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of its intent, probably next week, a 30-day period for public comment will begin, after which the regulation can be repealed or modified.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
27 February, 2009 at 6:42 pm
No, no, they should all sue and name the president and every one of the rats that voted for this. Got to love a class action-medical against guvment, I’m loving this.
27 February, 2009 at 7:53 pm
If the Muslims can make demands and get them met, so should the Christians, and those with conscience against abortions. I’m with Ronin, a class-action medical suit against the government.
27 February, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Interesting article at FrontPageMagazine
Interesting article at FrontPageMagazine on Obabma’s science adviser’s thouhts on the 2 child limit (and I’m not talking about China). The book is from 1977, but I’d like to know the current thoughts of Obama’s Science Adviser.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1FDD71E4-B9E4-4FAD-9868-2936193BF8F1
Obama’s Biggest Radical
By: Ben Johnson
Presidential Science Adviser John P. Holdren is a frequently mistaken alarmist who has endorsed world government, worldwide wealth redistribution, and compulsory abortion for American women. More>
27 February, 2009 at 11:40 pm
It figures. The usurper without a conscience wants to strip others of theirs.
27 February, 2009 at 11:47 pm
When has anyone not been able to just walk across the street and get a doctor that would do the abortion? This is a joke if one doctor won’t do it another will this isn’t about making sure a woman has the right to “reproductive health” it’s about forcing people that don’t want to preform an abortion to do so.
Even if you are pro-choice this makes no sense, isn’t part of “choice” the ability to chose not to?
It’s not pro-choice it’s pro-abortion, or infanticide to use the correct term for it.
28 February, 2009 at 10:47 am
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!!!!”
Spare the theatrics, just leave.
Then, after half the health care workers quit
Half? How do you know?
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….
I respect you right to exercise your believes but only on personal level. 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.
28 February, 2009 at 11:17 am
The question of abortion is not identical to guns, unlike abortion guns are mentioned in the constitution.
28 February, 2009 at 11:48 am
Leo,
God love ya’, but I respectfully disagree.
First of all, I prefaced my comments with “If I were a health care worker.”
But, my comments are not just rantings without facts:
“Half? How do you know?”
In Britain, 33% of doctors polled would not work in a hospital or medical center where abortions are done.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1078.html
I haven’t seen a similar poll for the U.S., but we can extrapolate a reasonable data set from the aforementioned British poll.
Polling confirms that an overwhelming majority of people in Britain (83%) support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/218/106/
An overwhelming majority of Americans said abortion should either be illegal under all circumstances or would limit its legality. (82%)
49 percent of those polled took a pro-life position wanting all abortions made illegal (11 percent) or wanting almost all abortions illegal except for very rare cases of saving the mothers life or in rape or incest (38 percent).
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4685.html
Ergo, we can reasonably conclude that if 33 percent of doctors in the UK would walk in a country that is extremely pro-killing, in a pro-life country like the U.S., about half of the Health Care workers would walk out if forced to participate in an abortion.
“I do not give you right to force it upon me.”
No one is forcing it on you. Lack of participation in an abortion is not “forcing” anything upon you.
“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.”
So, why do you have a problem with health care workers quitting their jobs? It’s their choice. Slavery was abolished years ago.
“BTW, question of abortions is identical to question of guns. You cannot pick and choose. You either have freedom or you do not.”
No it isn’t. Such fallacious logic really shows how far your humanity has been compromised by Libtard thinking.
You are equating an inanimate object with a human life!!!
Shame on you.
28 February, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I personally am VERY against abortion and could never have one. To me it is murder plain and simple. However, I will let everyone decide on this issue for themselves.
For the women who are not opposed to abortion, I have a question:
Would you want a doctor to provide his services knowing he was forced to perform the procedure?
28 February, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Leo,
I disrespectfully disagree. I would call you an idiot, but I’m afraid that would be too kind.
Re: “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.”
