Read my lips: NO FUCKING WAY!
The Obama administration is moving to rescind another controversial Bush administration abortion policy.
The regulation, known as the “conscience clause,” took effect on the former president’s final day in office. It allows health care workers to decline to provide or participate in any service that violates their conscience.
Next week, according to Obama administration sources, the Department of Health and Human Services will begin the process to formally rescind the regulation. But it will also ask the public to comment on the move for 30 days.
Conscience for me, but not for thee! (Note the way NPR brackets ‘Conscience’ in the headline).
That’s it. No more federal withholdings for me. They can come after me on a Geithner schedule if they want.
Also at Chicago Tribune.
There shall be no establishment of religion (except Universal Obamite Progressivism):
Beginning in 1571, Parliament enacted harsher laws against Catholics, greatly increasing fines, confiscating property, imposing life imprisonment for refusal to take the oath of Supremacy, and applying the death penalty to all missionaries or Catholic priests–there were well over a hundred executions by hanging, drawing, and quartering during the last 30 years of Elizabeth’s reign. (The numbers are seemingly modest by Mary’s standards, but some have questioned the reliability of information on executions in both reigns, since they are primarily derived from Protestant sources.)
But Catholics were a minority even at the start of her reign, and were concentrated mainly in northern counties such as Lancashire; in these areas feudal society lingered on and religious issues merged with the struggle of the nobility to retain their ancient privileges and power.
Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية‎; IPA: [ʤɪzjæh] Ottoman Turkish: cizye; both derived from Pahlavi and ultimately from Aramaic gaziyat [1]) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state’s non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power,[2] (but with specific exemptions,[3][4] though these were discarded at various points in history[5]). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims’ acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, “just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes.”[6] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.[7][8][9]
What about we get everyone to help perform an abortion as a form of loyalty oath?
They are asking for comments, but they won’t listen to any of them that oppose what they want to do. It’s their way of appearing to be bi-partisan while being hyper-partisan. This isn’t news to most here of course, I’m just pointing out the obvious.
so there’s only been a conscience clause for two months?
Yeah, like he’ll listen to any comments that disagree. Remember, he won.
But it will also ask the public to comment on the move for 30 days.
“We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard,” said an administration source who was not authorized to be quoted by name.
They will ask the public to comment but God forbid the administration actually provide a name of someone to receive any comment.
With all due respect, son-of-a-fucking bitch!
I mean, these obsessed, doctrinaire baby-killers. By God, if the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t realize that it has a fight on its hands now, then I don’t know when it will. These damned Cardinals need to speak the fuck up!
Oh, one last thing: this is the same crowd, that early in the last century, gave birth to the Eugenics Movement. Trust me when I tell you there’s no good to be had here.
“The regulation, known as the “conscience clause,†took effect on the former president’s final day in office. It allows health care workers to decline to provide or participate in any service that violates their conscience.”
Or what, the State’s gonna put a gun to their head and MAKE them?
Or what, the State’s gonna put a gun to their head and MAKE them?
No silly, they are going to throw them in jail.
They’re going to fine them and their institutions and put them out of business along with the religious-affiliated hospitals. People have a right to an abortion wherever’s most convenient for them, don’t you know.
No, they’ll just get fired and will no longer be able to practice their chosen vocation. THE ONE HAS SPOKEN!!!!ONE!!1111!!!ELEVEN
If this was an executive order thingy why did Bush only have it go into effect on his last day in office? I don’t really see what’s the big. If you work for people what do things that are against your values then you have failed and you need to have a little humility I think. I work for people what do things that are against my values.
Maybe because Bush wasn’t as stupid as the American electorate?
I don’t understand the bitterness about rescinding an order that’s only been in place for two months, *after* everyone knew that a dirty socialist piece of shit and his skeezey woman were moving into our White House. Everyone affected by that order had to know it was going to be rescinded. Republicans failed, and lots of little embryos will get squelched a cause of it. I thought everybody knew that.
THE QUAKERS ARE GOING TO WAR!!!! (whether they like it or not)
Seriously, why is it acceptable to say you’re a conscientious object in re warfare, but not abortion?
Rob, because War is bad for children and other living things, as opposed to abortion.
Wait a sec.
Because abortion is a RIGHT, and war is an abomination. Duh.
That is an excellent point Rob.
