.

[betsy]

So, Scott... You believe women should be forced to carry for 9 months and give birth to babies they conceived through rape? They should be forced to mother the child of a rapist?

If your mother, daughter or wife were brutally raped... would you be willing to sit there with them distraught and tell them that they're going to rot in hell if they don't give birth to the rapist's child?

How can it be said that this raped woman is being forced to carry the baby?

What? Just for saying, "No, I don't give morning after pills?" That's termed as "being forced?"

Did the doctor give a sermon about morality? As far as I know, all he said was that it goes against his religion.

With morning after pills, you have up to 120 hours (five days) to take it, and still prevent pregnancy.

If your mother, daughter or wife were brutally raped....would you be wasting time sitting and arguing with the doctor with the woman already distraught, and debate about morality, whether the doctor is right or wrong?

If you think you've got a case to pursue in court...then do so. I think the doctor also thinks he's got a point to prove in court...otherwise he wouldn't have pointedly cited religion as the reason.

[betsy]

"Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital

In this 1989 federal appellate court case, the plaintiff was taken to Freeman Hospital’s emergency room after being raped. In response to the patient’s request for information about the morning-after pill, the hospital authorities refused to provide such information, believing that they could not, on the grounds that it was a Catholic hospital. Specifically, the hospital did not inform the patient that if she wanted such treatment it must be obtained within 72 hours to be effective.

The court reasoned that a patient has the right to make her own decisions regarding treatment, and therefore, adequate disclosure of information must be provided so the patient can make an informed decision. The court concluded that a rape victim who is denied information about access to the morning-after pill may bring a medical malpractice action.

This means that liability may arise if the patient can show: 1) that a skilled practitioner would have provided such information and access under similar circumstances; 2) that she would have elected such treatment; and 3) that "damages" (in this case, pregnancy) resulted from the failure to provide such information. In a footnote to its decision, the court indicated that "access" to such treatment could include transfer of the patient to another medical facility or another physician.

More critical for Catholic-sponsored hospitals, the court also reasoned that the morning-after pill constitutes the "prevention" rather the than "termination" of pregnancy. It therefore concluded that the conscience clause under the state’s abortion statute did not immunize the hospital from liability for failure to refuse to provide such information.

However, since human life begins at conception (fertilization) and not merely after implantation of the embryo, the relevant moral question from the Catholic perspective is not whether or not there is a pregnancy, but whether or not there is another innocent human life to be respected (see Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 45). Those "contraceptive" measures that operate solely through the prevention of implantation are morally equivalent to abortions in Catholic moral theology, and are therefore impermissible under the Ethical and Religious Directives (both then and now). Nevertheless, the court did not accept this moral distinction as relevant for its ruling.

If Catholic hospitals face a similar situation, they may ethically, in keeping with the principle of informed consent, include in their protocol for the care of rape victims a requirement that victims be informed that such procedures and drugs can be obtained through their private physicians or non-Catholic facilities, but that Catholic facilities do not use them because they risk causing abortion. The decision to be satisfied with the Catholic facility’s mode of care or to go elsewhere thus remains with the victim [Ashley, B. and K. O’Rourke, Ethics of Healthcare (St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association, 1986) 138].

Legal opinion obtained for the Catholic Health Association supports such an approach:

It seems rather clear that a decision, based on religious principle, to refrain from performing abortions and sterilizations falls on the "beliefs" side of the [belief-action] dichotomy. It would contravene the separations of Church and State for government to require Catholic health care institutions to violate its principles in favor of a physician or patient who believes otherwise [in Defense of Values (St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association, 1984), 15].

The court ruling itself stated that Catholic Hospitals have the responsibility "to provide information concerning, and access to, estrogen prophylaxis for rape victims." [source: Second Appellate district, Brownsfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital, March 2, 1989.]

Having said all this, it must be stated that if, after appropriate testing, it can be established with reasonable or moral certitude that the patient has not already conceived, it would then be appropriate for the Catholic hospital to treat the patient with medications that would in these circumstances prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization (see Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 36).

Under these strict parameters, so-called "emergency contraception" would be permissible. This is appropriate because rape is not an act of mutual conjugal love. Rather, it is an extremely violent act that should not be confused with the moral obligations attendant to the inherent meaning of conjugal love. Under other circumstances, some of those same medications might function as abortifacients, which then would not be permissible. [For further reading, see: Ashley, B. and Kevin O’Rourke, Healthcare Ethics: A Theological Analysis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1997), 302-307.]

Conscience Clause

A conscience clause is a statutory provision that permits individuals or institutions to refuse to provide or to pay for medical procedures on the basis of religious or moral beliefs. While conscience clauses protect the autonomy and religious freedom of health care providers and organizations from liability for refusing to provide or fund some services, they also affect patient access.

Thus, conscience clauses should reflect proportionately serious moral convictions and be appropriately balanced so as not to coerce providers to conduct or to pay for objectionable procedures, but also not to discriminate against patients who seek those procedures. As of October 2000, the only two states in which Ascension Health has facilities that have conscience clauses are Illinois and Pennsylvania. Illinois has both a general Healthcare Right of Conscience Act and a specific conscience clause dealing with abortion, the Abortion Performance Refusal Act. Though Pennsylvania does not have a general conscience clause, it has conscience clauses that specifically address the issues of abortion and advanced directives, respectively Title 18, Chapter 32, §3202 and Title 20, Chapter 54, §5409 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes."

http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/cases/case9.asp

***************************

Yet she'd had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room — Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania — to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor.

Later that day, her rape counselor found Boyer a physician who would prescribe her EC.

If Catholic hospitals face a similar situation, they may ethically, in keeping with the principle of informed consent, include in their protocol for the care of rape victims a requirement that victims be informed that such procedures and drugs can be obtained through their private physicians or non-Catholic facilities, but that Catholic facilities do not use them because they risk causing abortion.

I think the hospital followed the protocol. The rape counsellor - whom I assume works for the hospital - had given relevant information, and also helped the woman find another doctor.

[cybercoma]

How can it be said that this raped woman is being forced to carry the baby?

What? Just for saying, "No, I don't give morning after pills?" That's termed as "being forced?"

What is this doctor saying, if not to say that this woman should bear the child of a rapist? By refusing to give her the pill, he is saying that she should bear the child.

Would you enjoy having a rapist's seed grow inside you for 9 months?

[cybercoma]

Are you really saying that a woman who has just been violated in the worst possible way, should be forced to travel around looking for a doctor willing to prescribe the morning after pill? And what if this was a small community with only a single hospital for miles? What if this was the only ER doctor available, or the other ER doctors in the community also have the same mindset?

What then?

Should she be forced to bear a rapist's child?

Do you support the doctor's actions or not?

[ScottSA]

Oh, I don't think so. If a doctor believes that life begins at conception, and that killing or interfering with a fetus puts him in violation of the Hypocratic oath, that is qualitatively different from a Taxi driver refusing to take passengers. As far as I know, there's no taxi-driver's oath forbidding alcohol, is there?

Perhaps you can show me where exactly in the modern version of the Hippocratic oath it specifically says "I will not give morning after pills to women who were raped" and then prove to me that this particular doctor actually took that oath, and that the oath is legally binding. Then you might have a point.

How silly. That's like asking me for a specific legal citation stating that men cannot slit their wives throats with 10" knives, and arguing that the absence of such a citation means it's legal.

[ScottSA]

So, Scott... You believe women should be forced to carry for 9 months and give birth to babies they conceived through rape? They should be forced to mother the child of a rapist?

Where exactly did I say anything remotely like that? Are you saying that pink elephants should fly only on starlit nights, and only when one tenth of the sky is covered in cloud?

Lets try to avoid the strawmen for just a second, ok? If a doctor feels that they took an oath to do no harm, or however it's worded, and believes that the morning after pill is harm, by virtue of a belief that life begins at conception, then it seems to me that he or she is honor bound NOT to give someone the pill. Leave legality out of it...honor is not the same thing, even though it seems out of vogue these days.

[gc1765]

How silly. That's like asking me for a specific legal citation stating that men cannot slit their wives throats with 10" knives, and arguing that the absence of such a citation means it's legal.

Normally I wouldn't respond to such obvious trolling...but in your case I'll make an exception because I'm not actually sure whether or not you actually know the answer to that question. Here is the reference for murder being illegal...and if she didn't die, it would at least be Assault .

Now, be honest...you already knew that and were just trolling, right? I mean you must know that murder is illegal, right?

[cybercoma]

Where exactly did I say anything remotely like that? Are you saying that pink elephants should fly only on starlit nights, and only when one tenth of the sky is covered in cloud?

Lets try to avoid the strawmen for just a second, ok? If a doctor feels that they took an oath to do no harm, or however it's worded, and believes that the morning after pill is harm, by virtue of a belief that life begins at conception, then it seems to me that he or she is honor bound NOT to give someone the pill. Leave legality out of it...honor is not the same thing, even though it seems out of vogue these days.

So, you think it's perfectly acceptable for doctors to tell your wife, after she has been raped and there's a very good chance she will conceive, that she should allow the child of a rapist grow within her for 9 months and she should go through the agony of giving birth to this baby? Would you be comfortable enough to tell your wife, daughter or mother that she has to let a rapist's seed grow inside her for 9 months because it is wrong to interrupt conception with the morning after pill?

[ScottSA]

Where exactly did I say anything remotely like that? Are you saying that pink elephants should fly only on starlit nights, and only when one tenth of the sky is covered in cloud?

Lets try to avoid the strawmen for just a second, ok? If a doctor feels that they took an oath to do no harm, or however it's worded, and believes that the morning after pill is harm, by virtue of a belief that life begins at conception, then it seems to me that he or she is honor bound NOT to give someone the pill. Leave legality out of it...honor is not the same thing, even though it seems out of vogue these days.

So, you think it's perfectly acceptable for doctors to tell your wife, after she has been raped and there's a very good chance she will conceive, that she should allow the child of a rapist grow within her for 9 months and she should go through the agony of giving birth to this baby? Would you be comfortable enough to tell your wife, daughter or mother that she has to let a rapist's seed grow inside her for 9 months because it is wrong to interrupt conception with the morning after pill?

You're asking two entirely unrelated questions underneath all that emoting and fluff:

1 Would I find it acceptable for a doctor to refuse the morning after pill?

A: Absolutely, if the doctor felt that he was committing murder by prescribing it. Would you find it acceptable to club a kid to death because its mother found out its father was a rapist? You see, you have to understand that there are different positions on conception and life in order to see where the doctor is coming from. You can try to discredit it if you want, but it is every bit as valuable an opinion as your's. And in a negative growth birthrate situation, it may just carry more weigh even from a humanist perspective.

2 Would I find it acceptable for a woman to have a rapists baby?

A: I don't know, never having had to deal with it, but the answer to that question has nothing whatsoever to do with the first one.

[cybercoma]

You can't honestly be so obtuse as to equate bludgeoning a child to death, with preventing conception...

I guess birth control pills and condoms are the same as setting up snipers on elementary school roofs and offing several dozen kids a day, right?

The woman was raped and by being refused the morning after pill, the doctor is putting her in a situation where she would have to bear the rapist's child. They are directly related and you are avoiding the question.

Would you support a doctor's decision to refuse a woman in your family the morning after pill when she is fairly confident she will become pregnant because of where she is at in her cycle?

[ScottSA]

You can't honestly be so obtuse as to equate bludgeoning a child to death, with preventing conception...

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the morning after pill kills or destroys the fetus by preventing it from gluing to the uterus. If this is correct, then it is exactly the same thing to the mind of someone who believes that life begins at conception.

And no, I'm not avoiding any questions...I just don't see the logic to claiming that if an individual doctor refuses to do something, that no other doctors exist in the universe who can.

[betsy]

How can it be said that this raped woman is being forced to carry the baby?

What? Just for saying, "No, I don't give morning after pills?" That's termed as "being forced?"

What is this doctor saying, if not to say that this woman should bear the child of a rapist? By refusing to give her the pill, he is saying that she should bear the child.

Stick to the facts! And logic!

What are you saying? If I refuse to give you a glass of water, that means I am forcing you to die of thirst???

[betsy]

Would you enjoy having a rapist's seed grow inside you for 9 months?

Do you think this woman is going to let that rapist's seed grow inside her for 9 months?

Why? Can't she move to act at all???

According to your article, it didn't take her long to decide to find someone else who could give her references. She got back to the sex counsellor - who presumably is in the same hospital building - and she got her doctor of choice.

[betsy]

Are you really saying that a woman who has just been violated in the worst possible way, should be forced to travel around looking for a doctor willing to prescribe the morning after pill?

Whether she's been violated in the worst way possible or not...this woman did not have to "travel" around as it turned out.

Besides, why should the doctor end up the one feeling "violated" just because someone insists the information should come from him.

Why do you think the law have this thing called "CONSCIENCE CLAUSE?"

And what if this was a small community with only a single hospital for miles? What if this was the only ER doctor available, or the other ER doctors in the community also have the same mindset?

What then?

That's another key word: HOSPITAL.

The kinds of hospitals I know are staffed by more than one person!

Do you support the doctor's actions or not?

Given the alternatives that the woman has, and the law's CONSCIENCE CLAUSE....yes, I do, and may I add that it is only based on the information given in your article (which is one-sided so far and may not be accurate as well)...and the article I've posted.

And why shouldn't I agree with the doctor's action?

Even the courts had recognized that, otherwise there would be no need to have this CONSCIENCE CLAUSE on the basis of religious belief.

And obviously this doctor knows about his rights as well. Seeing that this incident also happened in Pennsylvania, I guess the doctor is aware of the clause..and of a similar case in court.

[betsy]

So, you think it's perfectly acceptable for doctors to tell your wife, after she has been raped and there's a very good chance she will conceive, that she should allow the child of a rapist grow within her for 9 months and she should go through the agony of giving birth to this baby? Would you be comfortable enough to tell your wife, daughter or mother that she has to let a rapist's seed grow inside her for 9 months because it is wrong to interrupt conception with the morning after pill?

Cybercoma, just read your statements again. It's not making any sense.

I'm sure if it was your wife we're talking about....you wouldn't just accept the doctor's refusal to give a morning after pill!

To do so would be stupid (since you don't believe in any God or religion at all)! Not only will your wife have that rapist's seed growing in her belly for 9 months, and go through the agony of birthing.....but most importantly, you, as her husband will go through the agony of raising and being the parent of your wife's rapist's child! We're no longer talking of months! We're looking at years!

Knowing what could happen, will you just do nothing, and let a doctor's religious belief stop you from doing what you think is best in your situation?

If you are an atheist, why would you let a religious belief saddle you with your wife's rapist's child?

What do you care about a religious belief?

[betsy]

You can't honestly be so obtuse as to equate bludgeoning a child to death, with preventing conception...

I guess birth control pills and condoms are the same as setting up snipers on elementary school roofs and offing several dozen kids a day, right?

The woman was raped and by being refused the morning after pill, the doctor is putting her in a situation where she would have to bear the rapist's child. They are directly related and you are avoiding the question.

Would you support a doctor's decision to refuse a woman in your family the morning after pill when she is fairly confident she will become pregnant because of where she is at in her cycle?

I suggest that you read the article I posted about that court case....and the Conscience Clause.

This court case happened in Pennsylvania....the same state where your article happened.

[cybercoma]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the morning after pill kills or destroys the fetus by preventing it from gluing to the uterus. If this is correct, then it is exactly the same thing to the mind of someone who believes that life begins at conception.

And no, I'm not avoiding any questions...I just don't see the logic to claiming that if an individual doctor refuses to do something, that no other doctors exist in the universe who can.

Your understanding of biology is very limited if you call it a "fetus" before it attaches to the uterine lining.

Regardless, if you would not allow your wife/mother/daughter the morning after pill, you are suggesting that she should carry the child of a rapist. You are forcing her to carry the growing seed of a rapist. Is this acceptable to you?

[cybercoma]

What if everyone held the same beliefs as these doctors betsy? What then? Clearly, religious solipsism makes them think that everyone else is wrong, a sinner and going to hell. So, what if the religious had their way and everyone were to follow their beliefs?

The problem here is that the woman has to look around for another doctor who is willing to do their job and if all doctors believed the same thing as this doctor, the fact remains that she would never be able to get the treatment she needs.

[betsy]

What if everyone held the same beliefs as these doctors betsy? What then? Clearly, religious solipsism makes them think that everyone else is wrong, a sinner and going to hell. So, what if the religious had their way and everyone were to follow their beliefs?

What if?

Well, with the way things are going in our society right now, it would be likely that sooner or later, doctors like Gish will be a rarity....and practically all doctors will be raring to go for the dreaded fetus, with every available arsenals they could use! So I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score.

The problem here is that the woman has to look around for another doctor who is willing to do their job and if all doctors believed the same thing as this doctor, the fact remains that she would never be able to get the treatment she needs.

