Who is actually being forced to provide procedures that violate their personal values?

"Doctors and hospitals are already protected under Idaho law, but this would extend those protections to nurses, nurses assistants, pharmacists — “any person licensed, certified or registered by the state of Idaho to deliver health care,” the bill states."

So if you're a nurse and you don't believe in abortion, don't work at a facility or for a doctor that provides them. I would like to know how many health professionals are currently compromising their beliefs because they have no choice.

This is so broad as to allow a provider to deny care based on religion or race, gender or ability to pay. Though the intent is cynically obvious, the consequences could be to justify "medical homicide". Or the simple inconvenience of a pharmacist that does "not approve" your doctor's recommendation.

This bill would have minimal impact in Idaho's urban areas where alternatives to "conscience" care are widely available.

What about in the thousands of small towns where a conscience driven pharmacist or nurse could deny plan B medication (which prevents conception) to a rape victim. Is the victim then required to drive to a large city. This after being judged and perhaps humiliated.

If a pharmacist will not provide a MD's prescription based on morality, a large sign should be posted on the door.

Let the market sort this out without the state making controversial moral decisions regarding legal medical treatments and medications.

This kind of FEEL GOOD legislation is a waste of legislative effort. Count me among those who suspect there are no persons being forced to provide medical services that violate their conscience.

But if there are, perhaps the bill should require a sign be posted at any facility where people are unwilling to provide certain services and specifically which ones. For example: PRO-LIFE PHARMACIST JONES PRESENTLY ON DUTY; MORNING AFTER PILL NOT AVAILABLE HERE. Or, SCIENTOLOGY FOLLOWER SMITH ON DUTY; MENTAL HEALTH PRESCRIPTIONS WILL NOT BE FILLED TODAY. How about: ROMAN CATHOLIC ON DUTY, BIRTH CONTROL PILLS AND CONDOMS NOT SOLD HERE.

The whole idea is just absurd.

"Winder said the bill is not intended to take away the rights of anyone, but to protect the rights of individuals in professional medical care."

A bill that provides someone from denying me something I am LEGALLY able to obtain because of their personal beliefs? Wow...and you folks think Obama is threatening your personal liberties?

This is important? Who the heck cares?

With record unemployment, an out of control economy, and people going to the ER because they have no health insurance, Winder decides to introduce an unnecessary bill whose only purpose is to bolster his reelection.

This smacks of the same kind of tomfoolery we saw with the so called Defense of Marriage Act a couple of elections ago.

Conscience? Hey Winder, how does your conscience feel when you put up this type of garbage when you know there are kids in this state who go to bed without dinner?

Spending time and taxpayer dollars on garbage legislation instead of producing bills that put Idahoans back to work is a true measure of a legislator.

This is truly frightening. What is our beautiful state becoming?

Douchenozzle in training.

This bill give the beliefs/opinions of religious fanatics preeminence over those of everyone else. Patient is gay? Well gays are sinners so I wont treat them. Patient has Hep C from drug use? Well it's Gods judgment on him and I wont interfere with God's plan. It allows pharmacists to countermand the orders of doctors for birth control prescriptions or anything else that "offends" the pharmacist. It allows pharmacies to dictate to men and women what OTC birth control or any thing else they want because some nut finds it "offensive." I was a health care provider and providing the best possible care to everyone regardless who they were or what they believe is a sacred responsibility. Any health care professional that can not do that must get out of health care.

I expect this type of thing from a number of legislators, but I thought Winder had more common sense. Citizens should be worried about the person who drafted this bill. Just wait, David Ripley will use it as yet another fundraiser where he gets his followers all excited about another non-issue. He doesn't give a rip about anybody's conscience unless they agree with his extreme beliefs. It will be interesting if this provision backfires and healthcare providers don't have to provide futile care that Mr. Ripley and his follower are so often demanding.

that has ever been forced to provide an abortion. At best, there may be someone who had to perform an emergency procedure because of an accident or immediate danger to the mother's life.
It sickens me that Ripley & Co. keep trying to manipulate healthcare providers in his anti-abortion campaign. A lot of us are against abortion but we are honest about it and don't invent problems that don't exist just to keep the campaign going.

What could be so offensive about providing end of life care? I don't know, but when I went to nursing school, it was kind of a given that I would have to take care of dying people. Part of the life cycle. As far as performing duties related to something that violates your moral code, don't take a job where you might have to do those things. Keep this up and they will legislate "care" right out of heathcare!

He's being a butthead, Beavis. We've had this argument within the last 2 years as well.

Memory loss perhaps.

----------
Like a midair collision with a tugboat

What? So, the conscience stricken provider could deny treatment based on sexual preferences?

Or how is religion not conflated with the provider's conscience driven refusal? In other words a provider can deny treatment or medication based on his religion but not discriminate against any other religion when doing so. My oh my, isn't that discrimination itself?

And how about a reference to the 9th Circuit Court's decision so it might be reviewed? Maybe Mr Winder's interpretation isn't supported by the opinion.

I am betting the 9th Circuit Court didn't say "vague legislation that could be misconstrued by every jurisdiction in which it applies"

Propaganda is misleading or incomplete information used for political purposes. Let's see the opinion.

Murphy reports "the bill includes provisions for emergency care when no other health care provider is available and it says that no health care professionals can be held liable for declining to provide health care services that violate his or her conscience except for life-threatening situations."

What are those provisions when no other provider is avialable?

Is there going to be new medical board that issues "Approved Life Threatening Situations" bulletins to providers.

And the conscience driven decision maker is subject to being held liable in life threatening situations? Isn't that just a bit vague and even contradictory.

This from the "get the government out of our lives" Winder.

If they are going to be consistant, true believers who stone people to death for biblical transgressions should be immune from prosecution. After all, that's what the Good Book prescribes, and who are we to trample on someone's religious beliefs.

----------
Like a midair collision with a tugboat

Going at it again. Same attempt for the last 2 years. For a State that has people constantly complaining about govt control of our lives, they keep trying to control us.

Just like last year, this bill was authored by David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life...he just found a new lawmaker to manipulate into sponsoring it. Ripley attempts to muddy the water by including stem cell research and end of life care, but we all know what his true intention is. The bill targets emergency contraception, period. It explictly lists EC as an abortifacient (something that causes an abortion) to justify allowing a pharmacist to refuse dispensing or selling it. Both medical science and federal policy agree: emergency contraception is NOT abortion. It is contraception and will not effect an existing pregnancy or harm a developing fetus. It is not the same as RU-486, the medication abortion pill. EC works by preventing ovulation in the case of birth control failure if taken within 72 hours. This bill is not about conscience protections for health care providers. Idaho code already protects not only docs and hospitals, but nurses and technicians as well (the Statesman reported this incorrectly). Pharmacists are already protected by their own Board regulations and have some of the highest employee protections in Idaho. Did you know you cannot sue a pharmacist in this state? It is not medical providers that are requesting this change in law. It is an anti-choice extremist who wants to rewrite state code to limit access to contraception. We must all fight to protect women's health! Contact your lawmakers today and tell them to vote NO on SB1353.

What my doctor and I decide is NONE of any pharmacist's business. If you don't want to dispense medicine, choose another profession.

And by the way, Plan B does not cause abortion. I know two women who took it when they were already pregnant and they have healthy children. It PREVENTS pregnancy from happening.

Despite the horribly misleading name of this bill, it is truly unconscionable to allow someone in a retail environment to override the decision of a woman and her doctor. Plus, EC is NOT abortion and can prevent abortions. So the fact that pro-life people are supporting this is unbelievable as it will increase the number of abortions that happen.