leave. I try not to be predijuice, but when they come here & try to change OUR ways, that is wrong!

hey jade i hope you are not in an abortion clinic when the Rapture happens because you will not notice anything unusual until you saw a tv station or walked outside. then what are you going to do? be prepared to scream cry and grind your teeth. because it will be seven years before Jesus will be in the air on a milk white horse. the Rapture will rapture the Christians up in the air to meet Him. and then earth will suffer seven years of pain torture death and unspeakable evil. go to this website wayofthemaster.com with kirk cameron. i actually met him and he and ray are wonderful. i am praying for you jade.
Jesus Loves You.

teresa phil. 4:13 i can do all things thru Christ who strengthen me.

you do know... the 'rapture'.. isn't mentioned the bible... right?
it was invented in the 1830's by Irving or Darby...

either way, regardless of what you personally believe you have no right to expect others to believe the same. if you have an issue with women's health issues you should not work in an industry where you will be required to deal with it.

i wouldn't expect a Muslim to work in a ham factory, would you?

Exactly Walker.

If your job necessitates something fundamentally contrary to your beliefs don't do it, find another one.
Besides are we overlooking that there are abortion clinics, as in clinics specifically for abortions?
If your an aspiring surgeon and someone whom doesn't believe in abortions become a general surgeon or something else, just don't get a job at an abortion clinic.
If you are a general practitioner and your patient asks about it, politely give a referal or if your a pharmacist don't be the actual person to ring the person up.
Its easy to not break your vows or beliefs or whatever but its impossible and not your place to try and make someone else follow them for you.
.... and thats why you give the referal, have your "less holy" co-worker or whatever do the deed.

As for LukeBandit, sanctimonious preaching about the end times on a message board never "saved" anyone, its only a masturbatory self indulgence of your own pride.
Thats why it will never reach people because in the same breath your trying to spread whatever your message is your also blatantly showing your own hypocrisy and everyone sees it.
You and this increasingly militant mindset in the christian church disgusts me.
You push people and push people and then act the victem when those people get fed up and push back, its pathetic and manipulative.

But shouldn't a Muslim be able to work in a factory that produces other foods as well as ham, and not be forced to work at the ham station?

Many other women's health issues that to do not involve dispensing the pill or giving abortions take place in women's clinics. Have you ever been to an OB/GYN's office?

If someone has a moral problem with doing their job they should get a new job. I'm sure there are plenty of chritistian/conservative run clinics and pharmacies that do not sell contraceptives, so if someone is so christian/conservative leaning that they cannot bear to even sell someone birth control, they should be working at one of them.

Above is a quote from the original post above.

My response: What if you work in a gyno's office, and you're the nurse practitioner, so you do the Pap Smears, consult with women who have yeast infections and prescribe Diflucan (some nurses can write prescriptions), deal with breast issues, give exams, consult with pregnant women....whatever......but you just prefer not to deal with birth control.

Trust me, you will not find a Christian clinic where you can do all those things in most towns. Do you want someone who went through all that schooling to only hand out safe sex pamplets and not get to use her other skills?

I doubt there are pharmacies that don't sell contraceptives. If there are, I'm sure they are rare.

How much do you people know about woman's health and the places you go to receive it?

This is just a veiled attempt to define life at conception. It also opens the door to medical workers refusing to treat people on other grounds such as race, religion, sexual orientation and a host of many others. You could walk in bleeding to death but because you're wearing a T-shirt that says "Bush is an Imbecile" the worker could refuse to treat you on political grounds.

Or the health worker could refuse to administer a unit of blood to a patient because the health worker is a Jehovah's Witness.

ok i've just about had it with all these people saying that it's the woman's choice whether or not she wants to have a baby. & guess what they are partly right. but here is a guaranteed way not to get pregnant...don't have sex. wait until you are ready to be a parent. & if you can't deal with that then you'll just have to live with the consequences of your actions.

on another note, i'm studying to be in the medical profession and i know for a fact that there are so many job openings for qualified proffesionals that anyone not agreeing with abortion or contraceptives would have no problem finding a job in a different part of the medical field where they wouldn't be faced with these problems.

