US Senate defeats conscience-protection amendment

[elts1956]

So what do you think this means Obama will easily overturn the Conscience clauses that now protect the conscience of medical personnell, including pharmacists.

More prayers needed.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2529
By a 56-41 vote, the US Senate defeated an amendment to legislation that would have upheld the conscience rights of health care workers and institutions that do not wish to participate in abortion. Sixteen of the nation’s 25 Catholic senators voted against the amendment.

The 16 Catholic senators who voted against the conscience clause were: Begich of Alaska, Cantwell of Washington, Collins of Maine, Dodd of Connecticut, Durbin of Illinois, Gillibrand of New York, Harkin of Iowa, Kaufman of Delaware, Kerry of Massachusetts, Landrieu of Louisiana, Leahy of Vermont, McCaskill of Missouri, Menendez of New Jersey, Mikulski of Maryland, Murray of Washington, and Reed of Rhode Island. All but Collins are Democrats.

CONTACT these representatives to express your displeasure.

 

[RedGecko]

Have any health care workers ever been compelled to assist in an abortion, against their conscience?

 

[jpm1977]

Have any health care workers ever been compelled to assist in an abortion, against their conscience?

What is the language of this bill exactly? What would it change about the current law? Are we going for knee-jerk reactions?

As I understand it, existing federal law protects an individual health care worker from having to perform an abortion, and I’ve never heard of it ever happening, ever. And no one could really be forced to. From what I understand of this new conscience clause, it would protect individuals’ consciences to the extent that they could take a job at Planned Parenthood, for example, and then refuse to do anything that violated their conscience there (that might be everything) and they couldn’t be fired. Is that desirable? You might say yes, but then ask yourself whether turnabout might be fair play?

Maybe the next conscience provision says a Catholic school has to hire an atheist who refuses to teach Catholic theology because it violates their conscience, and they can’t be fired for that.

This is just what I understand. If anyone who spends more time studying these issues knows more detail, please jump in. I am open to correction.

 

[Newbie2]

What is the language of this bill exactly? What would it change about the current law? Are we going for knee-jerk reactions?

As I understand it, existing federal law protects an individual health care worker from having to perform an abortion, and I’ve never heard of it ever happening, ever. And no one could really be forced to. From what I understand of this new conscience clause, it would protect individuals’ consciences to the extent that they could take a job at Planned Parenthood, for example, and then refuse to do anything that violated their conscience there (that might be everything) and they couldn’t be fired. Is that desirable? You might say yes, but then ask yourself whether turnabout might be fair play?

Maybe the next conscience provision says a Catholic school has to hire an atheist who refuses to teach Catholic theology because it violates their conscience, and they can’t be fired for that.

This is just what I understand. If anyone who spends more time studying these issues knows more detail, please jump in. I am open to correction.

Good thought.

 

[vz71]

Can anyone post the text of the amendment?

I have been looking online for it, but thus far have not found anything.

 

[Mark77]

What is the language of this bill exactly? What would it change about the current law? Are we going for knee-jerk reactions?

As I understand it, existing federal law protects an individual health care worker from having to perform an abortion, and I’ve never heard of it ever happening, ever. And no one could really be forced to. From what I understand of this new conscience clause, it would protect individuals’ consciences to the extent that they could take a job at Planned Parenthood, for example, and then refuse to do anything that violated their conscience there (that might be everything) and they couldn’t be fired. Is that desirable? You might say yes, but then ask yourself whether turnabout might be fair play?

Maybe the next conscience provision says a Catholic school has to hire an atheist who refuses to teach Catholic theology because it violates their conscience, and they can’t be fired for that.

This is just what I understand. If anyone who spends more time studying these issues knows more detail, please jump in. I am open to correction.

That’s the usual false, garbage argument! You would never be hired at PP because your entire job description would be against your conscience!

