The broad environment that being a pharmaceutical company and health care facilities do offer birth control under the broad definition, they also offer a broad range of services for which birth control is only part, is it ok for them to discriminate against those that will not participate in related birth control services?

The broad definition is for the purpose of addressing the broad environments, it has little or not impact on the actual services or products. All the individual has to do is make a call and ask, do you offer the service?

The reality is the draft if it became policy would only prevent the employers that use government grants, from saying we offer and or do research into the area of birth control, do you have troubles with that. Then treating that individual differently.

To try to get people to think that simply using a broad definition for what is actually all birth control would affect the functional delivery of the these broad range of both products and services, from providers that are both government funded and not government funded, is really pretty abstract.

However, the government’s redefinition of the point of conception and abortion opens the door to all sorts of future action against women’s rights to health care, contraception, and abortion. Because once the federal government — as opposed to the scientific community — begins to define medical procedures and conditions, they can change the laws and regulations elsewhere.

THAT is the problem with this issue.

If government grants are used then they would be forced to recognize liability in these types of discrimination.

Health professionals have been dealing with the dichotomy of this for decades, the facilities I worked with did with respect, getting to see the correct doctor is related to that professionalism and your own communication. A health care employee would not persecute those that do the procedure or those that do not, they would also ensure you got the doctor that you need and not the one you do not.

What is also important to note, is that pressuring others can be seen as disruptive and grounds for termination. If you choose to participate or not fine, but pressuring others is not.

I honestly do not think they do, so they would not be affected by the proposed HHS policy.

It would protect the rights of doctors that obstain from offering birth control, there are not or cannot be that many OBGYN that refuse to offer birth control but certainly a significant number that would not perform an abortion.

your perspective is that of the consumer and yeah it would affect you, if you end up asking for something from someone that does not offer it. The policy is to protect their right to not offer it.

So if CVS stocks the product you will get the product, the HHS policy draft, if it even is real, would not affect those not recieving federal grants.

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx

Order it online?

http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=161395&aid=336064&aparam=plan%20b&scinit1=gg050108a003725&scinit2=exact

http://www.drugstore.com/templates/stdplist/default.asp?catid=93339&trx=GFI-0-EVGR-MCN&trxp1=93338&trxp2=93339&trxp3=2&trxp4=ML

http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/prices/drugprice.asp?ndc=52544084728&trx=1Z5006

From the National Women’s Legal Center, May 2008, “Reports of pharmacist refusals have surfaced in twenty-one states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MN, MO, MT, NH, NY, NC, OH, OR, RI,
TN, TX, WA, WV, WI.”

Only seven states explicitly require pharmacists or pharmacies to ensure that valid prescriptions are filled. I also live in Ohio, and Ohio has no such law requiring that pharmacists dispense prescribed medicines.

http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyRefusals101May.pdf

If a woman must interact with a pharmacist to obtain a legally approved OTC drug, and if that pharmacist objects to dispensing the drug, it can become very difficult, not to mention awkward and embarassing, for the woman in need to actually obtain the medicine she seeks.

The misinformation about emergency contraception is startling and persistent like bad gas. Levonorgestrel is OTC over 18 all you have to do is ask for it.

I got it correct, its about the doctor or nurse that refuse to participate in the procedure, and them getting pushed out by radicals health care administrators. Not all OBGYN departments do abortions, religiously affiliated hospitals do not obviously, county hospitals do, for them to require all staff within OBGYN to participate would be discriminatory. That’s not always religious, some simply do not like doing them. In reality we all know that there are many more doctors willing to prescribe birth control in the form of contraception than in the form of abortions. The morning after pill is irrelevant it does not require a prescription.

This is just OHIO and other states, some states have Medicare funding for abortions under all circumstances, so would this draft affect them?

It get back into the healthcare facility, its all about doctors and nurses that offer birth control, I believe that a general practitioner offer the pill though they may refer a woman to a gynecologist, most doctors that have religious conflicts will refer the patient to another.

Making sure you insurance covers it, or making sure you can pay for it, if you are in a state were Medicaid covers it and your income is low enough to qualify all you would do is call and ask, do you offer abortions do you offer birth control?

I fully respect a woman’s rights I am having bit of an issue with their problem solving skills though or maybe it is an inability to functionally represent reality.

It is NOT about restricting services or products.

It IS about redefining the definition of pregnancy and conception.

Once HHS, acting as a surrogate for the religious right, redefines conception according to public opinion and not medical/scientific fact, THEN they can further legislate and control women’s reproductive capacities.

The law will not protect those that get terminated for being a trouble maker or demanding in a problematic manor, telling a co-worker that they should or should not, that could get you fired, its all about respect.

What is wrong would be to fire a person for not doing something that they felt was wrong. Its the hospital responsibility to make sure its staff is balanced, if it offers the service it really has to offer it. Does that make sense, the law does not say every hospital has to offer abortions, the Cleveland Clinic for a decade offered no obstetrics and had no real emergency room. However their GYN did offer abortions.

Silly not everyone in health care is willing to abort a fetus, do they really believe that health care is refusing to hire people that refuse to do abortions, they may be, I never heard of a case, but evidently our legislators must have, somebody must have gotten terminated for refusing to participate in an abortion, that’s so wrong. I suppose it may have to do more with hiring, it would be discrimination unless you are applying for a position at Preterm and they do not get government funds, or do they. Does Medicare or Medicaid cover abortions? I am not sure, anybody know?

Plan B is sold in drugstores, anyone over 18 can buy it, in some states anyone can. How on earth are they connecting this legislation to that? Don’t bother its unrelated.