These folks should have gone into some other profession if they are unwilling to provide standard of care to their patients as outlined by their licensing board the AMA .watch obama go along with this though.

....I don't understamd why someone would go into any profession with the attitude that they would do the job the way that they want and not the way the employer wants. Are they not getting paid to do what the employer wants? to me that's like a contract. in an exaggeration of this, if your employer wanted you to burn down your co workers home, you would not accept the job. Or, if you were already employed you probably might quit or perhaps turn them in to the athorities. In this case why should everything be changed for them? They sound like prima donnas who can't get along with other people............perhaps mommy and daddy shouldn't have always given them their way every time they fussed......

watch obama go along with this though.

#1 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Yes, because Obama hates religion.

Sincerely

Newt Gingrich

Given the severe shortage of nurses and ObGyn docs, hospitals and medical providers have an important decision to make: give up abortions, or risk seeing your personnel take a hike and a job elsewhere.

Suits me fine either way. If you're working for a company that provides abortions and that doesn't sit well with you, work somewhere they don't. And if that hospital can't find enough doctors willing to suck an unborn child through a vacuum, it'll go out of business. Everybody wins.

And if that hospital can't find enough doctors willing to suck an unborn child through a vacuum, it'll go out of business.

Yeah, because abortions are the big money makers for hospitals.

Not.
I expect the righties will apply the same standard as they did with the muslim deli woman who refused to handle pork.

Maybe we should start bombing clinics that don't perform abortions.

Absurd huh?

YEAH..........................

I expect the righties will apply the same standard as they did with the muslim deli woman who refused to handle pork.

#5 | Posted by northguy3

Just thought that should be posted again.

And again and again........

Dimwitted xtians need to learn to like abortions or do something else.

Who do you know that "likes" abortions, Jackass?

Well I have got to say that we shouldn't be forcing anyone to do something that goes against their conscience.

But if that is going to be the case, I think that these medical professionals should be required to post their beliefs in a public manner as to be evaluated prior to any patient visit.

If you are an OBGYN who doesn't perform abortions, you must make your position known to the public.

Who do you know that "likes" abortions, Jackass?
#9 | POSTED BY CORKY

Plenty of my friends were pretty happy after their gf's had abortions. We went out a celebrated that he won't be paying child support.

I agree with MP at #10

#11 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-04-09 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag: offensive

Not in my eyes Nanc

Well I have got to say that we shouldn't be forcing anyone to do something that goes against their conscience.

But if that is going to be the case, I think that these medical professionals should be required to post their beliefs in a public manner as to be evaluated prior to any patient visit.

If you are an OBGYN who doesn't perform abortions, you must make your position known to the public.

#10 | Posted by Manypaths

I suggest a new group of friends, maybe with a little more maturity.

Bubba said abortions should be legal, safe and rare.

I think it has changed emphasis now to rare, safe, and legal.

Pretty shitty, but that's MP for ya.

What would be so wrong with that?

Nothing it all. That's why I suggested it.

Thanks Cork!

Doctors don't need to worry about what the govt says. With the shortage of OBGYNs and high malpractice ins as a barrier to entry every employer will do what is necessary to keep even the objectionable docs on the payrole.

Nothing it all. That's why I suggested it.

#19 | Posted by Manypaths

Hey I wasn't condecending. I just answered your question.

That way a patient can choose what kind of obgyn they want and the obgyns can keep their consciences

May work for private practice, but what about in hospitals?

"Other issues covered by the regulation include embryonic stem cell research and contraception."

So a taxpayer funded doctor can refuse to issue or even discuss birth control with a patient. That's just retarded.

So a taxpayer funded doctor can refuse to issue or even discuss birth control with a patient. That's just retarded.

If you choose not to provide all of the information available, you're not providing complete care. You shouldn't be paid as if you were.

It is dishonest to the patient to conceal information or force them to pay for incomplete medical advice.

So a taxpayer funded doctor can refuse to issue or even discuss birth control with a patient. That's just retarded.

#24 | Posted by northguy3

So a taxpayer funded doctor can refuse to issue or even discuss birth control with a patient. That's just retarded.

Not if the preface the visit with the information that they will not discuss those issues.

My masseuse doesn't discuss acupuncture when I see her for a sore back. I'm ok with that.