When they ask you at your interview, “Can you be involved in an abortion?” “Can you agree with ABC…?” Would you say yes and then use the conscience clause to opt out???

According to your rhetoric, a person who enlists in the Army and then claims to be a conscientious objector should not be allowed to opt out???

Come on!

You liberals can’t have it both ways!!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Newbie2]

That’s the usual false, garbage argument! You would never be hired at PP because your entire job description would be against your conscience!

When they ask you at your interview, “Can you be involved in an abortion?” “Can you agree with ABC…?” Would you say yes and then use the conscience clause to opt out???

According to your rhetoric, a person who enlists in the Army and then claims to be a conscientious objector should not be allowed to opt out???

Come on!

You liberals can’t have it both ways!!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

Whoh, back up the truck, Mark. I’m about the furthest thing from a Liberal as you can get.

jpm1977’'s argument has some merit.

Sure, if someone were looking for a real job, some gainful meaningful longtime employment, it wouldn’t make sense to apply for a job where you would be asked to do or participate in something against your conscience. However, there are those who are just out to make a point, perhaps to get rich quick with a frivolous lawsuit (I’ve been the target of such), and the idea that some of these seemingly ridiculous situations could come about as an intended or non-intended consequence of such legislation.

 

[human_being]

From what I understand from watching Sunday Night Live is that if doctors are seen by someone who wants an abortion the doctor will be abliged to either do it or make a refferal. If they do neither they are breaking the law. It also has to do with medicaid and maybe some other federal fundings that most if not all hospitals need to survive and rely on heavily. Catholic hospitals deal with alot of poor people who use the federal healthcares. If catholic hospitals refuse to take part in the abortion process they will be refused the federal funding and will probably not be able to survive.So I heard that the Bishops were thinking about closing all the catholic hospitals. They will most probably be set up by pro -choice women and thus the process of losing alot of money will begin. This is the way I understood it. My interptetation may be off a bit but its the way I understood it. I contacted Arlen Spector about it and he replied that he thinks abortion is a personal choice but didn’t say anything about it being a personal choice to give or not give an abortion if requested to do so. I don’t know how he voted but I’m glad Senator Carey voted to keep the consciece clause. I also contacted him. Some people have rights and others don’t.

 

[rpp]

Whoh, back up the truck, Mark. I’m about the furthest thing from a Liberal as you can get.

jpm1977’'s argument has some merit.

Sure, if someone were looking for a real job, some gainful meaningful longtime employment, it wouldn’t make sense to apply for a job where you would be asked to do or participate in something against your conscience. However, there are those who are just out to make a point, perhaps to get rich quick with a frivolous lawsuit (I’ve been the target of such), and the idea that some of these seemingly ridiculous situations could come about as an intended or non-intended consequence of such legislation.

No his argument has no merit because a person who morally objected to what Planned Parenthood does would not seek employment or association there.

 

[rpp]

What is the language of this bill exactly? What would it change about the current law? Are we going for knee-jerk reactions?

As I understand it, existing federal law protects an individual health care worker from having to perform an abortion, and I’ve never heard of it ever happening, ever. And no one could really be forced to. From what I understand of this new conscience clause, it would protect individuals’ consciences to the extent that they could take a job at Planned Parenthood, for example, and then refuse to do anything that violated their conscience there (that might be everything) and they couldn’t be fired. Is that desirable? You might say yes, but then ask yourself whether turnabout might be fair play?

Maybe the next conscience provision says a Catholic school has to hire an atheist who refuses to teach Catholic theology because it violates their conscience, and they can’t be fired for that.

This is just what I understand. If anyone who spends more time studying these issues knows more detail, please jump in. I am open to correction.

This is one of the most vapid posts made on this forum in all my time here.

 

[human_being]

This is one of the most vapid posts made on this forum in all my time here.

What does vapid mean?

