In the midst of this financial mess and, what only can be described as a restructuring of the fundamental basis of America, Obama is taking away the rights of American health care professionals. Apparently, young women should have the right to decide the fate of their unborn (partially born) children, but health care workers shouldn't have the right to refuse to take part in the killings of babies, as ordered by their mothers.Effective Jan 20, George W. Bush had ordered job protection for health care workers who opt not to treat patients as a result of their moral convictions. A little over a month later, with a plate that is overflowing, Obama piles this agenda on top of it.
Ironically, President Obama is in favor of federally funding international institutions who abort babies, but against funding domestic institutions who refuse them.
Let us be frank, there is no shortage of doctors, nurses and pharmacists who will gladly assist, consult and refer patients who want to kill their unborn. Coming from a president who stands by freedom of choice when it comes to murder, you'd think he could extend that same courtesy to citizens who choose to disagree with it and wish not to take part in assisting in it.
14 comments:
According to your link things aren't quite as dire as you infer:
Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official.
The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.
But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.
"The administration supports a tightly written conscience clause," said the HHS official. "While we are concerned about the Bush rule, we also understand there might be a need to clarify existing laws."
The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision. Options range from repealing the regulation to writing a new one with a narrower scope.
North Dakota senators believe abortion clinics should post signs to tell women they cannot be forced to have an abortion.
The state Senate voted 45-1 to approve a bill that would require the notice to be posted at abortion clinics. The measure now goes to the House.
The state's only abortion clinic is in Fargo.
The sign would read: ``Notice: No one can force you to have an abortion. It is against the law for a spouse, a boyfriend, a parent, a friend, a medical care provider, or any other person to in any way force you to have an abortion.''
Anyone dumb enough to need a sign for this information shouldn't be allowed to procreate!
If you're O'Reilly, Hannity or Beck, there's a very good reason to keep calling Obama a socialist, communist, radical destroyer of all America stands for. The ratings. You don't need a political majority to be a successful gabber on cable. You certainly don't need to persuade anyone. You need an energized minority. If you have had your sense of shame surgically removed, as these entertainers have, what could possibly lead you to moderate - or even have alternative views on your shows?
New research unlocks the genius of George W. Bush:
In two studies led by Assistant Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, participants performed a Stroop task – a well-known test of cognitive control – while hooked up to electrodes that measured their brain activity.
Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake.
The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made. "You could think of this part of the brain like a cortical alarm bell that rings when an individual has just made a mistake or experiences uncertainty," says lead author Inzlicht, who teaches and conducts research at the University of Toronto Scarborough. "We found that religious people or even people who simply believe in the existence of God show significantly less brain activity in relation to their own errors. They're much less anxious and feel less stressed when they have made an error."
I found the following someplace recently and thought it was interesting and very much right on point. Some of the younger generation may be unaware what conservatism meant before the religious right got in the mix. Even my parent were democrats back then! And I heartily agree with the very last sentence...
_____________________________
In The Time Before Christianists
Razib Khan reminds everyone that conservatism and the pro-life movement have not always been bound up together:
Remember that Ronald Reagan signed a bill which loosened abortion laws in California in the late 1960s. George H. W. Bush had supported abortion rights until 1980, and his father had close ties to Planned Parenthood...the “Culture Wars” which we see around us today may seem clear, distinct, and natural, but their shape was far different even a generation back. The flip side of this is that many atheists can not understand how one could be pro-life and atheist, but I would offer that to a great extent this too is an expression of the evolution of a group identity and coalitional politics.
Many of us who were part of the conservative movement were very sympathetic to the reminders of the horror of mass abortion, but did not see it as a core, defining principle for the right. As the logic of Christianism gained ground, however, criminalizing all abortion became a dogma that was not even diluted by appeals to federalism. That's why religious truth can distort politics - because it is never subject to debate or compromise. Not a new thing in human history, but part of the GOP's problem.
I was about to comment on the great viewpoints in "Obama offers rights based only on personal Agenda" when I read the second anonymous.
Are you kidding? You would have to be completely without adult thought not to realize that many women, especially young girls are being forced to have abortions.
If you spoke to any of them after their abortions, in the later years of their life or even in the weeks following their abortions, many have the same story...that they were undecided as to how to handle their pregnancies and were bullied into abortions by family and fathers of their children. You will also hear many many stories of being on the table and changing their minds and not being allowed to stop the abortion.
So please don't speak about that which you do not know. That sign might just be the push they need to fight back and not have an abortion.
And what skin off your nose is it if they need that sign for help? Don't you want them to know this? Some of these women are 12 and 13 years old. Give them that last shot at speaking their mind before they allow themselves to be operated on.
Mary
To the previous poster: you make my point. Anyone that needs a sign to remind them shouldn't be allowed to procreate and that includes a 12 or 13 year old "child" which, pregnent or not, I cannot classify as a woman. There are only so many "Junos" in the world that can think for themselves.
All the pro-lifers always talk about wanting parental involvement before a pregnant teen obtains an abortion. Funny that you accuse parents of pushing abortions when these are the very same parents you want involved from the other direction so really the sign is for them as well?
Now that stem cells are (literally) on the table, let's talk about stem cells and the whole choice controversy.
The stem-cell controversy is really about abortion, of course. And abortion is both a controversy and, for most people, a genuine quandary. That quandary usually is defined as, “When does human life begin?” I think a better way to put it is, “When do human rights begin?” That avoids the whole hopeless search for agreement about some mystical moment when humanity is conferred, all of which are equally illogical, and concentrates on a question that can be debated or negotiated with some hope of progress. It’s a quandary.
The debate over stem-cell research is different. There is a controversy, but no real quandary. Here is why. Virtually all stem cells used (or that will be used) in medical research come from fertility clinics. Standard operating procedure in fertility clinics is to fertilize and implant multiple eggs in the hope that at least one will survive. For that matter, Mother Nature’s method of producing a human being is not very different in this regard, and also involves fertilizing far more eggs than ever grow into babies.
The anti-abortion forces who have delayed stem-cell research by a decade are not morally serious. If they were, they would be trying to get laws making the work of fertility clinics illegal, not concentrating on the tiny fraction of surplus embryos from those clinics that are going to a worthwhile purpose. They would still be severely mistaken, in my view, but at least that could legitimately be described as an “ethical quandary.” But there is no political pressure against fertility clinics. While abortion clinics are routinely terrorized, fertility clinics advertise on the radio. If you really think that a microscopic embryo is a human being, which kind of clinic kills more human beings every year? It isn’t even close.
What difference does this all make, now that George W. Bush is gone and his ban on federally funded stem-cell research has been eliminated? It makes a big difference. When something is stamped as an “ethical quandary,” people and organizations that wish to avoid controversy stay away. Or they appoint well-meaning but slow-moving commissions to study the issue. Or they split the difference in some silly and irritating way. Whatever, the result is that the promise of stem-cell research is delayed or unrealized.
The essence of today’s conversation is that scientists have found some incredibly complicated way to create—someday, maybe even soon—a valuable research tool that already exists by the thousands and has for years. Some people think we should have been using it for years, while others say they think using it would be immoral, but can’t give a coherent reason. What a quandary.
If the whole pro-life movement was really concerned abut the unborn they would be equally as concerned about fertility clinics as clinics that offer abortions. They would stand outside fertility clinics pointing at the baby killers pointing out the number of babies killed just to produce one baby.
Please preface all comments as to your views on abortion with when you think life begins. Or said another way…
Life is this, life is that
Can't u see, Can't u chat
…
Comments here, comments there
comments, comments everywhere
…
CNN, NBC
where else comments be.
…
Simply put, simply ends,
simply state, when life begins
TO: March 12, 2009 6:31 AM
What????????
The "research" of Michael Inzlicht is recognized by all respected scientific journals as biased and discredited. Without even knowing that fact, the anti-religious hostility in his so-called conclusions is evident to all but those who share his animosities.
The pro-life movement (myself included) makes a moral distinction between creating fertilized embryos for the purpose of giving life, and creating them for the purpose of destroying them. The benefits of the former are obvious. The concern about the latter is that it starts down a slippery slope: If it's OK to destroy a fertized egg in the name of science, is it OK to destroy one that's one month along? How about two months? Nine months? Born? We're back to, at what point is it a life deserving of protection?
Carole
Make moral distinctions all you want - you are merely developing a belief system to support your behavior vis-avis your other belief systems. The purpose doesn't change the bottom line fact that embryos are being created to be tossed down a drain if they aren't used. What would Jesus think of that?? In the end you have killed life regardles, if I follow your line of logic.
As far as the slippery slope - what about the fact that using these preserves life or are you only interested in the as yet unborn?
Chairman Steele, as the leader of America's Pro-Life conservative party, needs to re-read the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the 2008 GOP Platform. He then needs to get to work -- or get out of the way," - Kenneth Blackwell, a rival to Steele.
The Bible is now the first requirement for a Republican leader? And where, pray, are Jesus' words on RU-486 or gay couples?
Post a Comment