CNN

It is a shame that the parents of these liberals didn't all have abortions, then this would no longer be a problem.

New Yorker

I did not say a doctor should not be a doctor if they do not want to perform abortions, I said they should stay out of the medical field if their morality will prevent them from performing womens health services, or at least stay out of a field where it becomes an issue.

is there any reason someone who objects to abortion needs to work at an abortion clinic? Is there any reason someone who objects to womens health should work in a n OB office? No there is not. If you object to anything that has to do with a woman controlling her reproductive system go DO SOMETHING ELSE! Be a podiatrist or a childrens health specialist. Be a ear, nose and throat doctor, just stay away from my rights to control my own body.

What you do not seem to understand New Yorker, is that there are already rules protecting a doctor from being forced from doing an abortion, now you are talking about a doctor being allowed to refuse heath care for ANY moral objection. Your doc doesn't like homosexuality, he can refuse to treat a gay person. He doesnt like immunizations? He can legally tell you not to get them for your kids without recommending you to someone who will.

You pro life people are SO blinded by your hatred for equality that you refuse to see when its gone too far. This is NOT about abortion, this is about my right to get acceptable heath care without prejudice

@ New Yorker

Check the current Declaration of Geneva from the WMO. The abortion, conception and fertilization blabber has been removed from the modern version (2006). It has also been removed from the majority of Hippocratic Oaths administered around the country, which use a version written by the former dean of Tufts School of Biomedicine. Moreover, on a practical level, Hippocrates' reference to a "plessary for abortion" refers to a device that often led to infection and death of the mother, not just the child.

As other people have already mentioned: clinical workers are already allowed to opt out of procedures that they find morally objectionable, provided that they find a suitable substitute.

For those who are blaming the "liberal states", here's a newsflash for you. Liberal states such as NY and CA and CT have plenty of doctors willing to provide controversial services. It's those of you in more rural and "conservative" states that have cause to be concerned. Where are you going to go if your doctor refuses to provide you treatment, and the next closest doctor is 30 miles away?

What if you want psychological treatment or pharmaceuticals? What about drug and alcohol treatment? What if you want to have elective surgeries? What if you want Viagra? Your doctor will be perfectly capable of refusing you these treatments on "moral" grounds.

This is not about abortion or RU-486 anymore. This is about ALL treatments.

Hypocrites. What happened to the GOP blathering about the government staying out of the free market? If they believe it so much, then let the market determine whether doctors can refuse certain services. Once they get prosecuted for manslaughter for failing to save a mother's life or have their entire lives and practices collapsed by a couple malpractice suits, the malpractice insurance companies will raise premiums for doctors who refuse certain services and, hopefully, that will either teach them their lesson or make it not worth their while to become doctors who try to make their patients abide by their personal beliefs. And hey, we should be allowed to revoke the license of any physician who breaks their oath...it doesn't have any special conditional clauses in it.

@ New Yorker:

Sorry, but it WAS something I needed not wanted. I didn't want to have an ovary removed at 13, suffer years of cysts and endometriosis, barely able to carry my children to term after years of trying to get pregnant only to end up having a hysterectomy at 33.

If you would have read my comments, I was not talking about abortion, I was talking about my right to reproductive health.

Sorry if this gets posted twice, but CNN doesn't seem to want to post my other comment, PLEASE POST THIS ONE!!

Jodi and others who say a doctor shouldn't be in the medical field if he/she doesn't want t perform an abortion, do you realize many/most
doctors choose the profession to save life not DESTROY it? God forbid the day when we only have doctors who are willing to perform abortions. Read this portion of the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath – "I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life. " This is the oath doctors swear to, the last I knew.

It's not about religion. As a woman it sickens me to hear other woman screaming about my rights my rights. What about the childs rights? If a doctor does not want to perform an abortion because he thinks it is immoral then find another doctor.....What are you going to do duct tape the scapel to his hand and force him to.
Liberals always take this to the extreme....well if the woman comes into the ER and her life is in danger blah blah. I'm pretty sure every doc in the place would be there to help trust me i work with them every day. Then the article throws in the the whole I'm going to take your contraception away......please give me a break. And liberals say we fearmonger!

we need more abortions to control the over-growing population of the planet!

THERE WILL BE MANY MORE LAWSUITS FILING AGAINST THE BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION.

"Protect the least of these" or pay the consequences!

Technology has caught up with abortion rights! A fetus is a living baby until you kill it!

Only in a democrats feeble mind and black heart would it be ok to force someone to perform an abortion.

Most jobs do not require degrees in theology, but every job requires moral judgments. Should accountants help their clients evade taxes? Or just avoid them? Should lawyers help people break laws, or bend them, or follow them? Is it alright for a teacher to have sex with a student if there is no law against it?

Human beings cannot check their moral judgments at the door when they get to the office, the hospital, the train station, whatever. That's what the Nazis did. If everyone who is morally opposed to abortion is disqualified from holding a job in the health care field for that reason alone, then we should prepare for anti-abortion ghettos.