 

[human_being]

From what I understand from watching Sunday Night Live is that if doctors are seen by someone who wants an abortion the doctor will be abliged to either do it or make a refferal. If they do neither they are breaking the law. It also has to do with medicaid and maybe some other federal fundings that most if not all hospitals need to survive and rely on heavily. Catholic hospitals deal with alot of poor people who use the federal healthcares. If catholic hospitals refuse to take part in the abortion process they will be refused the federal funding and will probably not be able to survive.So I heard that the Bishops were thinking about closing all the catholic hospitals. They will most probably be set up by pro -choice women and thus the process of losing alot of money will begin. This is the way I understood it. My interptetation may be off a bit but its the way I understood it. I contacted Arlen Spector about it and he replied that he thinks abortion is a personal choice but didn’t say anything about it being a personal choice to give or not give an abortion if requested to do so. I don’t know how he voted but I’m glad Senator Casey voted to keep the consciece clause. I also contacted him. Some people have rights and others don’t.

In addition it was reported that Mass. had some kind of laws or requirements passed in favor of gay couples being able to adapt children. The laws were passed and since the Church had longstanding orphanages in the state were required to abide by them. They refused to place children into 'alternative families" and were either forced out of the abortion charity or opted to not comply and now after 100 or more years of Catholic orphanages in Mass. The Church has no orphanages in Mass. I would suppose that the public brainwashing system will now step in. “I’m sure the gov’t will raise much better children.”(sarcastically of course.) So what my point is is that the devil is on the prowl ripping up Catholic institutions left and right and the baby murderers will probably do the same things to our hospitals if the conscience clause is removed. It’s a shame that Mass. is considered such a Catholic state but I suppose that it is this lax and light-hearted thinking on serious moral issues that gets us to this point.The Church is deffinitely under attack.

 

[Newbie2]

No his argument has no merit because a person who morally objected to what Planned Parenthood does would not seek employment or association there.

Probably not, but unless I misunderstand his point, he’s questioning whether or not such a legal provision could be used by an athiest seeking to make trouble by getting himself hired at a Catholic school and then refusing to teach Catholic principles since such would violate his beliefs on religion.

Seems like a strange scenario, but how many times has poorly thought out legislation backfired? That’s what we get from vapid lawmakers.

Personally, I don’t object to legislation that protects the conscious beliefs of workers either in or out of the field of medicine, as long as it’s well-written to prevent it being used against the religious.

 

[elts1956]

In addition it was reported that Mass. had some kind of laws or requirements passed in favor of gay couples being able to adapt children. The laws were passed and since the Church had longstanding orphanages in the state were required to abide by them. They refused to place children into 'alternative families" and were either forced out of the abortion charity or opted to not comply and now after 100 or more years of Catholic orphanages in Mass. The Church has no orphanages in Mass. I would suppose that the public brainwashing system will now step in. “I’m sure the gov’t will raise much better children.”(sarcastically of course.) So what my point is is that the devil is on the prowl ripping up Catholic institutions left and right and the baby murderers will probably do the same things to our hospitals if the conscience clause is removed. It’s a shame that Mass. is considered such a Catholic state but I suppose that it is this lax and light-hearted thinking on serious moral issues that gets us to this point.The Church is deffinitely under attack.

Most definitely the Church is under attack, both externally and internally due to the laxity of some clergy in teaching correct catechesis to members of their dioceses and parishes for the past 45 - 50 years.

I would like to perhaps correct a bit of possible misinformation in your post. Unless you have a different source than I, it isn’t the Catholic orphanages who are being eliminated, but the adoption services of Catholic Charities in Mass. The Bishops concurred the organization could not provide homosexual couples with adopted children. Due to Ma. law which states ALL adoption agencies MUST comply with the non discrimination law of adoptive herterosexual and homosexual applicants, Catholic Charities of Boston has eliminated their adoption services. This is a blatant attack on freedom of Religion and conscience…

See this link, if it is still operational.

boston.com/news/local/art…nds_adoptions/