Christian Forums

Shouldn't Doctors Have the Right to Choose Too?

Poll: Americans Want Obama to Keep Abortion Conscience Clause in Place Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new national poll of Americans finds a strong majority want President Barack Obama to keep conscience protections in place for doctors and medical centers. The president is considering rescinding the protections the Bush administration adopted to enforce three federal conscience laws. The protections make it more clear and provide support for doctors or medical facilities that feel pressured to participate in abortions.

The Polling Company conducted a poll from March 23-25 with 800 Americans adults and found 87 percent believe it is important to "make sure that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections."

Support for this protection garnered considerable intensity as well, with 65% of respondents considering it very essential. The Polling Company survey also found 80 percent of people who backed Obama in the 2008 presidential elections support the conscience protections. Without mentioning Obama's name, another question told respondents that the federal government is considering rescinding the protections. Opposition to revocation of the conscience protection rule outpaced support by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (62% vs. 30%). Some 44 percent of adults were strongly opposed to removing the protections while just 17 percent strongly supported it. Full story at LifeNews.com (http://lifenews.com/nat4975.html)

Only think I have problem with is the wording. They should change the

participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections

to


participate in abortions to which they have moral objections


I dont want a doctor not giving me an operation because he doesn't like taking out kidneys.

I'm pretty sure the only thing my doctor objects too is not getting paid. :)

There's no apparent reason to do away with these protections. It's not like there is a shortage of doctors willing to perform patient requested abortions. It may just be that Obama wants to void or recend anything he perceives Bush did to appease the religious right.

Just a question, but when it comes to religous moral objections, where does one draw the line or should they all be protected? If not, why one and not  another?

Many doctors object to performing medically unnecessary procedures. The reasons for their objections are not exclusively religious. Many are concerned with PR, Medical Ethics, Legal, etc.  No doctor should be forced by the government to perform any medically unnecessary procedure.

My opposition to abortion, is not only religious, but scientific. A strong scientific case can be made for reducing the limit to 8-12 weeks, and only then in certain circumstances. Along with proper birth control and education, there is really no excuse.

The law plays a big role in the overall issue. Does your legally required Birth Certificate show the date you were conceived?  :)

Maybe Obama ought to combine this law with the one that throws out the secret ballot in union elections. He could offend both ends of the political spectrum at the same time.

And I wouldn't want a doctor operating on me only because he had to.

Exactly. You should see the studies showing the quality of work difference between people who do it because they want too and those who do it because they have too. Not good.

As I understand it, the Church Amendment exempted private hospitals receiving federal funds from any requirement to provide abortions or sterilizations when they objected on "the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions" and that nearly every state subsequently enacted similar legislation.  The conscience clause extended this beyond abortion and sterilization to contraception, fertility treatments, end-of-life care, and other health-care services.  The fact that this is not an "abortion conscience clause" is made clear by the fact that doctors were not being forced to perform abortions before it was enacted in the last days of Bush's presidency.

Obama loves abortion and he doesn't want anything even slightly impeding it.  He once argued in Illinois that it is unconstitutional to require medical staff to try to save the life of abortion survivors.  He is a sicko.

You don't need a birth certificate to determine the conception date of a fetus.  Any qualified medical practitioner can determine how many weeks pregnant a woman is.

love,

sopranette

There may still be a lot of doctors who are willing to perform abortions, but the numbers are dropping.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-16-abortion-rates_N.htm

From a pro choice site:

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html

love,

sopranette

...and a whole crop of new ones are graduating medical school in a couple weeks. :)

Maybe the newer graduates feel more strongly about the whole "first do no harm" thing.  Seems like they do, since more and more of them have no interest in learning how to do elective abortions.

love,

sopranette

I guess if doctors get a conscience they suddenly morph into the lumbering blood sucking leviathan known as the Religious Right. ;-)

No excuse such as "the right of the individual to do as he or she pleases with his or her body"?

What about the right to life for the unborn, exau?

love,

sopranette

Legally, that right doesn't exist at this time.

"At this time" is key here, 1L.

love,

sopranette

bump....

Just a question, but when it comes to religious moral objections, where does one draw the line or should they all be protected? If not, why one and not  another?

Correct, the fight for life continues. 

I would think any doctor for any reason could and should have the right to refuse to perform a proceedure on religious moral objections. Did I understand your question correctly? Sometimes I read like I type!