Obama Set to Remove Rule that Allows Health Workers to Refuse Participating in Abortions
If I were a health care worker, here’s how I would reply to my supervisor for forcing me to participate in an abortion: “Obama is a fascist totalitarian Commie and can kiss my butt! I’m not going to Hell for him! I QUIT!!!!”
Then, after half the health care workers quit because of this piece of pure evil totalitarian, anti-religion, pro-killing BS, the upper management at the hospitals and clinics will give Obama the bird and allow the health care workers to do whatever they want. Remember, the health care community is already strapped for experience workers….
Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers
By DAVID STOUT – New York Times
Published: February 27, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.
The Department of Health and Human Services served notice on Friday, through a message to the White House Office of Management and Budget, that it intends to rescind the regulation, which was originally announced on Dec. 19, 2008, and took effect on the day President Obama took office.
When the administration publishes official notice of its intent, probably next week, a 30-day period for public comment will begin, after which the regulation can be repealed or modified.
It has been known for weeks that President Obama intended to review the rule and other last-minute regulatory actions once he took office, so the notice on Friday beginning the process was not a surprise. Even so, considerable emotion surrounds the issue, as illustrated by the shorthand used to describe the Dec. 19 rule. Its supporters called it the “provider conscience regulation,” while the Planned Parenthood Federation of America disdained it as a “midnight regulation.”
The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Its supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
In praising the Bush administration last fall, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years “we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
But opponents of the regulation, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and Planned Parenthood, said it could have voided state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. It could also allow drugstore employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, critics of the regulation have said.
Moreover, opponents of the regulation have said, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers broad protection against discrimination based on religion, spelling out that an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s practices and beliefs.
“Today’s action by the Obama administration demonstrates that this president is not going to stand by and let women’s health be placed in jeopardy,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said on Friday.
Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and several states filed legal challenges against the Dec. 19 regulation. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who sued in federal court on behalf of his state and several others, issued a statement on Friday saying that his suit would remain in effect until the rule is “finally and safely stopped.”
“Dismantling this dangerous rule is a historic step toward preserving profoundly significant health care rights for women, and vital constitutional rights for all,” Mr. Blumenthal said.
Reaction to the move on Friday made it clear that the issue remains an emotional one. “We are encouraged by the Obama administration’s recent effort towards ensuring that patients have the ability to access necessary, widely used and accepted medical services,” said Mary Jane Gallagher, president and chief executive of the National Planning and Reproductive Health Association.
But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader in the House, said, “This is the third action taken by Washington Democrats in the past 38 days to weaken American rules that are meant to safeguard the sanctity of human life.”
Explore posts in the same categories: Abortion, Abuse of Power
4 March, 2009 at 9:34 am
“The child thinks of growing old as an almost obscene calamity, which for some mysterious reason will never happen to itself. All who have passed the age of thirty are joyless grotesques, endlessly fussing about things of no importance and staying alive without, so far as the child can see, having anything to live for. Only child life is real life.” – George Orwell
I wonder what the world would look like if children made the laws…
4 March, 2009 at 10:16 am
“But, not babies, right?”
Wrong.
“I wonder what the world would look like if children made the laws…”
Irresponsible and wishy washy.
4 March, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Leo you still haven’t answered the question on how a fetus is a not a life? Or if it is a life how killing the fetus is not murder?
4 March, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I believe I answered your question twice already, but if you insist, it is not a murder because fetus is not human yet.
Now is my turn. Let’s agree for the sake of argument that aborting a fetus is a murder.
What about embryo? Is that murder too and why?
What about allowing unfertilized egg go to waste? Is that a murder?
What about male masturbation? Is that a murder?
What about birth control? Is that a murder?
Can anyone explain to me how come pro-life families do not get pregnant every year? Do they copulate solely for procreation just 2-3 times times in their married life? Or instead of using chemical, mechanical, … contraceptives they use biological cycles to control birth in their families?