& another thing, everyone has forgotten that this bill wouldn't prohibit abortion, plan b, or birth control. it would just make it so that anyone who doesn't agree with it doesn't have to deal with it.

besides this bill will never actually get put into legislation. it's simply a political move by the bush administration so that they can tell the hyper obsessive pro lifers that support them "hey look we tried but it just didn't get put into legislation".

so here it is summed up, this bill will never be activated so don't worry & medical professionals who don't agree with parts of their current job should transfer to a different part of the hospital where it is not a part of their job to go against their beliefs.

Good Drugs, huh Lukebandit

Hmm! I find most people morally objectionable. Course, I am famous for being a misanthrope. But the fact is, most people are dishonest, insincere, greedy, self-serving, disrespectful of others, thoughtless, somewhat ignorant, mean, loud, obnoxious, and a vexation to the spirit. That's a short list by the way.

That is an excellent point. I agree that this is too broad, and allowing this as it currently stands would open the door to a very slippery slope that could lead to discrimination like what you mentioned.

"I don't work on large fishing boats even though it can actually be a lucrative profession, because I find the job to be extremely risky, nasty and smelly. Should I be allowed to have a job in the fishing industry, and yet be unwilling to participate (and get paid, as well as not get fired) because I find it personally objectionable? Man, hook me up for a job like that!!!!"

Hysterical analogy. It is unfortunately the case that many of us have had to modify our beliefs to conform to the demands of a job. Which is worse? Swallowing your predilections or losing a job?

Hysterical analogy maybe - but pointless... If you were employed on a fishing boat, but then refused to fish for the reasons you stated above, then the boat and its owner would lose money. If enough of you "anti-fishing" fishermen found yourself on the payroll, then the owner would eventually go bankrupt and you'd all be unemployed.

So it would all work itself out in the end.

That aside... Doctors are a little different than fishermen, and in the case of Abortion (a purely ELECTIVE procedure) then there is a huge difference between forcing a laborer to perform a task they object to and one their religion deems to be a sin (ie murder).

If a woman chooses to have an abortion, all she has to do is find a doctor willing to perform one. It's not the place of any medical establishment to force a doctor to perform one against his/her will.

In most hospital settings, example: a med surg floor that has pediatric patients on it. I absolutely hate doing pediatric nursing. I worry and obsess and I feel too bad when they are sick, and I spend far too much energy on them. The DON knows this, and does not give me peds patients. I do nursing care for old people, cardiac, renal, diabetes, gyn cases. There are enough nurses and some nurses love doing peds. so if we had a Jehovah witness nurse (is there such a thing? I've never seen one), the DON would just have someone else hang the blood, the JW nurse wouldn't have to do it. I have worked in city hospitals, and a devout Catholic would not have to take care of abortion cases. Because there are many others that don't mind. If someone is devoutly against contraception and abortion, they should go work in a Catholic Hospital. Lord knows, there are enough of them around.

Not really. Now some people are going after Catholic hospitals to force them to offer Plan B pills and abortion...

Nah...Bush isn't stupid. Take a look at all of the other rules and edicts that he has made . It has nothing to do with birth.......it's all about control.

Christians here in the U.S. don't understand either. We send our troops to war against Islamic fundamentalist/stone age thinking while here at home our president is proposing this irrational nonsense based on freedom of religion. The ignorance is just incredible

Steve-400854--- So, the Bush Taliban strikes again. Amazing!!

Yo, that's 'bout one of the most ignorant but common Anglo women rants I often hear and expect to hear...
In reality, The burden of child birth, or termination of a man's beloved and anticipated/desired child rests with a women for only 9 months and is a physical responsibility but for a man it is a lifelong responsibility that NO ONE will let him forget and the women gives him NO CHOICE in .... but some how he is obligated financially and otherwise at her RIGHT to decide....
This is just another example of the only utero centric culture on earth!

Kurtdermensch-- Pregnancy is a HUGE toll on a woman's body. Obviously, you would have no idea, because you've never been pregnant. Jacqueline Moates is on to something. We're talking about the RIGHT to control our bodies and the size of our families-- not about trapping men or killing babies.

Kurtdermensch ~ It is true that if this was a issue having an effect on a man's body, it would not even have come up, in fact it had something to do with a man's body it would be 100% covered by insurance. The reality is, that there is a big attitude among conservative men to keep women in the home, kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant. Because of the feeling that women shouldn't be able to speak for themselves. As far as a mans choice, the man could have always worn a happy cap (condom) or keep it behind his zipper. It isn't like it is any big surprise that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. If you as a man do not want to be responsible for a child then do the responsible thing. It doesn't matter if the woman your sleeping with tells you she's on BC or not. If you do not want an unwanted child then be responsible with your sperm.

