Religious exemptiona are a dangerous, slippery slope. People could come up with all kinds of ideas and try to have them deemed religious and worthy of exemptions.

Religous people have gone overboard. They are a bunch of screwballs. This country is based on secular law and secular law must prevail.

Ever since the religious revival in this country, the nation has regressed. Religion does not bring progress. It just reinforces ignorance.

Lepido "If a hospital doesn't want to offer a full range of services due to religious connections, all they have to do is decline federal funds."

I imagine that you already know how impossible the would be to implement, but in case you made this suggestion in all innocence, hear ia reality:

Religious medical institutions provide 40-50% of US healthcare. If these hospitals and clinics, many of which are the sole healthcare provider for a given county or region, withdrew from Medicare and Medicare, overnight many parts of the country would suffer immediate, chronic shortages of medical providers.

At the same time no hospital or clinic can survive without participating in Medicare and Medicaid in the current US healthcare finance system.

Given this symbiosis, your suggestion of declining federal funds is a nonstarter for every constituency in the system except ideologues.

Lepidopteryx - yes, but would it be the government's responsibility to have you fired from Red Lobster, or would that be Red Lobster's prerogative?
Posted by: GabrielRockman | April 10, 2009 2:01 PM
**************************************************************************************

Rescinding the so-called conscience exemptions won't give the government the power to fire - it will simply remove the government's prohibition against firing employees who refuse to perform the duties listed in their job descriptions due to religious objections.

If a hospital doesn't want to offer a full range of services due to religious connections, all they have to do is decline federal funds.

At the end of the discussion: Do you really want to have a doctor performing a procedure on you when he is reluctant or opposed to doing so?

Lepidopteryx - yes, but would it be the government's responsibility to have you fired from Red Lobster, or would that be Red Lobster's prerogative?

Anyone who goes into reproductive medicine knows that there is the possibility that they may, at some point, be required to perform an abortion. There are plenty of medical specialties that do not require the practitioner to ever have any contact with the contents of a woman's uterus - dentistry, dermatology, podiatry, urology, gastroenterology, radiology, orthopedics, psychiatry, chiropractic, ENT, just to name a few.

A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions as written, not to decide which prescrtiptions his god thinks the person should have.
After all, if I were Jewish and took a job waiting tables at Red Lobster, would I be within my rights to refuse to take orders for shellfish based my own religious belief that eating shellfish is a sin?

Maryann261's comment [There should be no religious exemptions. When people who are hired to do a job, they must perform all functions. If they refuse to do so, they are unfit for the position and should be fired.] is emblematic of the confusion surrounding how medical personnel practice. Nurses, doctors, and even pharmacists choose their practice specialty and sub-specialty.

I have a professional relationship with a particular MD for 20+ years. In the beginning he served as my primary care dr. After several years he limited his practice to gastroenterology; he took care of my gastro issues from top to bottom. Later he limited his treatment of my from mouth to stomach, having another sub specialist treat the nether regions. Last week he decided that my condition has advanced to the point that he could no longer treat me within his practice's risk/return model.

As patients we value our ability to choose and change doctors at will. I believe that most medical professionals value the same freedom to specialize in particular diseases and patients, and to limit the risks and obligations as best befits the personal, professional, and economic settings.

Medical personnel are not public servants. They do not take an oath serve the general public. Hospitals, labs, pharmacies, and clinics are not public agencies. They are moral and economic persons engaged in the selling of services rendered by private persons. The only public responsibility is that of due care, and specific regulation that protect public health and consumers.

Abortion, birth control, etc. carry a higher percentage of technical and economic risks than other procedures or illnesses. These risks are enhanced outside of large urban centers. To demand that any doctor or pharmacist provide these services by fiat, fundamentally changes our system for healthcare delivery for reason that are quite insubstantial when viewed in terms of the total system.

