Because this is a federal rule, it supersedes state laws that, for example, require that rape victims treated in hospital emergency rooms are offered the option of taking emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Richards says “under this rule we believe that in fact now women who are the victim of sexual assault either would not be guaranteed either information or health care access to emergency contraception.”
In the past, if a medical provider was unwilling to perform a procedure or prescription, they had to tell patients that and refer them to someone who was willing to provide the service. But under the new regulations, these referrals will not be required.
Apparently Obama opposes the new ruling. To revoke it quickly, “the new Congress will have 75 legislative days to pass a ‘motion of disapproval’. All it takes is a simple majority of votes by the House and Senate, and the motion is not subject to delaying tactics in the Senate.”
Nice parting shot by Bush. Rick Warren will be pleased.
Its posted here
This rule is going to be awesome for that day I get in a car accident and need a blood transfusion and the only attending physician is a Jehovah’s Witness against whose religion it is to allow for such a procedure.
I haven’t heard of them protesting about other non-JW people getting blood transfusions, and I don’t see why they wouldn’t give you one. What did they do before this rule, just avert their eyes or something?
These rules, which include this and the various EPA rules currently being promulgated, will be rescinded or challenged in court and overturned.
<
p>The frustrating thing is that it takes time to do this because of the procedures in place. So, essentially, Bush is doing this not because he believes it in the best interests of the country, or even to please any particular constituency, but rather to gum up the works as much as possible for the new Administration.
<
p>In other words, in a time of crisis, the Bush Administration has helped sabotage an incoming President who will have to deal with a bigger mess than nearly all previous Presidents have had to deal with — a mess caused in large part by the Bush Administration itself. Jan. 20th can’t come soon enough.
Because this is a federal rule, it supersedes state laws that, for example, require that rape victims treated in hospital emergency rooms are offered the option of taking emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.
<
p>Rape victims should be attended to immediately by a special police officer trained in assisting rape victims, who should certainly give the victim EC (assuming the victim is a woman, of course. If it was a male victim, then the perp should be immediately given EC). The hospital staff should not be the ones providing EC, they aren’t qualified to help victims of traumatic crimes, they are just doctors. If a victim just arrives at the hospital and says they were raped, the hospital should call the police immediately.
Since when do police officers “give victims emergency contraception?” Is that the job of a police officer? I don’t think so. The hospital personnel do that. That’s why these state laws are implicated.
we need one anyway, because sometimes people are intimidated by uniformed police and squad cars showing up at their house, they don’t want to attract attention. So, to encourage more reporting of rape, the police should send an unmarked officer trained in gathering bodily evidence and administering care to rape victims, including psychological care and EC. EC is a pill, it doesn’t need to be given in a hospital setting. Of course, if the suspect is still at large, then get the cops out there in force, but we are talking about cases where the victim has already gone to the hospital.
Pay no mind.
There are major problems with the way police respond to rapes, resulting in rapes being unreported and evidence being lost and women being traumatized by the cops and hospitals as much as the rape itself. All cities should have a few specially trained officers/medics to respond to rapes in a minimally traumatic way.
<
p>And even if you don’t care about that, it’s still ridiculous to think that there is only one person who can provide a rape victim with EC, and so if that person doesn’t give them it, then they’ve lost their chance to get EC.
<
p>Maybe it’s not really about rape? Is it just about women needing access to EC and you think they should be able to choose any ER or go to any doctor and drop some hint that they might need EC, and that doctor should be obligated to give them info and provide EC? Shoot, I don’t even think I can get penicillin that easily. What if they just didn’t have any in the cabinet? Should they be required to keep it in the cabinet? Just go somewhere else.
<
p>But for rapes, I do think it should definitely be given to all women by a specially trained counselor/doctor/investigator.
Trouble is, most of your writing is so infused with and driven by your homophobic egg & sperm crap that I rarely bother to read what you write any longer. Sorry, but you’ve cried wolf too many times for me to take you seriously, even if on odd occasions you actually deserve to be.
of men raped by women [usually because hes drunk and shes not and yes, ladies and gentleman, thats rape]
<
p>vs.
<
p>men raped by men [either by physical force or by intoxication]
<
p>
<
p>But BTW — does EC require a prescription? It’s not obvious to me that a police officer can provide EC to a victim, nor is it obvious that it’s such a good idea in general.
This ruling is not unlike the religious accommodation to which every employer is subject.
<
p>What’s the flip side: forcing a devout Catholic to perform an abortion or dispense contraception? That’s draconian. How do you treat a devout Catholic rape victim? Slip them a Plan B when they’re not looking?
<
p>What’s next? Mandatory abortions, like China?
<
p>I think Laurel’s concern is hyperbolic. Really, how much health care will be denied? Get another doctor. Hospital policy could disallow “conscientious objectors” from working the ER or handling rape cases.
<
p>A nice compromise is to permit Catholic hospitals, but the progressive totalitarian mind wants to force them to submit to their definition of “health care.” Don’t take rape victims there. Laurel shouldn’t work at Caritas.
<
p>There are Christian Science high-skill nursing homes. They receive Medicare funding…shall we force them to use antibiotics and other Rx against their religion?
<
p>What’s wrong with offering some choice in health care based on religious preferences?
<
p>If the US is forced to serve Islamic-observant meals at Guantanamo, why can’t the health care system accommodate Catholics of conscience?
they’re not shoe stores.
<
p>They get all kinds of federal money and subsidization — and that’s not a bad thing. They’re subjected to all kinds of restrictions and regulations — and that’s not a bad thing either.
<
p>To the point:when I go to a doctor, I want him to act in my best interests, not his. This means giving me enough time for a proper diagnosis and proper treatment, according to my wishes.
<
p>I shouldn’t have to read fine print about whether or not any doctor or nurse where I go is willing to give me the treatment that I want and deserve. That’s just nonsense.
<
p>It’s nonsense in Boston where there’s plenty of medical choice, and it’s also nonsense in BFE where there’s one clinic within 100 miles.
<
p>
<
p>If you’re a Catholic “of conscience” then your conscience ought to prevent you from getting in a medical field where you’re refusing treatment.
The article states, at the end, “While the incoming president can’t simply wipe out the rules with the stroke of a pen…”
<
p>Can somebody explain this to me? Why can’t Obama wipe out these rules on day one?
from the article in the Globe
<
p>
<
p>I believe Congress has 75 days to write up a legislative ruling.