Great post, Ian. Really like the part about soldiers not fighting in a war they don’t believe is morally right. We’d be out of Iraq yesterday.

Ian, Some prescriptions which might be needed to save the mom could harm the fetus. Should a pharmacist be able to decide what to do?

As it happens, today S.Z. at World O’Crap posted a reply to a wingnut posing the same questions. She sets out a number of scenarios as well. Synchronicity is our friend… It’s also good when we’re all REALLY, REALLY pissed about the same stuff.

That’s not his job. It’s the doctor’s job and the patient’s decision. he should certainly tell the patient, and that’s something that good pharmacists do. If he’s massively concerned, he can call the doctor to clarify.

Employees exercising discretion over assigned duties….

Very difficult….

Employees have no discretion over legal assigned duties, outside of a (union) labor contract, “discretion in an employees assigned duties” has nearly always been decided in favor of employers. As I understand the law, an employee can always change their job if they don’t like the duties assigned (aka, I quit).

Might lead to rapid expansion of Unions…

The Right to Lifers might also consider the implication of their efforts, including Right to Health Carr, Right to Inoculations, and Right to No Death Penalty. In other words, any procedure which not done could lead to death, could lead to the state having to provide that procedure at no cost.

If a person doesn’t want to provide health care they can always quit.

Ever since this became as issue I had an evil dream of going to pharmacy school, getting a good steady job, then announce I was Christian Scientist and could no longer fill prescriptions, just so I could sit all day on my ample behind and read US magazine.

If people have moral objections, then they need to remove themselves from where that is part of the job description. I am a vegetarian, so I don’t work at a steak house.

DING! DING! DING! Thank you.

Actually, even in a bargaining unit (BU), employers have almost complete control. The only exception in my old BU was safety, i.e., being ordered to commit an unsafe act. Otherwise the employee would be subject to disciplinary action on the grounds of insubordination.

The Administration’s original argument was a pernicious application of a claim to be protecting religious freedom.

Bushies argued that the government shouldn’t compel a person to violate their 1st Amendment religious beliefs by handing out contraceptives. But the practical effect is that the person’s religious beliefs become the de facto position of the government — in other words, the policy violates the establishment clause. That would become increasingly apparent if you put someone like the AG office’s religious hiring lady in charge of personnel assignments. All you need to do is put religious objectors in all the key positions at which reproductive services are made available to the public. It was part of a broader policy of subverting each agency’s core mission. Leavitt is trying to claim the policy furthers the 1st Amendment’s “free excercise” clause, but the only way to avoid violating the establishment clause is to make sure there are non-objectors on duty at all times, so that the religious objectors don’t control the services provided.

Even ten years ago, most federal courts would immediately strike this down as unconstitutional, but today? Who knows?

That’s exactly what the two pharmacists i assist on a daily basis. They tell the mother what the level of harm may be, and the mother decides whether or not its worth the risk after the doctor prescribed it.

I’d hate to work with one of the fundie pharmacists i hear exist. They’d drive me nuts.

Great post Ian.

Al the Spook takes it one step further, to its absurd but logical conclusion.

HHS Now Says That If Your Hospital’s Janitor Has Moral Objections To Your Abortion, They Can Refuse To Give It To You!

So what about the docs and shrinks that the CIA and military are using to help with torturing “enemy combatants?” If they object to doing their jobs they get fired even if doing that job is against their code of professional practice.

If you don’t want to give health care to anyone and everyone, don’t get into the field of health care.
What the hell is wrong with these people?

Do they refuse to give Albuterol inhalers to people who have pulmonary disease from smoking?
I did know a son of a bitch doctor who refused to treat overweight women who had yeast infections, because “if you weren’t so fat you wouldn’t have yeast infections.” He’s fucking dead now and I hope he’s roasting.

There are certain jobs it’s a badge of honor to be fired from. The only time I ever got fired was when, as a credit manager, I refused to send people who were making reduced payments on their accounts to collections after the biggest employer in town closed and half the town was out of work. If I ever get into heaven getting fired from that job will be one of the things in my favor.

The big question I have—and have had for a while now—is how do they get away with doing all of this? What constitutes the foundation for executive orders? What recourse, other than throwing the bums out via the next election cycle, exists to stop this madness?