The responsibility is on the women to not have sex. That is where the ultimate control is.
She has NO right to control My Body......(Sounds selfish doesn't it? when you get it back?)
I may choose to wear a condom but if she has such a precious and valuable Right to control her body then exercise it by CHOOSing to not have sex and then she won't get pregnant...
It's not my Responsibility to control her bodily functions.....
Problem solved.....

Women have been carrying Babies forever and their bodies can handle it....Play me a Violin while I sleep...Don't give me that garbage about Women being shortchanged in medical treatment and coverage when in reality Men usually are. I worked in Health care and I know.
The mere fact that most,breast cancer research is well funded, some reproductive treatments, OB-Gyn and Hormone Replacement therapies are Insurance covered but Erectile Dysfunction which destroys Marriages, families and children's lives is not. People of both genders die over that issue and businesses suffer and it's not the joke that people make it out to be. But it's only a man right? Don' ever tell me what I know.....

Of course insurance companies cover OBGYN visits!!!!!!! They also cover basic male visits to a doctor. Comparing OBGYN visits to ED medications is not really fair. ED medications are not necessary to save a life. OBGYN visits very well may be. Cervical cancer? Breast cancer? Uterine cancer? Ever hear of those. But if you want to compare apples to apples, FAR more insurance companies cover ED medications that the pill. And a woman that would leave her husband over ED was clearly never in love with him to begin with.

The responsibility is on the women to not have sex.

I don't think that would go over too well with husbands.

What a sexist and ignorant statement with reference to the Husband and their choices whether or not to engage in sex but I expect that.

Regarding the comments on leaving her husband over impotence, you oversimplify people's lives and it doesn't matter anyway PEPLE DIE! irrespective of their motivations and others are impacted peripherally and circumstance you clearly do not understand or care to but clearly you are either young or naive or simply hyperfocal on your selfish mission but you surely are no a Mental Health person of any merit or experience for sure.

There is ambiguity and convolution with respect to the insurance coverage and covered services. We could Bandy "hin und her, für immer und ewig, dabei".....when in reality there is an over all paucity in coverage for everyone including and especially children...agreed?

You said it;"They cover basic Male Visits" and that's all and I was comparing a whole package of things including Hormone Replacemenbt Therapy. I know what I'm talking about Madam, youre not gonna tell me anything.....This is a women's culture from start to finish and top to bottom and Health care is largely administered by and to women and you'd better believe it!!!!!I will overlook the insult to myself and my gender to with that we are merely and purely sex and hormone driven, baser instinct and passion unrestrained to the point that we simply require your constant services to survive and function, nay flourish. Something inculcated ,unfortunately by culture into many men themselves.
What happened to your decision making empowerment? It requires your man now to decide for you what to do with your body or is that another convenient and selective reasoning for benefit of this argument

Kurtdermensch--- first of all, you have an attitude problem and it seems to me like you're a little bit of a control freak sending me emails and telling me to "never tell me what I don't know again."

I think your knowledge of the American Health Care system is missing a few crucial facts, and until you lose your ignorance, there's no hope of having a rational conversation with you.

And frankly, I find you creepy... So I'm going to choose to ignore you from now on.

I think you just don't like being openly opposed and that's a very common tactic btw..."it's a girl thing" that you're doing when you are in a corner and you may do whatever you please.....I have the right to tell you that..You have no right to tell me what I know. You were out of line.

control freak...

Please will someone please explain to me why God has the time to save George?

Because God doesn't want him, and the Devil is afraid he'll take over!

Because God doesn't want him, and the Devil is afraid he'll take over!

Because God doesn't want him, and the Devil is afraid he'll take over!

F.L I agree. I think that Bush should be focused on this horrible economy instead of birht control. He cant even do his job the right way. If you decide to work in that profession, you know what it entails before you even start. So if you have a problem with it , why even take the job in the first place? If you dont like it, plain and simple find another job.....

"While a surgeon has the right to refuse a patient, typically they will not let beliefs interfere with their jobs. This legislation is a crock."

