Monday, July 17, 2006

The Rise of Jane Crow Laws

Washington Post: A Medical Crisis of Conscience -- Faith Drives Some To Refuse Patients Medication or Care (hat tip to toaaw)

Proponents of a "right of conscience" for health workers argue that there is nothing more American than protecting citizens from being forced to violate their moral and religious values.


The clash resurfaced with antiabortion pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill. But recent interviews with dozens of health-care workers, patients, advocates, ethicists, legal experts and religious and medical authorities make it clear that the issue is far broader. Many health-care workers are asserting a right of conscience in many settings.

This so-called "right of conscience" is an attempt to institute a prettied up version of Jim Crow laws. Those with the most power want the right to discriminate at will. It might have started with the refusal to give birth control (which some mistakenly call abortion), but it doesn't end there.

What if someone with a "right of conscience" becomes an election judge? Will that person believe they have the right to refuse to let certain people vote? If pharmicists shouldn't be forced to violate their moral and religious values, election judges shouldn't be forced to violate them either, right? Ditto for property managers and employers.

If people can't do a particular job -- that abides by all applicable laws -- without violating their conscience, they should find another job. Nobody forced a pharmicist, a nurse, a doctor, or any other health care provider to enter their profession and their current job.

Yeah, their jobs would be perfect if it weren't for their scummy patients.

These "right of conscience" people either don't know or don't care that many of the people they want to refuse to give service to weren't given the same choices. Rape victims seeking emergency contraception didn't choose to be raped.

Washington Post: Seeking Care, and Refused

Cheryl Bray, 42, a real estate broker in Encinitas, Calif., was flabbergasted that a family practitioner turned her away when she sought a routine physical needed to adopt a baby from Mexico. The doctor said he objected to a single woman's adopting a child. "He said something about how, according to his religious beliefs, children should have two parents," said Bray, whose complaint against the doctor earlier this year was dismissed by the state medical board. "I was under a tight deadline. I started crying. I cried in his office, and then I went back to my car and cried for a long time before I could drive home."

So it's already spread beyond actions that people claim makes them accomplices to murder and now should apply to routine care.

What will that make those who believe "The wages of sin is death" believe they have the right to do to (or not do for) AIDS patients and women with cervical cancer caused by HPV spread through what the healthcare provider believes to be immoral sexual contact?

Rather than seeking religious freedom, the "right of conscious" people want the right to practice bigotry in the name of religion.

Technorati tags:
Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 8:21 AM   0 comments links to this post


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home