4 March, 2009 at 9:33 pm
No you didn’t answer the question is a fetus alive or isn’t it?
There is nothing wrong with birth control because it stops Fertilization so a new life is not created.
4 March, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“it is not a murder because fetus is not human yet.”
Well, I guess you are against charging a criminal with double homicide if he kills a pregnant mother. After all, according to you, the fetus is not a human yet.
What, according to you, determines when a fetus is human? Just curious.
Cheers
4 March, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Is fetus alive or not? I prefer doctors answer that but if I am not mistaking 7-month old fetus can actually survive birth. So, I guess 7-month old fetus is alive for sure.
As to charging criminal with double homicide I am totally fine with that. I guess it would make your guess incorrect.
BTW, I do not think your question regarding double homicide is in any way relevant to decision of family to have an abortion. Rather weak argument, wouldn’t you say?
4 March, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Leo,
Rather weak defense, wouldn’t you say?
First, you declare that a fetus isn’t a human, then you declare that you prefer a doctor to answer if a fetus is alive or not, but then offer a 7 month gestation period as a guess.
A 7 month old fetus is still a fetus until it leaves the womb. Therefore, your timetable is meaningless when compared with your earlier statement of: “it is not a murder because fetus is not human yet”
Perhaps you are not clear as to the definition of a fetus:
From Princeton:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fetus
“an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.”
From the Genome Project (a U.S. Government Website):
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/genechoice/glossary.html
“An animal in the later stage of development before birth. In humans, the fetal stage is the from the end of the third month until birth.”
Since you have admitted that you don’t consider a fetus to be a human, then, even a 7 month old fetus isn’t a human if we go by your earlier statement. Your “clarification” didn’t really clarify your position for me. It just confused me more…
Then, you go on to say that you are fine with charging a criminal with a double-homicide when the victim is pregnant. Now, I didn’t say anything about abortion when mentioning a double-homicide. That is not the point.
The point is that you flatly stated that a fetus is not a human. So, if you believe that the law should charge a criminal with a double-homicide when a fetus is killed along with its mother, then you have a serious contradiction in your logic. That’s the very definition of “Cognitive Dissonance.”
Your 7 month timetable is also medically flawed. Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. 24 divided by 4.3 = 5 1/2 months.
Not to mention that a child has survived birth at 21 weeks, 6 days, which equates to about 5 months.
Not that it is important, but it might be worth pointing out that NO CHILD CAN SURVIVE for an extended period of time immediately after birth without outside help from another human.
A baby is dependent on the mother, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, to provide nourishment and protection from the elements while the child is still an infant.
Here… Let me pull out one of my books and quote from the “Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics” by Avraham Steinberg & Fred Rosner, Volume 1, Page 16:
“At about eight to ten weeks of gestation, the fetus already has external human form and thus continues to mature separately from the mother. At this stage, nerve cells begin to be formed, and the fetus has neurological activities and its own electroencephalogram together with reflexes in reaction to external stimulation. At about twelve weeks of gestation, the fetus has cardiac activity and an independent electrocardiogram. The fact that the fetus has a perceptible pulse, individual movements, and electroencephalographic activity separate from the mother makes it a separate and unique biological being.”
“Of course, for its continued growth and survival it is dependent upon the uterine environment. However, its survival even long after birth is also dependent on a supportive environment.”
“Even if one accepts the thesis that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases, this does not apply if there are opposing rights of others. In the case of abortion, one must carefully weigh the right of the fetus to be born as an opposing right to the mother’s wish to abort it.”
Anyway, I think you need to rethink your views a little concerning what a fetus is and is not.
If you would have stated that an embryo (about 8 weeks or less—a debatable point ) is not a human, then I wouldn’t have been so hard on you, even though I, personally, still consider a human embryo to be a human because—barring any unforeseen anomalies—it will become a productive member of society with its own personality.
