?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Obama

Freedom of choice (medical professionals need not apply)

Does the freedom to choose extend to medical professionals? Or should such choices only be afforded to those with less medical training and experience? And, if that's the case, is anyone starting to notice how ludicrous this is? As expected, the Obama administration has waited just over a month after the inauguration to begin weighing in on the matter.

In all other cases, I thought it was a good idea for medical professionals to be exercising their best judgment. Apparently, I may have been mistaken. Courtesy the new administration, U.S. tax dollars can now be channeled to promote and provide abortions around the globe, but if a trained medical professional can't in good conscience perform an abortion (which should tell us something about the territory we're in), well, they might just need a nudge from the government to get with the program/pogrom. And of course, "the administration is looking for input from people across the ideological spectrum before it finalizes the rollback after the standard 30-day comment period," so maybe I'm just overly concerned because I'm one of those reactionary, narrow-minded, single-issue voters.

But, as I've been so often encouraged to do, I have hope. I hope I'm wrong. We'll see in 30 days or so, and God will still be sovereign then.

Comments

I talked with a doctor I work with recently, and learned it does extend to medical professionals.
Yes: the linked story from the Tribune says it extends to medical professionals now, but suggests that policy is set to be changed by the current administration. Does that match the account given by your doctor? Or did your conversation lead you to believe something different from what the article suggests? I'm interested to hear the connection.
I'm certainly not surprised by any of this - but gosh, am I saddened by it.
What stuns me is that I think there will be people who are surprised, and I don't understand how that's even possible. From a policy perspective, this was far from a hidden agenda—agree or disagree, this has been on the table the whole time. So to not see it coming only seems possible if one is willfully ignoring the policy stances of this administration.

I have heard from a lot of Obama supporters that they just hoped he wouldn't do it. They just...hoped he wouldn't. I guess they hoped he was lying? But no - that can't be. DOT DOT DOT.

I mean, he was all about hope. He was filled and covered with it. But still - to just "hope he won't" seemed a bit naive to me. And sure enough! It was.
I've got to disagree with you on this one. The "Conscience Rule" has only been in place since mid-January. It was thrown together at the last minute by the previous administration and it was poorly written. It needs to be revised.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20081219/new-conscience-rule-controversy
Reading the WebMD article doesn't raise any new concerns for me about the "Conscience Rule"—I was familiar with its timing, and none of the implications mentioned are problems that seem (to me) to require federal intervention (I'm sure people who disagree said the same when the Bush administration implemented the rule).

I don't want to be critical of a policy that hasn't been yet been fully crafted, and I know we're not there yet. So, we'll see. But it'd require more ignorance than I have to believe the Obama administration doesn't have a strong leaning in one direction that's been both articulated and demonstrated on numerous occasions. I'm not a fan of that direction's implication on people like chippa's wife. If medicine were socialized, then I could see the federal government taking a more direct approach. But in a free market, not to mention under the rallying cry of "choice," I don't like the possibility of limiting the choices available to the most trained professionals in order to support the current administration's stance.
I don't want to Chippa's wife or my sister to be forced to perform any procedure they object to either. Call me naive, but I don't believe that to be the administration's intent with a revision of this rule.
I agree—I don't think either administration intended/intends harm. I wish intent was all it took.
and God will still be sovereign then...

... and maybe a little pissed.
Hopefully we won't soon lose our freedom to mention that possibility. Lord, have mercy.
Niiiiiice.
Thanks for posting this, Lee.

Some women want choice in other ways

Some women like to know they have an OB who hasn't performed abortions. Some women also like to know that when they are being treated for miscarriage, they will not be pushed aside in their grief. A fear I have with this is that good baby catching doctors will decide to be eye doctors or something. Women will then have less choices when it comes to who they pay for services when they have a child...in some places nurse midwives are not so common and women generally then have to choose between OB/family doctor.

What of the doctor who isn't trained to do late term abortions, how will that work? Will all docs have to be trained in this too just to meet the requirement that they can treat any woman who comes in wanting abortion?