Obama Administration Repeals Portions of Bush "Provider Conscience Rules"
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
February 18, 2011 - 2:42pm (Print)
Today, the Obama Administration issued a final ruling on and guidance for a "provider conscience clause," first proposed by the Bush Administration in July 2008 and put into effect in the waning hours of the administration's existence.
The Midnight Regulations, as they quickly became to be known, were duplicative of existing law, but also vague, confusing and much broader than existing law because they equated contraception with abortion, and among other things, also seemed to imply that providers could opt out of treating certain types of people, rather than performing certain types of procedures.
As of this writing, we are still studying the new ruling published today by the Department of Health and Human Services. However, two things are clear. One is that the administration in no uncertain terms clarifies that providers may not refuse to treat persons even if "lifestyle," "sexual orientation," or other considerations offend their consciences.
The second is that the administration makes explicit that contraception can not be equated with abortion and therefore providing contraception is not covered by conscience provisions.
"The provision of contraceptive services has never been defined as abortion in federal statute," says the ruling. "There is no indication that the federal health care provider conscience statutes intended that the term “abortion” included contraception."
"The 2008 Final Rule did not provide that the term “abortion,” as contained in the federal health care provider conscience protection statutes, includes contraception," said HHS.
However, the comments reflect that the 2008 Final Rule caused significant confusion as to whether abortion also includes contraception. The provision of contraceptive services has never been defined as abortion in federal statute. There is no indication that the federal health care provider conscience statutes intended that the term “abortion” included contraception.
Additionally, notes the HHS memo, "while there are no federal laws compelling hospitals to provide contraceptive services, the Medicaid Program does require that States provide contraceptive services to Medicaid beneficiaries. The Department is concerned that the breadth of the 2008 Final Rule may undermine the ability of patients to access these services, especially in areas where there are few health care providers for the patient to choose from. As we state above, entities must continue to comply with their Title X, Section 330, EMTALA, and Medicaid obligations, as well as the federal health care provider conscience protection statutes."
[The] Department partially rescinds the 2008 Final Rule based on concerns expressed that it had the potential to negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services without a basis in federal conscience protection statute.
The Department is concerned that the breadth of the 2008 Final Rule may undermine the ability of patients to access these services, especially in areas where there are few health care providers for the patient to choose from. As we state above, entities must continue to comply with their Title X, Section 330, EMTALA, and Medicaid obligations, as well as the federal health care provider conscience protection statutes.
At the same time, HHS stated:
The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients. Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion. Many of these strong conscience laws have been in existence for more than 30 years. The rule being issued today builds on these laws by providing a clear enforcement process.
The final conscience protection rule being issued today by HHS reaffirms the Department’s commitment to longstanding federal conscience statutes by maintaining and building upon provisions of the Bush administration rule that established an enforcement process for federal conscience laws, while rescinding the definitions and terms of the previous rule that caused confusion and could be taken as overly broad.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today hailed the administration for repealing the rule which, had it been finalized in its original form, would have allowed insurance companies to deny claims for birth-control pills, hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to rape survivors, and employees at HMOs to refuse their patients referrals for abortion care.
“The language published today reaffirms the principles of protecting the doctor-patient relationship by repealing the most onerous and intrusive parts of Bush’s last-minute refusal rule,” Keenan said.
“The Obama Administration was correct in rescinding the highly inaccurate and dangerous provisions in a regulation imposed by the Bush Administration in late 2008," said National Women's Law Center Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger.
It put the health and safety of American women at risk by expanding far beyond legal limits the ability of health care providers to refuse necessary treatment and information to patients—particularly when seeking reproductive health care, but going far beyond. The highly controversial regulation, which has been challenged in the courts, in effect encouraged providers to deny access not only to abortion services and information but also to contraception, treatment for infertility, depression, substance abuse, and HIV/AIDS in ways that the law does not allow. Indeed, virtually any medical service could have been swept within its expansive purview.
“Yet the danger to American women remains," said Keenan. "At the very time that these harmful provisions have been rescinded, the majority in the House is pressing for legislation that would go even further in putting essential health care out of the reach of women and their families.”
The rule comes just as the House of Representatives passed the Pence amendment seeking to defund Planned Parenthood.
Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter, @jljacobson
~ I am scared, I do not want to live in christian taliban land. ~
Why don't you pack your suitcase and mover over to the middle east....You are not forced to do anything in America. We are the land that you can KILL YOUR BABY if you are a woman. You won't get that in the middle east.
Scared? If you lived a moral life you would not be scared...
~ I am telling you this as someone who has been sexually abused and knows it very well. No person or thing has the right to be in my body against my will, use my body against my will, terrorize me with fear of unwanted future genital pain against my will, or cause me unwanted genital pain against my will.
You move to the Middle East you vile vagina pain mongering creep.
No ones right to life ever gives them the right to cause any woman or little girl unwanted genital pain. You do not get to sign me up to have unwanted genital pain. ~
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
You are reported, because your comments are the most VILE, SICKENING, DISGUSTING, VICIOUS PIECE OF BILE AND FILTH I have EVER had the misfortune to witness.