I like Techie’s answer better. It has at least 70% more snark, and is cleverer to boot.
William Jefferson Clinton had to rule via Executive Orders. al-Chicago, who can get any bill he wants passed by the disgraceful train wreck we all know and love as the Most Corrupt Congress Evah!, will use Executive Orders anyway. That way he can have is cake and eat it as well.
Progressives only care about The Children™ when they can be used as a bludgeon to force through their programs. Actually, they only care about anyone and anything when they can use it as a bludgeon.
HHHMmmmmm….. what if a health care worker thought mentally ill people were icky on moral/religious grounds and refused them treatment?
Oh well, it’s legal, so it must be ok.
Oh, yes, that’s exactly the same, Zorro. You know those religious people, always wanting to abort the imperfect and all. All those Hollywood sec proggs who work with lepers.
Assuming said health care worker existed, the mentally ill people could FIND ANOTHER FUCKING HEALTH CARE WORKER.
Seriously, if some woman wants an abortion, there are plenty of doctors who will oblige. Why force Doctor A to commit what she sees as murder when Doctors B, C, and D are willing?
Well if healthcare is now a right this is only the natural progression. Nurses and Doctors are now slaves, their services the right of others. Hopefully this will be coming soon to plumbers so I can force them to come fix my downstairs toilet that uses wayyyy to much water every time I flush.
Forcing folk to perform abortions against their will is really just a stepping stone to forcing folk to have abortions against their will. Because babies cause global warming, and our planet has a fever, and when your baby has a fever you take it to the doctor. Unless you don’t have the baby anymore because . . . well, you already had to take it to the doctor back when it was viable but still unbirthed, and the doctor killed it to avoid having his medical license and livelihood taken away. Take a life, save a livelihood and all.
Er, something.
*slams face against desk*
That’s the bit of our Bill of Rights that I like. On account of the uppity Papists.
Why would anyone who thought that mentally ill people are icky or immoral go into the business of caring for mentally ill people in the first place?
Why am I expecting reason or sanity from the far left?
“Comment by DarthRove on 2/27 @ 12:38 pm #
Seriously, if some woman wants an abortion, there are plenty of doctors who will oblige. Why force Doctor A to commit what she sees as murder when Doctors B, C, and D are willing?”
Expecting someone to exercise their free will and make their own choices? Crazy Talk!
Well Canada if people are not responsible for their own actions then it is up to others to take the correct actions for them.
“We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard,” said an administration source who was not authorized to be quoted by name. (Emphasis added)
Heh. This person was not speaking anonymously, which I suppose lacks the gravitas of “being authorized to be quoted by name.”
The source said that following the comment period, the administration could decide to simply overturn the Bush administration rule and take no further action. Or it could issue a new rule to further clarify existing conscience protections that have long existed in federal law.
This sounds reasonable, since there are “existing conscience protections that have long existed in federal law.” But then the person not authorized to be quoted by name added, somewhat stupidly, “We feel there is an important balance to be struck, but we feel the Bush rule unnecessarily imposed new restrictions on women and providers when it comes to health care,” said the source.
What restrictions are imposed upon women and providers by the conscience rule? In the contemporary liberal mind, I suppose, a conscientious disagreement about anything a contemporary liberal wants is a restriction of women’s health care.
But critics of the rule say it is written so broadly that it could allow workers to decline to participate in many other types of sensitive medical procedures, from blood transfusions to end-of-life care. And in parts of the country with few medical providers, those refusals could put patients at risk.
Straw man time. A pro-life person most likely will not claim exemption from administering life-saving treatments. It seems that only those who “need” contemporary liberal end-of-life “care” – euthanasia – might be threatened with denial of service which would remove those patients’ risks.
Orwellian.
You didn’t hurt yourself lifting that strawman, did you zorro?
And since when did “legal” equate to “morally correct”? If that were true, then banks that are exercising their “legal” right to serve foreclosure notices on deadbeats would be described as heroes, not the eeeeeeeevil fatcats we’re told they are.
I think Zorro is confused. And I think it’s a proggtard. But I repeat myself.
“Comment by Mr. Pink on 2/27 @ 12:58 pm #
Well Canada if people are not responsible for their own actions then it is up to others to take the correct actions for them.”
Yes. By “experts” who know more than us lowly proles. Why does “choice” begin and end with a woman’s uterus for progressives?