The moral morons are at it again.

insanity: "It's not about moral choice, it's about duty which he/she was sworn to perform. If abortion is legal, then a doctor MUST be legally responsible to perform procedure."

Pot, meet kettle. If a doctor actually followed the hippocratic oath he/she was sworn to perform by, killing unborn children would be out of the question, legal or not. Unfortunately only those who can speak are allowed to have rights in this country.

I believe that people who have strong opinions about issues should not go into fields that would go against those opinions. Pharmacists, physicians, nurses, etc. Last time I checked these fields do not give out "god" degrees and they supposedly went into these fields to help people. People don't go to these people for moral judgment calls, they go for help. Shame on Bush for allowing this to happen. I'm tired of religious conservatives trying to mix religion with government. We are supposedly a melting pot of nationalities and ideas. One segment should not be allowed to highjack the rest of us.

Unfortunately, this bill does have wider implications.

If a pharmacist has moral objections regarding contraception and a woman presents him with a prescription for birth control pills, he does not have to fill the prescription.

Now who is forcing their philosophies on someone else?

Ana B, It wouldn't be what you "needed" ; it would be what you wanted. Yes, it would be fair. To compell someone to kill an innocent baby or risk losing their job is what truly would be unfair; more like an outrage.

"Blumenthal said the regulation would put women's health care at risk and would undercut state contraception laws. " When this type of comment appears in the article, it is no wonder that it could be seen as controversial. Abortion and contraception should never be used in the same context.

@ Jenny: "The suits filed by of course, the most liberal states in America, are showing yet again how the liberal front isn't (ironically) about liberty, but about forcing people to accept and adopt their political philosophies."

You could also turn that around to say that it's the religious zealots that are trying to force their beliefs on my body.

Jenny, I disagree with you. This is no more about liberals forcing people to accept their beliefs than it is about conservatives punishing those who have different beliefs than their own. This is about a rule that allows any healthcare provider to refuse care–even critial care–to another person simply because the provider can claim a moral objection. The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. If healthcare providers want to cause harm by refusing care–regardless of whether the person can be shipped across town to another hospital/physican/etc.–then that provider has no business in health care.

@ Indy

OMG...look them up in the dictionary before using big boy words like communism, socialism and marxism. When you become a doctor you swear the Hippocratic Oath, which should supercede all else in your professional life. You will NOT be allowed to become a doctor without swearing it. An emergency room doctor, for example, should not be allowed to refuse an emergency abortion to save the mother's life simply because of his personal beliefs. He chose to be part of a system that requires him to prioritize the needs of society and his individual patients over his own personal beliefs, and society absolutely requires we have trust and faith in the medical system to do just that. Don't want to perform the procedures? Then don't become a doctor (or suck it up when we revoke your license).

It's not just abortion. Some people have religious views against contraception, which could include recommending options to patients, inserting IUD's, and so on. What about a person who is drug or alcohol impaired and a health care worker in attendance belongs to a religion that prohibits drinking? Taken to the extreme (and let's face it, that what Americans like to do), ths law will be difficult to undo once legal actions and so on have cemeted it in place.

I am a really concerd citizen. You known your cnn was so concerd
about President Bush spending 42 Million dollars on his inauguration
and what all he could of done with that money. Well what about
150million+ on President-elect Obamas inauguration.
History or not this country is in dier need of every penny it can get
so what the he!! is going on. President Bush did a great job and I have confidence in President-elect Obama. So please give the credit
where it is due. Bush was not afraid to protect and provide for his
Country. Mary Mason

I really hope this is overturned. Sorry, but if you are so tied up in your own views that you would deny your job then you should not be in the medical field. Not liking abortion is no excuse.

I suggest to pro lifers to not work in abortion clinics if they have issue with it, and I will not work in an evangelical church, seeing as I have issue with their insane rhetoric.

Jenny January 16th, 2009 11:22 am ET

If a doctor is morally uncomfortable about giving an abortion he should not be required to perform them. He should be able to refer the patient to some doctor that will. The suits filed by of course, the most liberal states in America, are showing yet again how the liberal front isn't (ironically) about liberty, but about forcing people to accept and adopt their political philosophies
--------------------------

Jenny, you MUST be a republican because you have no logical thought process.
If a policeman finds it morally objectionable to serve a woman who has had an abortion, are we to allow him the choice ?

It's not about moral choice, it's about duty which he/she was sworn to perform. If abortion is legal, then a doctor MUST be legally responsible to perform procedure.

As a Catholic, I find abortion morally objectionable as well, but that's a legal matter. One should not cross-link morality and law.

What is too bad is that this is not exclusively abut abortion but some of you would like to believe that it is. Healthcare of any variety cannot be subject to a doctors "religous or moral" reasons. Please note "perform abortions or other medical procedures". That "other medical procedures" is a can of worms about to explode. Any doctor can site any procedure they choose as being against their "views". This applies to anything. If a doctor does not want to treat everyone for everything then I think that they should only be in private practice and should have provide every patient with a pamphlet listing what they "will not do". In that respect I would accept that as legal. But that doctor could not do any clinic or hospital work that involves anyone but their own patients.

