Monday, January 18, 2010

In defense of the conscience clause and Scott Brown's position

A guest post from my cousin Martine,

"I am a registered nurse. During my nine years as an R.N. I have observed that it is only related to the subject of right to life issues where the conscience clause becomes a problem for liberals.

Nurses and other healthcare professionals use their judgement to deal with complicated situations everyday. I have been involved in cases where patient assignments were adjusted for a variety of reasons, including the religious beliefs of the nurse. One such situation was brought to my attention by my charge nurse who told me that my co-worker, Mary, had a doctor's order that she could not carry out because of her religion. I said I could do it and Mary offered to help me out with my patients while I was caring for her patient. After the treatment was delivered Mona resumed care of her patient and thanked me.

Scott Brown stands for individual freedoms and allowing people to be professionals instead of micromanaging every aspect of healthcare. In the situation I described the details were as follows: my colleague Mary is a Jehovah's Witness and the treatment was a blood transfusion. Mary did not have to stop working in a hospital (as Martha Coakley suggested Catholics should not work in emergency rooms). Professional caregivers delivered competent care without stripping individuals of their rights.

Whenever liberals attack the conscience clause they betray that they are actually
"pro abortion" rather than "pro choice". Men of integrity like Scott Brown recognize that you don't have to strip away the rights of the individual to protect emergency healthcare delivery."


Martine called into the Michael Graham Show this morning. I recognized her voice immediately. She called me when she got off the air and asked how she did. I told her she was fabulous and she was.

The best part of the story is that it illustrates how these accommodations are made and the patient likely had no idea that it happened.

In the case of the emergency contraception, this is something that is available in any pharmacy with no script and no questions. In the sad eventuality that a rape victim is in a facility where she needs this (and not every rape victim does), and can not readily obtain it - it's likely she will have other prescriptions to fill. She will get these prescription filled in the very place where she can get the emergency contraception.

Please remember, if you want to be mad at Scott Brown for proposing an unsuccessful amendment which would have added this language to the bill -

Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.

If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

Then you must also be upset with Martha because she supports ObamaCare which has the same exemption for moral objectors......without the stipulation for the facility to find the requested care for the patient elsewhere.

So Martha is screaming at Scott for unsuccessfully proposing an exemption in one piece of legislation, while at the same time supporting a much broader exemption in another piece of legislation. Shall we have cake Martha? That way you can show us how to have it and eat it too.....

The information and links to the actual language of both the bill and the amendment is all due to the diligent work of another blogger, Legal Insurrection. It is a blog chock full of good Scott Brown stuff. I am enjoying reading it very much.

If you only read one post at Legal Insurrection, please read this one -
"Coakley's Disgusting Rape Mailer".
No matter where you come down on the question of an exemption for moral objectors, you must agree that Coakley is simply beyond the pale with this ad.

2 comments:

ChrisCicc said...

Hey Maggie,
First off, GO SCOTT BROWN!

I wanted to respond to your cousin Martine about the friend in the hospital. She said, "In the situation I described the details were as follows: my colleague Mary is a Jehovah's Witness and the treatment was a blood transfusion."

I'm sorry, but if a emergency health care professional is unable to complete a blood transfusion over religious grounds they have NO BUSINESS working in that capacity.

Refusing to perform an abortion I can understand as in the end you are taking a life. But unable to put a needle in an arm and hook up a pint of blood?

Part of the problem in today's society, IMHO, is that we in many cases have become too forgiving where we should stand firm. Political correctness often takes precedence over what is simply right. If someone is going to work in a position that on a regular basis may require them do something they are unable to do then they have no place putting themselves in that position.

I have no doubt that the doctor that gave her the orders and saw her refusal felt disdain and disrespect for her, but was unable to act upon it (i.e. tell her to find a new job) because of "religious" beliefs. Sure, religious freedom means you don't have to transfuse blood. It also means you don't have to have a job that requires you to transfuse blood.

In this case, some "professional caregivers delivered competent care", but one did not, and she shouldn't be rewarded for her failure by blaming it on religion.

Rob said...

I want Brown to win, but I think this conscience clause stuff is hooey. How about doing your JOB? We're not asking YOU to have an abortion, Sister Mary Uptight -- administer to your patient.
How about the muslim taxi driver who won't drive you because of the vino in your shopping bag? Or the Catholic pharmacist who won't sell you condoms? Or the Mormon cashier who won't ring up your tall boy of Bud at the 7-11? Do your job, or get another job!
The blood transfusion example is the same deal: no one asked the nurse to HAVE a transfusion.

You're right, the mailer is idiotic bull, but what do you expect from politicians, especially during an election?