To think that you condone the ACTual killing, rape, entrapment and enslavement of indisPUTable human beings, is sick. That you persist in finding some way to punish women for having uteruses, either by denying them the same sexual freedoms as the other half of the population enjoys without fear of reprisal, by limiting the circumstances in which only one half of the population can give consent or by patronizingly 'permitting' women to have the same rights as everyone else only if it fits in with your morals.
No baby involved. If rape is a violent act, then abortion is NOT a violent act. If rape is NOT a violent act, only then is abortion a violent act, but, then, that speaks to your limited, dehumanizing vision of women, doesn't it? If abortion is a violent act, then so is childbirth, after all, but, as witnessed, here, you don't care about that.
She was talking about UNWANTED vaginal pain. Typical of an anti-choicer to avoid the chance to actually address someone's comments, though.
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
We do not even perform this surgery on animals.
Yes, we do.
And I happen to think that the uterus is an amazing organ. I just also think, that like any other organ, no human has the right to use it without the permission of the person in whom it exists.
The rest of your post was just slut-shaming.
How is vile, disgusting, sickening, vicious, bile OR filth potty-mouthed, when they weren't even directed at YOU, but your WORDS? None of those are swear words. Do you even know what the word potty means (well, at least the version of it you are using, anyways)?
What YOU fail to see is that you want to blame noone BUT the woman.
How are you NOT punishing women for an anatomical function (that IS outside of her control), when you attempt to modify behaviour (and you DO see it as behaviour modification if you think making abortion illegal will reduce its rates), such as consensual sex for non-procreative purposes, by imposing a 'natural' consequence on it, a 'natural' consequence that has no corollary elsewhere? The fact that I was born with a uterus means everyone can feel free to strip me of either my rights or my sexual freedoms and that they can feel free to deny me medical remedy that is denied to no one else whose organs aren't functioning the way someone wants them to?
Makes me SICK that I was born female and that I have to undergo either 1. Invasive medical surgery (which most doctors won't perform without serious medical complications, due in LARGE part to attitudes like YOURS), when no one else's medical privacy is invaded in such a manner or 2. SRS (which most of you extreme right-wing conservative ProLife Christian fundamentalists don't even SUPPORT) in order to satisfy the fanatics, such as yourself, that I am not holding any dreams, desires, wishes, hopes or wants beyond fulfilling the role of incubator or baby-making machine. I KNOW what my mom had to go through before anyone from the medical profession would even consider performing a hysterectomy on her. I also know that some of the organs held in place by the uterus can fall into the empty space left behind and cause problems with THOSE organs. And I DEFinitely do not identify as anything other than cisgender.
She knows her body and she knows the risks just like the driver of a car knows the car and the risks of driving it, so, shouldn't zie be disallowed medical remedy, too, if zie causes an accident and receives minor injuries, I mean if you want to prove that this really isn't about punishing women?
She didn't 'wilfully' allow it, unless you really ARE punishing her for it, unless you really ARE seeking to entrap her in a body she has no escape from, a body with natural processes that occur inside it, whether she likes it or not, and that can only be used against her. What crime did she commit against you that you think you can use her body as a prison for her?
I believe that the life has rights. I just don't believe that it has MORE rights than anyone born. Are you really such a dunderhead, that you can't comprehend simple sentences like that, even when they're repeated over and over for you?
That isn't sexual freedom, that's sexual oppression, of women, moron.
If I did see the uterus as an evil thing, it'd ONLY be because of people like you. Because of people like you that find it so convenient and easy to enforce pregnancy on women, so those 'dirty sluts' won't dare to live outside their 'biological imperatives', anymore.
The man has EVery right that the woman has up to and inCLUding the moment the fetus no longer occupies her body, he even has every right that she has AFTer that moment. But, here, I see, you've finally admitted you see pregnancy as behaviour modification (punishment). After all, how can a man have rights to the fetus when he DOESn't have the physiological function, but a woman can't have rights when she DOES have the physiological function?
Abortion doesn't involve killing, btw.
So, woman as non-victim OBviously DOESn't cut it.
Yes, I have. It makes me squeamish only because it looks like any other surgery with blood. I have an even BIGger problem watching bloody, gory movies because they're even more bloody and gory. If abortion is violent, cruel and inhumane, childbirth is violent, cruel and inhumane for BOTH the woman AND the fetus. If abortion is inhumane, then killing someone after they've been directed to experience pleasure and pain is even MORE inhumane.
You have a warped view of life.
is a MAN.
In my online experience, if the forced-birther post includes the words "spread", "your/her", and "legs", it's ALWAYS written by a man.
As if str8 men DON'T spend the greater part of their life thinking about, asking, begging, wheedling, bribing, sweet-talking, convincing, pressuring, (when all of the previous don't work) buying, or (when they're criminals) outright forcing, women to DO this very action for them.
