If she were in a healthcare-providing position, she would say that because it is against her principles, she will refuse service to any Republicans who are in need.

... because the Republicans in the lame-duck Congress can block the bill, so it has no chance of passage. We'll have to wait until Jan. 20 to get this one reversed, unfortunately.

The courts have repeatedly approved "conscience clauses" for persons involved in the medical arena who object to performing certain procedures due to religious or ethical concerns. So what do you suggest? A constitutional amendment nullifying conscience clauses (and thus part of the First Amendment as well?)

Let us hope that the senator appointed to take Senator Clinton's seat will be as strong an advocate of reproductive rights as she has been.

Let us hope that any health care plan passed in this new Democratic term provides medical care that involves full reproductive services for women and parity for mental health.

Yes, I know things are tough right now, but at least in the coming holiday season, we do have a few things to be grateful for and hopeful about.

This is what it looks like when rational, intelligent, progressive people take back control of government. We've suffered under eight years of rule by lizard-brained buffoons, and now, finally, things are changing.

Whether this particular piece of legislation passes or fails in this particular congress, come January 20, 2009, the smart adults are back in charge. I can't wait.

As another posted has noted, the Republicans in congress might still strike it down. But it sure is a sign of hope that we see people like Sens. Clinton and Murray trying to do the right thing. I certainly hope we will see more of that in the near future.

but I think she's awesome right now.

> gayle

How about they find another line of work.

"A constitutional amendment nullifying conscience clauses (and thus part of the First Amendment as well?)"

Could you quote the part of the First Amendment that grants people the right to refuse car, to provide incomplete care, or to provide inadequate care, to citizens, based on ideology?

Because I keep reading it, and I don't see it.

(And, no, I hardly think a constitutional amendment is required, but I think the AMA, the AAP, the APA, and the various licensing boards should step up and institute policy that prevents zealots from dictating care, and thus playing God. If a pharmacist cant' "in good conscience" fill an RX for birth control pills, then they should refer the patient to someone else *in the same pharmacy* who has no such squeamishness).

Senator Clinton and Senator Murray for paying attention to the continuing attempts by Bush et al to diminish women and interfere in their health care. Keep religion outta my GYN appointment, my hospital and my local pharmacy!

I wonder if any other members of Congress are keeping track of all the stealthy yet blatant attack on our Democracy by this lame-but-still-quacking-duck president...Like, has anyone there figured out that the TARP bill they passed really means:

Totally Awful Revenue Pillage

which also means our Treasury is now at an undisclosed bank in the Caymans...?

All this under the guise of "It's the global economy ya stupid Americans!".

We have got to stop pledging allegiance to crooks. We have to indict and imprison them or we are toast.

Asephe

The only way the Republicans can cause trouble to Clinton's and Murray's bill is with a filibuster, which seems nearly impossible given that 58 Senators caucus with the Democrats, and the two moderate Republican women of Maine are unlike to oppose the bill.

Secretary Leavitt has offered the Senators an excellent way to call attention to this issue, but let's not kid ourselves that this rule would actually ever get issued. If Leavitt had any intention of letting it go through, he would certainly not have created a blog post letting the nation know that this proposed rule had been leaked before he ever saw it. Such leakage was the kiss of death for any proposed rule. Methinks someone within HHS was just trying to have a last hurrah.

These conscience clauses seem a bit stupid. There is never going to be a situation in life where you don't have to make some uncomfortable decisions. Non-religious people are not exempt from making morally conflictiing choices, so why are the religious allowed to do this? It is not fair that people get a religious pass that allows them not to do their jobs and still get paid?

If you had to treat someone who was hurt while driving drunk, would you refuse care on the grounds that you are ethically opposed to drinking and driving? If this sounds dumb, then the idea of denying birth-control or morning after meds should sound just as dumb! You never hear of doctors refusing to prescribe Viagra or Cialis; I wonder why...

I worked in the health care field for 11 years and did birth certificates for a hospital for 4 of those years. I was presented daily with situations I considered morally wrong (like a 12 year old girl who had just given birth to a baby while her parents looked on doing nothing about her situation). But, in being a professional I was obligated to keep my opinions to myself and put my best foot forward. There is nothing quite so offensive as someone who feels the need to moralize regardless of the reason. I find this law Bush is trying to push through one of the most offensive I have come across recently. In essence it gives religious freaks rights no one else has. Where does he imagine these people do not have an obligation to their customers, employer and even the public to provide services in a dignified manner. Where their religion should be imposed upon others and be able to discriminate against women? Where their religion is more important than the job they are supposed to be doing? If they are unable to provide those services maybe they should find a different line of work. One where they don't have any contact with the public.