Doctors and nurses have always been able to opt out of performing abortions. The problem with the regulation is that is defines health care workers so broadly that it could include everyone from the hospital janitor to the workers sterilizing surgical equipment. Additionally, the way the medical procedures are defined, it could include birth control pills, and even procedures to improve fertility, such as artificial insemination. Taken together, a janitor in a hospital could refuse to mop the floor if a nearby patient is taking birth control or getting in vitro fertilization, and the hospital could not discipline him in any way.

That is the problem with the regulation. No one is trying to make a doctor perform an abortion if he doesn't want to.

True, doctors should not be forced to go against their personal beliefs. BUT... wasn't that the excuse that some 'doctors' in past had when a black/Asian/Latin person with obvious life-threatening conditions was brought to him/her and he/she claimed that he only took care of whites so he/she wouldn't perform any procedure on the person?
A doctor should have the right to not perform an abortion if that's against his/hers personal beliefs, but 'personal beliefs' are a too vague definition of a right. As everything in life, there has to be a limit.
For instance: doctors are entailed to report child abuses to the authorities that they find when examining children for any reason, no 'doctor-patient' privileges in here, right? So, I believe that a doctor can have the right to not perform an abortion, as long as his/hers beliefs doesn't implis in any life-threatening condition for the woman that he/she refuses to help.

Just another of the "special" gifts that Bush is shoving out the exit door. He still has a few more days left and I am sure he has a few more gifts for us. I think Obama will overturn this fairly fast.

Eric M: I agree with most of your comments, but this article overlooks the most insidious and least obvious harm that Bush's "rule" causes, that doctors and pharmacists can refuse to discuss or provide birth control.

Jenny: you have to be one of the most disingenuous people posting today. This isn't a liberal state issue, but an issue of safety and reproductive health. See my comment to Eric, above.

In a society that essentially coddles men with "erectile dysfunction" and broadcasts some of the most disgusting commercials about "chubby Santas" and impotence, one that requires insurance to cover Viagra, to allow doctors and pharmacists and insurance companies to deny a woman access to simple birth control, it is part of the slippery slope to removing a woman's reproductive rights once and for all.

I don't believe that a doctor or nurse should be forced to perform abortions if they have a moral issue against them. That being said, if they are morally against it, why would they work in an abortion clinic in the first place?

My main beef from a personal standpoint is with the birth control issue. I myself went through 20 years of suffering with "female" problems since the age of 13 and birth control pills were my only form of relief. Sorry if TMI.

I know that I could find another doctor or pharmacist if mine didn't agree with this, but I've been with the same doctor for over 20 years so after this law, if he suddenly decided he would't provide me what I needed, is that fair?

So whether or not you believe in abortion, the question is this:

Now it doesn't matter what your moral and religious beliefs are, the state supersedes them? Isn't that communism?

It's too bad abortion wasn't legal before Bush was born.

George has to be the biggest moran in the history of this country.
The man has no morals or scruples.

Bush is a dog and someone need to sue him personally. He's worthless.

I am sure if someone is against abortion they will not work at a clinic that performs this, so this law is unnecessary. This is just another way how the Bush administration moves America backwards. Stop pleasing the religious right, they are a thorn in America's future.

Let me get this straight....members of our volunteer military can declare themselves conscientious objectors when it comes to participating in war. However, private physicians cannot legally refuse to perform an abortion based on their personal beliefs?

Clearly if you have someone who is Christian Scientist and refuses to perform any medical procedure, that person should not work in the medical field. If a physician works at an abortion clinic and refuses to perform any abortions, that individual should not continue working there. If there is an emergency situation in which failure to abort would be life-threatening to the mother, I believe the physician should face consequences if they refuse to perform the procedure in the absence of anyone else that will do what is necessary to save the mother's life.

However, it should be the right of any physician to refuse to perform a procedure which they object to, such as partial-birth abortion, late-term abortion, etc. If the patient wants the procedure done anyway, they should consult another physician.

I'm pro-choice, but issues like this are where I think the pro-choice movement is trying to push the envelope too far.

If a doctor is morally uncomfortable about giving an abortion he should not be required to perform them. He should be able to refer the patient to some doctor that will. The suits filed by of course, the most liberal states in America, are showing yet again how the liberal front isn't (ironically) about liberty, but about forcing people to accept and adopt their political philosophies.

I'm willing to bet these people support people being CO's (conscientious objectors) to avoid going to war to kill people.

But when it comes to saving the lives of unborn babies, different story.

If a woman's life is in danger, these people are MORAL, not morons, and i trust that they will protect life when it is most vulnerable. I mean, if the woman dies, the baby dies. I do suspect they will not perform an abortion because the woman doesn't want the baby. However, i believe that if they don't want to kill a baby on moral grounds, they won't let a woman die because they won't abort a fetus that will otherwise not make it, given the death of the woman.

see what i'm saying?