Exactly, a doctor does not have to see every patient that walks through the door. Doctors refuse to treat patients all the time for a variety of reasons - like no insurance, or they don't think they can help someone, the patient is unreasonable, fear of lawsuit, etc. The thing is, there are people on the other side wanting to pass laws REQUIRING a doctor or hospital to give out Plan B. Now, I am Catholic, but I've got no sympathy for a Catholic pharmacist that doesn't want to give out normal birth control pills, BUT I can understand why a religious person would have problems with Plan B. It's somewhere between a normal pill and an abortion, maybe the pill isn't doing anything because the girl's not pregnant, but if she IS then the pill is doing something (supposedly). However, I believe an employer also has the right to fire someone who refuses to do his job. If a pharmacist REALLY has a problem with filling a scrip, he should give it back to the person OR hand it to another pharmacist that DOESN'T have a problem. And I believe the vast majority don't have a problem with birth control. I also believe this article is biased, in that it's not explaining the other side, the people who have passed law requiring that Plan B get sold, provided in hospitals, etc. That's the REAL root cause of all this.

When the pharmacist denies a prescription signed by a licensed doctor he or she is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. I don't think my local pharmacist has any right to interfere with my doctor's decision on what type of treatment I should receive. Again, one should look into the type of profession and what type of job you should do prior to accepting the job.

Hey Science is Golden, you bring an excellent paint that can be very problematic

"Based on this article and the extremes to which people go, it would not be extreme to assume that some of these "crusaders" might actually be taking up employment for the purpose of denying patients the treatment they seek--based on their religious beliefs"

If they are willing to buy properties next to the abortion centers, why not get a job at the clinic to push the anti-abortion movement.

Please will someone please explain to me why God has the time to save George?

God loves everyone. Even if they are self righteous.

Well said.

Look to the adherents of The Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints. Their devout belief is that it is certain men's right to have more than one wife at the same time, even if they are only twelve. So what should women do, found the church of the Sacred Vag*na? Stating the belief that their bodies are their temples and they have the right to regulate what occurs within? Or gays founding the Church of That Wacky God's Sense of Humor whose doctrines include that they were born so they have the right to be as God created them? I could go on.

Whats to stop someone from refusing to issue a marriage license to a woman who isn't a virgin? Or to an interracial couple? It's a scary idea that we could start allowing these things.

Plus who is going to be the one to determine a valid religion? A doctor could say they belong to "everythingism" and refuse to prescribe antibiotics because they would kill a bacteria (a living being) and who could stop them?

MarieBaar:
"Plus who is going to be the one to determine a valid religion? A doctor could say they belong to "everythingism" and refuse to prescribe antibiotics because they would kill a bacteria (a living being) and who could stop them?"

~There is actually a religion like that called Jainism in India. Similar to Hinduism, they try to preserve every form of life when possible, even roaches and pests. Not sure where bacteria falls because it's a relatively recent discovery given that the religion has been around for centuries, but I'm sure there are rules for that too now.

Not to mention we have many doctors in America with origins in India, so it just goes to show the slippery slope that would be created and the possibility of your example.

I'm so sick of hearing about this because it's so rediculous, and i think it's for that exact reason that it's getting so much publicity.

what medications a person takes in her own home is absolutely NO business of the government. it's utterly rediculous to think of it otherwise.

I agree with Michelle G's comment below. Aren't there more important things to worry about than my relationship with my pharmacists.

Bush disgusts me.

But God wants you to stay home and have many babies even though you would live in abject poverty. Thereby denying your children a chance to advance because you have no budget for food.

"...perceived worth of the recipient..." What do you mean? Only people with money can be helped or maybe those with blue eyes and blond hair?

Considering the morning after pill is time sensitive I don't think it's ok to restrict access to it at all. A woman could end up going to 3 - 4 doctors, and then another 3 - 4 pharmacies just trying to get the pill. Not to mention the cost to the woman. I think if this gets anywhere close to passing there should be a caveat that clinics/doctors can not charge a woman if she is denied services based on the providers beliefs.

Yes, the morning after pill is time sensitive, and is pretty much what started all this crap to begin with. I can understand why someone would be uncomfortable filling the scrip - if you think abortion is murder, then giving someone Plan B could be seen in the same light as giving someone a lethal dose of morphine. I think Plan B is unique, and its creators probably never thought about this wrinkle. I don't know what a good answer is, I am opposed to laws requiring someone to give out Plan B, but I'm also opposed to protecting employees who don't want to do their jobs. I think most of the time the employer will take care of the matter by firing the person involved. I wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to name specific clinics where girls can easily get Plan B, so they don't waste precious time going to the wrong pharmacy. Hospitals should certainly provide it to rape victims, if they want it. Also, perhaps pharmacists should consider that there's a good chance the girl ISN'T pregnant, and that the pill isn't stopping anything from happening. The odds are actually more in favor of this scenario than the other.

hate to say it but access to abortion IS limited. Can't get one in SD and many other states. Lots are considering laws to the same effect.