A look-back at an interview State Sen Obama did on WBEZ radio in 2001, having mostly to do with the Civil Rights Movement’s political strategy in the late 40’s and 50’s, but touching on Obama’s own view of the place of positive right and political and economic [social] justice in the politics of the United States :
If I were a proggtard, I’d be a little worried about letting a surgeon I’d enslaved operate on me.
Just sayin’.
Oh, and it’s not likely you’ll be able to sue government docs for malpractice, so don’t count on you or your heirs getting anything from that.
Dear Mr. President:
George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, as well as Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, ARE NOT INSTRUCTION MANUALS!
I think the motto of the GOP from now on will have to be the three Rs:
Rescind! Repeal! Repair!
I remember that interview sdferr. Creepy stuff. You’d get the impression that the tragedy in the black community was the lack of leftists engaged in community organizing as opposed to the leftists creating welfare dependency, destroying the black nuclear family and cheerleading all manner of idiotic radicalism like the rejection of academic pursuits as “acting white.”
If I’m not mistaken, Geezer, there are many religiously affiliated hospitals (mostly Catholic but some Protestant) who won’t currently perform abortions as well as tubal ligations and other elective reproductive surgeries and procedures. Not a one of them would allow any female patient to die if aborting the fetus was required to save her life. Will they now, if they receive any kind of Federal payments, be required to blow off their pro-life position to continue the stream of lucre or will there be another Constitutional issue of Freedom of Religion?
If someone gets fired for refusing to assist in an abortion in a non-religiously affiliated hospital I sure do hope the ACLU steps up to defend that person’s religious freedom. Not to mention the fact that rescinding this rule results in a de facto finding that a woman’s right to choose is superior to another’s right to practice the essential tenets of their religion.
The main thing about it though, I think, Abe, is that it stands as one of the very few occasions in which (I believe) Obama is saying what he actually thinks, unguardedly (with a view to the next election, that is) speaking from the center of his politico-philosophical beliefs. And from that, I glean that he thinks positive right is one of the means to achieve justice, writ broadly. We saw that then and we see it now. The country at large, not so much, I think. This view has wide ranging implications for the future of the country and its people, implications that those same people have not considered for even as much as a nanosecond.
Silly. It’s easy to get around this kind of thing. You want a third-trimester abortion? Oh dear, we don’t have the equipment, staff or training to do that kind of work here. Sorry!
As if the Democrats don’t know this, too. The purpose is not to put serious pressure on random doctors to provide abortion on demand, Soviet style. Remember, with Democrats, it’s always about power and money for they and their homies. In this case, the purpose is to funnel the provision of abortion into the Right Hands. By forcing providers who do abortion on a very occasional basis, who are reluctant in some cases to do it at all, to get out of the business entirely — so they can’t be nailed on a failure to provide requested service in a particular case — they concentrate the whole industry in the hands of those who are not merely willing but eager to do it in all cases whatsoever, those who specialize in it, make piles of money doing it, e.g. Planned Parenthood. Who are then even better set up to ask for government money, because, you know, they’re the only provider of this key medical service for miles around…
my consience is concrete
shovel ready-oo-rah
this little shovel digs
and this little shovel un-digs
and this lil’ spoon goes whee-whee whee…
I agree, Carl. That’s what we’ve been saying here for awhile, except that it’s not just the provision of abortion, you see. It’s also that the non-state medical sector has to be converted to the state, so requiring provision of abortion expedites the process. They don’t want anyone practicing medicine who’s not affiliated with institutions that provide abortions eagerly.
I want him to fail.
So do I.
“Comment by Zorro on 2/27 @ 12:30 pm #
HHHMmmmmm….. what if a health care worker thought mentally ill people were icky on moral/religious grounds and refused them treatment?”
Like all those Nuns who ran asylums? Like that?
Oh. Wait.
Go watch “The Longest Day”
I see your bigger point sdferr, but it really didn’t register at first because it seemed so in keeping with the way I see him that the fact that he goes to great pains to mask it didn’t even occur to me.
What I want is irrelevant. What I want is what will happen, but the fact I want it doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Won’t stop the Obamarrhoids from blaming me, but hey…
#30 The Geezer:
I think they were trying to address all of those nurses and paramedics that would not draw blood or assist with transfusions due to snake-handling religious reasons.
