My Conscience Is Clear

I'm still not getting it.
.
"President Obama has a very clear record of supporting carefully crafted conscience clause legislation."
.
"Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause."
.
So ... ? It's a shift in policy as announced by anonymous sources, not a shift in Obama's stated policy. (In fact your link cites "an official.")

I'm still not sure why a health care worker who freely entered a paticular field or practice is allowed to withhold a legal service or prescription from a patient. At the very least these conscience objectors should prominently display which legal services or drugs they will not be providing so that the patient knows that up front. But somehow the rights of the patient don't seem to be of much or any concern here.

"Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause"
Sensible is the key word. How is "sensible" going to be determined? I have the feeling that it isn't going to be what each side wants. It will probably be a compromise. I like queencersei's idea that what services and drugs will or will not be provided should be prominently displayed. If a hospital or drug store has employees that refuse to provide the services/drugs, ask to speak to the manager and inform them that you'll be contacting THEIR supervisor's/chain and telling the owners that you won't be doing business with them any longer. They tend to take money seriously. Faith is fine but it doesn't pay the bills. He also said that we should "make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for for the equality of women". That should be interesting to see policy derive from that. If ever "science" was a buzzword, it's now. Religion and science are often at odds. (snark) I'll put my money on the almighty dollar and science.

Well, sure. Why should the government have prosecutors prosecute war crimes and make health care workers, you know, provide health care?

It's nearly three months later and not only is the rule still in place, but Obama yesterday seemed to vow that his administration would draft a new conscience exception--that is, in addition to the law as it existed pre-December 2008

.
Seemed to whom that isn't a nitwit blogger at Swampland who is way out of their league? Are you even really an adult? Lets look at this piece of dumb ass ery.
.
Statement in January.
.

"President Obama has a very clear record of supporting carefully crafted conscience clause legislation. He believes this issue requires a careful balance between the rights of providers and the health of women and their families, a balance that the last-minute Bush rule appears to upset."

.
So he supports conscience clause legislation, just not the bullsh*t Bush put forth because it doesn't strike the balance with the health of women and their families. Now what did he say over the weekend?
.

"Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women"

.
So he says he wants to DRAFT as in make NEW legislation for a SENSIBLE conscious clause while RESPECTING the equality of women and this is somehow different from what he said in February? Maybe, just maybe he was planning on drafting new legislation from the get go which is something that he would need input on. Input like that from the group you yourself pointed out that is made up of both pro life and pro choice representatives. Maybe just maybe it actually takes time to draft such legislation so you make sure you get it right. This is about the damn dumbest post you have put up so far and thats saying a lot. Every time I think you can't do something any more ignorant you go and make a liar out of me.
.
One more thing, maybe this will teach you that using anonymous sources is frikkin ridiculous since you and your other nitwit buddies have now evidently been burned by them.
.

shepherdwong: My personal opinion is that a person should be fired on the spot if they refuse to fill prescriptions or perform services where they work. If their faith dictates that they can't do their job, get another job. It's that simple. When you're hired to perform a function and don't perform it, you're NOT doing your job.

In wartime, conscientious objectors have to jump through a multitude of hoops to avoid military service -- any "conscience clause" that does not require the same level of stringent standards for "conscientious objector" status for providers of health care services cannot be justified.
_
Keep in mind what Amy is really advancing here -- its not just about abortion, its about a whole range of issues promoting misogyny and homophobia in the name of "religious values". Amy is fronting for groups that want to make it legal for homophobes to deny public services to gays and lesbians under "conscious clauses" as well.
_
In other words, Amy is really just presenting more of her hate agenda in tha "acceptable" guise of accommodation toward the anti-choice group.

The conscience clauses do seem like a load of horsesh!t to me. It's just another way for the various religions to have the government legalize their discrimination against those who "offend" them.

If your conscience won't allow you to do a job, you resign.
.
If your conscience won't allow you to participate in a war, you do your non-participation from inside a jail-cell.
.
I am getting extremely tired of people who use a "conscience clause" excuse to avoid the consequences of their "moral choices". Martin Luther King wrote his Letter From a Birmingham Jail while in jail. It would have been meaningless without that context.
.
I don't think Amy Sullivan is knowingly pushing a hate agenda. Felonious stupidity? Heck, yeah.