Cheers
5 March, 2009 at 1:09 am
Leo,
“I am basing my assertion on the fact that while being so different we still have equal rights and each of us still has Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness despite our philosophical differences.”
So you agree that we are all equal? If we are all equal, then we were all equal upon conception and thus, entitled to the same right to life. We all began as a sperm and an egg. It matters not WHEN a “fetus” becomes a “baby” because all fetuses are equal, every fetus grows into a baby, and who has the right to decide which fetus lives and which dies? We cannot treat life subjectively. Either we are all equal or we are not. If not, none of us has a right to live. Anyone can choose to deny us that right at any time. If that’s the case, all murderers must be immediately exonerated and released.
“And yes, nothing is self-evident. It only lasts as long as you and I accept it and society is capable of enforcing its laws.”
Personally, I think rights are eroded when society eschews the responsibilities that accompany each right. The argument for abortion is that a woman has a right to choose what happens with her own body. Very true. She has the right to choose not to have unprotected sex, thus avoiding a pregnancy (or a disease) she may not want. She has a responsibility to accept the consequences when she makes a bad decision. Couples who have consensual sex and fail to take precautions to avoid pregnancy if they do not want a baby are NOT VICTIMS, and they do not have the right to kill their “fetus” for their own convenience. Very few abortions are the result of rape or incest. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience alone. That is not a good enough reason, and teaches people that they don’t have to face the music when they make a mistake. Abortion is selfishness in most cases. Belated birth control.
“This is basis of your mistake.”
Maybe and maybe not. I believe that God exists; that is called FAITH. I’m not asking you to believe in God -that is something you must decide for yourself.
“But it does not mean I must believe in Divine Presence in order to accept 10 Commandments. I may simply find it logical.”
I might have said that 15 years ago. You have to make up your own mind, as I did. If you accept the 10 Commandments, then you surely know one of them is “Thou shall not kill.”
I was once pro-choice, saying, much as you are, that it isn’t murder because it isn’t really a baby yet. After seeing my daughter in the womb on ultrasound, there was no question that she was a human baby. That is when I changed my mind and became pro-life. Do you have children, Leo?
How old are you, if you don’t mind my asking?
5 March, 2009 at 2:28 am
Leo,
“What about embryo? Is that murder too and why?
What about allowing unfertilized egg go to waste? Is that a murder?
What about male masturbation? Is that a murder?
What about birth control? Is that a murder?”
Well, I can’t speak for everyone here, but:
A spermatozoon by itself will not become a human, nor will an unfertilized ovum (or egg, as you say). It is only when the two gametes meet and produce a zygote via transference of genetic material (the “moment of conception” ) that they become an embryo and ultimately a human.
So, the questions raised regarding masturbation, discarding unfertilized eggs, and the use of contraception are theologically irrelevant when discussing the murder of an unborn child as there has been no “moment of conception” (which is when most religions assert that life begins) i.e. – no “moment of conception” equals no moral dilemma because no one is murdering anyone.
In fact, theologically speaking, masturbating and the use of contraception falls under a different category altogether – sexual immorality. Which is really strange, because the Bible is oddly silent about masturbation… Hmmmm….
Coitus interruptus, on the other hand…well, let’s just say that the Catholics believe “birth control” was the reason Onan died in Genesis 38:8-10. Others, like me, dispute this because a plain reading of the passages without bias or pretext clearly shows that Onan dropped dead because of his disobedience.
BTW – Yes, I know that the word Onanism (derived from the Biblical story) also means masturbation, but that is not what Onan did – he “pulled out” while having sex so as not to give an heir. I can’t help it if people in the past fallaciously thought he was masturbating.
As for discarding an unfertilized ovum, well, if God made it so a woman throws ‘em away once a month, what’s the big deal? Only self-righteous clergymen with delusions of grandeur would make a big deal out of that. And, they’d be wrong.
Cheers
5 March, 2009 at 8:55 am
“First, you declare that a fetus isn’t a human, then you declare that you prefer a doctor to answer if a fetus is alive or not, but then offer a 7 month gestation period as a guess.”
I am sure you can see how fetus can be alive but not yet human.
Your 7 month timetable is also medically flawed. Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. 24 divided by 4.3 = 5 1/2 months.
Not to mention that a child has survived birth at 21 weeks, 6 days, which equates to about 5 months.
So, it is 5 months then. I never claimed to be certain regarding number. Most important part is that earlier than 5 month (or even 4 should you insist) fetus is not survivable even with intensive care. Hence, not exactly alive and definitely not a child as some tried to argue.
Anyway, I think you need to rethink your views a little concerning what a fetus is and is not.
I think we both should. Perhaps my mistake was to assume you are against all types of abortion while it would appear you are willing to argue terms as do I.
If you would have stated that an embryo (about 8 weeks or less—a debatable point ) is not a human, then I wouldn’t have been so hard on you
Actually, I mentioned embryo earlier and I was planning to explore that possibility, however your generosity is noted and greatly appreciated. Thank you.
, even though I, personally, still consider a human embryo to be a human because—barring any unforeseen anomalies—it will become a productive member of society with its own personality.
As it is your right and it deserves my respect.
But still, afford the same to me and leave my embryos and my family to me.
5 March, 2009 at 9:04 am
ac_conservative,
Perhaps I am too tired but I tried to read your post few times and I had to stop. I just could not hold my thoughts together.
Sorry.
5 March, 2009 at 10:18 am
Truer words were never spoken:
“I just could not hold my thoughts together.”
5 March, 2009 at 11:13 am
“I am sure you can see how fetus can be alive but not yet human.”
No. I can’t.
A whale fetus is still a whale. An elephant fetus is still an elephant. A monkey fetus is still a monkey.
A human fetus is still a human.
Nor,does it matter if it is alive or dead, it is still a human fetus.
“Most important part is that earlier than 5 month (or even 4 should you insist) fetus is not survivable even with intensive care. Hence, not exactly alive and definitely not a child as some tried to argue.”
Yes, that use to be the rationale for late term abortions – “the fetus is not survivable even with intensive care.”
However, medical technology has been steadily reducing the age of viability.
What are you going to do when medical science is able to deliver two month old babies and successfully incubate them? It will happen, eventually. What then?
Also, the fact that a baby can survive or not survive outside of the womb without intense medical help is NOT a determining factor in what is human and what is not!!!
Case in point: Twenty years ago, my ex-wife and I had a child. The birth was after nine months of gestation.
Unfortunately, our child was born with her intestines closed off in numerous places. So, she could not survive without intensive medical procedures and care.
She eventually died about a month later.
Was she somehow less than human because she couldn’t survive outside of the womb which was supplying her nutrients and keeping her alive?
Certainly not!
BTW – I find it very interesting that you didn’t consider a five and six month old human fetus to be a human until you learned that, like the seven month olds, they too can survive, then, all of a sudden, you now embrace them as human…
Yeah, cognitive dissonance can really suck. I use to be afflicted with it when I was younger, too.
“…leave my embryos and my family to me.”
Fine. No one is forcing their values on you. Which leads me back to what started this whole discussion:
“I do not give you right to force it upon me.
If you do not wish to perform abortions fine but if I cannot rely on you to perform your job I do not need you.
BTW, question of abortions is identical to question of guns. You cannot pick and choose. You either have freedom or you do not.”
Refusing to participate in an abortion is NOT forcing anything on you, personally. There are still plenty of other health care providers who will gladly kill your baby for you.
The issue is that Obama wants to force HIS values onto ALL health care workers and FORCE them to perform abortions. That is the crux of the biscuit.
As you say, “You either have freedom or you do not.”
The health care workers are having their freedoms stripped away from them by Obama. Don’t they deserve the same freedom in refusing to participate in an abortion as you do in promoting and having an abortion performed on your wife? Shouldn’t it be an individual choice and not a government mandate? The answer is pretty obvious, “you either have freedom or you do not.”
