<To squelch an appointment based on a man's religious beliefs on the basis of what he MIGHT do if appointed is the rankest form of discrimination.

This is based on what he has done and what he has said and what he has written, including falsifying his resume.

I seem to recall Republicans shooting down Clinton nominees on the basis of the way they conducted themselves in the past.

As a woman, whose access to medications and treatments would be directly influenced by this man, I declare I have no confidence in his objectivity concerning modern medicine. I don't want him overseeing hormone replacement therapy research when the people he belongs to want to see hormone therapy for the premenopausal (read: birth control pills) restricted for religious reasons. I see my health care in jeopardy.

I get migraine headaches. I assure you they are a vascular phenomenon, brought on by certain physical stimuli. They do not respond to prayer but respond to medication very nicely. Anyone who prescribed prayer to me under those circumstances would wind up in small claims court if he attempted to bill me for his services. Headaches are one of the areas in which Dr. Hader recommends prayer as a treatment.

People can pray if they want. Doctors can and do recommend quiet meditation and relaxation, which recommendations include prayer. But it is not a prescription or a treatment, and it does not take the place of active intervention in a medically treatable condition. Dr. Hader prescribes prayer. He uses his professional standing to evangelize his patients. OK, his patients can change doctors. What if we are all subject to his prescriptions?

Did I not specify he could refuse to prescribe things in his private practice? Of course he can: it's private. This is a public job. Excuse me if I don't believe for an instant that he would not bring his private practice attitudes with him to his new job.

Regards--
Mary Anne