You are not logged in.
Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to Be Voided <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html" target=_top>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.html</a> <BR> <BR>I you are a nurse in a hospital that performs abortions, and you have been able to bow out in the past from doing these procedures, heads up, and watch Mr. Obama carefully???
Offline
Under the Bush rules you, Bob, couldn't fire a worker that refused to provide anti-seizure medication on religious grounds. If the employee still believed the Biblical theory that seizures were the result of sin or demon possession then you would lose the tax-free bond status, among other government perks, unless you let them deny care. <BR> <BR>The rule was stupid, is stupid, and will continue to be stupid, impractical, and unworkable. <BR> <BR>Yesterday the Jehovah's Witnesses came by the door. Am I to believe that if one of those idiots was working in the ER and I needed a blood transfusion he couldn't be fired for refusing to give me a transfusion on "religious grounds"?
Offline
The rule helped a lot of liberal individuals that did not want to participate in abortions. <BR> <BR>No one objected to giving seizure medicine so the rule didn't apply. <BR> <BR>Usually more than one person available to give a blood transfusion. <BR> <BR>Ryan this poster need not use the words stupid or idiot to get his point across. I would ask you to deal with him in a manner befitting your postion.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">Ryan this poster need not use the words stupid or idiot to get his point across.</font> <BR> <BR>Those are my personal opinions Bob. <BR> <BR>I believe that the rule is stupid and that JW's are idiots similar to my belief that stoning for adultery is stupid and that fundamentalist muslims are idiots. <BR> <BR>Should I retrieve the thesaurus and look for synonyms which are more pleasing to you, Bob?
Offline
Sorry, no DI participant: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Eighty years after "The Origin of Species," evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky acknowledged there was still no hard evidence connecting microevolution and macroevolution. Unfortunately, since only microevolution can be observed within a human lifetime, Mr. Dobzhansky wrote, "We are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit." <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/happy-darwin-day/" target=_top>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/ha ppy-darwin-day/</a>
Offline
Do u know what thread you are on?
Offline
Thanks Neal, and welcome back.
Offline
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01jacoby.html?ref=opinion8pagewanted=all" target=_top>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01jacoby .html?ref=opinion8pagewanted=all</a> <BR> <BR>Questions the advisability of allowing church-sponsored organizations to receive government funding for private charitable work. Does it stretch the constitution?
Offline
Some faith based organizations can save money and be more efficient. However, the faith group needs to be able to keep their identity, what made them great, like the RCC not adopting to Gays, and other rule they have that if forced to go against are no longer an attractive supplier of services. <BR>IMO. <BR> <BR>Elaine are you for all hospitals not being faith based. I know the RCC hospitals here are wondering what they will do if Obama forces them to perform abortions. The service quality in the area will be worse for it, if they get out of the business because of that decision. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on March 01, 2009)
Offline
As you know, there are a lot of SDA hospitals in Central California. I feel certain that they are in compliance with all the federal and state laws, as they should be. No insitution that accepts government money, as hospitals must, can flout the laws governing medical institutions. If they wish to do so, they forefeit the money, and as you are well aware, it is impossible to function without receiving government monies.
Offline
There will be a howl and an uproar if Obama pushes too hard to make faith based hospitals like the RCC system to perform abortions.
Offline
Nobody is trying to make anybody force hospitals to aid women with their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY. <BR> <BR>But, that being said, nobody is forcing them to stay tax-exempt either.
Offline
Are you having a nice day, Neal???
Offline