it all boils down to the systematic slaughter of the unborn. a healthcare provider who does not believe in abortions should not be forced by the government to provide them, period. under the society libs want, you will have no choice. if the almighty government says you will do it, you will do it. can you say sieg heil. nazis on the march. fascism comes to America brought to you by your unfriendly neighborhood lib.
On Dec 21, 10:14 am, Running <[email protected]> wrote: > more "bending over backwards for Nerditarians" > > Gee, let's apply this more broadly. > Maybe a cop could refuse to collar someone, because he believes that > meth is "no big deal". > Maybe a professor at a private university could refuse extra help to a > Catholic student, because he believes that person to be "fraught with > sin" or "bowing to a Roman dictator." > > On Dec 21, 6:09 am, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > " 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 > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
