Part-Time Pundit

What a bunch of crap!!

I hope these murderous Bastards come to their senses before they feel the heat from below!

Great post!

Your first comment is obviously another typical Christian. Professionals who do not wish to perform services against their faith are not forced to do so. They have numerous options including the right to refuse any activity that violates their belief. No one has advocated forcing a physician for example, to perform abortions if they do not desire to do so. On the other hand, if hospitals want to accept public funding, then they must offer the option. Get it? No one hospital is being forced to offer any procedure, they can make their own choices, and like like, the choices they make have consequences.
In the case of pharicists who refuse who give drugs to citizens, they can quit if they do not wish to do their jobs, and the sooner the better.

RESPONSE:

The official name for this is called "viewpoint discrimination" and it's unconstitutional. But you are proving my point, if you don't make the right choices you get punished.

"Abortion advocates are in a fight over the current HHS appropriations bill and whether hospitals, doctors, and medical personnel can be forced to be involved in abortion or risk losing any federal funds they may receive."

You are completely backwards on what this article says. From the article: "It prohibits agencies that receive federal dollars from discriminating against medical personnel or agencies that don't want to be involved in abortions." What is under debate is whether those agencies/personel should be required to refer patients desiring abortions to other agencies/personel that provide them.

"If you're religious not only do they not want to allow you the choice to follow your conscience, they want to prevent your choice of profession."

You are completely backwards again! It is one's beliefs that make certain professions inappropriate for them. If you are a Scientologist who doesn't believe in drug treatments, you shouldn't be a pharmacist. If you are a Christian totally opposed to divorce, you shouldn't be a judge in a family court. If you don't agree with violating the Christian sabbath in any way, you probably shouldn't try to join the NFL. There are probably hundreds of areas of medicine where one would NEVER have ANYTHING to do with abortion, if one is that opposed to it, choose from those areas.

RESPONSE:

It's perfectly possible to be a doctor and never have to do abortions, it's not exactly a primary job function and in fact they ARE making the choice... the don't want to do abortions, so they DON'T work as abortion practioners. They have made the choice by not working at Planned Parenthood. There is no reason to kick Christians out of medicine simply because they made a choice to enter the medical profession and not align themselves with NARAL.

Great Article. I agree completly with you. Being a professional, Doctors have expectations to complete a job. So I can understand the argument that they are expected to do all parts of the job. What the pro choice advocates fail to understand is that abortion is not cut and dry. It is not another duty to be performed by a professional. It is a moral and ethical decision regarding the soul and creation of life. It is a belief in the murder of an unborn child is ok.

Doctors should have the right to refuse without any impact to their funding or creditability as a professional.

RESPONSE:

And doctors routinely refuse procedures on a variety of grounds. For instance, you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor that would let a woman deliver naturally after having had a C-section. It's part of the business to choose how you perform and what services you perform within reasonable guidelines.

Your point is "if you don't make the right choices you get punished?" If I hire you to perform a task and you refuse... guess what, you're durn tootin' I'm not going to pay you. You refuse to comply with the desires of the vast majority of bill paying Americans who endorse a woman's right to control her own body? Well right again, our duly elected representatives in government have complied with our wishes and desires, and you lose again. Don't like it? There's a heck of a bunch of theocracies out there to choose from that agree with your desire to control the most basic bodily functions of others without their consent.
Whine all you want about how unfair it is that we don't comply with your fringe minority opinions, but don't get hurt when we laugh.
The Supreme Court decides what is and is not unconstitutional. Got a case? How can I discuss it if you don't provide a name or reference? Please be so kind as to explain when the laws governing the reimbursement for hospitals were overturned by the Supremes, and give me a "Smith v Alaska" or "whatever" citation. Don't have one? Well, I guess everyone has an opinion, but they also generally have two elbows. So who cares?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: