Say, isn't the text of your link a deliberate misrepresentation of the article it links to? Since a) nobody used the expression "moral defectives" or any equivalent in this case, and b) elective abortion is not something you call 911 for.
Can I assume that I am witnessing some ironic in-joke here, rather than a rare case of left-wing bigotry? Perhaps the answer lies in the picture, but it is unfamiliar.
An ambulance driver can be called to transport a patient for an elective abortion in many instances. One that immediately springs to mind is that the child was either threatening the mother's life or another health problem was discovered that would have prevented carrying the child to term - the mother can elect to abort, or elect to try birthing it anyway. She did not call 9-1-1. The story states that she was being transported from one hospital to another, which is not something they usually let patients do themselves in bad medical situations.
#1: According to the Chicago Sun-Times, this woman was forced to go to the emergency room rather than the abortion clinic by the delay. The refusal to do her job put the patient at risk. And you don't dispatch an ambulance for an uncomplicated elective abortion, you take a taxi. The ambulance was dispatched to take the patient from one hospital to another.
#2: "moral defectives" is not a direct quote, but rather an indication that the phrase is an incorrect representation of the person wanting an abortion.
But you're right, it does appear that it's a quote from the article, when it isn't. Let me fix that.
Huh. The way it was portrayed in the Washington Post, I got the impression that the hospital had dispatched an emergency vehicle for a routine abortion, which certainly would be a pretty good reason to call one's boss and Just Say No. A deliberate provocation of the driver, an excuse to get her fired, this would be a natural testing case for religious discrimination. If it was an actual emergency, the lawsuit seems a total waste of money. Not to mention that it would be dishonorly.
"This was the hardest decision I ever made. The heinousness of a rape is a horrible thing. But I don't think you should punish a child for the sins of the father."
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess this person is a Christian. You know, a believer in the religion that blames all of us for the sins of Adam and Eve.
Eveyr single one of those people should be taken out in the street, shackled to a post in the sun, and left to die. Pedestrians should be encouraged to throw things at them.
I cannot state this more clearly: If you cannot do your job because your religion forbids the performance thereof, you need to find another religion or another job.
I'm pretty sure that the fertility specialist who is upfront about only wanting to treat married patients with their own sperm and eggs is fine, actually.
It certainly avoids all that moral/ethical doubletalk that surrounds fertilized embryos from normative fertility clinics.
What's so wrong with his stance? Generally, I agree with your last statement, but if it isn't an emergency (and I hope you don't think "we need to have a baby" is an emergency) then nobody is really getting hurt.
Morning-after pill and a rape victim? Yeah, that example suits your response.
In real life, we accomodate religious expression in a lot of jobs. For instance in a shop or factory, a Jewish worker may require to have every Saturday off, whereas a Muslim may similarly want to be off on Friday and a Catholic on Sunday. To fire perfectly good workers because of this would be a waste of resources. In the same way, a lot of hospitals simply let pro-lifers empty the bed pans instead of assisting with abortions. At least around here where workers are scarce.
The Washington Post is completely failing to get the point. The fertility doctor who only treats married couples with their own reproductive cells? Fine. He's working for his patients, and he can always refuse to work for someone.
An ambulance driver? Working for a hospital. They say to drive a person from point A to point B, you do it. It's not as if Ms. Adamson was asked to perform the abortion herself. She doesn't have standing to complain about being asked to do her job unless driving is against her moral code.
She wasn't fired because of religious discrimination, she was fired for not doing her job.
By facilitating the abortion, she was in a way allwoing it to happen, which some would argue is morally equivalent to doing the act itself.
Mind you, I'm still glad they fired her ass on the spot. If you can't trust people charged with saving the lives of others to do their job in all cases, you can't have them doing that job.
Dear Religious Types in the Health Care Professions:
I don't give a royal flying fuck WHAT you believe. Either do your job and see to it that my legally prescribed medications are filled, my legally protected procedures are performed properly and WITHOUT the intrusion of your religion on my right to the health care I pay so dearly for, or I will see to it that you lose your job AND - if you inconvenience me enough or hurt me through your unwillingness to do the fucking job you signed up for - everything else you hold dear through the glories of the US Courts.