Cheers
5 March, 2009 at 7:59 pm
leo,
After debating DocB, I’m not surprised you would be tired. He is a tough debater, isn’t he?
You don’t have to answer–just food for thought anyway. We all have to work out the tough questions for ourselves in the end. Take care.
5 March, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“After debating DocB, I’m not surprised you would be tired. He is a tough debater, isn’t he?”
Indubitably. DocB, as you call him, is master debater.
doctorbulldog,
Sorry for the delay. I’ll try to answer at earliest opportunity.
5 March, 2009 at 11:40 pm
leo,
Hey! There’s nothing wrong with master debating every once in a while to relieve a little stress!
Cheers
7 March, 2009 at 1:41 am
Yes, that use to be the rationale for late term abortions – “the fetus is not survivable even with intensive care.”
However, medical technology has been steadily reducing the age of viability.
What are you going to do when medical science is able to deliver two month old babies and successfully incubate them? It will happen, eventually. What then?
If you recall I was replying to the question, whether fetus is alive or not as I pointed out while not being a doctor for me alive means whether fetus is survivable outside of its mother.
Regular gestation period for human is 40 weeks. And that will not change regardless of scientific advances. Nature cannot be fooled. Fetus will still have to go through all necessary stages of development regardless whether it is in natural or artificial womb. It is still going to be a fetus until it fully develops into human ready to be born.
Also, the fact that a baby can survive or not survive outside of the womb without intense medical help is NOT a determining factor in what is human and what is not!!!
I think this is all you really needed to say. But I am already familiar with your point of view and I understand and accept it.
Case in point: Twenty years ago, my ex-wife and I had a child. The birth was after nine months of gestation.
Unfortunately, our child was born with her intestines closed off in numerous places. So, she could not survive without intensive medical procedures and care.
She eventually died about a month later.
Was she somehow less than human because she couldn’t survive outside of the womb which was supplying her nutrients and keeping her alive?
Certainly not!
I am sorry for your loss. Still, to address your point. Your baby was carried full term therefore she was human and not human fetus.
BTW – I find it very interesting that you didn’t consider a five and six month old human fetus to be a human until you learned that, like the seven month olds, they too can survive, then, all of a sudden, you now embrace them as human…
Yeah, cognitive dissonance can really suck. I use to be afflicted with it when I was younger, too.
Why do you find it so strange that I can learn? So, I was corrected regarding term from 7 to 5 months. Where is the dissonance you speak of?
Actually, when it comes to think of it I must revert back to my original assertion regarding 7 months. Just because medical science will advance far enough to be able artificially fertilize an egg and grow embryo/fetus/child to full term in a glass does not mean baby will be able to emerge from this glass any sooner than in 7-9 months. Remember that nature rule I mentioned before?
“…leave my embryos and my family to me.”
Fine. No one is forcing their values on you.
Does it mean you do not want to make abortions illegal?
The issue is that Obama wants to force HIS values onto ALL health care workers and FORCE them to perform abortions. That is the crux of the biscuit.
As you say, “You either have freedom or you do not.”
The health care workers are having their freedoms stripped away from them by Obama. Don’t they deserve the same freedom in refusing to participate in an abortion as you do in promoting and having an abortion performed on your wife? Shouldn’t it be an individual choice and not a government mandate? The answer is pretty obvious, “you either have freedom or you do not.”
No, medical professional who is against abortions must not be forced to perform it with exception of two cases.
First, case of medical emergency.
Second, case when said professional intentionally puts self into position when s/he will be required to perform abortions as part of their occasional duties. Most obvious example I can offer would be when doctor or nurse applies for work in abortion clinic, gets hired and then refuses to perform his/her duty.
Aside from that I believe you should not be forced to do what you do not want. BTW, even in the second case you should not be forced but you certainly must be fired for misrepresentation at very least.