-Obama administration is working to repeal DHHS regulation that prevents health care organizations that receive federal funds from firing or refusing to hire health care workers who refuse to dispense medical care for "moral" reasons. Still wishy-washy on actual "conscience" clauses which allow health care workers to refuse medical care in the first place. Important distinction: what is being repealed is the idea that a clinic that provides family planning services could fire someone who refuses to dispense birth control for their refusal. What is not being repealed is their supposed right to refuse care. This concept of conscience clauses and right to refuse care can and does apply to much more than reproductive health. Doctors could refuse to see or touch gay or trans patients, pharmacists could refuse to dispense medications to people who are transitioning, EMTs could withhold lifesaving measures from someone they found "repulsive" and claim conscience.

What I want to know is: what kind of conscience can rationalize refusing medical care, which in some cases is life saving and in almost all cases is necessary to some degree, on the basis of personally not wanting to encourage "immoral" behavior? What kind of conscience thinks that another person's health and LIFE is worth less than their ability to say they are "moral"? When did your right to a "clean" conscience trump the right of someone else to live? You have to think that this person in front of you has less of a right to live than you have to sleep at night. Its fucking psychotic. How dare you call yourself moral when you are willing to let people die for your conscience?

(rest of the rant is here
This post was written by [livejournal.com profile] thecommonraven and I am reposting it with permission.

for clarity's sake, the italicized part of this entry is propaganda crap from the American Family ASSociation. (bolded and capitalized part mine)


"Procter & Gamble has resumed using explicit, open-mouth homosexual kissing in their soap opera, “As the World Turns.” P&G decided to include this type of content as a commitment to “diversity.” P&G stopped showing such scenes some months ago, but has now decided to again help promote the homosexual agenda which includes homosexual marriage.

Gay activists are hopeful that the P&G effort will desensitize viewers to the homosexual lifestyle and help make the unhealthy and immoral lifestyle more acceptable to society, especially to children and youth.

View a scene from the April 23, 2008 episode by P&G. WARNING - content is repulsive!

“As the World Turns” is owned and controlled completely by P&G. No network made this decision. P&G alone made the decision to support the homosexual agenda.


The American Family Association has upped it's agenda against As The World Turns gay teen couple Luke and Noah. Because Procter and Gamble are spineless, the couple have mostly been taking the back burner and have been portrayed only as giving each other sly glances. Last week the two shared their 1st kiss in 6 months.

Also because Procter and Gamble are spineless, rather than standing behind their promise of portraying a legitimate gay couple onscreen, they have created a phone poll about whether the show should continue the storyline.

Please, even if you have never watched As The World Turns call the number: 1-800-331-3774. Press 1 for English/2 for Spanish [if you don't get this, don't worry, I didn't either]. Press 2 to get to that AtWT poll. Then press 1 to tell them you want the storyline to continue.

Please help me and others shove AFA's homophobia down their effing throats."

I have already called despite the fact that I dont watch soap operas if I can help it. I encourage you to do the same.
.

Profile

bluestareyed

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags