Dreams Of Noise

[facepalm] Oh, good. Dorothy, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion were lonely.

How about writing sensible bills, and presenting them one at a time, with reasonable time for debate, to be voted on for their own merits or not? Is that good for you? Oh, I'm sorry, apparently not.

The only reason anybody wants or feels they need a line-item veto is exactly because of that kind of bad law writing.

Moreover, it doesn't apply in this case, according to our own legal system. This is a new set of department directives. No Congresscritters anywhere in sight. Who's gonna veto it?

Sorry, but, man, this has nothing to do with line-item legislation. You just need to be philosophically contrary, in much the same way I often need to be -- The Other Side doesn't like it, therefore it must be good. Problem is, real people get hurt with this stuff. And they're being hurt to placate someone else's imaginary friend.

Edited Date: 2008-08-25 12:22 am (UTC)

(deleted comment)

From:

Not two different concepts. Two intricately related concepts. One of those opposite-sides-of-the-same-coin deals. It actually sounds if we want the same thing, just in different form.

Although your abortion example is precisely the kind of micro-managing, nitpicking, and hairsplitting that... well, that I expect from the Republican side. And, bluntly, abortion never will be made illegal -- it's far too useful as a motivational and fundraising tool, which shows how crass, cynical, manipulative, and untrue to their purported causes the Repubs are, the ones who stir up the diehard evangelicals on this. 'Cause, jeez, if it's baby-killing, it's baby-killing. If not, get the superstitious fucktards out of women's wombs. That's one paragraph.

Six hundred pages of law -- gee, why does that sound like the abomination that was and is the 1,300 pages of the PATRIOT Act? That's why Congress should take the time to hammer out details, and why laws should be written one at a time. If one bad thing outweighs 600 pages of good things, either it's really bad, the other stuff isn't as good as somebody thought, or it's a badly written law.

And if you think Congress, even a Dem-controlled Congress, will deny funding for this sort of thing, you have no idea of how afraid of political spin and fallout these people are. And how would they deny funding!? The directive is to do nothing. To ignore the rights of the woman, who wants some freakin' medical treatment. You seem to think that denying funding to HHS will result in something other than Repubs, led by the President, saying, "Look, see? The Democrats shut down the entire Department of Health and Human Services, rather than give doctors and other health professionals the right to act on their consciences."

(This is yet another tale of the kind of bullshit started by the pharmacists who won't hand out RU486/Plan B/whatever. And it comes down to one simple thing: If you aren't prepared to do what the job entails, don't train for, apply for, or get the job.)

You really should be sure of what you're arguing before you argue it.

(deleted comment)

From:

And it comes down to one simple thing: If you aren't prepared to do what the job entails, don't train for, apply for, or get the job.
Yes, fine, no argument there, I agree completely. But what about the guy who's been working that pharmacy for 30 years already? Are we going to tell him he has to quit the workforce at age 55 because we made a pill that he's not OK with dispensing?

If you agree completely, why are you looking for loopholes? Yes, a pharmacist ought to have to dispense prescriptions fairly and without reservation, in all cases. That's his (or her) job, and it's what it says (as nearly as I understand it) on the license.

ISTM that agreeing with

ann_totusek places the burden on him to find a pharmacy where there's a discriminatory policy, and get hired there. ("the nurse or physician also has a responsibility to know who they're working for and not work for a clinic/hospital/organization that provides what they don't agree with.") If he's an employee of a pharmacy that dispenses something he objects to, post his hire date, it's still on him to find a job where he's comfortable. He can discuss and attempt to influence the policy, but if it disagrees with him, he's got to go. Or he's no professional.

(deleted comment)

From:

Yes. It's the religious belief :-)

Any reasonable management will tell you that this is the policy, and you can either work within it or leave. Unreasonable management (of which there is too much) will make conditions intolerable to the point where you leave. Management that violates the law will simply fire you (and probably point to other alleged reasons why they did so; most competent courts will see through that, as they do in other labor situations).

There comes a point where policy has to be made in favor of the patient or the professional; I, and the policy you said you agree with, am firmly on the side of the patient and impartial, nondiscriminatory treatment/dispensing (absent a legal and pre-existing policy of the institution to the contrary).