Your lack of compassion for survivors of sexual trauma reveals your true nature, as does your willingness to personally attack an individual survivor because her experiences have shaped her opinion on abortion. Experiencing rape is not "unfortunate." Getting a flat tire is "unfortunate." Arriving at the bank five minutes after it closes because you were stuck in traffic is "unfortunate."
I was raped. If I had become pregnant and been forced to undergo labor and delivery, it absolutely would have been another rape. A worse one, actually, since the process would have lasted nine months and culminated in approximately 18 hours of horrendous physical pain.
FBIR, I stand with you. My thoughts are with you. You are strong; you are a survivor in every sense of the word.
Churchmouse, you should be ashamed of yourself.
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
At least you're consistent. Your version of the truth is completely misinformed and woefully lacking in perspective, but that's to be expected because it seems that your religion doesn't allow you to think for yourself.
And you actually might have me on burn victims. Might be worse than childbirth, but again, it depends on your perspective and experiences. But the government, to my knowledge, isn't burning half the population on the regular as punishment for having sex.
And yes, having your body torn apart by childbirth, whether you use drugs or not, is traumatic and painful. Many rape victims can't even endure pelvic exams.
Giving birth is horrendous when it is FORCED. JUST like sex is horrendous when it is FORCED. Why is it you can only make a point when you twist the meaning of what someone is saying? Because, you know that otherwise you would lose the argument? Doesn't surprise me.
I KNOW a fetus is human life. DUH.
My MOM has said that giving birth was the worst pain she ever felt and my mom has a very high-tolerance for pain.
And do you have any FACTS (as you claim you do) that these incidences of depression are NOT caused by your stigmatization and shaming, by pre-existing circumstances, by the unplanned pregnancy, itself, by being coerced into the abortion, by the abortion, itselfetc...? No? Thought not. Because women become depressed from the exact opposite circumstances during pregnancy, labour and delivery. Do you help these women to become Silent No More? Didn't think so.
"work(ing) with groups of women who have had abortions". YUCK.
Cult Rat is a MAN.
Further proof: "I was put into the hospital for diverticulitis.....so dont feed me the bullcrap that giving birth to a child is horrendous. "
Who the h*ll compares diverticulitis with childbirth?? MEN.
And hey...ever hear of the epideral? I got one and never felt one pushing pain.
Just so you know, an epidural isn't recommended in all cases and not even what a woman would necessarily want for her own childbirth process. That you would just order around needles in spines out like candy to appease your sense of self-righteousness is... well... disgusting. How 'bout you just go back to minding your own "uterus" and we'll let the other "lady folk" mind theirs.
And I really don't know any women that refer to it as "pushing pain." And I know a LOT of women with children. And having had an epidural myself, I'm going to call bullshit on not having "pushing pain" if only because you need to be pretty far along before the epidural is even recommended meaning you had to deal with quite a bit of pain before that was provided.
You know I have seen people go through a lot of pain in my 55 years. I have seen children on chemo, people struggling to pass kidney stones, people who have had terrible pain from burns, I was put into the hospital for diverticulitis...
And none of those situations are being forced upon the individual or are being done in an effort to save their lives. Without the chemo those children would likely die. And having passed kidney stones, I for one had plenty of pain killers, had the option of removing them from my body surgically, and knew full well the stones weren't hijacking my entire body for a minimum of 10 months followed by risk of death in "passing." Having also trained on a premier Army burn unit I would like to point out that in many of these cases nerve endings are burned as well resulting in inhibited pain responses.
So ultimately, because your poor diet(?) caused you abdominal pain for which you would have been offered the option of every available medical treatment without judgement or prejudice you think you have some special right to deny rape victims the right to determine their own medical decisions? Classy.
Also reported. I am sick of your crazy, vile, mysoginst crap.
1. I don't know where you get off accusing FBIR of having a filthy mouth when there wasn't a single thing in her comment that would qualify.
2. You decided to minimize the pain of a survivor of abuse with your vile 'don't spread your legs if you don't want what's coming to you,' language.
3. You accuse FBIR of wanting to abort in the ninth month when she never said such a thing. That's certainly an item of debate in the overal argument, but deciding to put words in someone's mouth so you can call them names really is vile.
You are not just a troll, you are a hateful troll and a poor excuse for a human being when you get your jollies from spewing crazed theories and hate at everyone you disagree with.
This is what I reported her for........using this statement to describe me....."vile vagina pain mongering creep."
Now can we attack people on here using this kind of language?
Had I called her this......what would you have said to me?
Its a two way street here.......isnt it? Or am I held to a different standard because my view is different. You might hate my position but...I have the right to free speech...and I attack no one with language like your side does.
She has a potty mouth and obviously feels that she has to attack the person. Is that allowed here? Now if you dont think that vile vagina pain mongering creep is bad...then that speaks volumns about you, not me.