1. A doctor does not work for “the people” or “the state”.
“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.””
So you disagree? You believe that the state has no right to not fund anybody who forces people to perform abortions? You’re saying that anybody who ever works at a medical facility that receives any government funding [i.e. 99.9% of all clinics/hospitals] has no right to act upon their religious beliefs or moral convictions?
You remind me of the case of that woman in Germany who was cut off from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused to take a job as a prostitute. I imagine somebody like you writing her a note: “If you fail to accept legal employment n the basis of your so-called “moral convictions” then we have no choice but to break off our contract to provide you with insurance payments. If you should choose to appeal in vain, please address your complaints to blah blah blah.”
2. Since when has “health care professional” equalled “one who performs abortions”?
28 February, 2009 at 7:03 pm
The question of abortion is not identical to guns, unlike abortion guns are mentioned in the constitution.
Both are legal by law. This is the only thing that counts. Besides Constitution can be amended regarding either. There are plenty of examples.
Ergo, we can reasonably conclude that if 33 percent of doctors in the UK would walk in a country that is extremely pro-killing, in a pro-life country like the U.S., about half of the Health Care workers would walk out if forced to participate in an abortion.
Now is my turn to respectfully disagree.
Those doctors can only do what they want if they will go into private practice.
And as we all know according to the law of supply and demand their places will be immediately filled.
Now, regarding ‘half’ I find your argument speculative at best but I am not going to split hair about it.
If you will still insist on ‘half’ I will accept. As you can see it does not matter because of what I explained before that.
Plus we are forgetting all powerful green back, which had overpowered more than one stronger than strong conviction in the past. I happened to know there are cases when fresh out of school anesthesiologist gets $450K from start. I want to hear how this guy will say ‘No’.
You are equating an inanimate object with a human life!!!
Shame on you.
First, it is not I, law does it. Else it would’ve been illegal.
Second, I forgot the last time when I was ashamed.
Third, “No one is forcing it on you.” – by assuming I somehow must be ashamed you actually are forcing your believes onto me. I know, sometime it is hard to see, but it is.
Forth, I think you tried to pull this ad hominem stuff once in the past. I think you should know by now I do not take it kindly. Please, let’s not kill our discussion.
“For the women who are not opposed to abortion, I have a question:
Would you want a doctor to provide his services knowing he was forced to perform the procedure?”
I am not a woman but I think answer would be ‘No’. There is nothing worst than ‘professional’ who hates his job. Smart woman should find better alternative.
28 February, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Re: “Abortion and guns are both legal by law. This is the only thing that counts.”
1. Is there such a thing as legal not by law?
2. Shops are not obliged to sell guns.
Re: “doctors can only do what they want if they will go into private practice”
1. Is there such a thing in the USA as a doctor who hasn’t received any government support in his education, and is employed at an institution that hasn’t received a penny of government funding?
2. So you mean that every medical professional in the US is obliged by law to provide each and every medical procedure that is allowed by law?
3. Perhaps you are unaware that medicine is an art and a self-regulated profession. It’s not McDonalds where you can demand a coke with no ice.
+ + +
While it is true that you are an immense idiot, and that this “shines” through in every idiotic ungrammatical sentence you write and every “thought” you crudely express, you can boost your ego with the thought that I must be an even greater idiot for degrading myself by arguing with one such as yourself who is impervious to logic.
2 March, 2009 at 3:11 pm
leo, your logic is too convoluted to make any sense at all. I am a woman. I am not God.
If I am pregnant, I do have a choice of murder, just if I took a gun and decided I didn’t like my neighbor because he infringed on my property. I could have an abortion and shoot the neighbor. In the first instance, I would be supported and lauded, in the second, I would be charged with first degree murder. In either case, I am under conviction of God for murder.
By the way, I am also an RN. I would quit before participating in an abortion regardless of the circumstances.
2 March, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“leo, your logic is too convoluted to make any sense at all.”