(deleted comment)

From:

I'm smiling because while the religious beliefs really are at the root of the problem, I have no problem with them or the fact that people hold them per se. Freedom of religion is irrelevant to this problem; people may believe as they will. It's their actions (in terms of compliance with the law and their professional licenses) that concern me.

It's the responsibility of the government to ensure equal treatment of its citizens, and, in this arena, the right of the patient to be treated without discrimination supersedes that of the licensed professional to fail in his or her responsibility by dint of whatever belief may be professed. I don't care if the actor is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Wiccan, Satanist, atheist, or any other faith. I expect them to treat all comers with equal effort. (Noting, of course, the human inability to be perfectly egalitarian: I'd certainly expect them to try harder for friends and family, for example.) This ensures, as far as I can determine, that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists don't suddenly develop beliefs that preclude their treating whatever group or individual they may have a hate on for, at the moment. It's a position consistent with other nondiscrimination legislation now in place, and while you may not agree with it or me, it is a sounder moral and ethical, and more legally defensible position (AFAICT) than the opposite.

I see that your emphases are complementary to my quote, omitting the responsibility clause between (which I applaud; see above). That seems as if you are arguing for rights without responsibilities. If so, I respectfully note that such an argument cuts no ice.

(deleted comment)

From:

"One day, the government issues an edict stating that you must also perform abortions."

Nice try at misrepresenting the issue.

The actual issue is that you want the government to nullify your boss' property rights, by nationalizing his decision about whether to put up with an employee who won't perform certain job functions. In principle, it's no different from a rule forbidding employers to fire people because they sit at their desks playing Minesweeper all day.

"We're talking about people who say "We don't do this procedure, at all"

Er, no. We're aren't talking about people who decide which procedures will and will not be performed at their facilities. From one of the original news cites (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-21-hhs-abortions_N.htm):

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers.

Obviously, nobody needs to certify in writing that they are respecting their own rights to decide how to run their own businesses. What is being demanded is a committment to keep someone on the payroll for playing Minesweeper all day because the spreadsheets offend their sensibilities.

Edited Date: 2008-08-25 08:33 pm (UTC)

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

From:

stevemb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-08-25 08:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

You've made your position perfectly clear. I understand it; I reject it, as flawed logic:

Imagine you're a nurse at a birthing center. Your job description at the time of hire was to assist in pre-natal care and the child birthing process.

That's your entire job description. One day, the government issues an edict stating that you must also perform abortions. This violates your religious beliefs. Is it right that the government should be able to force your firing?

In this case, you again deliberately overlook the option of the nurse quitting. New job responsibilities are common in all fields; the options are always perform them or not, quit if you don't like it, or protest and be let go if you don't perform. Healthcare not only is not, but SHOULD NOT BE privileged in this regard, because the clients are people whose lives might be at stake if a worker errs or fails to perform.

You can like it or not; you can agree or not -- but believe me, I understand you're trying to discriminate against ME as a patient on the basis of your hypothetical worker's religious beliefs. S/he took a license; she can perform or find other work.

It's the responsibility of the government to ensure equal treatment of its citizens
Since when?

You're being disingenuous. That's the point of all the nondiscrimination legislation on the books. Or have you never heard of -- or discount, as a matter of policy -- such legislation as the Civil Rights Act? (Or perhaps your version of "libertarian" is the "I've got mine; screw you" variety?)

what discrimination? this is not an argument about a professional offering a service to one group of people and denying it to others...Again, if this were a situation of them offering the service to one group and not another, I would applaud you...Again, we're not talking about people who are saying, "yes, you can have this procedure, but you can't" We're talking about people who say "We don't do this procedure, at all"

This is precisely, exactly, and specifically the heart of the argument. For example, this recent ruling by the California Supreme Court that doctors cannot refuse to inseminate lesbians, based on the doctors' feelings about lesbians.

Stand up and clap for me. Then sit down and shut up. I'm done with you and your wishing the world was as you wished it, not as it is. (Which, I point out, is a very modern Republican thing to do. It's what they've done very publicly for eight years.)

