More morality coercion

prometeus · 07-17-08, 09:14 PM

Yet another example of imposing morality on the public by the failed administration of a failed President.

The New York Times > Log In

It is a disgrace.

Summerwind · 07-17-08, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prometeus

Yet another example of imposing morality on the public by the failed administration of a failed President.

The New York Times > Log In

It is a disgrace.

Your link goes to the log in page. Got the article page?

prometeus · 07-18-08, 07:49 AM

Sorry, I'll try to get a new link or a synopsis of the article.

prometeus · 07-18-08, 09:19 AM

This is part of the article:

Quote:

Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 15, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

American · 07-18-08, 09:25 AM

So we have a policy against discriminiation. It's an abomination.

shuamort · 07-18-08, 09:41 AM

This is very interesting, especially come from the "republican" president. The party typically is against interfering with private hiring practices in regards to religion/race/sexuality etc.

As for this issue, what a load. What's next, a religious nurse who finds blood transfusions in violation of their faith and refuses to perform them? A private employer should be able to hire/fire at will those who refuse to perform their jobs as requested. If there is an ethical dispute, the employer should prevail and the employee can work elsewhere. (As would be the same if the employer were "pro-life" and the nurse wanted to promote condoms or abortion).

Unfortunately, it goes a bit deeper than that. As we're talking not just about private employment practices, but federal funds that are being giving to hospitals that would be withheld for failing to adhere to this policy. (I'm against the government funding hospitals, so I'm at a crossroads here anyways).

Of course, the proposal is (allegedly) addressing the hiring practice and not the retention practice. Welcome to loophole city. Hire 'em and then give 'em the boot if they refuse to their job.