<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with abortion and doctors</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/abortion+doctors</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'abortion' and 'doctors' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 08:46:10 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 08:46:10 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>&quot;Family Values, My Ass!&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/41976/Family%2DValues%2DMy%2DAss</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/11635167.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp"&gt;&quot;Family Values, My Ass!&quot;&lt;/a&gt; That article in the Lexington Herald-Leader inspired me to look up the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050530&amp;s=mcgarvey&quot;&gt;Nation &lt;/a&gt;article it referred to. Now I&apos;m beginning to see why many women won&apos;t go to &quot;evangelical Christian&quot; MDs: this guy Hager (previously brought up on MetaFilter &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/23017#421518&quot;&gt;in 2003&lt;/a&gt;, in fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/23988#447391&quot;&gt;twice&lt;/a&gt;, and then again in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/37056&quot;&gt;2004&lt;/a&gt;) is strongly anti-abortion -- so pro-conception that he tried to keep the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception&quot;&gt; &quot;morning-after pill&quot; &lt;/a&gt; known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=plan+b+contraception&amp;btnG=Google+Search&quot;&gt; &quot;Plan B&quot; &lt;/a&gt; away from women -- but he&apos;s apparently pro-&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex&quot;&gt; sodomy &lt;/a&gt; and pro-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html&quot;&gt;rape&lt;/a&gt;.  
It almost sounds like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale&quot;&gt;fiction.&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.41976</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2005 08:46:10 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>christianity</category>
		<category>davidhager</category>
		<category>doctors</category>
		<category>health</category>
		<category>prochoice</category>
		<category>prolife</category>
		<category>religion</category>
		<category>reproduction</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<dc:creator>davy</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Should a doctor be able to refuse to help patients?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/35675/Should%2Da%2Ddoctor%2Dbe%2Dable%2Dto%2Drefuse%2Dto%2Dhelp%2Dpatients</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/09/15/abortion.refusals.ap/index.html"&gt;Conscience Clauses and Health Care&lt;/a&gt; --&lt;i&gt;&quot;Yes, we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice?&quot; she asked. &quot;If someone&apos;s beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else.&quot;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.consciencelaws.org/&quot;&gt; The Protection of Conscience Project&lt;/a&gt; feels differently: &lt;i&gt;Protection of Conscience Laws are needed because powerful interests are inclined to force health care workers and others to participate, directly or indirectly, in morally controversial procedures&lt;/i&gt;, while &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.naral.org/facts/clauses.cfm&quot;&gt;NARAL says:&lt;/a&gt; &lt;i&gt;... Many of these clauses go far beyond respecting individuals&apos; beliefs to the point of harming women by not providing them with full information or access to medical treatment. Medicine, not ideology, should determine medical decisions.&lt;/i&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.35675</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:33:52 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>birthcontrol</category>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>conscience</category>
		<category>contraception</category>
		<category>doctors</category>
		<category>health</category>
		<category>healthcare</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>malpractice</category>
		<category>medicine</category>
		<category>religion</category>
		<category>women</category>
		<dc:creator>amberglow</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Hippocretin oath</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/32641/Hippocretin%2Doath</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm"&gt;&quot;The Conscientious Objector Policy Act&quot;&lt;/a&gt; just passed the Michigan Assembly, and awaits voting in the state Senate.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billengrossed/house/htm/2003-HEBH-5276.htm&quot;&gt;The bill&lt;/a&gt; legalizes the right for a doctor, or any health provider, to deny treatment based on &quot;ethical, moral, or religious grounds.&quot;  In addition to the obvious notion of restricting abortion, in the most extreme example the bill technically allows doctors to deny treatment to gays simply for believing that homosexuality is immoral.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.32641</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:31:27 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>doctors</category>
		<category>ethics</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>health</category>
		<category>homosexuality</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<dc:creator>XQUZYPHYR</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20316/</link>
		<description> A bill is currently being pushed through Congress that will give health care providers, including those that are federally funded, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aclu.org/action/refusal107.html&quot;&gt;the right to refuse to perform abortions or administer contraceptive medication for personal moral reasons&lt;/a&gt;.  Next week: firefighters allowed to let houses burn down because they hate the color of the curtains.
 </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20316</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:41:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>ACLU</category>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>contraceptives</category>
		<category>doctors</category>
		<category>health</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>morality</category>
		<category>refusal</category>
		<category>religion</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<dc:creator>XQUZYPHYR</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