As far as I understand this, it won't be denying anyone anything, as in your example of condoms and abortions. It is about protecting healthcare workers whose religious or other beliefs are different from the mainstream medical community.

I don't believe this will limit the access a patient has to birth control or abortion. It would only impact who from the facility provides it.

I don't think anyone's religious beliefs are being forced on to anyone.

Just to be clear.

Really, you don't think so?

Well, let me tell you this. If hospitals adopt such policies (which they'll be force to), read this article again. Only hospitals who will adopt this policy will receive funding. Which means that if they want to receive public funds to operate they're clinics they need to adopt this rule. Meaning that, the "funding" card is being used so that hospitals allow bigotry into health services. Most hospitals (especially in poor areas), cannot operate without federal money. Does this sound familiar (steam cell research perhaps)?

Funding is an issue in health care. This is FORCING the hospitals to allow bigotry and discrimination to the patients. You still think no one is forcing anything to others?

You don't think this limits the access of services? Ok, some people live away from large towns that can provide them adequate health care. I live one hour away from my gynecologist. Our local hospital is a public hospital. In addition there are only two pharmacies, one that closes at six. The next hospital is another hour away. You still think no one's access to heath care is limited????? Think again.

While I understand your right to your opinion and religious beliefs, I do not feel that you have the right to force your religious beliefs on others. Have you ever heard of separation of church and State?

Only three "Blessings?

With your most intelligent outlook on life, you should be "popping one out" every ten or eleven months.

I live by the Bible, but I gave up on "Organized Religion" when I noticed that "The Men of the Cloth" were spending more time on fund raising than anything else. The main objective of religion is to scare 10% out of as many people as possible so that they won't have to work at a legitimate job.

Remember that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple - why did the temple need money changers.

P.S. Old Joke: when one of the past Popes told the crowd in the square that there would ne no condoning by the church of birth control, a woman in the crowd shouted "Father, you no playa da game, you no maka da rules."

You make the assumption that these women have another option to go somewhere else. In poor areas that is not always the case. Sometimes there is only one provider for miles and miles, and these women may not have the means to travel else where. Remember not all of us have money to do as we wish with, you look at the issue through your eyes. What do you see through women's eyes who have no money, live in poverty, and barely have food to feed themselves?

I see laws being made for women who already struggle from day to day, and now you want to kick them while their already in the dirt. Use the bible not as a lecturing tool or to be "holier then thou". Use it to heal and to help.

Do you even have any medical knowledge at all??? the pill prevents ovulation... doesnt abort a fetus.. i mean are you for real??? there are NUMEROUS amounts of immoral things occuring than women taking birth control. There is a difference in a regular period and a "pill period" maybe you should investigate more! dont get me wrong I dont agree with abortion BUT.. would you want teenagers and irresponsible women who cant even take care of themselves or living on the street popping out children?? the problem is not the birth control..

you may do with your body as you choose.

but do not think that you have the right to dictate what other women do with theirs.

as for moral direction... wars.. they're ok... greedy financial institutions crashing the world economy... that's ok... strangling the EPA and poisoning the world... that's ok.... incompetence in government... that's ok....

birth control... OH NO!!! NOT OK!!!
must control women! (because that's what this is about, you know... allowing religious institutions to dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies)

i DO NOT need YOU or anyone else to 'direct my moral compass'... i think i've got the bigger picture down pat...

RELIGION IS FOR THE NARROW MINDED!!!!!!!!!

Mom of 3 Blessings...

I sincerely hope, for your families sake (and EVERYONE else's sake) that the proposed guidelines are not adopted.

The suggested guidelines are not limited to abortion or dispensing the Pill. If this proposal is adopted, doctors (nurses, technicians, orderlies, etc.) could also refuse to treat you or your family...simply because they objected to your religious views or political ideology. Sure, in some cases the care will be given by someone else...but in an emergency, sometimes there's no other doctors available!!