Maryann - I agree with you that they should be fired, it's just not any of the government's business. If the employer chooses to fire them, they would be wrong to claim that their right to free exercise of their religion is infringed. But if their employer is coerced by the government to fire them, they would be right in claiming that the government overstepped its powers.

Reply to GabrielRockman,

The military personnel must do what they are ordered to do.

The doctor who is expected to give the lethal injection must do it.

Regarding someone telling a pharmacist that he/she is going to take enough of a presciption of sleeping pills to kill himself/herself, that would have to be reported. Suicide is not actually legal. If it were legal, the pharmacist would have to fill the prescription.

Those who do not like all the requirements of a job and refuse to carry them out are not fit for the job. They must be fired. Personal and/or religious beliefs have no place in the workplace. If a person doesn't want to do certain aspects of the job, the person has the option of not taking the job or finding a new one. The only other alternative is termination.

National Defense is specifically a duty delegated to the federal government by the constitution. Infanticide is not a duty specifically delegated to the government by the constitution.

"Requiring taxpayers to fund a clinic which in their mind commits murder - that would infringe upon the free exercise part."

----------------------------------

GabeRock,

Does that also mean that requiring taxpayers to fund a war which in their minds commits murder also infringes on free exercise?

Farna - separation of church state is not in the constitution. What is in the constitution is the free exercise of religion, and the prohibition of an establishment of religion. Requiring taxpayers to fund a clinic which in their mind commits murder - that would infringe upon the free exercise part. On the other hand, funding clinics which don't do abortions, that doesn't contradict any of the constitution's clauses on religion. To allow a clinic to let people follow their religious beliefs is not the establishment of a religion. To allow only a specific religion, or a specific group of religions to exercise their right to practice medicine according to their beliefs, that would violate the establishment clause. Nowhere have I seen any clinic only allowing Christians to have moral opposition. As far as I know, the right to morally object is also given to Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Wiccans, Atheists, to anyone.

That's not to say that funding these clinics is actually allowed by the constitution, but its a different part of the constitution which makes federal funding of hospitals and clinics unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not they let their employees follow their conscience while performing in the medical field.

Separation of church and state:

Hospitals, clinics, etc., that do not perform abortions, etc., due to "conscience" must be permitted to retain their "consciences," but receive NO STATE FUNDING. That is to say NONE, NOT A CENT, NADA.

Maryann - does that apply to military personnel as well? What about a doctor who is expected to do a lethal injection on an inmate?

What if it's clear that a person is buying enough drugs to kill themselves? If I go into a pharmacy with a legit prescription for sleeping pills, and then tell the pharmacist "I plan on overdosing on these tonight" should he or she still be required to sell me the drugs?

If the pharmacy hires someone to do their job, and they don't do it, it's the pharmacy's duty to fire that person, not the federal government. And if the pharmacy does not wish to serve people in a certain way, then the pharmacist they hired is in fact doing all of the functions he was hired to do. Does this mean that we can force pharmacies to carry all prescription drugs? Why would it be limited to prescription drugs, if we do prescription drugs, couldn't I then force my local supermarket/pharmacy to carry genetically modified food, even if it does not wish to do so? If you extend your logic to companies and not just employees, I could force Whole Foods out of business.

Athena - I agree with you on what a pharmacist SHOULD do. I just don't think it's the government's right to force that on pharmacists. I think women shouldn't have abortions, but I don't think its the government's right to force that on women. Unlike most people, I actually look to see what the government is constitutionally authorized to do. I'm a dying breed in that regard. I can see the validity of the argument that abortion is murder, in which case it would be the government's right to force that on women. But murder is not a federal crime, its left to the states to prosecute, so the federal government would not be authorized to make a law against abortion.

You need to see the difference between what should happen, and what the government has the right to force upon people. It is a very dangerous slippery slope to expect the government to force everything that should happen. It's all great until that "should happen" is something you disagree with.

Human Simpleton - because the issue is not completely a religious issue, but a religious issue and a health care issue combined. The federal government has no constitutionally authorized role in health care. There is no reason for funding for my local hospital to go through the federal government.