I am not a troll at all. I debate in a lot of sites..that share both sides of this issue. You want me silenced...because I stand on what I believe is truth. And I believe that abortion is the brutal, inhumane, cruel, violent act against an innocent human life. You see the opposite here....you think abortion is a badge of honor for any woman...the ability to spit out her young. And then you blame everyone else for the fact that poor women...have to go through all this. We were born with a certain anatomy...that allows us to have babies. You HATE THAT FACT. You obviously hate being a woman. Poor...me
I am not spewing a theory. It is a medical FACT that LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION. No scientist would deny that. It is a FACT that the heart starts beating around 22 days. THAT IS A FACT. Now if the abortionists goal is to stop life...then he has to kill it in the womb. He has to make sure all its body parts are out of the womb, whether he kills it in the first month, second, fifth, or ninth. Now tell me how abortion in the later months...when the fetus can feel pain...how is that not barbaric?
Oh I cant wait to hear this answer because you wouldnt have the balls to deny a woman an abortion in the ninth month...viability should never for a pro-abort come into play...because the woman should always have the right to kill...anything less would be to enslave her. AM I RIGHT?
The woman or little girl feels pain when she gives birth, but it is a womans job to have genital pain against her will to save a so called life. Women and little girls have a right to not be forced to have barbaric vaginal agony against their will. They have a right to say NO! That is not going to happen to my vagina with out my consent.
I agree with FBIR that you are a "vile vagina pain mongering creep." It's really sad that you can't understand or comprehend the vileness of your statements.
You are a TROLL. Keep your theology off my cunt!
You've been calling the posters here names ever since you started posting, so don't try getting on your high horse there. None of the words she used is even a curse word...sorry if you don't like being called a creep, but it's really not even on a par with being called murderers is it? If you don't like seeing the word vagina, go find a site that uses euphamisms for body parts, this isn't it.
You're the one holding a double standard when you want us to refrain from using words you find vile, but you aren't willing to accord us the same courtesy (pro-aborts? murderers?).
I'm sorry for the folks at the other sites you 'debate' at. Shouting "murderer" is not debate. Ignoring the points the other side makes, is not debate. Spewing reams of Glenn Beck-worthy revisionist conspiracy nonsense out of contex is not debate. When you're ready to actually have a debate, let me know.
You want to sit here and write up a post telling me what I believe. This is also not debate. I'll tell you what I believe.
I believe a blastocyst is not a person. I believe an infant is a person. I believe that somewhere in between those points there is development that moves a zygote/embryo/fetus toward personhood. I believe that there is room in some of that development for actual debate and moral consideration when people are actually debating in good faith. The forced-birthers who use up the most bandwidth here do not debate in good faith.
I believe that granting the protections of personhood to a fetus removes the rights of women and grant protections that no other class of persons have. It places all of the risk and burden on women. It places greater burdens on the poor than the wealthy.
I believe that even if I would not perform an abortion at nine-months, there is little reason to codify this into law rather than see it addressed via medical standards. Women do not wake up after months of pregnancy and suddenly change their minds.
Science tells us that no, the fetus does not even have the capacity to feel pain in the early portions of pregnancy, and in later ones is naturally anesthetized as part of the process. Otherwise, can you imagine how horrific birth would be for them?
Science tells us that heart *cells* start beating early on, but there is no heart. I have made them beat in the petri dish, it's no great accomplishment, it's what heart cells do.
Science tells us that huge numbers of fertilized eggs never implant, another large percentage miscarry in the first 12 weeks, and yet, someone encouraging either natural effect is somehow a murderer?
The work and sacrifice of giving life should be voluntary. That anyone would make it involuntary is sickening to me. I would not want my life to have come due to such involuntary labor, and it's profoundly disturbing to me that anyone else would.
If you want to debate in good faith, have at. If you're just going to go on screeching about murder, about what a horrible person I am, about the beliefs you've decided I have, then I'm not going to bother answering. It's not worth it to try having a conversation with someone who is simply going to shriek incoherently.
Austin Powers - "It's a MAN, baby!"
You do not give a shit that I was raped as a child, NOT a shit!!!!!!!!!!!! "You are pissed that I did not get pregnant."
Probably hasn't come into contact with many real survivors. Abuse is an abstraction for her; she demonstrated that by calling your experience "unfortunate."
If, for one month, she spent the time she usually spends harassing women at clinics volunteering for agencies that serve victims of abuse, she might have a different picture.
But her opinions about your life don't matter. I understand your anger, and I sympathize with it.
She doesn't get to judge you. Ever.
You are a survivor. She cannot take that from you.
I am so glad you returned to tell your story.
My bible thumping grandfather told his own daughter who was being beat by her southern baptist preacher husband she was not to divorce him because the only reason one can get a divorce says the bible is adultery. My aunt never divorced her husband and my grandfather was satisfied his daughter was doing bible gods will.
We were told that if we are being beat it is because we are not submissive enough, and believe me with these people you can never be submissive enough. These people do not give a damn about women, even there own daughters and sisters.
There favorite two things for females to be is submissive and pregnant, and damn any female who is not.
These people are massively sadomasochistic to all females, they are very scary.
I consistently hear about pastors and priests telling abused women and girls that they have no right to leave. It's abhorent. It's used against them by abusive men who say that their behavior is because the victims aren't following the Word. They say that women are meant to be subservient, which, in some men's eyes, justifies abuse.