Well obviously the law of Pennsylvania doesn't agree with you. The law also recognizes the individual's right to follow his religious belief. That's why a protocol was established....to accomodate the rights of the patient and the rights of the doctor. As long as the doctor did as the protocol dictates, and did not breach it in any way....he's allowed to do what he did.

[cybercoma]

So, then you agree with the doctor and you think think this woman should carry and give birth to this child? Right?

It's really a simple question, do you agree with the doctor's decision or not? If you disagree with his decision, then you think she should've sought out another doctor to prescribe the treatment. It's also possible that you think this doctor was within his rights to deny the treatment, but you should still be appalled by the way he treated her. Since his decision amounts to him telling her that she should carry this child and give birth to it. If you agree with the doctors decision, that's exactly what you're saying. How can you agree with the doctor, yet say she should go and find a doctor that will treat her? You can't disagree with the treatment, yet leave the door open for her to go and get that treatment.

So the question is simple, yet you continue to dance around it.

Do you agree with the doctor's decision or not? I don't care what you think about whether he should be "allowed" to make that decision, whether she has the right to seek a doctor that will treat her, etc. etc.

I want to know if you agree with the choice that doctor made. I want to know if you believe in his belief that this woman should carry that child for 9 months and deliver that baby.

[betsy]

So, then you agree with the doctor and you think think this woman should carry and give birth to this child? Right?

So the question is simple, yet you continue to dance around it.

Do you agree with the doctor's decision or not? I don't care what you think about whether he should be "allowed" to make that decision, whether she has the right to seek a doctor that will treat her, etc. etc.

I agree with the doctor to fight for his belief....especially when he knows that the law recognize his rights.

I agree that if it were me in this doctor's shoes....I would've done the same thing and be honest about it that my religious belief does not allow me to give the said prescription.

It is up to the woman if she wishes to seek another doctor. By being honest and frank, I made her see clearly where she stood with me: no morning pills coming out from my prescription.

Now whether I think she should carry and give birth to this child or not is of no relevance to this topic at all.

After all, she did not ask the doctor whether he thinks it is right to keep the child or not. As far as I know from your article, no such consultations or discussions had occurred.

I want to know if you agree with the choice that doctor made. I want to know if you believe in his belief that this woman should carry that child for 9 months and deliver that baby.

Why do you want to know if I believe in his belief, a belief which you say "that this woman should carry that child for 9 months and deliver that baby?" What's the purpose of knowing what my belief is? I need to know since what you're asking really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

And I notice you avoided my questions, which has something to do with this discussion since you were the one who brought this kind of reasoning...and using it as the major thrust of your argument. So why don't you answer them?

[kimmy]

Way back in post #3 I suggested that there should be patient advocates, whose job is to ensure that patients have access to all the information they need, and have access to the treatment they need, rather than what treatment the doctor's religious beliefs will permit him to provide.

And it seems unfortunate to me that something like that would even be necessary, but if, when you go to the hospital for whatever reason you find yourself in the care of someone who is primarily concerned with his own feelings rather than your medical needs, what's the alternative? Some of you have advocated the idea of comparison shopping, as if choosing a hospital emergency room were not much different from choosing a grocery store. I don't agree. An emergency room ought to provide treatment appropriate to the patient's needs. The notion of someone might get rolled into an emergency room in need of an immediate blood transfusion only to find that the only doctor on duty is a Jehovah's Witness whose conscience wouldn't allow him to administer one. Or a "Christian Scientist" whose ethical beliefs only permit him to provide splints and prayer. But the women in the article weren't going to die if they weren't given access to the "morning after" pill, right? So it's ok?

The likely outcome of Dr Gish's action, if they weren't able to find another doctor in time for the RU486 to be effective? They spend 3 weeks peeing on a stick each morning to find out whether they're pregnant, then find a doctor whose religious beliefs don't prevent him from performing an abortion.

If I recall correctly, even the most restrictive state-level abortion laws in the United States still support the right of rape victims to seek abortion. The phrase "...except in the case of victims of rape or incest..." was mentioned every time I heard mention of an anti-abortion bill.

Even if one feels that Gish himself should not have to provide this service, there's still two problems here.

First, he refused to provide access to another doctor who could provide the treatment, even when specifically asked.

Secondly, the patient should always be informed of what options they have. The two victims in this article knew about the option of emergency contraception, but if Dr Gish treated other rape victims who didn't know that they had the option of getting RU486, somehow Dr Gish doesn't seem like the type who'd inform them that it exists. Hiding information from a patient is not acceptable.