As a public school teacher, the only students I can legally refuse to teach (besides the ones who don’t qualify for my program) are students who have assaulted me or a family member. That’s it. Everyone else, I teach.

I have to hope that cases of medical institutions forcing workers to do their jobs even if they have religious objections to them is a temporary solution. If the patient is a member of my family I’d rather have workers out looking for another job than performing procedures half-assed because they’re worried they might ho to Hell.

how do they get away with doing all of this?

They squeal that they’re being persecuted for their religious beliefs. [spit]

So, Ian;

You think this paragon of virtue should Leav - itt alone?

Don’t you know the poor chap is a P.O.C. (Prisoner of Conscience)?

Certain POC’s like certain POW’s are transfigured beings, integrity and omniscience fairly drip off such transcendent souls, who, so it is said, converse with Gawd on a regular, if odd, schedule and are truly Christian soldiers, in the most aPOCryphal sense, and should be heeded accordingly.

A noun, a verb, and tut, tut, tut!(hypo-critically speaking, of course)

Note: the preceding snark is for entertainment porpoises only.

Brava.

There are some honorable souls around. We’ve heard from them once in a while. Lt. Cmdr. Swift, Alberto Mora, Bunny Greenhouse, etc. But those are the exceptions in a HUGE corrupt enterprise that once was our government.

Well done.

Mr. Rev worked for PP in Seattle lots of years ago. One of the stories he told me was about Mother Cabrini Hospital. It seems that they built a new maternity wing. Swedish Hospital was a competitor. When women came into MC for delivery those who wanted to have their tubes tied afterwards were told they would have to be transfered to Swedish for that procedure and then brought back to MC for recovery. Smart women that they were, they realized that why go through all that—just go to Swedish for the whole thing. Once that started happening, MC rethought their policy and changed it to allow the tubals. It seems they were losing too much money,

So much for moral authority.

Um…impeachment?

under the table.

OT but Booman has a rather well done mini biography of McShame. Lots there to ponder and exploit.

Well, the only alternative I know of is court challenge. This has worked in a number of cases, but takes a lot of time.

It’s been one of my little fantasies, should I ever win the lottery, to be a “stealth patient,” and the sue the crap out of the medical professionals bastards disgusting fuckers who refused to treat or fill prescriptions. I’ve really GOT to start buying lottery tickets…

No. It would be up to the woman’s doc to prescribe her the proper medication. The job of a pharmacist is to dispense said medication. Period.

If said pharmacist has religious objections, then s/he should get another job where s/he won’t face such a dilemma.

I’m considering put options on bank stocks. Probably a better chance of return.

Wondering if descendants of Mountain Meadow Massacre victims have to pay taxes for the salary, administrative elitism, corruption and authority of said murderers’ spawn. Any pious homilies about that Wholly Mike?

Sen. Obama has said he will review standing executive orders and expunge any that “trample on liberty” if he is elected President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....15782.html
Hopefully this applies to agency rules as well.
My best hope is that career people in all of the government agencies are taking notes on the offenses of bushco and are waiting til it’s safe to blow the whistle.
If McCain wins, there is no hope.

The job of a pharmacist is to dispense said medication. Period.

The job of a GOOD pharmacist is also to know infinitely more about drug interactions than the physician, who probably didn’t really have time to explain all the possible side effects and drug interactions… If it were merely dispensing drugs a machine could do it. Physicians very often rely on the pharmacist to explain interactions and side effects that the pharmacist knows more about. At least good and honest physicians do. /rant

I think it’s well past time that our tax forms include an opt-out for people morally opposed to their tax money going to the military. Not a snowball’s chance in hell of that actually happening, of course. Doesn’t it strike anyone else as odd that for a country so petrified at the thought of socialism, the military is basically a big socialistic enterprise?

The general foundation for executive orders lies in the nature of the laws passed by Congress. For instance, consider this hypothetical example: Congress votes to create a grant program with $10 billion to go to schools that hire counselors to help pregnant mothers-to-be stay in school and complete their studies after the baby is born. Within the law is a general statement that says something like “The program shall be administered by the Office of Staying In School after Childbirth at the Dept of Education.”

The president signs the bill, and then the DOE has to figure out the details of how to carry out that general authorizing statement. Executive orders, federal regulations, and other administrative rules are the way these things get carried out.