Bush, in his usual cowardly fashion, changed the rules in the last days of his administration. If the previous rules were such a hardship, why didn't he change them earlier? Because they weren't a hardship, that's why.

It the principle of forcing people to do something NG.

I do not think that we should force women that get knocked up to carry the fetus to term and deliver it. I just don't think man should have that power over his fellow man.

So how could one who feels that way, also want to force medical professionals to perform the act?

Pro-Choice isn't just for the Pregnant woman.

Or is it in your mind.

But if that is going to be the case, I think that these medical professionals should be required to post their beliefs in a public manner as to be evaluated prior to any patient visit.

That works for most situations. Any medical professional should be required to inform a patient up-front of all procedures he or she won't perform because of "moral objections".

The problem crops up when someone goes to a doctor for medical advice, not a procedure. If you don't want to perform an abortion, then you should be free not to - that's not an issue. If you are providing incomplete information to a patient because you don't like abortions, you are a shit. If you refuse to discuss the HPV vaccine with a family because you think there is no risk of HPV as long as you are abstinent, you are a shit. If you refuse to accurately answer a patient's questions, you're... you catch my drift.

The point is, when the doctor and patient are interacting, the doctor isn't going to say, "what I'm telling you is biased and inaccurate because of my religious beliefs".

ManyPath's solution would cover that scenario. I'm afraid that MP is simply smarter than you.

Again, what about in a hospital setting? And do you mean the Pope gets to set medical care standards for American hospitals? can a doctor refuse a life-saving blood transfusion as a Seventh Day Adventist?
If a jew comes in needing heart surgery, can a muslim doctor say I don't treat jews?
Or women? I really doubt if that happened that everybody would be supporting that "conscience" choice.

NG,

I see your point.

But if your wife, sister or daughter was in a position where abortion was deemed the best solution, would you want a doctor that didn't believe in the practice to be forced to carry it out?

I sure wouldn't. I would want that doctor to tell me his/her beliefs and allow us to select a doctor that doesn't share them.

would you want a doctor that didn't believe in the practice to be forced to carry it out?

He/she shouldn't be in a position where there would be force. However, refusing to perform a legal procedure, giving a transfusion or even discussing condoms, in a public facility is wrong.

The arguments against allowing medical professionals to obey their consciences are silly. There's no shortage of abortion doctors.. there's huge money in it.. (abortion is mostly about money.. not rights) and abortion is an elective.. its not like they're denying a heart procedure.. not to mention, that many doctors consider it murdering babies..

There's no real medical reason for doing it.. the original Roe V Wade ruling initially allowed abortion to protect mother's health, but subsequent rulings have eroded that to say that if she wants it, then her health is in danger..

Abortion rights are based (wrongly in my opinion, but nonetheless it's present law) on a woman's right to privacy.. What about the physicians right to privacy? The privacy of his faith?

The nutleft (and those are the only people pushing this) are going to lose this one.. and they should. Liberals should (and many do) oppose this as vigorously as conservatives. Its a denial of a doctor's basic rights to be a person of faith, and of individual liberty to "pursue happiness".. Write your congressperson and ask them to oppose this.

Aren't most hospitals private these days?

Aren't most hospitals private these days?

MANYPATHS, I used to think banks and automobile companies were.. silly me..

NMG- so they don't have to discuss birth control, or blood transfusions or treat patients with a different religion or skin color? As for right to privacy, there's no right to privacy in a public place.

As for "losing", I expect Obama will dump Bush's asskissing gift to the evanjihadists:
Though a number of "provider protection" laws have been on the books for decades, some doctors complained they weren't being enforced. So just before he left office, President Bush enacted a federal regulation calling for better enforcement and mandating that some medical schools and employers actually certify their compliance in writing.

"They are very broad. They are broader than any kind of rule that has existed on the subject before," said Judy Waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "They are very heavy handed, and I would be guessing, but I think that they were ideologically motivated."

Many-they may be privately owned but they function as public facilities.

As for right to privacy, there's no right to privacy in a public place.

Northguy3.. Abortion rights are based entirely on the privacy clause.. and abortions are performed in public hospitals.. all privacy rights don't evaporate when you enter a public place.. a street is a public place, and you have plenty of privacy rights there..

I know this argument keeps getting couched in terms other than abortion, but that's the real argument. Abortion is the sacrament of the far left.. but plenty of americans feel its immoral. Some of them happen to be very talented doctors, and they should NOT have to perform what they think in good conscience are immoral procedures. And, there's no over-riding public health reason to make them. (Its not the same as refusing to give drugs to a black person because he's black.. that argument is often used but it's specious. )

I think any liberal should fight for that Doctor's right to live according to his conscience.

NG3,

Hospitals would have to be different however for every doctor in a hospital that would refuse an abortion I bet they have another Dr. somewhere in the building who can and will. So your just kinda throwing that in the mix to confuse things.

I just don't understant why this needs to be legislated. My neurologist was against me being in a clinical trial I wanted to be in it so I signed up without her, she tried to make it very difficult for me so I fired her and found a new doctor.

Not every doc is going to agree with every paitent about everything. Frankly why would you want a doctor preforming a procedure they objected to on you? If you piss off the workers in MickyD's you get your food spit in, do you really want to piss off a doctor performing a surgical procedure on you?

I suggest that the next time nmg no has a broken arm, that he should get treatment by a doctor that who believes that it's god will that people with his affliction have their penis's removed and surgically grafted up their assholes.

Nobody's saying the doctor shouldn't live according to his conscience, just that he can't impose that on the people he's supposed to serve. If you had a vegetarian waitress refuse to serve you a steak, would you just go with the arugula? If a bomber pilot decides he likes flying, but not dropping bombs, would you say let him fly along with his buddies, but with no bombs on board? If a soldier refuses to fight, are you okay with that and keeping on the government payroll?

The real rationale is that the anti-birth control/anti-abortion groups have failed in their attempts to convince the public, so they're now trying to backdoor their morality onto everyone. There are plenty of catholic hospitals where they can work if they don't want to do perform certain legal procedures. Or they can work in their own clinics.

Straw Men are not valid arguments

NO one opposing making it illegal for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion has suggested that he should be able to refuse to treat a broken arm. Yet that line of arguing appears over and over.

Straw Men are used by people that don't really have an argument..

Aren't they?

Tao-suppose you and your family are in a car accident and your kid is bleeding to death. You get to the hospital and the Seventh Day Adventist doctor says, sorry he died because I don't do blood transfusions. You shake his hand and congratulate him on his moral decision?

I suppose all these moral medical people would let a patient die rather than treat them on the sabbath...

for every doctor in a hospital that would refuse an abortion I bet they have another Dr. somewhere in the building who can and will.

Not really.

"According to the American Hospital Association, there were 5,801 hospitals in the United States in 2001. However, a 2001-2002 study by the Guttmacher Institute identified only 603 hospitals that provided abortions in 2001."2

You get to the hospital and the Seventh Day Adventist doctor says, sorry he died because I don't do blood transfusions

You are setting up a scenario every bit as ridiculous as any da bOoB sets up. What are the chances that someone is going to spend all the time and money it takes to become an MD and not treat people? How long is he going to stay on the hospital's payroll?

Goatman-
Are you saying people should be fired for obeying their conscience or God?

I think GM is saying people should be fired for not generating revenue regardless of how big their God's dick is.

What are the chances that someone is going to spend all the time and money it takes to become an MD and not treat people?

Only not treat them in some ways, according to his conscience. The whole gist of the Bush regulation is he'd have that right and his job would be protected.

Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.

More conscience in action. Can't talk about evil birth control-Pope wouldn't like it.

Are you saying people should be fired for obeying their conscience or God?

???

Did it look like I said that?

Goat-up or down-would you support a Seventh day Adventist doctor refusing to give a patient a life saving transfusion?

up or down-would you support a Seventh day Adventist doctor refusing to give a patient a life saving transfusion?

Of course not. It's like the Muslim chick who refused to scan pork products in the checkout line of the supermarket. If you don't like the aspects of your job, get another one. Why should your boss and his company have to accomodate your silly superstitions?

"Straw Men are not valid arguments "

Not true!

Sincerely,
Joe

NG,

Your scenerio would fall under neglegent homicide.

That really doesn't compare with the abortion choice.

Now, if a doctor refused to give an abortion that was neccessary to save the mother's life then it may be, but that is the extreme case and I don't think we are talking about the extreme case here.

MKost people who are against abortion understand the need for it if the mother's life is at risk.