Nothing that happened to you was justified. You deserved, and continue to deserve, better treatment by the people who are supposed to care about you.
To any Christian who might be reading this blog: the Jesus I grew up knowing would not only be ashamed, He would shun them.
If you haven't already, you might want to contact RAINN. They specialize in helping survivors of rape and abuse.
Everyone judges...I am judged here...but those who judge me say I have no right to judge anyone else. I would say that is pretty hypocritical wouldnt you?
I have no right as a Christian to judge anyones heart...but I do have a right to judge actions. How could anyone live if they did not do this? How would we protect our families, ourselves.
I do not harrass anyone at clinics. I pray for them, hand out information. What is wrong with this?
I would bet you would be all for the peaceful demonstrations going on in Wisconsin wouldnt you? I would bet you also would condone pro-choicers demonstating against legislation that they dont want passes. I would bet you would be all for demonstrating for gay marriage.......
So tell me....everyone can demonstrate and exercize their freedome of speech...but people who oppose abortion?
I do not harrass anyone at clinics. I pray for them, hand out information. What is wrong with this?
First, I don't believe that you don't harass anyone at clinics and I don't believe this because you take such open, malevolent delight in harassing the posters here.It's clear that you have lots of practice.
Second, Your prayers are those of a self aggrandizing bigot who openly admits that the goal of the entire 'pro-life' movement is to increase the amount of suffering women are forced to endure until we conform to your religious doctrines. Naturally your religious doctrines also serve the goal of increasing the suffering of women. Your religion is crap. You yourself provide abundant evidence of this. I wouldn't enter a church that produced people like you and the other 'pro-life' bigots who post here for any reason.
I hope this answers your questions.
There is a massive difference between demonstrating against the government and demonstrating against individuals who aren't involved in the political fight you're fighting.
Furthermore, do people you stand out there with hold up falsified pictures of abortions? Is your information about adoption agencies, or does it spread misinformation about abortion? Cuz if you're with the groups I've seen, that's exactly what you do. Your cohorts LIE to women in order to coerce them into continuing pregnancy. It's disgusting.
You want to reduce abortion rates in AZ? Go pray outside the legislature. Hand out information about how many single moms use TANF, ACCCHS, food stamps... Hand out information about how increased access to contraception has been shown to reduce abortions. Judge THEM for their actions. This is the most anti-life group of people I've ever seen in government.
I stopped responding to your posts because you bored me. But when you went after FBIR, calling her "vile" and her position immoral, you went from being a nuisance to someone I truly see as hateful. Pray for yourself. You come in here, thinking... what? That you're going to make an argument we haven't heard before? That quoting scripture is going to convert all of us heathens? Instead, you made more convinced than ever that pseudo-Christians like yourself are a group of self-righteous jerks who think they have the right to bully people into choices YOU agree with. One of my closest friends from childhood told me once: "There's a difference between being Evangelical and being an asshole." She's Evangelical. You, churchmouse, are straying far into the latter.
I have no right as a Christian to judge anyones heart...but I do have a right to judge actions. How could anyone live if they did not do this? How would we protect our families, ourselves.
You have an absolute right and actual obligation as a Christian to judge your OWN actions, and judge other people to decide who you will avoid. You have no right to tell those people what your judgments are -- they don't care what you think.
I do not harrass anyone at clinics. I pray for them, hand out information. What is wrong with this?
You are invading the privacy of, harassing and annoying private citizens going about their lawful business in order to get admiration from your fellow travelers for your acts of religious performance art.
I would bet you would be all for the peaceful demonstrations going on in Wisconsin wouldnt you? I would bet you also would condone pro-choicers demonstating against legislation that they dont want passes. I would bet you would be all for demonstrating for gay marriage....... So tell me....everyone can demonstrate and exercize their freedome of speech...but people who oppose abortion?
There is an enormous difference between "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" and being part of a regular lynch mob outside a private business, harassing the employees, clients and neighboring businesses in an effort to prevent the delivery of legal services.
You are not being judged....
except as a clinic escort to help the patients obtain their medical care...
HE IS HARASSING THEM.
I feel terrible that you were raped. It is a violent act. And I praise God that you did not get pregnant. MY POINT WAS, THAT SHOULD PREGNANCY HAVE HAPPENED...THAT THE BABY BE ALLOWED LIFE.
That is what I meant. You read what you want into it....cant help that.
You started this thread with a cut to Christians...why?
You made a statement that opened another can of worms and then you whine when someone brings it up.
Why do you hate Christians? What have we done to you?
Churchrat, you just don't get it. As FBIR's name says, forced birth is RAPE! No woman can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. To say that if she was raped (which is a violent act of power and control) she must carry the pregnancy to term is so demeaning, so vile, and so disgusting.
I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi
Why don't you pack your suitcase and mover over to the middle east....You are not forced to do anything in America. We are the land that you can KILL YOUR BABY if you are a woman. You won't get that in the middle east.
So, would they have allowed you to KILL YOUR daughter's BABY so that she could survive her ectopic pregnancy in the Middle East?