I expect you'll want and take the last word, and will once again willfully misinterpret my words, or insist that I haven't spoken to your hypotheticals. Go ahead, and feel vindicated and superior. I've had it, arguing with a rock. I have actual, productive work to do, where they won't allow me to yatter back at you.

Good night.

From:

"However, you're giving the government the ability to force you to choose between employment and your religion."

It's called "life". If you're an observant Jew and the best jobs around require working on Saturday, or you're an observant Muslim and the best jobs around are at the brewery, well, it sucks to be you. That doesn't mean that the government should give you special privileges (and the ability to not do your job and get paid anyway is a pretty big honking special privilege).

"To force people to provide procedures to which they are absolutely opposed...."

Well, then, it's a good thing that the United States took care of that as of 6 December 1865.

Edited Date: 2008-08-25 01:36 pm (UTC)

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

From:

stevemb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-08-25 08:14 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

"Attempting to get a job that has duties you will not perform is completely different from having a job and suddenly being told you have new duties that are objectionable."

The former means that you're a jackass. The latter means that you have a choice between resignation and compromising your beliefs. So, yeah, they're different, but not in a way that has any bearing on the issue at hand.

(deleted comment)

From:

The choice belongs to the employer ("You don't want to do the job I hired you to do? Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya."), as it should.

From:

...

...

... And the entire thought behind line-item legislation, then, would be to make sure that the executive branch only gets one bill at a time, so that he/she cannot veto the whole thing for the sake of one nitpicky clause. Yes, that would be them being involved. Opposite sides, same coin.

Are you actually telling me you beleive it's ok to abort a baby at any point? You're ok with late term abortion? Would you actually support legislation that would allow a child to be aborted while the mother was in labor? (for the sake of argument, let's assume the mother and child are both perfectly healthy)
There is a point past which the kid can survive outside the womb -- when it is, in fact, a child. But that's never what's under discussion. I'm sure folks much wiser than me on this thread can detail the intricate dance of attempts to deny women counseling, first- and second-trimester abortion treatment, pre-natal care, etc., etc., etc. And, for the record, I am in favor of partial-birth abortions... but those are never used when the kid is "perfectly healthy", a fact which is always glossed over.

Gee, ya think maybe this is why I'm not a republican?
Honestly, you could've fooled me. I recall one or two mentions that you consider yourself Libertarian, but it seems to me you take the Republican line quite a lot. Which is fine, your right and privilege. But you should realize what you sound like.

I happen to think you're wrong about the "each facet of the abortion issue handled on their separate merits" thing. One faction considers it to be a medical condition, which up to a certain point is the problem and responsibility of the mother alone. Another faction literally does consider it to be the murder of children. And you are not going to convince them otherwise. All you can do is decide, legislatively, if it is or if it isn't. If it isn't, it's gone. If it is, it's regulated, the same way other medical procedures are regulated. Except that's not what we've got. Pandering and posturing and playing both sides against each other for political gain have got us the current hodgepodge of not-compromises and vague wordings and by-state craziness and that, along with parental consent (a part of the whole mess), is certainly beyond the scope of this thread.

On the page count of the PATRIOT Act: We both were wrong. Actual page count is 342. I should've looked that up. On the other hand, it was ramrodded through Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) out of naked fear and political expediency, and they fucking well should've bothered to read the damn thing. I want my Congress to read the goddamn laws they vote on, and debate them properly, and take the time to hammer out details, and write laws one at a time, and I told you we agree on that, just coming at it from different directions.

If a person slaps a statue-cleaning amendment onto the puppy-kicking ban, that makes it a badly written law. Is that so tricky to understand? I'm all too familiar with the back-scratching etc. in Congress, and I hate it, because it leads to shit like this. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) is a perfectly good example; the only reason for its construction would've been so that he could say how much government money he'd brought to Alaska.

And, is the pill legal? If so, we tell him to do his job. (And please don't bring Brave New World into this, either.)

(deleted comment)

From:

I haven't got time right now -- not being dismissive, I literally don't have the time to respond to all of this till about tomorrow -- but I think I might be able to find some well-written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights) laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution) for ya. And, yes, a number of them are practically always up for dispute, which brings us back to hair-splitting and attempts to get things The Way You Want Them To Be. But, really, they're pretty darn clear and straightforward.

(deleted comment)

From: