Religious Medicine

[Mort Zuckerman]

To: emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov,
brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com,
jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org,
thomas...@usdoj.gov, thoma...@po.state.ct.us,
kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org

Subject: Religious Medicine

Date: Jan 19, 2009 5:49 AM

How quaint. "Medical providers" can refuse
to give medical care and medical information
based on religious views.

Well, then, that means the vast majority
of Yale Lyme Kool-Aid addicted MDs can
refuse to treat Leishmaniasis, cancer,
HIV, Cystic Fibrosis, Multiple Sclerosis,
Lou Gehrig's Disease, obesity, and
tuberculosis, due to the Religion of OspA
or Pam3Cys,

Anthony Fauci:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/20/ldt.00.html
"We've had an effective vaccine, but it's the kind of vaccine that you
have to essentially vaccinate people each year. And from the
standpoint of it's use, it has not been used as efficiently as it
could have been used. So scientifically, we had a vaccine and still do
have a vaccine, but it's not really well used."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=pam3cys[All+Fields]

http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_IMMUNE_SUPPRESSION.htm
Biomarkers and Mycoplasmal infection in the blood
to which Lyme and LYMErix victims will be
tolerized to (won't be able to fight off):
http://www.actionlyme.org/BIOMARKERS2.htm

Remember, Gary Wormser, still being sued over
CDC officer Alan Barbour's non-vaccine, ImmuLyme,
would like all the Neurologic New Great Imitators
and the bad outcomes of the HIV vaccine to remain
the result of whiney-ass yuppies, because, well,
he did not like being sued for FRAUD:
http://www.actionlyme.org/GARY_WORMSER_SUED.htm

Hence, all of the outcomes of Pam3Cys are
officially, according to the ALDF/IDSA Cult of OspA,
character flaws and not actual medical conditions.

Don't ask me how IDSociety.org intends to write
new "guidelines" when they have yet to admit what
OspA does... even though the Nobel prize winner
for the discovery of HIV is following up on
the Pam3Cys/OspA FIASCO.

Malpractice and FRAUD lawsuits have a way of
harming, um, religions. (Remember Galileo.)


KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
================================================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/bush-our-ex-boyfriend_b_158828.html
Bush, Our Ex-Boyfriend
RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Share this on
Facebook
Read More: Aclu, Anti-Choice, Birth Control, Bush, Conscience
Objector, Contraception, Family Planning, George Bush, Hhs, Leavitt,
Midnight Regulations, Nfprha, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice,
Religious Objection, Politics News

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up!
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam

*
Share
*
Print
*
Comments

Bush is the ex-boyfriend we've finally gotten out of our life only to
discover he left an unpleasant souvenir, like an STD. A particularly
nasty strain too, in the form of new HHS regulations.

The HHS regulations were a last minute, hastily executed,
unconstitutionally vague, attempt by Bush to repay his only loyal
constituency left, the religious right wing. The regulations attempt
to expand health care workers right to "consciously object" to the
broadest array of health care services imaginable, basically anything,
even in medical emergencies. They can, in other words, refuse to
provide you medical care, because it offends them! It opens the door
to many patient abuses, shreds state laws and contradicts federal
discrimination statutes. Healthcare workers would be able to withhold
information from a patient about healthcare options without the
patient even knowing that any information is being withheld. Patients
can be refused referrals if the healthcare worker objects to the care
they're seeking somewhere else.

And here is one particularly bizarre twist. The regulations specify
that workers don't have to inform their employers of the service or
services they object to before hand. It's also unclear the extent to
which employers have the right to ask job applicants about their
willingness to take part in the services they provide. Thus, imagine
the situation in which an anti-choice person applies for a position at
Planned Parenthood. The employer couldn't ascertain that she's against
abortion, nor could it fire her when she refused to have anything to
do with it.

But the regulations real intent (revealed in a draft version of the
proposal leaked this summer) is perhaps worse: to allow those who want
to obstruct a woman's access to birth control full license. Keep in
mind, there is already ample protection for those who do not wish to
take part in abortion services, three laws in fact. The right to
refuse to take part in abortion services has existed for over 30
years. Here's the thrust of the new regulations (in my own words), "If
you'd like to consider contraception an abortion method and refuse to
take part, please do, but also feel free to object to contraception,
or any other health care service, for any reason you can dream up. The
only thing limiting your right to refuse is your own imagination."
Your conscience is yours. Use it how you want. Even if it infringes on
the conscience of others.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at anything (but, perhaps, the
timing). The new regulations are the final revenge of an
administration long hostile to women's rights and health. And this
last abusive act will literally take affect in the final minutes of
the Bush administration, the morning of inauguration day.

As Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal explained, "On the
way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time
bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president's
inaugural and blow apart women's rights." Yesterday Blumenthal joined
the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association
(NFPRHA), which represents many county and state health departments
and providers, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in filing
lawsuits asking the federal court to block the regulations from taking
affect. Blumenthal filed a lawsuit on behalf of his state and six
others (CA, NJ, IL, MA, OR, RI) alleging that the regulations violate
federal law, women's rights and states' sovereign rights to enforce
their own laws.." It's particularly ironic that Bush trampled on
states' rights, something he once professed to value above all else.

The states have particular cause to worry. The federal regulations
could be used to argue that state laws are unenforceable, like those
mandating contraceptive coverage (the law in 27 states) or the
provision of emergency contraception to rape victims (the law in 13
states.)

Bush, as is his way, ignored staunch, diverse and thoughtful
opposition. He dismissed resistance even from within his own
government. Over 200,000 individuals and organizations weighed in
during the public comment period, most opposing the regulation. They
pointed out that the regulations could throw an entire system into
confusion.

For instance, the American Hospitals Association, not a group known
for taking controversial positions, explained,

"Hospitals and their emergency departments are complex entities;
as the proposed rule is written, it would be extremely difficult for
hospitals to anticipate all the scenarios under which a health care
worker might invoke the provider conscience clause. As a result it
would be impossible for hospitals to make the staffing arrangements
needed to ensure access to those services. The [American Hospital
Association] is concerned that access to services for patients may be
significantly hampered by the current definitions of this rule."

Blumenthal and 12 other state attorneys general jointly offered this
comment,

"The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of
patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in
favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider's
right to claim a personal moral or religious belief ... By focusing
exclusively on the personal moral and religious beliefs of the health
care provider, the proposed regulation unconscionably favors one set
of interests, upsetting the carefully crafted balance that many states
have sought to achieve ... We urge the HHS to adhere to a basic
medical tenet--first, do no harm to the patient--and withdraw the
proposed regulation."

During the public comment period, even Bush's own administration--in
this case, the agency charged with protecting against discrimination
including in matters of religious freedom--came out in opposition to
the regs. EEOC Commissioners Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M.
Griffin wrote,

"The proposed rule is unnecessary to protect the religious freedom
and freedom of conscience of healthcare workers, because Title VII
already serves that purpose...The issuance of the proposed regulations
would throw this entire body of law into question, resulting in
needless confusion and litigation in an attempt to redefine religious
freedom rights for employees in the healthcare sector..."

Bush's team brushed aside all criticism, indifferent to protests,
thoughtful or otherwise. They behaved like a kid doing a book report
who hadn't read the book, to paraphrase one Planned Parenthood lawyer.
They were obligated to respond to comments and so they did, not caring
whether their responses were coherent or consistent. In fact, at one
point they said they agreed with Title VII, which guarantees, among
other things, the right to exert one's conscience in the work place,
and at another they suggested they'd like to reinterpret the act.

The contradictory message was clear in this: We are immune to
criticism. Moral certainty has always trumped evidence or "outside"
opinion among the Bushies. It seemed determined to stick to its guns
all the way out the door.

And so the Obama administration enters office with a thatch of new and
purposely vague regulations on its books. Obama may be a pro-choice
president but Bush has tried to tie his hands. Sadly, Obama can't
merely reverse the regulations with a stroke of his pen, though he has
indicated he would like to. The process to undo regulations is as time-
consuming as it was to push these through. Especially, if a government
is responsive to criticism. Fortunately, the pro-choice lawyers with
their attorney general colleagues have moved decisively to block
implementation until the courts can review the regulations. An
injunction is likely to follow soon.

Until the regulations are definitively overturned, many of those who
have thrived at the margins of the law, in the vaguenesses that Bush
has consistently pushed, may continue to feel empowered.

There was recently, for example, the case of a nurse who removed a
patient's IUD every time she was supposed to adjust one. She's against
birth control. And though she claimed the repeated removals were
merely "accidents," under the HHS regulations, who knows, she might
not have to.

Originally posted at RHRealityCheck.org