https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/20/591833000/civil-rights-chief-at-hhs-defends-the-right-to-refuse-care-on-religious-grounds

Director Severino presents himself as a civil rights lawyer. And what he has done as OCR director is turn the idea of civil rights on its head," says Harper Jean Tobin, policy director at the National Center for Transgender Equality.

That's because Severino — a devout Catholic and political conservative — has put the right to religious freedom front and center in his fight against discrimination in health care.

In public appearances he refers to religious freedom as "the first freedom." Since coming to HHS he has issued a rule that allows employers to refuse to cover birth control as part of their employee health insurance plans, if employers have a religious or moral objection to contraception.

And earlier this year he created an entirely new division within the civil rights office — the Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom. Its mission, he says, is to ensure that health care workers and health care companies, are never forced to participate in particular medical services — such as abortion, assisted suicide or gender reassignment surgery — if they object.

HHS's Office for Civil Rights has traditionally focused on making sure people are not denied medical care because of their race or gender. And it is charged with protecting patients' medical privacy. The office tends to get roughly 25,000 complaints each year.

This is probably a good thing. Two of the three involve terminating a life, and many health care providers will object to that on purely ethical grounds. That would be a strange law indeed if we start requiring medical professionals to kill other humans as part of their health care offering.

And if you’re seeking gender reassignment surgery, I’d advise you to steer away from the guy who has never performed one, never wanted to perform one, but you pushed through some new law requiring he offer it to you or lose his medical license.

As somebody’s wise momma used to say, “Never eat food prepared by an angry cook.”

If a dr. Objects to abortion then for goodness sake don't go into a medical field where a dr does abortions . it would be like saying "I'm a criminal defense lawyers but I will not defend criminals" Abortion is legal, like it or not but to say I won't do a legal procedure in a medical field I have chose is . ridiculous.

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a dr. Objects to abortion then for goodness
> sake don't go into a medical field where a dr does
> abortions . it would be like saying "I'm a
> criminal defense lawyers but I will not defend
> criminals" Abortion is legal, like it or not but
> to say I won't do a legal procedure in a medical
> field I have chose is . ridiculous.


I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. Don’t OB/GYN docs have the correct training to perform abortions? Imagine a little girl who grows up to learn where babies come from and is fascinated by the magical way we create new life. She’s fascinated to the point she wants to devote her life to helping other women navigate the miracle of creating this new life, so she studies to become an OB/GYN.

Now the government steps in and says, “by the way, you’re now required to kill that little miracle, or we’ll shut you down.”

Great idea, wonderful example of a free society at work.

If it's to save the mother's life or health, hell yes she should be required to complete that legal medical procedure. If all she cares about are babies and not women, she's not a very moral person and should find another job where she is not charged with protecting women's health. The mother should always come first and foremost, she's the existing human being and anyone who has had an early miscarriage knows that pregnancies are very fragile. The belief that a fetus is a full-fledged human is not supported by science, as without the support of the mother's healthy body they would not be viable.


I didn't join certain professions because I didn't agree with what I would have to do in those professions. While elective surgeries that aren't done on the basis of health or saving a life, like trans-related surgeries or assisted suicide, I can certainly see an argument for, I don't think there is an ethical argument for risking one human's life to try to save another, even less viable one, unless that person asks for that themselves.

Doctors have never been required to perform abortions or participate in assisted suicide against their will. A very small number of doctors perform sex reassignment surgery, and it is generally their specialty. Most surgeons have never done this type of work. When it comes to doctors, this is a red herring.

I think this issue comes up more with nurses, techs and others in the health field, particularly those that work in the OR. My understanding of abortion and assisted suicide laws is that these professionals also have been able to not participate if they decide not to.

New to this thing is the war on trans people (since the war on gay people is more or less lost at this point). Here, I don't know where the law is, but I think that you have a much weaker argument for not participating in a procedure that you would participate in for other patients (mastectomies, penile amputation, breast reconstructions, vaginoplasties, etc).

In a free society, we should all seek to grant wide latitude for differences and allow freedom of choice whenever it can be demonstrated that choice does not harm another.

The procedures are all elective to begin with, so that should place them in an entirely different category from any life-saving measure. Just because a doctor is trained to heal a woman with uterine cancer should not mean he is also required to perform elective transgender surgery. This actually requires the doctor to mutilate an otherwise healthy body in an attempt to assuage an internal conflict. And the outcome has virtually no hard science to prove the surgery actually cures the underlying malady that motivated it.

In an article out today, one of the world's leading gender reassignment surgeons notes an increase in those expressing regret and seeking reversal. And a recent proposal to research this phenomena was denied. The reason cited? It might create ill will against the school and researchers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/gender-reversal-surgery-rise-arent-talking/

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/25/bath-spa-university-transgender-gender-reassignment-reversal-research

What about abortions that save the mother's life?

This is my problem with this. Many late-term abortions are actually life-SAVING procedures. If doctors won't perform those, they aren't affirming life, but simply saying that a fetus'/baby's life is more significant than an adult woman's.