Now if you read everything on this site that I have written...I have never said let any woman die. Show me.........You wont find anything.
I believe if a womans life is in danger....and I am not talking about abortion because the woman is going to school, getting marriage and the dress wont fit, the wrong sex, too many children, its not perfect in the womb........
In most cases both mother and baby can be saved. I never suggested that a woman should die. Ectopic pregnancy is different......the woman can and would die. That is not the reason 99% of abortions happen today however.
In most cases the doctor will save the mother in a way that is not inhumane to the baby, through medicine. This almost never happens....in less than 1% of all abortions.
Abortion today is a form of birth control. More woman have multiple abortions today than ever before. Its expensive........but nevertheless its birth control.
In most cases both mother and baby can be saved. I never suggested that a woman should die. Ectopic pregnancy is different......the woman can and would die. That is not the reason 99% of abortions happen today however.
Oh, so your daughter's abortion was in that 1% of abortions where it's a-okay to murder the innocent little child?
After all, how do you know that the woman "can and would die?" A (very) small percentage of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own. It doesn't seem very church-mouse-y of you to pass up praying for a miracle instead of the "Rambo solution" of killing innocent people who appeared to be posing a threat to your daughter's life. Perhaps you just weren't approached by a helpful sidewalk counselor at the right time?
In most cases the doctor will save the mother in a way that is not inhumane to the baby, through medicine. This almost never happens....in less than 1% of all abortions.
Oh, so murder is okay if you do it in a humane manner? I'm sure Dr. Jack Kevorkian would be interested in hearing that line of defense.
Not that I can really hold it against you, however. It's quite common for "pro-lifers" to think that their circumstances are different when they get abortions, that they're not like all those sinful, heathen sluts who ought to have kept their legs closed....
And I'm really very sure, Mr Rat, that you are neither a woman, nor an obstetrician. So having no knowledge whatsoever of either, STFU.
This just goes to show that when the GOP talk all tough about "smaller government" and "get out of our life" and "de-regulate" you can clearly see its all LIES. The only people who talk about those things are CROOKS. Crooks hate regulations...makes it really hard to steal taxpayer money. Other than that, GOP Republicans are control freaks who want to oppress women through THEIR big government. What the GOP really needs is a good 12-step program for abusive Republicans with control issues.
And Democrats just believe that the government should run our lives. BIG government, no guns, forced education, pro-murder, Anti America... Soon they will try to force the euthanasia of the elderly and handicapped. Just drop off ole Grandma at the corner killing center, end her life the humane thing to do..DEATH ON DEMAND. Yes the LEFT loves to attack the vulnerable.Grandma gets the "treatment", the unborn gets the "medical procedure".....Aktion T 4
Yea who is in control of the unborn in the womb? Certainly not Republicans....
Well, there you have it, the right-wing trogs not only want for women to be livestock, they also have a Talibanesque hatred of education.
Democrats don't force anything. Funny that you're pro-gun when you claim to be so Pro-Life. Do you know who usually gets targeted for death during the commission of a crime where a gun is used? I'll give you a hint: It's not the one who committed the criminal act. Wow, so 'Pro-Life' of you. You are anti-America when you deny not only women, in general, but women of the impoverished class and women of colour the same rights that everyone else has. (Btw, America includes Canada, Mexico and the countries of Central and South America, not JUST the US.)
So, if this hypothetical Grandmother CHOSE to have her life ended, you would force her to continue her life against her wishes? That's the ONLY thing you are saying when WE (because we are Democrats) inherently talk against the use of force and, instead, advocate for people's rights to choose. Btw, have you ever heard of Sue Rodriguez?
Who is in control (since it's closely related to force, obviously) of women and the unborn? CERTAINLY, Republicans.
I believe as a Christian and I must follow the scriptures that guide my beleifs.....that God takes life.
I do not beleive that we should have abortion mills...and its coming fast....Oregon already is doing it....euthanasia mills.
I think this is dangerous ground. If you research the countries doing it there is a lot of problems.
You mention a grandmother ending her life. If you allow that...you must also allow the twenty one year old kid who does not want to live either. Would you allow that.....? Or the parents of a child with cancer.....or the depressed......
Can you imagine what abuses might occur.
Please refrain from posting here or you will be banned.
Having read through your posts of the past several days, they are alternately abusive, especially to survivors of sexual or domestic violence, far off-topic/irrelevant to the points of the article to which they are posted, and generally seek to impose your religious ideology on those of us who believe in religious freedom.
thank you.
PLEASE get rid of this noxious troll.
(From another abuse survivor.)
You must be reading a different Bible than me. i have always been a christian even though I left the Catholic religion I still love Jesus and where do you mention Jesus or have you forgotten about Jesus? I think too many religions today keep Jesus out of the teachings and this is a disgrace. Where does Jesus or God say that it is ok to force or preach over anyone who does NOT want it the way you do here? I want to know?
