I agree with you regarding existing patients. But an OB/GYN without board certification(s) will have a harder time competing for patients and may find the field is not lucrative enough to justify continuing her practice. Not the end of the world, but certainly a loss for the patients who know and trust her.

I have never looked for board certification when looking for a doctor and I know no one else who does. It’s word of mouth recommendations. And I would be more inclined to patronize a doctor who refuses to be bullied into doing something they think is ethically wrong, whether I agree with them or not.

Well you are right…but that doesn’t matter, and no you can’t “force” them, but fire a couple, remove their medical license, and watch the others fall into line.

One, you can’t remove people’s licenses. That’s ridiculous. Two, firing people is going to create a shortage of docs and nurses, in which there is already a shortage. Who is going to feel the effect? Three, you think the threat of losing one’s job is going to force people to do abortions? That’s crazy. Even people who are pro-choice do not want to perform abortions. It doesn’t make them hypocrites. I am an avid supporter of the death penalty. However, I am not applying to be on execution teams at prisons.

The government is more forceful then you could ever imagine…ask Billy Dale…ask any number of “whistle blowers”.
When the elephant dances, the ants get very nervous.

right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Non sequittur.

Also, you can’t force people to perform work. They are not slaves. If they quit, what are they going to do? If a hospital loses funding, they cut back care to the community or to the poor. Then what happens? And if they refuse to accredit the hospital, you close it. That’s going to really help people, too. So, I don’t see how the government is ever going to be able to pull this off. Most people, even those who support abortion, don’t believe anyone should be forced to do it.

Blake on April 8, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Well you are right…but that doesn’t matter, and no you can’t “force” them, but fire a couple, remove their medical license, and watch the others fall into line.
The government is more forceful then you could ever imagine…ask Billy Dale…ask any number of “whistle blowers”.
When the elephant dances, the ants get very nervous.

It’s not the traditional Democrat vs. Republican stuff where it was a balancing act, matter of degrees, compromise, etc.

The swinging pendulum theory is probably going to be inconsequential before long.

Contrary to what the Libtards have been saying, Bush was no Hitler (he left office). Don’t want to be like them, but I can’t help but to think they’re (Communist elite) aren’t going anywhere.

Yeah, I call them Communists, because that’s what they are.

Oh, and Senator McCarthy was right.

Addi tonally, patients aren’t going to stop going to their doctor because they lost their board certification because they won’t perform abortions.

Blake on April 8, 2009 at 6:40 PM

I agree with you regarding existing patients. But an OB/GYN without board certification(s) will have a harder time competing for patients and may find the field is not lucrative enough to justify continuing her practice. Not the end of the world, but certainly a loss for the patients who know and trust her.

What it comes down to is that organizations like ABOG should not receive government money if they do not respect physicians’ freedom of conscience.

If they refuse Medicare, even private insurance will not pay them because Medicare sets the standards for EVERYTHING. JCAHO is an arm of Medicare that inspects and certifies hospitals. So those hospitals lose not only government funding, but private insurers.

Mommynator on April 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM

This makes no sense. It may be an arm, as you refer to it, but they are not the same.

Yes, but board certification is a distinction which let’s patients know that a doctor meets certain standards for patient safety, clinical outcomes, continuing education, etc. I suppose pro-life professionals could form a parallel organization, but currently there is a certain cachet to ABOG certification.

Jenn Q. Public on April 8, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Most patients have no idea and don’t care. Also, they can form their own board. Addi tonally, patients aren’t going to stop going to their doctor because they lost their board certification because they won’t perform abortions. When push comes to shove, it’s going to backfire.

Ric on April 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM

A patient’s inconvenience in fulfilling their desires to obtain optional medications/devices do not trump a practitioner’s constitutional rights.

workingforpigs on April 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM
lexhamfox on April 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM

You two are cut from opposite ends of the same cloth.
Accepting welfare is not tantamount to surrendering your reproductive system and accepting federal funds to treat patients is not tantamount to surrendering your constitutional rights.

I’m being dense today (perhaps because I got flummoxed by a tractor with transmission problems today), what exactly is the consequence of rescinding this conscience objection? The header is unclear to me.

Thanks for being kind to a lowly mechanic.

Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Hopefully this helps-

The current regulation extends the already existing “conscience rules”, (the Church Amendment, the Coats Amendment, and the Weldon Amendment) to include contraceptive services such as birth control pills, “morning after” pills, and UID insertions, among others. While the federal laws protected individuals and institutions in refusing to provide abortion or sterilization services, they were inadequate in recognizing that most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD are in fact abortifacients.

Hormonal BCP works by, in some cases by inhibiting ovulation. If there is no egg then no fertilization. The older combination pills worked better on this aspect of pregnancy prevention. However, if a woman produces an egg anyway the hormones in the BCP prevent a successful implantation by altering the motility of the fallopian tubes, or thickening the cervical mucosa, or altering the endometrium so that implantation is not possible – the fertilized egg dies. The IUD makes the uterus an inhospitable place for implantation and the fertilized egg dies.

For those practitioners that object to abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, prescribing or dispensing an abortifacient is just another method for performing the same elective procedure (abortion). Forcing the practitioner to dispense an abortifacient when it is conflict with their right to freely practice their religion and violate their right to privacy is unconstitutional.

This goes beyond the issue of federal funding.

They have the freedom to refuse government funds.

lexhamfox on April 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM

So how do you propose funding those private hospitals, Catholic and otherwise, that are against abortions?

If they refuse Medicare, even private insurance will not pay them because Medicare sets the standards for EVERYTHING. JCAHO is an arm of Medicare that inspects and certifies hospitals. So those hospitals lose not only government funding, but private insurers.

To lose private hospitals like the Catholic healthcare systems would be a major disaster. Many poor people and others depend on their ability to serve underserved communities. I could tell you stories about what happened when one Catholic hospital was closed and another was bought by another secular system on Staten Island. The hospital I work at has not been able to pick up the slack because we were overwhelmed to begin with.

This revision may not affect doctors so much as the lowly nurses, assistants, technicians and others who don’t have the power to fight back.

I’m so disgusted with his lack of moral compass. Kill the unborn, but don’t call terrorism what it really is.

It is the state, not a private board that grants you the right to practice your profession.

Yes, but board certification is a distinction which let’s patients know that a doctor meets certain standards for patient safety, clinical outcomes, continuing education, etc. I suppose pro-life professionals could form a parallel organization, but currently there is a certain cachet to ABOG certification.

The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) has indicated it will stop certifying pro-life OB/GYNs if they do not provide abortion referrals.

I’m not sure what this really means. It is the state, not a private board that grants you the right to practice your profession. The state bar grants attys the right to practice law — not the ABA.

What about a Muslim who rejects to have any contact with pork when they work in a grocery store? Or cabbies not taking alcohol or pets in their vehicles? Would these instances ever apply to this rule? What if an obese kid comes into your restaurant and you don’t think they should eat what they’re ordering, can you say “sorry”?

You’re comparing apples to oranges here. If a store hires a muslim and tells him he doesn’t have to handle pork, then that is between the owner and the employee. Cabbies are working under a gov. license that is limited and is designed to serve the public – not the cabbie. It’s in the fine print. Is the owner of a restaurant going to refuse to serve an obese kid? The waitress? There might be discrimination laws. Plus, I don’t see the connection between one meal and anyone’s health. Aborting a fetus has a direct effect.

Doctors and medical personnel are working for hospitals that do not perform abortions and do not require their employees to perform abortions. The gov. imposing this unnecessary requirement that all hospitals perform abortions is ridiculous.

The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) has indicated it will stop certifying pro-life OB/GYNs if they do not provide abortion referrals. In fact, the Bush administration rule was issued specifically to address ABOG’s blatant disregard for freedom of conscience. If HHS does not issue a new clarification, ABOG will be emboldened to effectively oust pro-life doctors from the profession and patients who oppose abortion will no longer be able to find doctors whose moral compass points in the same direction as their own.

Should doctors be allowed to opt out of procedures they disagree with? That’s the fundamental issue.

Beyond abortion, you mean? Where would this apply?

Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Obviously you have never seen the South Park where Kyle’s dad gets plastic surgery to become a dolphin.

What if I wanted a plastic surgeon to remove my face? Should the doctor be forced to do that?

These may sound silly, but I start to wonder who will make the call when the lines start to blur. Do we not put ourselves into jobs or careers that may require that we do things against our personal moral code? It’s a slippery slope whether this rule applies to medical procedures only or not.