And I really don't understand your first comment at all. I never said anything about listening to me, all I said was that Obama's followers who preach of tolerance do not extend that courtesy to people who have strong religious beliefs. What I said seemed to go completely over your head. You don't even seem to be aware that if you preach tolerance, that you should not just preach tolerance of gays and other generally liberal minorities, but also of creationist Christians and other generally conservative minorities.

Are you uninsured in America? You should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California

There should be no religious exemptions. When people who are hired to do a job, they must perform all functions. If they refuse to do so, they are unfit for the position and should be fired.

GABRIELROCKMAN says

"So Obama's tolerance does not go as far as tolerating people who have morals or religious beliefs?"

According to whom? You? Some others like you? Why should I listen to you?

"The solution is to let states decide what religious and moral beliefs a health care worker is entitled to. I don't really see the constitution justifying the federal government's role in this."

Why?

Why is it OK for the state govt. to decide on a religious issue?

ATHENA4 :

You are exactly correct!

The point is that a pharmacist should either fill prescriptions for all comers or get out of the business. It's not for them to pass moral judgement on their customers. If they want to recuse themselves, fine. But make sure that there is a backup person authorized to fill that prescription.

And sometimes in small towns, there IS only one pharmacy. It happens.

Why is it that people who are against government control in people's lives are the very ones that want to control abortion and birth control?

Athena4 - I'm pretty sure that in a capitalist economy, the only pharmacist in town being a Scientologist who is allowed to abide by his or her religious beliefs would leave an opening for a rival pharmacy to open. Now if you started having government run pharmacies, that would be a different matter, but thats why we need to stick to capitalism and refrain from government ownership of business entities.

I hear a lot of people claiming to be "pro-choice." So if one doctor, pharmacist, or whatever has religious beliefs that forbid them from serving you in the way you desire .... then CHOOSE a different doctor or pharmacist. Capitalism is pro-choice. Government intervention through the funding of clinics skews the market place and is the enemy of choice. The government is the enemy of competition. Competition is what allows one to choose the best choice. In the case of a pharmacist, the best choice would be the pharmacist who isn't a Scientologist.

Let's take abortion and birth control out of the equation and look at this "religious exemption" thing from a different angle. Say that you need to get a prescription for anti-depressants filled, and the only pharmacist in your town is a Scientologist. The Scientologist is now allowed to choose not to fill that prescription because of a religious exemption clause.

Or, let's throw Birth Control Pills back into it. They are used for a variety of different gynecological problems besides just preventing pregnancy. An unmarried woman who has endometreosis is given a prescription for BCPs. Does the pharmacist have a right to question her or her doctor as to WHY she is taking these pills? Doesn't that violate medical privacy laws? Do they refuse to fill the prescription outright, because all of the outward signs say that she is an "immoral woman"? (And yes, this DID happen to a friend of mine in Florida)

Law of unintended consequences, people...

So Obama's tolerance does not go as far as tolerating people who have morals or religious beliefs? From the way liberals preach, you'd think they'd love the chance to cut funding for those who are intolerant. And from the way conservatives talk, you'd think they'd jump at the chance to be pro-smaller government, and get the government completely out of a sector for which it has no constitutional justification to be in.

Instead of the federal government taking my money and giving it to state and local governments ... why not have the federal government just take much less of my money, and let the state and local governments take more. But if we did that, the bureaucrats couldn't get their hands on my money and turn each dollar I give them into 50 cents for the states and 50 cents for themselves. Then we might actually see some efficiency in our government.

How about instead of me giving my money to McDonalds when I buy a big mac, I give it to the federal government instead, and then they give McDonalds money for the big mac. That way we can turn a 3 dollar hamburger into a 5 dollar hamburger.

The solution is to let states decide what religious and moral beliefs a health care worker is entitled to. I don't really see the constitution justifying the federal government's role in this.