I find it absolutely incredible that you would use the phrase "euthenasia mills" when referring to Oregon's Death With Dignity Act in total ignorance of the fact that the number of application last year was less than a hundred, and only about 65 patients followed through
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year13.pdf
There is a great deal of accurate information available on the internet. Before you make a fool of yourself by repeating this kind of foolishness, it might be an idea to do a little checking up on the exaggerations in those chain e-mails.
They want a government "small" enough to legalize the banksters' egregious mortgage and other frauds, but "big" enough to force all women to carry all pregnancies,even life-threatening ones.
Can you say, "Obscene", ladies and gentlemen?
Someone else coined the term "government small enough to fit in your uterus"
First, we demand the "right" to kill our children and our grandchildren. Next we demand that the government pay for the killing. Now we demand the "right" to force the squeamish to do the killing for us. All the while, the government is given free-rein to force. (Ha! so much for the "If you don't want one, don't get one" rhetoric.) Hmmm... Just how much DO you trust the government???
I remember weeping years ago over the stories of horrid Khmer Rouge killing of infants. They had nothing on us today - either in magnitude or in cruelty.
Talk about legislating morality. /sarcasm
First, we demand the "right" to kill our children and our grandchildren. Next we demand that the government pay for the killing.
The government pays for the killing of prisoners, foreign combatants, and civilians. Those are actual people. Why not pay for a legal medical procedure where the only actual person is the woman?
Now we demand the "right" to force the squeamish to do the killing for us.
Perhaps if healthcare providers do not want to perform or assist in abortions, they should choose a different career that does not involve abortions. When I worked in a pharmacy no one really cared about my personal opinions of the medications or my provider-conscience. Oh, but I wasn't against EC or contraceptives, so my conscience didn't count. Silly me.
Would you defend a healthcare provider's right to refuse to perform a bypass surgery because they're against unhealthy dieting? Would you defend a healthcare provider refusing to perform a liver transplant on a patient with cirrohosis because they believe drinking alcohol is immoral? What about lung cancer patients and those suffering from emphesema? They certainly knew smoking was bad for them. Shouldn't doctors and nurses be allowed to opt out of all those procedures?
Should all doctors be forced into doing abortions? This is an elective surgery that kills a human being. No one should force someone to kill something if they think it is immoral. They should be allowed to be doctors none the same. Abortion used to be illegal and immoral. Doctors took the Hippocratic Oath and swore to save lives...not kill them.
No Pharmacist should be forced to hand out a drug thats sole purpose is to kill a living human being. You are talking about FORCING PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING IMMORAL.
Bypass surgery is different...abortion kills a life. Why is it so difficult for you to see this? You just never take the life in the womb into consideration.
Should all doctors be forced into doing abortions? This is an elective surgery that kills a human being.
This rule specifically addresses abortions necessary to save women's lives in EMERGENCY situations -- that is NOT elective surgery but instead emergency surgery.
No one should force someone to kill something if they think it is immoral. They should be allowed to be doctors none the same.
No, actually, they shouldn't. Doctors who are not willing to save the lives of patients in emergencies should not be allowed to be doctors.
Abortion used to be illegal and immoral. Doctors took the Hippocratic Oath and swore to save lives...not kill them.
Too bad they kill so many of their patients then.
No Pharmacist should be forced to hand out a drug thats sole purpose is to kill a living human being. You are talking about FORCING PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING IMMORAL.
Birth control pills prevent ovulation and pregnancy. They don't kill anything. Pharmacists who substitute religious superstition for accurate scientific explanations of the mechanism of action of the drugs they dispense should make a living doing something where intelligence isn't a requirement.
Bypass surgery is different...abortion kills a life. Why is it so difficult for you to see this? You just never take the life in the womb into consideration.
And you seem to have a terribly difficult time even seeing the life SURROUNDING that womb and understanding that banning abortion is going to kill women, even though you seem to grasp that a total abortion ban would have resulted in the death of your own daughter. You certainly have a right to try to convince YOUR daughter the only 'moral' thing for her to have done was to die; you have no right to require MY daughter to die in service to your extremist ideology.
Did you even read the article? Health care workers can still refuse to provide abortions, unless it's to save a patient's life. But your side is even working against THAT, allowing hospitals to institute blanket policies to KILL WOMEN instead of aborting UNVIABLE FETUSES.
And I'm really sick of the comparisons between abortion and mass murder. 90% of all abortions occur when the fetus is, at largest, the size of an orange. IT CANNOT FEEL PAIN. Comparing it the atrocities in Cambodia is offensive to the screaming, tortured people who died there. Take some classes on world history. Better yet, go to Cambodia and listen to the survivors tell their story. I'm glad you were affected by the horror of it, but you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what actually occurred and what occurs during an abortion.
You don't have the moral highground here. The new House has shown who the monsters are.
I am sick and tired of you pro-aborts failure to see the life in the womb for what it is. It is human. It might be small...might not be able to sing the Star Spangled Banner...but its heart beats in the first month...around 22 days. 61% of all abortions happen within the first nine weeks...17% happen within 9 and 10 weeks. 9 % happens within 13-20 weeks. The thing is you pro-aborts believe that abortion should be legal....the entire time...even through nine months.