How so? I believe in right to choose in case of guns and case of abortions. And I call it personal freedom.
“I could have an abortion and shoot the neighbor.”
You are trying to equate one to another because you believe abortion is a murder. But for somebody who does not share your belief your argument represents nothing more than a fallacy.
“I am also an RN. I would quit before participating in an abortion regardless of the circumstances.”
I understand and respect that. We all have our convictions. It is also your personal freedom.
I would only have problem with your convictions if you were to apply for work in abortion clinic.
2 March, 2009 at 6:57 pm
OK Leo answer this. How is the child that was aborted not a life? Because if it is a life it is murder.
2 March, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Replace ‘child’ with ‘fetus’ before asking this question, especially if it is less than 6 months into term.
2 March, 2009 at 8:36 pm
OK how is the fetus not a life? It really doesn’t matter the term I use the question is still valid.
2 March, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I do not equate fetus to a child as you do apparently.
I believe this is where fundamental difference between our philosophies lays.
2 March, 2009 at 10:34 pm
OK, I have been following your debate with itnerest, but now I have a question for you Leo.
“e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)
Do you agree with this?
2 March, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Sorry–gotta spell check better) OK, I have been following your debate with interest, but now I have a question for you, Leo.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)
Do you agree with this?
2 March, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Also, God said that he knows each conceived being before he was “knit” in his mother’s womb. That, leo is most definitely a person. By the way, what were you when you were conceived?…conceptual material? When your father’s sperm penetrated your mother’s egg, you became. You the person lived; from that very instant, you, a real person. A real live miracle. A human being unique and loved of God. You have the choice to choose Him or not. THAT is the real choice.
3 March, 2009 at 7:38 am
az_conservative,
Yes, I agree barring ‘Creator’ part. For me it is agreement between people and only people.
And nothing in this world is self-evident. If ‘common sense’ were common everybody would’ve had it (somebody very smart said it, not me).
irishoaks,
What people who do not believe in god should do? BTW, I do not feel like lost sheep.
3 March, 2009 at 10:25 pm
So if there is no creator, then we have no unalienable right from Him, and the natural state of humanity is to be tyrants or slaves. You are basing your assertion of a “right” to choose upon what?
If nothing is self-evident and you reject that there is a creator, then you reject the basis of American (and civilized) society, individual rights and liberty along with it. You can’t have it both ways, claiming civil rights, right to choose, etc, while rejecting the basis of those rights in our society.
Either we have rights from our creator or we are no different from the rest of the animal kingdom where the Darwinian viewpoint is that of natural selection. (Some even extend our “rights” to include plants and animals.) The strong survive, the most capable of adaptation to changes in our environment will procreate and those who cannot adapt (the weak, inferior, homosexual, etc.) die. That viewpoint removes all constraints upon human behavior that allow there to be any advanced societal structure aside from brute force. It means murder, theft, rape, plunder, anything civilized people would consider an “atrocity,” are all OK because they further the survival of the “fittest.”
This is a pretty slippery slope to be on. No foundation, the house cannot stand.
4 March, 2009 at 7:29 am
Wooow!
I could be mistaking but it looks like you are inventing ‘my’ argument you believe you can defeat.
“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”
how about this?:
“endowed by Law of the Land with certain unalienable rights”
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.
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. The moment you or I will decide that one is better than the other (it seems you already do, btw) everything will go to hell, self-evident or not, unalienable or not.
“Either we have rights from our creator”
This is basis of your mistake.
Despite beautiful words written by great men your society grants you those rights, not your Creator.
If you wish to connect your Creator and your society you may argue that you built your society based on your believes in teachings of your Creator and I will agree.
But it does not mean I must believe in Divine Presence in order to accept 10 Commandments. I may simply find it logical.
4 March, 2009 at 8:57 am
“each of us still has Right to Life,”
But, not babies, right?
Cognitive dissonance…