Christianists vs.Patient Rights

One would think that if an individual had religious beliefs - no matter how whacked out and self-absorbed - that they would simply change jobs if their legitimate, legal work duties required them to undertake actions that went counter to their alleged Medieval religious beliefs. But no, not the Christianists. They are attempting to have the Chimperator's anti-science, anti-rights of others cretin regime promulgate new rules that would punish health care providers that do not allow the religious fanatic set to disregard work requirements. These folks act more like the Taliban every day even as they lie, cheat, and shake down the unwary for money. As I had said many times before, with the Christianists, it's ALL about them. F*ck everyone else's rights. Their rights take priority over all others. They are, in my view, a shamelessly self-centered and disingenuous group who give Christianity an ever increasingly bad name. I continue to believe that unrestrained Christian fundamentalism is a clear and present danger to the nation and the individual rights of other citizens. Not surprisingly CWA and FRC support the regulations. Here are highlights from the Washington Post about the latest delusional Chimperator backed efforts to subvert the rights of most Americans and their doctors to make health care decisions:

*

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.

*

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

*

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

*

"This is causing a lot of distress," said one NIH researcher who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. "It's a redefinition of abortion that does not match any of the current medical definitions. It's ideologically based and not based on science and could interfere with the development of many new therapies to treat diseases." Since a copy of the document leaked earlier this month, outside advocates and scientists have voiced growing alarm that the regulation could inhibit research in areas including stem cells, infertility and even such unrelated fields as cancer.

*
The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.

*

Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said, "At a time when access to health care is at an all-time low, the idea that the Bush administration would be creating more barriers is frankly incredible." The regulation could trump dozens of state laws that require health plans to cover birth control, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and hospitals to offer emergency contraception to women who have been raped, critics said.

*

Others said the rule could have additional implications, including justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking health care.

*

Can't we round these nutcases up and ship them to Afghanistan and Iran instead? They certainly share the same Taliban-like mindset and perhaps the two groups would exterminate each other.