Goat-up or down-would you support a Seventh day Adventist doctor refusing to give a patient a life saving transfusion?

#53 | Posted by northguy3

Now, here's a question for you: Do you take the blood transfusion you can't get from a 7th Day Adventist, or the miracle cure you saw in your email folder you CAN get to.

Only not treat them in some ways, according to his conscience.

#50 | Posted by northguy3

When was abortion considered a "life-saving procedure", like every single example you posted? Over 95% of abortions in America are elective. When you can prove that these Drs are refusing to save someone's life, and there are no other options for these folks, then you've got an argument. All your other strawmen are pointless.

If a plastic surgeon refused to do nose-jobs, I'd find another doctor, not try to legislate that that doctor perform a procedure they aren't willing to perform.

Goat-up or down-would you support a Seventh day Adventist doctor refusing to give a patient a life saving transfusion?
#53 | Posted by northguy3

Northguy-up ot down-would you accept the doctor that performs transfusions that you can't get to or the Seventh Day Adventist that you can get to?

#57 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-09 04:48 PM

#59 | Posted by bartimus at 2009-04-09 04:52 PM

D'oh! You beat me! I think that'll be the new statement posted anytime someone on the DR requests an "up or down" response!

It's one thing if a doctor refuses to perform an approved procedure that is necessary to save a patient's life. It's another thing to be unwilling to do certain procedures. If you want something done, you can find another doctor who doesn't have the same objections.

I think any liberal should fight for that Doctor's right to live according to his conscience.

#39 | Posted by nmg_no at 2009-04-09 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I absolutely support their right to live according to whatever religion they ascribe to. That being said, they need to enunciate that clearly to employers and patients. If they're restricted in where they can find work that's just your free market at work.

So, can we pass the MP/Reagan58 bill yet?

....I don't understamd why someone would go into any profession with the attitude that they would do the job the way that they want and not the way the employer wants. Are they not getting paid to do what the employer wants? to me that's like a contract. in an exaggeration of this, if your employer wanted you to burn down your co workers home, you would not accept the job. Or, if you were already employed you probably might quit or perhaps turn them in to the athorities. In this case why should everything be changed for them? They sound like prima donnas who can't get along with other people............perhaps mommy and daddy shouldn't have always given them their way every time they fussed......

#2 | Posted by Kenoosh

Oh come on. The only job they are refusing to do is one that goes against their moral standards. If you were asked on your job to perform a task that went against your morals would you just leave your morals at the door and say, " yes sir, boss, right away"? These people have to live with themselves and their actions long after the deed is done. What you propose is that they should just keep their mouths shut and do a job that they find reprehensible.

Uusually, people choose to be in the abortion field. We are talking about doctors who didn't choose that field and yet are being told to perform them anyway.

Of course not. It's like the Muslim chick who refused to scan pork products in the checkout line of the supermarket. If you don't like the aspects of your job, get another one. Why should your boss and his company have to accomodate your silly superstitions?

#54 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-09 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Including situations involving abortion and birth control?

Including situations involving abortion and birth control?

Including everything

Everlong-
Yeah, I have a friend who majored in abortion so he could get good job "in the abortion field."

????

Of course not. It's like the Muslim chick who refused to scan pork products in the checkout line of the supermarket. If you don't like the aspects of your job, get another one. Why should your boss and his company have to accomodate your silly superstitions?

Including bringing a fetus to term?

just that he can't impose that on the people he's supposed to serve. If you had a vegetarian waitress refuse to serve you a steak, would you just go with the arugula? If a bomber pilot decides he likes flying, but not dropping bombs, would you say let him fly along with his buddies, but with no bombs on board? If a soldier refuses to fight, are you okay with that and keeping on the government payroll?

#42 | Posted by northguy3

Actually, it is a doctor's right, and possibly duty, to give the patient every fact that he has at his disposal. If that happens to include reasons not to abort then he's just doing his job. If more Planned Parenthood places would allow the mother to see ultrasounds of the baby then less abortions may occur. You say that you just want to give the facts, but those are only the facts from a pro abortion stance. Why shouldn't abortion candidates be given all of the facts? Does that scare you?

See #66 manypaths. I don't know how to make it any plainer. Get someone to explain it to you if you still don't get it.

Goatman-
Good for you. You can be consistent, but sometimes it's like a pulling molars, knee on the chair for leverage episode.