In general, this is the way it has always worked — and realistically, it has to be done this way. Congress can’t and shouldn’t write every last little detail into law, but they should be watching to see that the intent of their legislation is carried out.

BushCo, however, has often twisted the meaning of the rules, regulations, and EOs to fit their narrow political agendas. Each time Congress refused to stand up to Bush, he got a little more aggressive with his twisting of the process. The big check on Bush now is not Congress, but NGOs and others who file suit against the agencies to get them to do their jobs the way Congress intended.

Thanks for that splendid, concise explanation.

Those in power aren’t opposed to socialism per se, propaganda notwithstanding. It’s just that the recipients must be of the correct economic class. Subsidies are fine, but welfare is horrible.

What Marion said.

Good pharmacists work in partnership with physicians, which is very different from pharmacists trying to play doctor and also play God by saying “no, I won’t give you birth control pills because I don’t like it.”

You would think that these fundamentalist pharmacists would worry a bit about the First Commandment when they start playing God . . .

Does Congress have a committee to review Executive Orders for compliance with Congressional intent?
Seems like that would be a good start.

Ian, “Bush Apparatchik” was a nice turn of phrase BTW, in light of recent events.

RevDeb 26…great Booman link…from that link is a great article on CounterPunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/alberts08092008.html

Viagra for the inscesting father — okay to that.
Abortion for the inscested child —- well, there’s a sin.
Crazy and deviant and disgusting.
But re-imbursable by insurance. Go Big Pharma.

This is my item 371 on this from my scandals list:

In a July 31, 2008 article in the Washington Post, the Department of Health and Human Resources is developing a rule which would allow healthcare personnel to refuse to dispense care which they found morally or religiously objectionable. The goal is to provide legal underpinning to those institutions and persons who receive federal funds but wish to refuse to perform abortions or give out contraception deemed tantamount to abortion. Thus a woman who had been raped or pregnant as the result of either rape or incest might be denied treatment and have her trauma added to by having to go from hospital to hospital or from healthcare giver to healthcare giver until she found one willing to treat her. It is difficult to see how such a moral and religious exception could not be used as legal cover to deny treatment to other groups, such as gays, minorities, or the poor. The rule’s definition of abortion is sweeping:

any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.

It also slips in the controversial notion that from the moment of fertilization onward the embryo is a human being, and one would assume with the same Constitutional rights and protections as other citizens. The problem, one among many, is that this is a profoundly anti-scientific view. Many fertilized eggs spontaneously abort due to lethal genetic combinations or they fail to implant. How does the HHS intend to address the legal rights and health concerns of these “human beings”? Why is equal protection for embryos placed ahead of equal protection of women? What will the HHS do with the supernumerary embryos/human beings of in vitro fertilization? How will it resolve the contradiction between a “human being in utero” and conception which does not occur in utero. What does “natural birth” mean anyway? Does it preclude Caesarean delivery? This is the kind of chaos that results when simple solutions are applied to complex problems.

In general, each committee of the House and Senate oversees a certain part of the Executive Branch. The Armed Services Committees watch over orders that cover the military, the Foreign Relations committees make sure the State Department does their work, etc.

The biggie, though, is the House Governmental Affairs Committee, which has broad jurisdiction to dig into the executive branch, chaired by Henry Waxman. There is a Senate counterpart, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, but since “Short Ride” Joe Lieberman took over as chair, they’ve done next to no work at all.

The committees ought to be doing this kind of oversight, but some are better at doing this than others.

It’s Waxman’s committee in the House, not sure about the Senate. Used to be called Governmental Affairs or something like that. IIRC, the name’s been changed, not sure what they call it now.

It all comes down to basic abuse of power as far as I can tell.

The lack of followup was very distressing at Saddleback (not that I really expected it). I just hope the debates are more thoughtful. Specifically, I found it very problematic that McCain professes that life begins at conception. By that thinking, the implications for birth control and IV fertilization are drastic. Someone needs to force the repubs to confront the fact that many methods of IV fertilization result in tens (or hundreds) of thousands of fertilized embryos being destroyed.

Boy, that would create a huge ruckus in the right wing!

If this “logic” is followed to the extreme, anytime a woman suffers a miscarriage, a coroner would have to determine the cause of death. Who is in favor of that?

Thanks Peterr, and MayDaze too.

