Roe Vs. World

Illustration for article titled Roe Vs. World

We've been keeping you updated on W's dastardly plan to push through the "provider conscience" rule, that could enable healthcare workers to refuse to participate in anything they object to on moral grounds. The L.A. Times is saying that the rule could have wider-reaching consequences than previously thought. It goes way beyond abortion, the paper notes: "It could reach disputes over contraception, sperm donations and end-of-life care." The Times also offers four examples of women being refused treatment that had devastating results. Read them by clicking on Bushie's smug mug. [LA Times]


In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” [the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology] cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.



My aunt (who is an R.D. at a hospital) hates seeing smokers/former smokers receive medical treatment because "they brought it on themselves." Imagine a doctor feeling that way?

The birth control/reproductive choice thing is frightening enough on its own but beyond that is even scarier.