One of the most disturbing things in that article is the quotes from the doctor who refuses to work on patients who have elective sterilizations. How in the hell is that relevant to anything regarding the pro-life movement?
That's upping the stakes in the loony lottery considerably. We've gone from "abortion is wrong because life begins at conception" to "birth control is wrong because life begins in the egg" to "voluntary sterilization is wrong because life begins at the moment the child's mother goes through puberty".
Also, the quote from the guy who denied the morning after pill to the rape victim? "I don't think you should punish a child for the sins of the father." Clearly, he thinks that you should punish the mother for them.
Especially strict Catholics feel that sterilization is wrong. A doctor that decides beforehand not to do elective sterilizations (and it's noteworthy that the article specified elective) on those grounds isn't "loony."
The Post just did a hash job of throwing a bunch of examples out there, apparently for the purpose of eliciting sympathy (based on the article's tone) but failed the people from the examples in the article that weren't nuts by lumping them in with the others.
"So, Miss - you decided to not transport this patient for a medical procedure?"
"Yes, Your Honor, becau - "
"Enough. Do you have a medical license?"
"Wha - Your Honor, no, I do n-"
"Quiet. I find you guilty of practicing medicine without a license. You are further found guilty of willful neglect, and on the first charge - "
"Yah Hawnah, hAi hObjayckt, Mah Clahyant was neveah chahged with prahcti - "
"Overruled. She was never charged, but she just admitted to it in front of me, and I'm certain that this court will file the paperwork. Now, on the first charge, I sentence you to seven years without parole and a ten thousand dollar fine. On the second charge, three years without parole and a seven thousand dollar fine - sentences to run consecutively.
This court will not stand idly by while quacks practice medicine without a license and infiltrate our nation's infrastructure in order to do just that.
Tenants are people who live somewhere. The word you want is "tenets".
And the tenets of your religion are irrelevant. That's the point. Your job involves certain things, which are legal and are requirements of your job. If you don't do your job, you're fired. It does not matter why you didn't do your job.
If I'm hiring someone to work as a bartender on Saturday nights, and you're an orthodox Jew and say "I can't work on Saturdays, they're holy", you're fired. Your job was to work Saturdays, you're refusing to work Saturdays, you're fired. If I hired you to be a bartender and I don't need you on Saturdays, I can accomodate your needs and just move your shifts around - at that point, your religion isn't preventing you from doing your job.
If I hire you and you're a Baptist who thinks alcohol is evil, and you refuse to serve patrons any alcohol at all, you're fired. I don't care about your religion, you're NOT DOING THE JOB YOU WERE HIRED TO DO.
No matter your particular flavour of invisible fairy insanity, your job requirements don't change, and the punishment for failing to meet those job requirements doesn't change.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:21 pm (UTC)Can I assume that I am witnessing some ironic in-joke here, rather than a rare case of left-wing bigotry? Perhaps the answer lies in the picture, but it is unfamiliar.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:42 pm (UTC)#2: "moral defectives" is not a direct quote, but rather an indication that the phrase is an incorrect representation of the person wanting an abortion.
But you're right, it does appear that it's a quote from the article, when it isn't. Let me fix that.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:22 pm (UTC)I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess this person is a Christian. You know, a believer in the religion that blames all of us for the sins of Adam and Eve.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:38 pm (UTC)I think I'm going to go find Zidane and take headbutting lessons from him.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-21 02:42 pm (UTC)We'd been discussing a fourteen-year-old victim of rape, and my immediate response was "So why are you making her go through with the pregnancy?"
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:25 pm (UTC)I cannot state this more clearly: If you cannot do your job because your religion forbids the performance thereof, you need to find another religion or another job.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:13 pm (UTC)It certainly avoids all that moral/ethical doubletalk that surrounds fertilized embryos from normative fertility clinics.
