PA wants doctors to be protected.

Protected from those nasty lawsuits and actions brought about by the physicians refusal to provide medical procedures or medications that they deem against their religious beliefs. From the RawStory writeup:

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1255, also called the Conscientious Objection Act, would absolve medical care providers of liability in cases where reproductive care was denied based on a practitioner’s religious or moral beliefs.

Services a provider would be free to withhold, with immunity, include performing an abortion, artificial insemination, and prescribing birth control or emergency contraception (also known as the “morning-after pill”).

Notice it’s all about reproductive procedures and medications. Nothing else. Surely there are other types of procedures and medications that some physicians would find against their religious beliefs.

Leave it to the Republican’s to narrow it down to reproductive issues. Must be an election year.. ;)

3 Responses to “PA wants doctors to be protected.”

  1. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Personally, just speaking of abortion, even if one accepts that the Constitution guarantees the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby, it surely doesn’t guarantee her the right to an abortion by any one particular doctor. Many doctors see it as their duty to support life, not take active steps to kill, perhaps being old fashioned and taking the Hypocratic oath seriously where it says to “First, do no harm.” I personally support a doctor’s right to make that decision not to perform abortions.

    I do, though, think that any doctor should have to recommend to any patient seeking an abortion a doctor who does perform abortions.

    As for artificial insemination, is that something that GPs and family physicians do themselves these days? Isn’t that normally done by one who specializes in AI? Again, if a doctor doesn’t do that sort of thing, the doctor should send the patient to one who specializes in it.

    As for the pill and morning after pill, write the prescription, huh? The morning after pill is not like an abortion where the doctor is taking direct steps to personally kill a baby. He’s providing a pill that the woman will take (or not take at her choice) to prevent a fertilized ova from attaching to her uterus wall. Yes, it will prevent the developing blastule from developing into a child but that’s her choice and the direct result of her action in taking the pill.

  2. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    The only other issue that I could see being a problem of performing on religious grounds (other than reproductive ones) might be doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia and that is, as far as I know, already illegal in most states.

  3. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    “I think it’s pretty awful that a medical professional sworn to do no harm would use this excuse to kill a woman,” counters National Organization for Women activist Jeanne Clark, on the prospect of a patient being denied emergency care with the blessing of the state.

    And I think it’s pretty awful that a NOW activist would lie about the bill she’s criticizing. There’s nothing in the bill or its intent or its result about excusing killing a woman since, you know, no women will be killed as a result of the bill.

Leave a Reply