I think a doctor telling a prospective patient that he/she is against abortions is providing facts to the patient.

Despite what the referenced story states the issue is not about doctors being forced to perform abortions.
The issue which brought about the conscience law was pharmacists refusing to supply the morning after pill based on religious beliefs and religious based hospitals not allowing abortions, but which receive federal funding. Not exactly the same issue as forcing doctors to perform abortions. The government, at any level, can only force one to obey laws. Except if your in custody and then they can do anything they want.
The pro-life/pro-choice debate, regardless of one's personal belief, is not an issue which the government should be involved in.
As with any behavior which society wants to limit or promote the answer is education. Want to prevent abortions? Teach birth control, and provide a home for every foster and state home child.

Only not treat them in some ways, according to his conscience. The whole gist of the Bush regulation is he'd have that right and his job would be protected.

#50 | Posted by northguy3

There is only one main procedure that causes grief for certain doctors and their conscience and that is abortion. What other procedure carries morality with it that would cause a doctor pause? You are presenting something that doesn't even come up. What treatments, other than abortion, are looked at from the standpoint of morality?

but sometimes it's like a pulling molars, knee on the chair for leverage episode.

???

I answered both your questions clearly, concisely, and to the point. Granted the first one I answered with a question, but you asked a stupid one. Of course your scenario and mine did not match. Any fool could see that so I couldn't figure out why you asked.

I was just trying to egg on the NON-CHOICE crowd GM. I understand where you are coming from.

And again for the rest of you, it's called Pro-Choice. That should be extended to the medical professionals too. I don't see how one could argue differently.

Everlong-
Yeah, I have a friend who majored in abortion so he could get good job "in the abortion field."

????

#67 | Posted by BetelG

So, what you're saying is that certain doctors don't specifically go into that business? Your attempt at making a point FAILED.

I was just trying to egg on the NON-CHOICE crowd GM. I understand where you are coming from.

I didn't know that. Sorry for the sarcasm, then.

#11 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-04-09 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag: offensive

#14 | Posted by nanc

Actually:

Flags: Funny 2

So Nanc, do you want the offensive flag you can't get to, or the funny flags you can?

So, can we pass the MP/Reagan58 bill yet?

#62 | Posted by Manypaths

See? It even brings right and left together. It's fair and even handed. As far as I can tell, only a handful of retards oppose it. (lead by NorthGuy3)

Does it occur to folks here that abortion by many people is the killing of LIFE?

Does it occur to anyone that when people who go into the medical field are concerned about LIFE?

You know save lives, help the injured, console the weak and dying?

It's like Farenheit 451--the fireman were going out to burn stuff instead of putting out the fires.

If this goes through--watch for the Catholic hospitals to close in this country.

#2 | Posted by Kenoosh

Tell that to a Muslim.

KINGCUKE at #72 is right. This regulation isn't about doctors being forced to perform abortions. This is much broader than that. A doctor who performs abortions couldn't discriminate in hiring a nurse who wouldn't assist in the performance of an abortion. A doctor couldn't discriminate against a nurse in his/her office who wouldn't write out a prescription for birth control. A pharmacy couldn't discriminate in any way against a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills. You couldn't discriminate and not hire a pharmacist based on that. It provides so much protection that it could really interfere with the ability of hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies, especially in rural areas, providing services.

I thought doctors and other medical workers WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PROFESSIONAL. Silly me. This is nonsense.

Does it occur to folks here that abortion by many people is the killing of LIFE?

You're killing a living thing every time you beat your meat, too. I mean, under the right circumstances, any one of those bad boys could be a human being... who are you to say they don't have souls (or at least half of one).

#85 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-04-09 10:31 PM

OMG! I am a mass genocidal freak worse than Hitler then!

I think I am going to cry.

ZH--that could be considered reckless abandonment!

But if it doesn't meet up with with the egg--it isn't life is it?

The pro-life/pro-choice debate, regardless of one's personal belief, is not an issue which the government should be involved in.

#72 --King

Fine them why did the SCOTUS get involved with Roe?

They are a branch of the gov't and screwed it up. Should have been left up to the states and look where this is now--after 40 million abortions.

As for birth control pills or the morning after pill--those are Rx's and should be filled.

This is about abortion and the moral that medical people believe in to not participate.

