yep let's force people to do things that are against their conscience. just another fascist attempt to force a liberal fascist agenda down people's throats.
On Dec 21, 6:09 am, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> wrote:o force the liberal fascist > " Health care workers, hospitals and even entire insurance companies > can decline to perform, refer or pay for any health care practice that > violates a "religious belief or moral conviction > " > Bush's Last-Minute "Conscience" Rules Cause Furor > another http://www.truthout.org/122008E > Health care workers, hospitals and even entire insurance companies > could decline to perform, refer or pay for abortion or any other > health care practice that violates a "religious belief or moral > conviction" under new rules issued by the outgoing Bush > administration. > > "This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for > their patients in accord with their conscience," said Health and > Human > Services Secretary Michael Leavitt. > > But opponents of the rule, now set to take effect Jan. 19, say it > could threaten patients' health. "This is a very wide, broadly > written > regulation that upsets what has been a carefully established balance > between respecting the religious views of providers, while also > making > sure that we're guaranteeing patients access to health care," said > Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of > America. > > For example, Richards said, many states currently have laws > requiring that rape victims treated in hospital emergency rooms be > offered the option of taking emergency contraceptive pills to prevent > pregnancy. But she said that because providers who don't believe in > emergency contraception could now simply opt not to tell women about > that option, "under this rule, we believe that in fact now women who > are the victim of sexual assault either would not be guaranteed > either > information or health care access to emergency contraception." > > That slap at state laws spurred opposition from more than a dozen > state attorneys general when the regulations were first proposed. > Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says he'll fight to > see the new rule rescinded. > > "This rule is an appalling insult and abuse - a midnight power > grab to deny access to health care services and information, > including > even to victims of rape," Blumenthal said. > > But Leavitt said he felt compelled to issue the new rules after > what he termed an unsatisfactory exchange last year with the > organizations that represent the nation's obstetricians and > gynecologists over a new set of ethics guidelines. > > "It came about primarily because some of the professional > association were trying to define as competence a willingness to > perform abortion. And I think that's wrong," Leavitt said in > September. "A person can be perfectly competent and feel it's not > morally correct to perform an abortion. And they ought to have the > capacity to be protected in that right." > > That ethics policy, however, from the American College of > Obstetricians and Gynecologists, had less to do with whether doctors > should be willing to perform abortions or other potentially > controversial services, and more to do with what they should do if > they were unwilling to perform them. In those cases, according to the > policy, doctors should tell patients upfront and refer them to > someone > who is willing to provide the services. > > Under the new regulations, however, such referrals will not be > required. That pleases groups like the Family Research Council. "What > these conscience regulations do is let the individual decide what > their conscience is, and not the federal government, be it Barack > Obama or George Bush," said Tom McClusky, the group's vice president > of government affairs. > > But Barack Obama made it clear during the presidential campaign > that he disapproved of the rules. The president-elect said an early > version of the regulations "raises troubling issues about access to > basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives." > > While the incoming president can't simply wipe out the rules with > the stroke of a pen, there is a relatively abbreviated process for > taking them off the books. It's called the Congressional Review Act. > And because the Bush administration issued the regulation late in the > current president's term, the new Congress will have 75 legislative > days to pass a "motion of disapproval." All it takes is a simple > majority of votes by the House and Senate, and the motion is not > subject to delaying tactics in the Senate. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