What's so wrong with his stance? Generally, I agree with your last statement, but if it isn't an emergency (and I hope you don't think "we need to have a baby" is an emergency) then nobody is really getting hurt.
Morning-after pill and a rape victim? Yeah, that example suits your response.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:40 pm (UTC)Compromise makes the world go round.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:27 pm (UTC)An ambulance driver? Working for a hospital. They say to drive a person from point A to point B, you do it. It's not as if Ms. Adamson was asked to perform the abortion herself. She doesn't have standing to complain about being asked to do her job unless driving is against her moral code.
She wasn't fired because of religious discrimination, she was fired for not doing her job.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 10:15 pm (UTC)Mind you, I'm still glad they fired her ass on the spot. If you can't trust people charged with saving the lives of others to do their job in all cases, you can't have them doing that job.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 06:31 pm (UTC)I don't give a royal flying fuck WHAT you believe. Either do your job and see to it that my legally prescribed medications are filled, my legally protected procedures are performed properly and WITHOUT the intrusion of your religion on my right to the health care I pay so dearly for, or I will see to it that you lose your job AND - if you inconvenience me enough or hurt me through your unwillingness to do the fucking job you signed up for - everything else you hold dear through the glories of the US Courts.
-- Pissed Off Patient
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:06 pm (UTC)That's upping the stakes in the loony lottery considerably. We've gone from "abortion is wrong because life begins at conception" to "birth control is wrong because life begins in the egg" to "voluntary sterilization is wrong because life begins at the moment the child's mother goes through puberty".
Also, the quote from the guy who denied the morning after pill to the rape victim? "I don't think you should punish a child for the sins of the father." Clearly, he thinks that you should punish the mother for them.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:16 pm (UTC)The Post just did a hash job of throwing a bunch of examples out there, apparently for the purpose of eliciting sympathy (based on the article's tone) but failed the people from the examples in the article that weren't nuts by lumping them in with the others.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 07:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 09:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 10:00 pm (UTC)But yeah. I keep wondering (fearfully) if that's supposed to be roe through the middle. Yikes.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-20 11:31 pm (UTC)"So, Miss - you decided to not transport this patient for a medical procedure?"
"Yes, Your Honor, becau - "
"Enough. Do you have a medical license?"
"Wha - Your Honor, no, I do n-"
"Quiet. I find you guilty of practicing medicine without a license. You are further found guilty of willful neglect, and on the first charge - "
"Yah Hawnah, hAi hObjayckt, Mah Clahyant was neveah chahged with prahcti - "
"Overruled. She was never charged, but she just admitted to it in front of me, and I'm certain that this court will file the paperwork. Now, on the first charge, I sentence you to seven years without parole and a ten thousand dollar fine. On the second charge, three years without parole and a seven thousand dollar fine - sentences to run consecutively.
This court will not stand idly by while quacks practice medicine without a license and infiltrate our nation's infrastructure in order to do just that.
Bailiff, take her away. NEXT *BNAG*"
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-21 11:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-21 12:21 pm (UTC)And the tenets of your religion are irrelevant. That's the point. Your job involves certain things, which are legal and are requirements of your job. If you don't do your job, you're fired. It does not matter why you didn't do your job.
If I'm hiring someone to work as a bartender on Saturday nights, and you're an orthodox Jew and say "I can't work on Saturdays, they're holy", you're fired. Your job was to work Saturdays, you're refusing to work Saturdays, you're fired. If I hired you to be a bartender and I don't need you on Saturdays, I can accomodate your needs and just move your shifts around - at that point, your religion isn't preventing you from doing your job.
If I hire you and you're a Baptist who thinks alcohol is evil, and you refuse to serve patrons any alcohol at all, you're fired. I don't care about your religion, you're NOT DOING THE JOB YOU WERE HIRED TO DO.
No matter your particular flavour of invisible fairy insanity, your job requirements don't change, and the punishment for failing to meet those job requirements doesn't change.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-24 09:25 pm (UTC)That is.