The committees ought to be doing this kind of oversight

I guess there aren’t enough days in the week to combat the evil of bushco.

What a gutless bunch of jerks …. What planet do they live on??

This is NOT 1850..If bozos like Levitt actually can look in the mirror in the mornings and think he’s doing the right thing there is less brain matter at work with Chimpy’s automatons than I even believed there were before this lunacy.

How soon can we run these fools outta town??

screwed.

It’s Holy Joe’s committee and we know what that means.

One of my dearest Catholic friends said that if her 12 year old were raped by a very bad man, the child would have to give birth…..God’s will. the child would quickly be given up for adoption. I said, “That child is your grandchild.” She didn’t flinch. Child gone. If this is Christianity, I want no part of it.

Combined with a lack of anyone challenge that abuse of power.

Bush and his administration remind me of a bunch of 4 year olds. If they do something wrong, and no one challenges them on it, they’ll do it again. If they do something wrong and someone challenges them on it but says “never mind the consequences”, they’ll do it again. If they do something wrong and someone challenges them on it, trying to enforce any consequences, they scream “but no one ever punished us for it before!” and then they go out and do it again.

Bush may be the rule breaker in chief, but with a permissive Congress that refused to set any boundaries for him, it’s no wonder he’s acted like the spoiled little president that he is.

New PW

When it comes to biblical commandments, they tend to follow the ones they agree with. Same goes for the Holiness Code.

You and I both know—and have always known—it ain’t about religion or faith.

Right! Where are the representatives who are supposed to be representing us?

It’s not.

Or at least not any more Christianity than Gitmo is the American System of Justice.

Peter is quite correct about everything but the title of the House committee, now called the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

i don’t think this is an issue of “the employee has to do the job they’re told do to” even if they have an objection - in fact, i think that’s actually the wrong way to approach it. maybe it’s because i’ve been told to do things that i think you-all would agree were wrong. for example, to make an equipment purchasing tech recommendation in favor of the company my boss wants me to (i actually think he may have been offered a kick back). or to write something i though was intellectually dishonest.

so i’m a little sympathetic to the argument. but in this case i think it’s the wrong argument.

reproductive health care IS health care. this is about denying health care - and that is something we think is wrong to do no matter what. just like it’s not ok if i see someone bleeding to death on the street and don’t call 911 and try to help them.

imo, if we concede that this is some acceptable individual moral choice then we are accepting their false premise. this is acceptable like racism is acceptable - it’s not. and that’s the argument i think we should be making.

ymmv.

Thanks!

[Thus demonstrating that at FDL, the Commenters serve the oversight function on each other and the author of the post.]

bravo to all.

In the “Terror Presidency” by Jack Goldsmith:

“We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop,” Addington said at one point, according to Goldsmith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02292.html

Abortion: berry berry good to the Repugs.

They’re ginning up this babykiller tsunami. Between the convention and November, it’s going to get worse and worse.

Indicative that they have jack shit else to run on.

Right you are, IMO, dwr!

If this is Christianity, I want no part of it.

Jesus was fairly clear and concise, from what we know of His sayings.

Then came the casuistical bastards and the institutionalised churches.

Actually, Ian, you attack not Leavitt, but hierarchy. Why should anyone be forced to do what they don’t want to do? We do it because someone tells us to and because, if we are working, we’ll be fired if we don’t. Money is a spur as is jail because that’s where you go when you don’t obey. One reason we have so much stress disorders coming out of Iraq is that soldiers, who signed up to defend this country, find themselves breaking into homes and pushing around families.

Clearly if we intend to lead lives in which we are true to ourselves, we need a system other than hierarchy and capitalism. I’d be surprised if you have not been hypocritical somewhere down the line. So what to do? That might be an interesting topic for a post.

Why shouldn’t we be able to do what you propose.George W doesn’t have to obey the law.He just issues signing statements if he does not like one

George Bush should have been impeached long ago. That is yet another failure of the system. The issue is how we decide collective (government) activities. Now we have representatives who supposedly represent their constituents and that clearly is not working. We have the technology and the means to do it ourselves (electronic democracy) but we lack the will. The sad thing is we get not the government we deserve, but the government we want.

“Bush Apparatchik: People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong”

Wish that they (Republicans) would stop doing things that are morally wrong! And yeah pseudo-Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, and Lieberman, too.