So Bush's new "Right of Conscience" Rule is intended to make life harder for women with reproductive needs. Abortion, birth control. The entire litany. Clearly, she should never have had sex. After all, why should a pharmacist be required to dispense pills legally prescribed from the pharmacy. I mean, really--if you wanted someone to do that, you should have gone to an apothecary.
But, the new rule is so broadly that it can be applied to anyone opposed to anything. Some, in some ways that might be interesting.
What is someone worked in billing found it immoral to turn people away for financial reasons? What if they refused to send bills to people who couldn't afford treatment? According to Bush's new rule, the health care organization couldn't force the person in billing to file bills! Against their conscience.
What if a doctor believed a woman shouldn't be discharged a few hours after giving birth, and she didn't have health insurance? Could the hospital be forced by the "Right of Conscience" rule to allow a woman to recover fully?
What if a receptionist at a dermatology clinic found it immoral that botox patients are seen before cancer screening because it is more profitable? Could he insist on scheduling based on need rather than profit?
What if a scientist thought diseases of the poor were more important than the diseases of the rich and insisted on focusing on malaria instead of weight-loss research?
And what if an employee believed that strict adherence to time is part of a Western hegemony that forces one to believe in the clock, when really, a sundial is far more part of the natural scheme of things and, frankly, 8am is way too early to get to work anyway. My conscience says so. What could a company do? After all: if they don't accommodate these worker's conscience, they'll lose federal funding.