<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/31/catholic-healthcare-firm-tells-doctors-at-oklahoma-facility-to-stop-prescribing-birth-control/”>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/31/catholic-healthcare-firm-tells-doctors-at-oklahoma-facility-to-stop-prescribing-birth-control/</a></p>
<p>Is that the “other hospital” that people want these women to go to? 18,500 potential women for ONE gynecologist. </p>
<p>Seems doable. </p>
<p>You said you’re an avid biker, right, Cardinal Fang?</p>
<p>I’m trying to find out the real problem people have with this. Is it the fact that birth control (i.e. prescriptions, devices, and maintenance) is not being provided or that these hospitals are Catholic? I imagine if there were clinics that provided these services…then there would be much of a problem with the hospital not providing such care…</p>
<p>acting, I live in SE Michigan. What is a bus? Oh, if you live in Ann Arbor then you have access. If you live anywhere else then you are SOL.</p>
<p>We have NO public transportation- like many, MANY places in America. </p>
<p>Why do some people assume that if THEY did it then it’s possible everywhere? </p>
<p>
Sounds like a winning lottery ticket for anyone who wants to setup private practice. </p>
<p>That’s just what I was thinking. Young doctors take note. Medical students change your concentration. Someone is going to profit majorly off of this. Of course…at the expense of women.</p>
<p>C’mon. I’m perfectly happy to do an 80-mile ride, but when I was employed it wasn’t so easy to take off an entire day for a doctor’s appointment. And it would have been a lot less easy if I had a young child with me; riding 80 miles with a trailer baby or a tandem stokid is not so easy.</p>
<p>If you don’t have a car, an 80 mile round trip takes a day.</p>
<p>*No, apparently in this case you have to drive 40 miles. I do that every day.
*
Rural women are often poor, why should they pay more in time & money, to access health care?</p>
<p>There is something to be said for figuring out how to take care of yourself, speaking as someone who had to do exactly that. I think I would have qualified as poor btw. But, luckily I was resourceful and reasonably intelligent.</p>
<p>Considering the rate of child abuse & neglect in this country, it seems we would * want* to help people who are not emotionally, financially or physically ready to care for a child, continue to remain childless.</p>
<p>Community Care HMO (Owned by St. John’s and St. Francis) is big in Bartlesville. They provide the most affordable private health plan in the state. So, a good portion of the 18,500 women in Bartlesville will be on Community Care because that is the only choice their employers provide. Even if that one doctor can prescribe contraceptives, it doesn’t matter for a lot of women because Community Care HMO will not pay for it. </p>
<p>If a woman’s religious beliefs allow her to use contraception why should the religious beliefs of her employer override her decision? Where is the protection for the woman’s religious freedom? </p>
<p>Well, no employer has ever paid for my birth control. My insurance never covered BC nor did my daughter’s and it was not a crisis It was just a fact. Of course, that was before we somehow had a right to free birth control. Hmmm. </p>
<p>Some families unfortunately struggle and it may be a crisis for them.
Many people didnt have insurance, so they went to Planned Parenthood for all their health care, because they were the only clinic that used a sliding scale.
Both I & my daughter used PP solely ourselves for about 4 years apiece when we didn’t have ins.
Of course it may be 300 miles to a Planned a Parenthood clinic.</p>
<p>Flossy, if you’ve used birth control pills under the circumstances that you’ve described, you found a doctor who prescribed it to you. Is it right for your doctor to be restricted from prescribing you birth control by his/her employer even if it is the best choice for you and you want to pay for it?</p>
<p>Well, had that happened I guess I’d have found another doctor. I do think it’s an odd decision and probably a reaction to all this healthcare mandate stuff. But, how is it different from Catholic hospitals refusing to perform abortions since you can make all of the same poor women in crisis arguments and they have never done those and I haven’t heard much noise about it. That’s just the way it was and if you had to drive to the next town, so be it.</p>
<p>I would like my doctor to be able to do whatever he thought was best but those days are gone, apparently.</p>
<p>Why is there a problem with just prescribing them for cramps or headaches, or whatever? Docs have been known to stretch a little for insurance purposes. It’s not all that unusual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t. Health care facilities should provide health care. Health care facilities that refuse to provide health care should not get any government funds.</p>
<p>However, it is okay to construct a law which routinely compels health care facilities to refuse health care to millions of Americans because they are excluded from insurance company’s networks. </p>
<p>Catholic hospitals have a long tradition of serving the public good in underserved areas.</p>
<p>More recently, Catholic run HMO businesses have expanded, purchasing physician owned clinics and locally owned but struggling hospitals.</p>
<p>There is a difference.</p>
<p>And generally, in the past, (and I’m not sure if this was by directive or law or tradition) there were two models regarding reproductive health care and Catholic owned hospitals/clinics. Full reproductive health services (not including abortion) are required to be provided within the communuty (or geographic area) served by the hospital/clinic. So if the Catholic hospital is the only one in town (as was frequently the case in small towns) then it must provide usual and customary services. If the town or area has more than one hospital, then the Catholic hospital may refuse to provide some services. . On the other hand, if there are two hospitals in town, the Catholic Hospital may limit the reproductive services it provides because those services are available elsewhere within the community.</p>
<p>My husband left a practice where the only clinic and hospital in town were purchased by a Catholic HMO, which began working to limit reproductive services. At one point before we left, the hospital had decided to end vasectomies provided within the hospital. The local urologists began making noises about setting up their own privately owned surgicenter for vasectomies, and low and behold the hospital decided to create a completely seperate surgical area within the hospital, with a different billing name and process (but still owned by the Catholic hospital) for vasectomies. it was a bit of a game.</p>
<p>Our laws are not supposed to be written for one religion. So let’s apply another religion’s rules. Substitute BC with blood transfusions. Are you just as okay with your employer refusing to pay for any blood transfusions for you and your family? Keep in mind you contribute a lot of your own money to the health insurance premium. The employers subsidize but not 100%. </p>
<p>Best and most concise argument ever,Hayden.</p>
<p>Wow, just Wow. </p>
<p>I feel like we’ve time warped back to the 50’s. </p>