Like I said--Catholic hospitals will close down--should be helpful for the masses of poor people they serve in those areas to no longer have help.

"If more Planned Parenthood places would allow the mother to see ultrasounds of the baby then less abortions may occur."

Suspect comment. I'm not saying wrong, just suspect. Do Planned Parenthood clinics _not allow_ pregnant women to see ultrasounds? Do they even take ultrasounds? I honestly don't know. But I find it confusing. My understanding--perhaps wrong?--is that Planned Parenthood exists to provide information on all the options, and action if decided. I can't imagine that their agenda is to abort more pregnancies. Yay, let's have more abortions! Woo-hoo, it's FUN!

But hell, I've never been to one. (Both our pregnancies were planned. Well, more or less. Both were desired goals, ends in themselves. Not to say getting there was not fun. : ) )

Cuke: "As with any behavior which society wants to limit or promote the answer is education. Want to prevent abortions? Teach birth control, and provide a home for every foster and state home child." WELL-SAID! I especially like that last part. I'd have more respect for anti-abortion-rights folks if they were actually pro-life. I'm sorry, slipping into my own rhetoric there. But yeah, I know too many people--and maybe it's not the majority--who are pro-life (self-declared; it's a dumb identifier) and yet don't support any sort of social programs for those children born out of wedlock. Pro-life ends at birth, seemingly, for many people.

"I absolutely support their right to live according to whatever religion they ascribe to. That being said, they need to enunciate that clearly to employers and patients. If they're restricted in where they can find work that's just your free market at work."

Unfortunately I wouldn't see it working this way. There would be a lawsuit saying they were discriminated against because of their religious beliefs in an attempt to force hospitals to hire these people anyway.

If you don't like the job description don't take the job. Pure and simple.

You're killing a living thing every time you beat your meat, too. I mean, under the right circumstances, any one of those bad boys could be a human being... who are you to say they don't have souls (or at least half of one).

#85 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
When a sperm is wasted. . .

God gets quite irate!

There's a Monty Python quote for every occasion! (When in doubt, "She turned me into a newt!" or "I want to be called Loretta" are sure hits.) Also true of The Simpsons.

"I want to be called Loretta" are sure hits

I like, "We found a spoon, sir!"

Boss "Why didn't you perform that abortion? Is it against your conscience?"

Doctor "Conscience? Sorry. I read Roe v Wade. It states specifically "physician's medical judgment". My judgment is based on medicine. The last three women you sent my way gave me these reasons:

"My family won't like me because I had the baby out of wedlock. I'll be disowned."

"I don't want it. It'll interfere with my pole dancing career."

"I can't afford it."

See, boss. The first one has social problems, the second one is just selfish, and the third deals within financial issues.

I'm a doctor, not a psychiatrist nor financial planner. Although, I have a date with the dancer.
She likes plastic surgery."

Do Planned Parenthood clinics _not allow_ pregnant women to see ultrasounds? Do they even take ultrasounds? -Pragmatist

Planned Parenthood makes it a point that their patients don't see anything close to an ultrasound. There has been a long standing fight to make them do so but the never will.

What are the chances that someone is going to spend all the time and money it takes to become an MD and not treat people? How long is he going to stay on the hospital's payroll?

#46 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-09 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty high, it seems. Oh, you mean people NOT getting abortions, asking for birth control, condom info, or anything sexually related like HPV vaccines. Oh, what a huge fucking difference. /snark.

Look, I don't want to force a doc who doesn't like abortion to perform one...but don't leave it off their friggin resume until they get a patient, and don't have a hospital without ANY doctors qualified to do such a procedure. Don't let pharmacists leave it off their resume that they won't give out birth control either. I'm sure the local CVS/Arbor Drugs or whatever is usually surprised when they get this crap from their workers, because they never seem to know how to handle it.

"medical workers who choose not to perform certain procedures, like abortion"

always dressed up as a "procedure" a "choice" or some other pretty word... gotta give it the libs, sure did good job of dressing it up. I really wish girls would be taught what an abortion really is:

1 dead, 1 wounded

You're right jaybay...no one has any idea what abortion is.

LOL.

"You're right jaybay...no one has any idea what abortion is."

it's not that no one know what it is, its that it is dressed up and marketed as something that's "OK" and acceptable. but based on your response im sure you could give a shit less...