This is a very complex case. I read through the "appeal" and the Court's decision to reverse. As a matter of law, I believe the problem here lies mostly with the Weldon Amendment. It has interjected itself and created a conflict between federal appropriations moneys and treatment and decisions involving a patient. I believe, in difference to our doctor here, that the health and welfare of the patient "trumps" a physicians personal beliefs about his/her medical decisions. Physicians oath is to protect the interest and welfare of the patient. It then becomes a matter of "fact" in each case whether a doctor's decision and denial of service placed a patient in jeopardy. The Weldon Amendment does not appear to absolve a physician from civil actions that may arise should a patient allege harm. The physician must still perform his duty to counsel and refer the patient, even if such advice contradicts the will of the patient. This preogative of the physician would be his/her care provided.
Clearly, the "emergency status" of the abortions denied substantive claim in the action filed by CA's Lockyer was in error. The remaining points the Court stipulated in their reversal are complex, and I think the Court is saying "go back and correct your legal points and claims," and separately address the Weldon Amendment, which I believe Congress errored in passing. This is what the petitioners should challenge. This may well later end up in the higher U.S. Supreme Court, who would rule on the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.
The more concerning route (for all patients) that physicians could pursue is to have new and current patients sign an advance waivor that "this physician" will not treat patients in the event of a request for abortion, not withstanding an emergent needs occasion. It would be legally tough to break if patients once patients signed it. Physicians could then start adding all kinds of advance notice of exclusions to care, and we'd really have a mess. Of interest today, Health and Human Services Secretary in Washington is now requesting more intervention and activism by health insurers on behalf of their insured patients, primarily for improved costs and efficiency out of health care providors and physicians. However, this could lead to insurance companies advocating in matters on "behalf" of the patient. This would improve checks and balances in health care.
As for Congress's actions in this matter, insertions of unrelated bills is a widespread practice. Hopefully, voters will hold any and all accountable for not only interfeering in the care of a patient, but also for any harm caused by delay/compromise of the primary intended bill.
. The title of your first post says nothing about the process, it says this is an attack on a woman's right to choose. This is precisely the sort of knee-jerk reaction I've talked about before and now that you see you reacted to it before you knew what the issue really was, you're lashing out.