Partly as a result of publicity that resulted from Dr Gish refusing to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim, there's now a bill before the Pennsylvania legislature that will require hospitals to do both of these things.

So in that sense, yeah, good for Dr Gish for making a fight out of this. He exposed an important issue and got the lawmakers to take decisive action.

-k

[Sully]

It's really a simple question, do you agree with the doctor's decision or not?

I agree 100% with the doctor's actions not to give this woman the pill because of his own convictions. (Even I am for abortion in this case) This doctor carries his own set of beliefs like everyone else in this world and its wonderful that he is not willing compromise and check his beliefs at the door. And yes Cybercoma we all know your position, just remember we do not all share it. As I respect yours, I would be so glad for you to respect others.

It seems to me that some people on this thread believe in managing others values and beliefs and have them agree with their system of thought. Some of those people should read through the history books and see which wonderful characters that they align with. I am glad we live in a free country where anyone can believe in what they want and they are respected when their actions do not deviate from their values. Unfortunately some say they believe in individual rights but they are the first to stand up and try to mandate the actions of another.

We all agree that its horrible any woman would be raped. No one denies that, and I am very sure even the doctor would agree. But fact of the matter is the woman had alternative health care staff to deal with, she was not dying but was unfortunately very traumatized. So the woman would be taken care, just not by him.

I do not want to see a profession where their members are devoid of their own beliefs. If that happened I could see a way worse world, where half as many people would want to be doctors. Besides their are many religious people already involved and I have yet to see the system faultering because of a doctors personal belief.

But learning from this, better procedures should be in place so that alternative help is readily known and available for women in this horrible situation.

[gc1765]

I agree 100% with the doctor's actions not to give this woman the pill because of his own convictions. (Even I am for abortion in this case) This doctor carries his own set of beliefs like everyone else in this world and its wonderful that he is not willing compromise and check his beliefs at the door. And yes Cybercoma we all know your position, just remember we do not all share it. As I respect yours, I would be so glad for you to respect others.

...

I do not want to see a profession where their members are devoid of their own beliefs....

Sure, and I'll bet people in other professions have their own convictions as well. Imagine a vegetarian working at McDonald's who refused to serve customers hamburgers because they contain meat. I wonder how long that person would keep their job for. Or a Muslim taxi driver who refused to carry passengers with alcohol because it goes against his religious beliefs. I'm sure you'd agree with that 100% as well, right?

[betsy]

Even if one feels that Gish himself should not have to provide this service, there's still two problems here.

First, he refused to provide access to another doctor who could provide the treatment, even when specifically asked.

Secondly, the patient should always be informed of what options they have. The two victims in this article knew about the option of emergency contraception, but if Dr Gish treated other rape victims who didn't know that they had the option of getting RU486, somehow Dr Gish doesn't seem like the type who'd inform them that it exists. Hiding information from a patient is not acceptable.

I don't think it's a matter of hiding information.

Perhaps knowing that he works in a hospital, and perhaps knowing that it is part of the job of the rape counsellor to provide the necessary information to all rape victims admitted to that hospital....he knows that the woman was already informed by the counselllor - and she was duly informed indeed.

For all we know, this rape counselllor is the equivalent of your "patient advocate"......someone who is not hampered by any religious belief.

In order to accomodate the religious freedom of health workers, and at the same time protect the rights of patients...I think it only practical to assume that any hospitals wanting to avoid any costly lawsuits and controversies would do everything possible to follow the law and protocol.

Partly as a result of publicity that resulted from Dr Gish refusing to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim, there's now a bill before the Pennsylvania legislature that will require hospitals to do both of these things.

So in that sense, yeah, good for Dr Gish for making a fight out of this. He exposed an important issue and got the lawmakers to take decisive action.

I don't think this incident with Dr Gish resulted in any new bill for Pennsylvania. If I'm not mistaken, this incident with Gish happened only recently. There was a case however in 1989 BROWNFIELD vs FREEMAN Hospital that might have been responsible for some changes.

That's why I've said, Gish knows his religious rights are protected under the Conscience Clause (because of a previous court ruling - Brownfield v Freeman Hosp(?))....AND most probably knows the hospital had already taken steps to ensure that the law is followed....that's why Gish was confident enough to flatly cite religion as his reason.