[Vision2020] Senate Bill 1353 - Freedom of Conscience

[Donovan Arnold]

Garrett,
 
It only seems like a contradiction because the wording of the bills are different.
 
Why should a nurse be required to participate in an abortion if there is another nurse willing and able to perform the duty? It doesn't make sense to force them to do that.
 
That is the difference between the two bills. The Idaho State Bill allows a nurse to ask their employer to be excused from certain duties they find to be objectionable to their religious beliefs, and for the employer to grant that request if it isn't an undo burden. That doesn't seem too radical and is often the case already. Most employers want to keep their employees happy if they can, especially medical staff that are in short supply.
 
On the other hand, if the nurse is the only person that can assist the doctor in an emergency or timely manner, and it would be unreasonable for the employer to find a replacement in a reasonable time frame, then yes, it would be a violation of the person in need of medical assistance to suffer needlessly over a skittish nurse who knew he/she may be required to perform a certain duty they find objectionable. 
 
I think forcing people to choose between their job and their faith is unfair if it can be reasonably prevented. 
 
I am also certain that a patient would rather receive care from someone that is nonjudgmental of them and sympathetic to their situation rather than someone forced to assist under threat of their losing their job.. 
 
Your Friend,
 
Donovan Arnold
 
 PS, How is the farm?
 
 
 

--- On Sat, 2/27/10, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:


From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senate Bill 1353 - Freedom of Conscience
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 6:23 PM







Donovan writes:


"I think it is a good idea to give health care provides the option of declining to kill a baby, fetus, embryo, zygote, or fertilized egg if someone else is there willing and able to do it. Why not?"






Well, I'll give the reason Donovan gave last year when he opposed the federal conscience rule:




"First, health care is a right. And something being a right means that it must be provided, if not by a government entity, then by a private entity under contract with the government. 


If you are a health care provider, in order to get your license or certification of any kind, you are sworn to do certain things. If you don't want to do those things, you should not sign the agreement to get the license and/or medical certificate.  That is when the "choice" is made.


The choice does not come when someone drops in front of me and I decide I don't want to do CPR and let my employer find another health care provider. Nope, the choice was already made by me when I got my CNA, got my CPR card, got my First Aid card, became med certified, I signed a contract with my employer and the State of Idaho agreeing to provide services in exchange for a job and my certifications and licenses. 


Your license is an agreement with the state of Idaho to preform tasks expected of that license, in a state sanctioned manner, by the patient or person in need of your services. 


If is a violation of that person's rights, for me, as a CNA, to not provide care to someone because of this reason or that. If I have a problem with providing care, I could not agree to get my license. There are medications I do not always agree with giving people, that I must give. There are services I provide people, I do not think they should get. But it is not my right to decide what they need or get based on my social/religious/political beliefs. It is my obligation to do what the nurse tells me to do within the scope of my job, training, and licenses, and certifications, that is all. If I commit a sin in the performance of my duties of helping someone, I know a guy named Jesus who I can talk to about forgiveness. If it is something so grave I cannot morally justify it, I need to change jobs. 


I am appalled that a pharmacist has the right to counter a doctor's order and stop care provided to a patient based on their political/social/religious beliefs. That should not happen. 


The pharmacist doesn't know everything the doctor knows. And their inaction could cost a life, or permanent damage to someone. Same with nurse, PA, CNA, LPN, MA, or other medical professionals. 


There are lots of jobs in the medical field that do not involve birth control or abortions a person can pursue if this is a problem for them. 


Best Regards,


Donovan"


 
I remember this because this was a response to me when I initially was ok with the conscience rule.  Thanks to Donovan back then, I changed my mind and now think it is a bad idea.


Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who doesn't do their job?


Shouldn't the business have the right to not spend its money on an employee who won't perform their job? If not, then how could a business continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to prevent employees from over-enjoying their supposed right to not do their job because of such a broad excuse as it goes against their religion? Are we talking about every single religion?


Does the government have the right to force a business to pay an employee who doesn't do their job? If so, why should government intervene in such an intimate way since that seems rather socialistic?


Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an employee who doesn't do their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If not, how can a law which essentially is regarding the establishment of religion not be illegal, particularly when it also seems rather anti-capitalistic?


Supporters of the conscience rule need to answer those questions...


Garrett Clevenger


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100228/f626b972/attachment-0001.html