I don't think Amy Sullivan is knowingly pushing a hate agenda.
_
gotta disagree. She's basically the kind of bigot who uses the "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric; the kind of person who would put daisy stickers on a "God Hates F*gs" banner at a Fred Phelps rally.

FT: Felonious stupidity? You just put images into my head of overcrowded jail cells and the collapse of the justice system. "Your Honor, if it will please the court, I'd like to present the defendant's mother and sister as character witnesses. Let the record show that they are the same person." Thanks FT.

Oh, come on, p_luk. "She's basically the kind of bigot who . . ."
.
You call other people out for that of thoughtless stereotyping when you're on your meds. Unless you've got photos, spare us, okay, Tiger?

"shepherdwong: My personal opinion is that a person should be fired on the spot if they refuse to fill prescriptions or perform services where they work."
.
Agreed. There is no "conscience clause" even for religious zealots:

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
.
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

I think Friar Tuck does bring up an excellent point. The "conscience clauses" allow people to stand up and "fight" for their beliefs secure in the knowledge that it won't inconvienence them or cause them to miss a paycheck. All the benefits and honor of dying for your cause without even getting a slight case of the sniffles.

Some interesting insights have been offered here, including consciencious objection to war that causes all kinds of interesting thoughts. Sgt. York was a Quacker who killed animals, but objected intially to killing humans. During the Viet Nam era and massive drafts, many fled to Canada to avoid service in what they conscienciously believed to be an unjust war. The Bush Wars used and abused volunteers.
.
I don't really know what I think of the conscience clauses related to any service. I don't even favor abortion, personally, but I am more opposed to government, and surely not religionists decide personal options. That's about what my view comes down to. I may agree with your position, but I don't agree that you have the right to impose it universally. That's sort of the compromise of irreconsilable differences that Obama spoke of at ND.

The thread has taken an interesting turn. Just another example of the comments being better than the article.

formerly, we may be in agreement. I don't criticize folks who left the country to avoid the draft, but I wouldn't call what they did "civil disobedience." You're not really Standing Up to The Man if you leave when The Man starts to look in your general direction.

sacredh, I really hate to drive up AS's threadcount, but it's good to touch base with you!

I very seldom agree with anything Amy writes, but her articles frequently let us engage in some discussions that prove to be informative and debate provoking. Of course if she ever interacted with us, we'd probably give her enough cause to invoke a "conscience clause" to avoid ever having to do it again. We might even get her to say "F#@K You". I have a new goal in life.

You call other people out for that of thoughtless stereotyping when you're on your meds. Unless you've got photos, spare us, okay, Tiger?
_
sorry, but AS uses her soapbox to promote those with "hate" agendas. It would be different if she was consistently writing from a religious perspective about poverty, hunger, torture, gun violence, war, rape, etc, etc, etc. But her focus is almost exclusively on justifying accomodation with misogynists and homophobes.

As with every thing AS writes, she lost me at "Posted by Amy Sullivan"
~
Though sadly I did open the link to Dan Gilgoff's "God & Country: On Faith, Politics and Culture" before closing it like a porn popup in the workplace.
~
For a more thoughtful discussion about like, the god, check out Fish on Eagleton/vs. "Ditchkins"
~
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/god-talk-part-2/?apage=3#comments
~
'When Christopher Hitchens declares that given the emergence of “the telescope and the microscope” religion “no longer offers an explanation of anything important,” Eagleton replies, “But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It's rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.”'

FT: Thank you. There are several people on here that have presented viewpoints that have caused me to rethink some of my positions. You're one of them. BTW, you might want to say some kind of little prayer for me tonite. My MIL left to visit her son (the minister) this morning and I took some of the things out of her overnight bag last night and put in a couple of sex toys, a jar of vaseline and a riding crop. Mrs sacredh read me the riot act when I got home from work today. No joy in Mudville tonight I'm afraid.

Folks, for some reason I'm being prevented from linking to MLK's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail." Please do search it out and read - it bears directly on this discussion and is one of his most thoroughly worked-out statements.

sacredh, I am whopperjawed.

FT, I read it and was awed by it many years sgo. But he is speaking of nonviolent protest of extreme injustice, drawing on Ghandi. I am not sure how this applies to the sometimes violent, murderous "pro-life" issue.