The gender reassignment surgery and assisted suicide I can see arguments for, and even abortions that aren't for the mother's health. But in many cases, this means that women's lives are put at risk and some women have even been forced to go septic before Catholic doctors would remove an already dying baby.

As a woman, I don't believe my health or life should be put at risk because of a doctor's personal beliefs. That's their personal issue, not mine, and I shouldn't be put in danger if, say, that's the only hospital I can get to in a rural area when I'm delivering, or that's the one my insurance covers.

In terms of freedom--I should be free as a consumer and citizen to go to any hospital and know my life won't be put at risk because someone else wants to impose their religious morals on me.

anon28 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about abortions that save the mother's life?
>

If you could produce any specific statistics showing exactly how many women die yearly due to being refused abortions, that would be helpful.

I did a couple of searches, and I'm not able to locate any within the past several years, and it looks like there may not have been any on US soil for decades (if ever).

It's an interesting argument to suggest allowing doctors to to opt out of performing abortions will kill women, but in the US, I don't believe you'll find any examples to support your assertion. It's an emotional argument that appears to lack any factual support.

This is one example of the health risks caused by abortion bans. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners

Not necessary to be condescending or to assume others haven't done their research and are just making "emotional arguments" or that you know all about the health problems facing pregnant women because you did a Google search, by the way. I guarantee that I've done plenty. :) Open minds are essential.

This is a warning from a gynecologist on archaic Texas laws in this vein.

https://www.self.com/story/texas-abortion-law-banning-dilation-and-evacuation-will-kill-and-maim-women

Your assertion that the U.S. is particularly safe in this regard is interesting, as it is not backed by facts. We have the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world (https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world), so clearly our country is not exactly the safest place for pregnant and postpartum women.

More examples of late-term abortions and how they can in some cases save women's lives. https://womensenews.org/2004/10/late-term-abortion-saved-these-womens-lives/

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1129202/late-term-abortion-saved-my-life

Happy to educate!

But you're changing your assertion. You asked, "What about abortions that save the mother's life?"

Even before Rowe v Wade, doctors were performing abortions to save a mother's life. The life of the mother has always taken precedent over the life of the child when there is truly a conflict between the mortality of one over the other.

The problem is that this conflict has a virtually zero statistical occurrence. I specifically asked you to cite instances where women died due to be denied an abortion, and you cited sources that contend it could happen. But it doesn't. And to my knowledge, (and it appears yours as well) it never has.

Have women become ill due to abortion delayed or denied? Yes. That happens when you treat an unborn child as a patient instead of an inconvenience. Have any women died? Please submit your data if you have some. I can't find any.

Yes, HISTORICALLY that was the case. The mother was put before the baby.

THESE LAWS ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. The NEW standards, the new laws, and confusion about them are what led to the near-death experiences in Michigan, the sudden sharp rise in maternal deaths in Texas, etc. That's precisely what the gynecologist is saying is the problem--that the new laws are attempting to put baby above all else, even if the mother has to go septic before she can be treated (which is what happened in Michigan and Texas in several instances), and are purposely leaving the language vague. Jesus Christ, that is exactly the point. You are the one arguing for a change and shifting the goalposts.

Are you seriously saying that near-death experiences due to these new, stricter standards are not enough for you? Women have to demonstrably, inarguably die first? If so, I think you value "life" a lot less than you claim.


Forgive me, but I'm going to keep trusting ob/gyns and ACOG over you.

"Have women become ill due to abortion delayed or denied? Yes. That happens when you treat an unborn child as a patient instead of an inconvenience."

So women should have to go septic for an already dying baby, as is detailed in the examples I displayed, because of the personal opinions of their providers? That is your actual opinion? That is moral to you? I really would like to know that directly: Do you think that was the correct choice, even during a miscarriage that was already happening?

If so, I'm very sad to know that my daughter will grow up in a world where her life is valued so little by some. I dearly hope that by then, your kind will have died off so that her life is not endangered by providers who put dying babies' lives, lived painfully for in many cases a single hour, and their personal extremist, emotional crusades above the health of living women.

Some more statements on abortions sometimes being necessary to save the life of the mother from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

https://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM154_memos21_22.pdf

"Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother."
-ACOG

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/

But you continue to argue that women will die, and there's never been an instance of it actually happening?

You realize "what if" is not an actual argument, right?

"Preserve the health of the mother" is meaningless in our current environment. It's synonymous with "I'm not really in the mood to have a child."

Where did you get your medical training? The medical providers in these instances say directly that women's lives have been endangered by the new standards and that abortions do save lives in some instances in their direct experience. It stands to logical reason that if the new standards are pushed even further, women will die, as they have already had near-death experiences due to the stricter standards.

Actually, you are making a "what if" argument--you have no direct experience with it, but the medical providers are saying they have seen it directly and that the new standards have harmed women. If you do have an M.D. or Ph.D. in this area and are thus more qualified to speak on this issue than they are, I take this back. If you don't, I think you are suffering from a severe case of entitlement and arrogance.

I didn’t know health insurance plans were still a thing.