What if the best teachers at your children's school had the right to opt out of teaching your kids for the same reason...or your favorite restaurants/stores/banks/etc. refused to serve you because of your sexual orientation or skin color?? Can you imagine a world where fire fighters and police could decide who they would help in an emergency...based solely on their own personal code.

Would you allow your children to "opt out" on following the rules of your home... if they simply weren't comfortable with them. Doubtful!

Nothing Bush does anymore surprises me. Nothing he has done since he was pushed into the office was a surprise either. The man clearly has his own agenda and it does not include anything that deters him from that goal (ie.. what is best for the country). The best thing I can say about it all is that at least I had nothing to do with it. I didn't put him there and am counting the days till he's no longer there. I do wonder what sort of protection this would give to atheists. (purely rhetorical thought) And I agree that if someone finds something objectionable about their job, perhaps it's time to make a change. Those who are opposed to birth control, etc might like it best if anyone who is forced to take a pregnancy to term drop the infant off on their doorstep. Let them feed, clothe and educate it for 18+ years. It's a real conversation stopper when you suggest to one of these idiots they might like to take that financial responsibility. Suddenly they are not so interested anymore, but that aside I am wondering just what is the hidden agenda behind this proposal. What things are we not being told? (remember WMDs in Iraq?) What truth will come out in the coming months and years? It is almost too scary to contemplate. Some of the comments here are amazing. They say no one is being denied anything. I guess they didn't fully read and/or comprehend what this is all about. If a hospital is denied federal funds, then yes, many people will be denied health care (something that is already at ghastly levels in this country). This is much farther reaching than just Women's health care. It will have a trickle down effect that spreads through out the health care industry. So those of you who think this is a great idea might want to consider just what it will mean if your local hospital loses it's federal funding. If you live in a community that only has one hospital... would you want to have to travel 200+ miles to find some place to get treatment just to prove a point?

You are welcome to your opinion. But don't try to force it on everyone else. Not all of us choose to be christians, or to believe what our church tells us to believe. And in this country, that concept is legal and welcomed. Fundamentalist folks are a very small, but very vocal minority in this country. It can become irritating when they believe that we all should think like them. Instead of trying to force your beliefs on others, why not tolerate and celebrate the diversity in this great country?

Why on earth does anyone think this law is "forcing a religious viewpoint on anyone else?" Look, I think this law is as unnecessary as the laws that started it, mainly states passing laws REQUIRING the dispension of Plan B because of a fear that some pharmacist wouldn't give it out for religious reasons. The people who wrote this article failed to mention that fact. Plan B isn't normal birth control, and if I have a moral objection to participating in abortions then I shouldn't be obligated to give out an abortion pill, anymore than I should be obligated to give a cancer patient a lethal dose of morphine. No doctor is required to participate in an abortion and most don't, even if they say they are pro-choice. Now, having said all that I also think Walgreens or any other pharmacy should be allowed to fire someone who won't do their job, and in fact they did fire 5 pharmacists in Chicago who refused to fill Plan B scrips. Problem solved, everyone relax, no one is forcibly converting anyone, they just don't want to fill a scrip so take it to someone who will.

You really want to talk about morals and Mr. President? Ok here we go. According to Christianity "Thou Shall Not Kill"

What about all the killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and capital punishment under his power? Can you justify this for him?

I like the fact that you have your opinion and make your decisions, but this country while founded by Christians, also was founded with the idea of separation of church and state. That to me is more important than your ignorant believes and that of the presidents. Remember, that the history of Christianity has also been very bloody!

don't come here talking about morals and how much better you are than others because God thinks so. Remember you to are a sinner and so is the President!

People like the President uses the idea of God to pass his policies. How wonderful is your God? Killing in the name of God?? How about that for Morals?

i agree with your idea of when life begins but i can not begin to agree with your idea of the birth control pill. do you realize that the birth control pill helps regulate women's periods, shortens the period, lessens the bleeding, and in many cases even helps with the pain and discomforts? i'm a 19 year old virgin who has been on the pill because of my severe periods since i was 12. & i will continue to be so until i am married and ready to have children. the pill is not just to stop women from becoming pregnant, it also stops women from being so miserable every month.

LMAO!! Fundamentalist folks who tolerate and celebrate diversity?? That's kind of like Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman.

Dear Kendra-401082,
I understand that The Pill helps millions of women with their menstration cycle, but that is where it should stop. The majority of Pills regulate ovulation, change the hormonal secretions to create an difficult environment for the fertilized egg to implant and also causes a period, even if the egg has implanted. I strongly urge you to NOT use the pill for family planning. I am glad that it works for your menstration cycle.

