Obama to Reverse Bush Abortion Regulation

Obama to Reverse Bush Abortion Regulation

www.foxnews.com

President Obama wants to rescind a Bush administration rule that strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse for moral reasons to perform abortions.

"It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming," said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. "What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences."

"I think it's a wonderful step," Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. ...

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

The commandment would read for doctors/nurses:
1.) Thou must murder upon request.

I'm concerned about losing good doctors and nurses who have skill, compassion, and scientific understand of what is alive because they just couldn't put blade to baby. This move is contradictory to the oath doctors are asked to take:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

- www.pbs.org...

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

I'm concerned about losing good doctors and nurses who have skill, compassion, and scientific understand of what is alive because they just couldn't put blade to baby.

So now doctors are forced to provide this um, service if they want to or not, we have hospitals closing because they cant make any money from the illegals that dont pay that must be treated under law, and there are talks about cutting the bills that Medicare pays.

Tough time to be a doctor, time to start looking for the Time Life series on home surgeries.

Well, I'm pro-choice, but I think Doctors should be able to refuse to do abortions if it's against their beliefs.

Then again, I also feel hospitals/clinics should be able to include whether Doctors perform abortions as part of their hiring practice.

Im pro-choice and think this is a good decision.Shouldn't have happened in the first place.Doctors should treat everyone equally or not be doctors at all.Next thing you know they will be refusing to treat gay people or black people because it affects their consciences..

Abortion is not a medical treatment. There are no medicines given, no sickeness, no cure.

What is the definition of medical treatment?
"Medical Treatment" means the management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder.

- www.ehs.washington.edu...

Is a child a disease or disorder?

Simply, abortion is putting to death a baby growing inside of a woman.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

Propaganda


FOX

The bill does not force doctors to preform abortions - it forces HMO'S
to let a patient find a new doctor if the PRIMARY CARE provider has
MORAL RESERVATIONS...

The source is a distortion and therefore a lie!

Originally posted by mental modulator
The bill does not force doctors to preform abortions - it forces HMO'S
to let a patient find a new doctor if the PRIMARY CARE provider has
MORAL RESERVATIONS...

The source is a distortion and therefore a lie!

Let's read closely...

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.

If I'm reading this correctly, the regulation ensures hospitals who get federal funds do not ignore the right of moral objectors. It is a 'rights ensuring' policy so that hospitals could not discriminate against doctors/nurses who refuse to perform abortions. Erego if repealed, hospitals could now discriminate against doctors/nurses who refuse to do abortions. This is 'ye olde' "you'll do it if you want to work here" carrot on the stick. Am I reading this correctly?

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.

I'm hoping for the new one with perhaps a narrorwer scope...but we'll see.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Simply, abortion is putting to death a baby growing inside of a woman.

...in your opinion. According to scripture around the world, the soul does not enter the body until first breath. This includes stuff given to the Hebrews by their God (the God of the Bible) and can be found in the Talmud.

So it is highly debatable whether the fetus is anything more than a sheep or a cow.

My choice is to believe the scriptures, as that gives a benchmark. On top of that, it is one of the most vile and heinous things to force an unwanted fetus to first breath and then walk away from the responsibility that entails of ensuring these unwanted children have the four basic requirements: food, clothing, shelter and (especially!) love. Most of the unwanted fetuses that are forced to first breath endure neglect and abuse.

If you care enough to force the first breath, care enough about the one you forced into this world.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
So it is highly debatable whether the fetus is anything more than a sheep or a cow.

Interesting, and is new to me scientifically speaking if I had the answer to this question incorrect: When a fetus develops inside of a human woman, has it ever come out a sheep or a cow?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Amaterasu
So it is highly debatable whether the fetus is anything more than a sheep or a cow.

Interesting, and is new to me scientifically speaking if I had the answer to this question incorrect: When a fetus develops inside of a human woman, has it ever come out a sheep or a cow?

Perhaps you are not choosing denseness on purpose. So let me clarify.

A fetus (a soul-less being) is ON THE PAR WITH a sheep or a cow. Until the soul is received at first breath, the flesh is of the same "quality." It is AS IF we were dealing with a sheep or a cow.

I hope I have cleared your vision a bit.

Doctors have always been able to refuse medical care if it conflicts with their religious views. For example:
-abortion
-morning after pill after sexual assault/rape
-standard birth control for unmarried and MARRIED individuals
-sterilization
-in-vitro for lesbian partners
-in-vitro for unmarried couples
-well exams for those wishing to adopt who are unmarried

So its ok for them to discriminate against patients, but only religiously?
Personally, I wouldn't get myself into obstetrics or gynecology if I just thought it was going to be all lady-da wellness exams and delivering babies.
Thank goodness, as modulator said, this just means their insurance companies won't bang them if they didn't know their care provider swung that way.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Perhaps you are not choosing denseness on purpose. So let me clarify.

No need to, I know what you meant, I merely wish to hear you say that a baby is as valueless as an animal to you.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
A fetus (a soul-less being) is ON THE PAR WITH a sheep or a cow. Until the soul is received at first breath, the flesh is of the same "quality." It is AS IF we were dealing with a sheep or a cow.

Ah, there it is, thank you. To the rest of us who have children, have come to know and love them, care for them, show compassion for them, our mode of thinking may be a little different. The value of a baby is far beyond a sheep or cow, but it's only by coming to know all three that one can appreciate the differences.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I hope I have cleared your vision a bit.

I've been 20/20 my whole life, but thanks for your concern at least.

It is not a doctor's or insurance company's position to choose what procedures a patient is allowed to have, it is the patient's.

Awake_Awoke said it best, the laws as they are are nothing but state-sanctioned discrimination.

Simply put if you are going to be an OBGYN or a pharmacist, accept that you may have to perform abortions or hand out morning-after pills. That is part of the job description.

Oh and again, insurance wise, many women only get a yearly gynecological wellness exam on their insurance policy.
If you go to a new doctor, and they won't write you a prescription for birth control (which like most doctors in civilization do), and you didn't know, it used to be your "fault".

Originally posted by awake_awoke
Oh and again, insurance wise, many women only get a yearly gynecological wellness exam on their insurance policy.
If you go to a new doctor, and they won't write you a prescription for birth control (which like most doctors in civilization do), and you didn't know, it used to be your "fault".

It's hard enough for many women to get birth control, since the more effective ones are prohibitively expensive and require a prescription--not possible for those without insurance. We don't need to make it more difficuly by allowing medical 'professionals' to punish them by refusing birth control prescriptions.

Ah, there it is, thank you. To the rest of us who have children, have come to know and love them, care for them, show compassion for them, our mode of thinking may be a little different. The value of a baby is far beyond a sheep or cow, but it's only by coming to know all three that one can appreciate the differences.

You know, I have a very beautiful daughter myself and as a sometimes-natural childbirth doula I can tell you that the relationship, physically, chemically, and emotionally, between mother and child is just the same as a calf's to her cow....

I don't see this as a "is the fetus a soul!" religious issue...

...I see this for what it really is is, Obama's attempt at killing white people off.

White people are the only people that can afford abortions and the only people that get them. Look at your average black family or mexican family they usually have at least 3 kids minimum. They don't get abortions.

But white women do. This is why Obama is pushing abortion so hard, he knows the facts. The current white birth rate is only 1.4 which means the white population shrinks by 60% every single generation. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out that two people creating only one baby is subtraction, not addition. But meanwhile, the mexican families who have 5 or 6 kids are more than tripling their population each generations.

Obama knows that if abortion becomes more popular, the people who do it most (white people) will have an even lower birthrate than the already abysmally low birthrate that it is now.


Current trend puts the extinction of white/caucasion people at around the year 2300, when Obama is done you can bet your money it will be shortened to the year 2100 which is in our children's lifetimes!




[edit on 27-2-2009 by ProfessorRusso]

I am very, very against it (abortion). It is sanctioning irresponsible behavior.
You want to have sex for fun - use contraception. If the child is conceived, killing it is also part of the fun?

Very bad thing to do. But, perhaps it is good business for some?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Perhaps you are not choosing denseness on purpose. So let me clarify.

No need to, I know what you meant, I merely wish to hear you say that a baby is as valueless as an animal to you.

ROFL! There is a difference between a BABY and a FETUS, and this is even according to the God of the Bible, as well as many other Gods and prophets.

So I haven't yet given you the satisfaction of which you speak. I said a fetus has the same "quality." Nowhere did I say this was "valueless," in fact.

But fancy wordwork there trying to make it look as if I said these things which I did not.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
A fetus (a soul-less being) is ON THE PAR WITH a sheep or a cow. Until the soul is received at first breath, the flesh is of the same "quality." It is AS IF we were dealing with a sheep or a cow.

Ah, there it is, thank you. To the rest of us who have children, have come to know and love them, care for them, show compassion for them, our mode of thinking may be a little different. The value of a baby is far beyond a sheep or cow, but it's only by coming to know all three that one can appreciate the differences.

There you go again, painting me with your words. I am a mother of The Best Little Girl in the Universe. She is AWESOME! And once she breathed in her soul, she became well more than any critter. But prior to that the flesh merely held a potentiality of holding a soul and was soul-less up until that point.

Don't try to paint me as incapable of love, caring or compassion for actual children when I never said a thing about my feeling for them. That is dishonest, devious and the sign of one with an agenda.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I hope I have cleared your vision a bit.

I've been 20/20 my whole life, but thanks for your concern at least.

You presume (as most of us do) 20/20. But I have experience of believing I see in 20/20 only to find out that I lacked a large amount of information and perspective. So I never presume I necessarily see perfectly.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Amaterasu]