I usually enjoy your articles but I think you are a little off on this one. Particular people (Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists) are being forced by company policies to perform activities which they find morally objectionable and for some of these people to be in direct violation of an oath they swore to uphold. These people believe the baby in the womb is a person and deserves protection as such, they believe this morally and/or principally and choice to stand by this. They are then being disciplined and/or threatened if they do not perform the “medical procedure” of what they believe to be equivalent to murder.

I know of two doctors and several nurses that choose to work at a particular hospital at lower pay then they have been offered in other locations because they know that this particular hospital will not force them to do or discipline them for not doing abortions.

We have no problem backing left wing policy to protect a persons right to express there “s.e.x.u.al.ity” in the work place and their “right” to p.e.e. in the bathroom they prefer. However when it is some right wing policy standing up for the rights of a person to be protected it is bunk and wasteful tom-foolery?

You are off base on this one.

I am astounded that you should implicitly object to individuals who, in all good conscience, decide on moral grounds NOT to be part of a particular procedure ie. abortion. A significant amount of people view abortion as murder of unborn babies. Would you expect someone who didn’t believe in capital punishment to partake in the execution of another human being? No, of course not! The same moral objection applies to the extinguishing the lives of unborn babies!

JC

JC: don’t be astounded. Re-read it, keeping in mind that I’m making reference to abortion providers not feeling safe because their clinic might get bombed.

Kevin: see above.

As for job protection, that’s a totally different matter. In `right to work’ states (like mine-PA), you can be fired for just about anything, provided you’re not a protected minority. For Bush to ask for protections for this one group is sheer hypocrisy (nothing new for this administration).

I figure it should be the same for everyone across the board, regardless of persuasion or beliefs.

Dammit, now you’ve given me more ideas for another blog. I hope you guys are happy :)

Seriously, thanks for reading and commenting.

I guess the confusion comes from your comment being so far removed from the topic of the original article. I did not see any reference to bombs or bomb threats as a protection offered in these requirements. I also live in a “right-to-fire” state as I like to call it in OR. Show up on time for work and they can no longer have need of your services. We are not even talking about doctors who are hired to work at an abortion hospital refusing to perform them.

We are talking about people who have studied for years and many who have a sincere desire to help and care for others that are suffering not being able to do the job they are called to because the won’t do something the find morally wrong. This is the protection they are looking for.

We already have laws that protect abortion hospitals from being bombed. Doesn’t stop it from happening but it does provide consequences to those who choose this approach This is a way to place consequences on getting rid of qualified professionals that simply want to practice an oath they spent 8+ years earning/learning the way to follow - do no harm!

As for ‘harming’ you with a head full of ideas I am sorry to say I am not sorry for that because I look forward to reading the entries!!

You have not lost a reader just one who is providing his 2 cents.

Kevin: as I mentioned in the new post, it seems to come down to how you feel about several different aspects of employment law.

Some would argue that the doctor knew full well what the job responsibilities were when he signed on.

Some would say the gov’t has no business in this equation.

Others would argue that it’s the employer’s decision only.

I mention these things because I seem to be stuck with a number of conflicting views at one time.
——

I’m glad you’ll keep coming by and I hope you’ll keep putting in your two bits. Anyone who will admit to reading this blog more than once has to be encouraged (or submit himself for a behavioral health assessment).

You are assuming I am not writing from inside a behavioral health clinic!!

Kevin: you are assuming that I am not BLOGGING from inside a behavioral health clinic.

Actually I’m not far from it. Don’t forget to visit my section on dissociation.