L Walker,

I was going through the comments reading before posting to see if anyone would hit on the exact cause of the problem. You nailed it. This has NOTHING to do with "morals", it has EVERYTHING to do with controlling (owning) women's bodies and their ability to give birth. That's the bottom line...ownership by those who consider themselves "elite" in some way (religiously, politically or simply through jealousy). This proposal is simply a back door, an open back door, to taking what little freedom and control women have over their own destinies, albeit cleverly masked. Freedom is not taken in one fell swoop, it is taken in increments beneath people's outright notice.

Life is about choice. The freedom to choose is paramount. If one chooses to have a child, it is one's choice. If one chooses NOT to have a child, it is one's choice. Likewise, it is up to the individual to CHOOSE what profession to go into in order to earn a living. If one doesn't like what is entailed in a chosen profession, choose another. It's incredibly simple! I KNOW it is simple, I've done it. This proposal is simply a loophole through which ever more freedom will be taken from women, freedom for which we have fought long and hard. It takes one as astute as you to see it. (I'm sure there are others!)

Hey, Mom of 3 Blessings -- this one is directed to you... As I stated before, many women take the Pill for reasons OTHER than Birth Control. Enjoy your blessings, keep them to yourself, and let us enjoy ours without your false prayers.

RELIGION IS FOR THE NARROW MINDED!!!!!!!!!

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dalai Lama are all far from narrow minded.

uhm...so does breastfeeding.

Mom of 3 Blessings- if you have a problem with the pill, then don't use it. Many women, like myself, use the pill for acne control, period regulation, and PMDD. Even if I was going to use the pill for birth control, no offense, but I don't need your or anyone else's religious beliefs in my government. There's a reason church and state are separated.

Deal with the problem or find another job?

Many more things go on in an OB/GYN's office than abortions and dispensing birth control. Any woman who has experienced any sort of "gyno problems", like endometriosis, cysts, and any issues with pregnancy, labor, and delivery knows more goes on at a lot of these places than what you all are describing----dispensing the pill, helping with abortions, etc.

Now, MDs, nurses, or other workers whose religious beliefs conflict with abortion and the possible "abortificant" properties of the pill, can have the freedom to follow what they feel their calling in life is---helping women with medical issues.

Yay, a healthcare worker who gets to tell me that I'm not to be served because I go against her religious beliefs! Yep, that'll help my medical issues.

"The point is why should healthcare providers be allowed to have an exception, such as "I'm sorry, I don't believe in birth control, so I can't serve you."

Because it's always been that way. Doctors have always had the right to refuse a patient for all kinds of reasons - like no insurance. This is just a reason you don't like. And your analogy is ridiculous. If someone thinks drinking is a sin, they wouldn't seek work in a liquor store. And of course if someone worked in a convenience store and refused to sell beer, they'd get fired, which is likely what would happen to a pharmacist who wouldn't fill a scrip. The truth is, this is an emotional issue and lots of people are overreacting. No doctor who wanted to work in a clinic helping the poor, underprivileged masses would be obligated to perform an elective abortion just because he's working in that clinic under CURRENT LAW. And despite current law, women can get abortions anyway, even in South Dakota. Or do you think the state of South Dakota should start coercing doctors to perform abortions just because there's only one provider in that state?

What's "always been that way" is doctors' obligation to follow the law, not their right to impose their religious beliefs on others. It's ridiculous to compare a doctor's right to refuse a patient for economic reasons (lack of insurance) to a doctor's right to not follow the law, simply because he doesn't believe in it. There are countries where the rule of law does not apply, so it's not like there aren't choices for people who prefer Sharia-type societies. Most Americans, thankfully, do not advocate for a society governed by religious law. We are fortunate enough to live in a country where separation between church and state is established, and we don't have to suffer the whims of every religious loony who thinks s/he knows what God wants for everybody else. As others have accurately pointed out, none of this is truly about religion. It's all about control. Bottom line, it's about men thinking they can control women, and seeking more ways to do it.

Control?? hes making it to where everyone will be having children one after another

Not quite.

I don't agree with this rule, but what this rule would do is not force people to have children. It would cut funding if hospitals, clinics, etc., THAT RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS don't allow those who morally object to dispensing certain types of reproductive health care to NOT provide it.

Again, I totally disagree with the rule, but please do read the entire article.

Yes, they are talking about federal funding, but do you know what that is? That is Medicaid and Medicare which set insurance standards for the industry. Almost every clinic and hospital in the country receive federal funding in that way, and in poorer areas, clinics and hospitals probably receive most of their funding from these programs. Have you ever worked with an insurance company? If there is a loophole to deny paying for something, they will take it. It is a slippery slope towards denying women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions and allowing others to do it for them. And what about religiously based institutions? Catholic Health Initiatives is a huge consortium of hospitals and may be the only option in many communities. If they are not at risk for losing their federal funding, the entire institution could then have policies that deny women access to birth control. This initiative is a step back in time. I love that this kind of thing never happens for Viagra.

This rule would not require you to give up anything. It affects health care providers that receive federal funding that do not allow workers who object on moral grounds to NOT dispense certain types of health care related to reproduction. Please do read the entire article.

Desertgirl, a person, male or female, deserves the right to medical care. That care is determined by the person and their DOCTOR. No one else should be able to overule that relationship and make or change a decision by refusing to fill a prescription for birth control or any other drug. It is not the right of the health care worker or pharmacist to make decisions for someone else.

I have worked in health care for 15 years. I have not had to participate in any "abortions" because that is not a field in which I chose to work. We all have choices. We also can get around most of these things if necessary. If there is something I find offensive, I may ask a coworker to perform that task. What I cannot do, if I am the only pharamasist, is decide if I will dispense a medication ordered by the PHYSICIAN.

What if the pharmasist objects to filling your childs antibiotics- Is that ok too? Should we let pharmasist or other health care workers dictitate medical care that is available to the public?

I know this in not a pharmacy only related issue, but I think it has been inspired by the laws forcing pharmasists to dispense prescribed drugs. Let's keep our religious beliefs out of our medical care.

" know this in not a pharmacy only related issue, but I think it has been inspired by the laws forcing pharmasists to dispense prescribed drugs. Let's keep our religious beliefs out of our medical care."

ARE YOU NUTS??? Who the hell are you to tell someone to keep their religious beliefs OUT of something? You're worried about your rights being violated, but you don't have problems violating someone else's rights? Why do you think this ridiculous law has been proposed to begin with? What next, requiring doctors to perform elective abortions? Or maybe requiring doctors to write perscriptions for lethal drugs for dying patients that make that request? Why do you think some people go into medicine? Because of their religious beliefs that they should be helping people, you want to keep those religious beliefs out of medicine, too? Think about what you are saying!

T. Bourlon, if you work in the medical field, GET OUT. If you don't, don't get sick, because if I for some reason find you morally repugnant, or just repugnant, under this new rule interpretation, I reserve the right to refuse you service.

My rights deal with my choices and your rights deal with your choices - your rights do not deal with my choices. It is not violating your rights to expect you to stay out of my business and not make my choices for me. That's just common sense. You butting into my business is a violation of my rights.

Your religious beliefs shouldn't be IN any of my decision-making to begin with, so don't tell me it's ridiculous to want them out.

And yes, people do go into medicine because they want to help people. But it's not always connected to religion. That's the thing that people are missing. Not everything is connected to religion, not for everyone.

t bourlon- I do not have to share in your religious beliefs nor abide by them. So if you are uncomfortable with something don't do it, yet do not try to force me or the general public to follow your religious zealotry. Be as religious as you want just keep it to yourself and your church. That is your right, it is mine to choose my own belief and religion.

And your assertion that doctors could be "required" to perform abortions etc is off base. I do not have a problem with any one not participating in a procedure they are uncomfortable with- I have done this in my field. Yet, a pharmacist's refusal to provide prescribed medication because of their personal belief is unconscionable. If you are so devout you cant prescribe birth control, maybe you should choose a different field.

The constitution guarantees religious freedom and separation of church and state.

We are not a theocracy.

Yes, except that Plan B straddles the line between birth control and abortion. Before it came along, all pharmacists did was fill scrips. Now if they dispense Plan B, they are involved in something that they've never been involved in before. I can see why some of them would have a problem with Plan B. Beyond that I think everyone is overreacting. Besides, your analogy is wrong. NO doctor or nurse is obligated to perform abortions, or nose jobs, or gastric bypass, or any other medical procedure just because a patient wants it done. You don't lose your right to decide what you want to do just because you go into medicine.