Yes, I know – a straw-man argument, but what else do they have?
#45 N.O’Brain:
St. Joseph’s Retreat.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~asylums/stjosephs_mi/index.html
My high school was built on land the Hospital had. (They had their own farms)
As an Episcopalian let me say that those Papists never took their obligations seriously.
(sarc tag off – I think I hurt myself rolling my eyes, though)
So obama puts us back to where bush had us for a day shy of 8 years. And now it’s time to hurl.
meya, everybody knew that Bush wouldn’t require medical providers to go against their conscience on this issue, or permit anyone else to require them so to do. He put this thing in as a trip-wire for what he saw coming down the pike.
You know what? I don’t at all mind Eric Holder’s idea about leaving the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, medical or otherwise up to the states. It will be interesting to see what sorts of initiatives will not be granted to states, don’t you think?
The only reason President Bush had to issue this order in the first place was that a pharmacist refused to give out an abortifacient and was taken to court. So he responded by making it permissible for people to act freely upon their consciences to protect children. The executive order was in response to action by the radical left. The remission of this order is to open the floodgates to the radical left. Thus, nausea.
“meya, everybody knew that Bush wouldn’t require medical providers to go against their conscience on this issue, or permit anyone else to require them so to do”
8 year old policy dude.
“He put this thing in as a trip-wire for what he saw coming down the pike.”
Oh so it was just about having this moment of politics before things got back to normal. k thx.
“It will be interesting to see what sorts of initiatives will not be granted to states, don’t you think?”
I do! I’m interested to hear how Napolitano implements REAL ID, since she was previously a governor against it. Will we force all the states under the yoke of federal driver licensing schemes? Michelle Malkin is sure to be outraged.
“The only reason President Bush had to issue this order in the first place was that a pharmacist refused to give out an abortifacient and was taken to court”
So maybe not “everybody knew”
You know what, meya? You’re making me believe that you are a fascist girl when you say that requiring people to dispense abortifactants or provide or provide support for abortions is “back to normal.”
You suck.
You’re making me believe that you are a fascist girl
I don’t think there’s any doubt that she’s a fascist, Dan.
Nice “do their jobs” sleight of hand there, fascist.
I would support embedded b-c for anyone, male or female, who is on Federal (or State) dole, of any kind. Pick up your check, get a Norplant.
Because if dole is needed, children aren’t.
It’s not a matter of our being against birth control pills, meya . . . it’s a matter of our not being willing to condone someone forcing others to do so. What about this don’t you understand?
What about this don’t you understand?
It’s the “everything that isn’t mandatory is forbidden” mindset, Dan.
Typical fascist outlook on things.
“What about this don’t you understand?”
I think there are limits to how much one’s employer should be forced to accommodate their employees lifestyle choices. Specially if they belong to a profession where their lifestyle choices are incompatible with the profession and the employer is attempting to uphold the standards of that profession.
So now we have 8 years of bush policy being ‘fascist’ because Obama tripped on the trap bush set for him. On his last day.
You are an absolute moron to speak of people’s most deeply held convictions as “lifestyle choices.” Presumably this is the only way you can possibly grok the concept, but it goes to show how bankrupt you are.
“You are an absolute moron to speak of people’s most deeply held convictions as “lifestyle choices.†”
Last I checked religion was still a choice. And thank god for that.
You’re right, meya. No reason anyone should have to hire lesbians or liberals. See, ideology is a “lifestyle choice.” Sexuality is a “lifestyle choice.” You drink at home? Gone. You smoke at home? Gone. Eat bacon? Gone. Believe in God? Gone. Don’t believe in God? Gone. Don’t believe in AGW? Gone. Believe in AGW? Gone.
Incompatible with this profession, according to my definition. Do you know what you are, meya?
Gone.
I think she’s a fascist. I may have already mentioned that.
I guess it was a waste of time to post the facts and the events that led up to this decision by President Bush. Gets in the way of the narrative and the rage, I suppose.
So what happens when the employer is the employee?
Actually no that was helpful Christopher cause I have trouble following these ones.
“No reason anyone should have to hire lesbians or liberals.”
Didn’t you get that urban legend / email around election time of the employer who was going to have to lay off someone, so he was looking in the parking lot for which employees had obama stickers?