Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Lissa]

It's not that simple. If you are asked to do something that is morally objectionable, you would have reason to challenge your unfair dismissal. That is, unless you work in a state such as mine where employers have the right to dismiss anyone, anytime without cause. This is similar to cases where Islamic food workers refuse to touch pork products, or ask to have a prayer room for religious reasons. If the employer understands and agrees to these things, then the employer and employee have an agreement. It might also be the case of the pharmacist, and if not then the employer and the employee have a disagreement which might result in the dismissal of the employee.

When you start work with an employeer, they employeer tells you what they expect of you and you sign a contract to work for said employeer. If you refuse to do the work that the employeer sets before you, you have broken your side of the contract and thus give the employeer the right to terminate said contract due to your refusal to perform the task. You choose to work there and if everything is told to you up front and you still choose to work there and then later refuse to perform tasks that you were informed you would need to do, you should not have started working there or expect to be removed because you have broken your contract with your employeer.

I'll take your word for it. It sounds like, as does happen very often every day in many, many companies, an employee did the wrong thing and the employer had to take care of the mess.

This was a well documented case that was all over the news several years back involving a CVS pharmacy somewhere in the south (I want to say Kentucky or Arkansas, but I can't remember exactly where). Simply it was gross negligence on the part of the Pharmacists (there were 3 there, all refused to fill the perscription) and almost caused a young woman to commit suicide because of how they handled the situation. CVS came back and showed proof of the papers that all CVS pharmasists sign showing that they will fill a perscription that is valid from a physcian no matter their beliefs. Rightfully, although it cost CVS some money, they fired all three pharmacists in this case (and CVS had to pay the young woman for the pharmacists' gross negligence).

You are now substituting apples for oranges. If someone is terminally ill, sure, yes, a doctor can do what they can to help the person cope better with the time they have left. But, we are talking about casual sex, getting knocked up, and then freaking out about the responsibility, commitment and expense of having a child. This is a different type of "quality of life", the kind where you can act irresponsibly and take care of it by murdering your mistake.

Talk about apples and oranges. My point is that a medical providers job is to improve the patients quality of life. There are elective things that a medical provider can perform (plastic surgery is a prime example). Likewise, tell me how you heal diabetes. Tell me how you heal heart disease. Tell me how you heal bipolar disorder. Tell me how you heal AIDS. You see how wrong your assumption is of medicine is to "heal"? You don't heal diabetes, you don't heal heart disease, you don't heal bipolar disorder, and you don't heal AIDS, you treat and you improve the patients quality of life. You have no clue about what medical professionals do Kan, and your above statements show it. As someone that has spent nearly the last 10 years working in and around medical professionals on a daily basis, I can tell you that you really have no idea what medical professionals do for a living.

Well, I've posted other polls, and have reviewed dozens upon dozens on this topic. Pew Research is another one I look at regularly as they break things down to more of a nitty gritty detail. Well, the number is there. About 10-20% say that abortion should always be illegal, which means that 80-90% of people believe that as a procedure it should be available in some circumstances. What is telling to me is that (according to Pew); "Pew Research Center polling from 2006, for instance, finds that most Americans (73%) believe that abortion is morally wrong in nearly all (24%) or some (49%) circumstances. Only one-in-four (24%) say abortion is not a moral issue. And a 2005 Pew Research Center poll finds that nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, compared with only 33% who do not feel this way."

Again, your polls are meaningless if they don't tell us exactly what people consider legal or illegal. Get that through your head. Throwing numbers around without meaning is of no use. On the other hand, seeing a large number of conservatives state that they think that abortion is valid in the case of rape, incest, and to save the mother tells me more than a poll that says x number of people believe that abortion should be illegal in most case without saying one word about where it would be considered legal says nothing. If you're going to use numbers to back up your arguement, make sure the numbers have meaningful use cause throwing around statistics without giving the full extent of what those statistics is like using soccer ball in a hockey game.