So for you guys...why would you care what was happening in the womb? The womans right trumps everything. So your orange reference doesn't cut. You want to try to convince yourself...that somehow your position is moral.
I believe that ripping a human being out of a womb and killing it is murder, its that simple. Before Roe it was. So this country lived longer under that law than it has Roe.
You talk about pain. You don't think a fetus in the womb at six months cant feel pain? How the hell do you know? My neice was born at 23 weeks. Let me tell you...she felt pain. So if she could feel pain outside the womb...she could inside. I mean come on...we are talking about crushing skulls....ripping limbs apart. THAT IS WHAT YOU CONDONE....LIVE WITH IT, OWN IT. But at least have the balls to admit it...dont hide behind the idea that an abortion is painless so it must be ok. Have you ever watched an abortion?
You are demonstrating a lack of morals.
My comment was addressing the comparison between Cambodia and abortion. It's inappropriate and offensive to equate abortion, the vast majority of which occurs early in pregnancy, with the Killing Fields.
I do think abortion should be available throughout pregnancy. I think that because I trust that the women obtaining the 1.5% of abortions that take place after 21 weeks know what's best for themselves, their families, and the fetuses inside them. I don't think that women wake up in the seventh month and decide they don't want to be pregnant anymore. I've read the heartwrenching stories of women who find out that something has gone terribly, horribly wrong in a wanted pregnancy and decide that abortion was the most humane thing they could do for the fetus. As for the statistically negligible group who knew it was an unwanted pregnancy before 21 weeks, I think they probably couldn't obtain an abortion because of barriers placed by the anti-choice crowd. We have medical standards (and often misguided laws) that help regulate third trimester abortion, and I trust women and their doctors to figure out what's best.
I understand that people are uncomfortable with third trimester abortion. I understand WHY they and you are uncomfortable. It's a difficult area to figure out. I just also understand that research shows why women seek abortions out that late in pregnancy, and I think that I don't have the right to judge people who are in those kinds of positions.
I'm not hiding.
You know, it's one thing to come on her looking for an honest debate, as other anti-choicers manage to do from time to time... but it's another thing entirely to continuously LIE and spew misinformation and hateful rhetoric, as you are often wont to do.
Before Roe it was.
"There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. ...Various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the 1820s."
You talk about pain. You don't think a fetus in the womb at six months cant feel pain? How the hell do you know?
I'll tell you how the hell I know. Science! It's amazing, really, what you can learn. A fetus at six months/24 weeks does have some of the neurological connections necessary for pain; however, it is not conscious in any way to process pain:
"...it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such that noxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus."
http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
So, yes, there is a big difference between a fetus in the womb at 23 weeks and a pre-term infant at 23 weeks. It is also worth mentioning that abortions occuring at 23 weeks involve lethal abnormalities, such that the fetus would likely not survive birth. It is humane and it is moral. If there's any consolation to your craziness, then there is a difference between that real-life scenario, and the one you've been brainwashed to IMAGINE in which droves of women are all lining up to abort a viable fetus and healthy pregnancy around 6 months... just 'cause.
A belief that a text speaks its own meaning and should convince someone based on its own inherent meaning not only ignores the past half century of philosophical thought, but it brims with the arrogance required to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is either too incompetent or too dishonest to acknowledge the obvious meaning. A personal claim to objective reading exhibits an inability to claim the subjective influences that alter each person's perception and gets in the way of healthy dialogue whether political or religious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/what-the-tea-party-and-ev_b_821337.html
Bolding added
We KNOW it's human. Why do you idiots continue to argue things, we never say????
Abortion was 'legal' LONG before it was illegal.
For you, fetal rights trump everything. Shows what you think of women, absolutely nothing. I hope you don't tell your daughter the truth.
Abortion is not killing and NONE of the procedures used to facilitate abortion come even close to what you've described. If a fetus feels pain before birth, she feels even worse pain AT birth. And you want to force the greater pain on not just the woman but the FETUS, as WELL? Hrrrrmmm. Sounds like a hypocritical misogynist to me.
It deeply saddens me every time I witness "another" who is either unwilling or unable to research an issue and gather the facts; but rather allows him/herself to be spoonfed sensationalized and agenda-driven BS.
I always find it amazingly coincidental that "the facts" seem to always confirm exactly what was already believed and held true by the listeners of right wing tv and radio "news"...........
"Now we demand the "right" to force the squeamish to do the killing for us"
Like Haliburton? Your tax dollars and mine.
And if the anti-choicers get their way, women who need emergency abortions will be killed by those hospitals that refuse to perform abortions - but would rather see a woman bleed to death. How "pro-life" is that. Oh, right. It's just nature's way. Better a woman die and go to heaven than have an abortion and committ a great big sin. I'm being somewhat facetious; but I think you catch my drift!
I feel I must apologize, since my uncle works for Haliburton.... ><; EEP!
"And Democrats just believe that the government should run our lives"
Oh, it is to laugh. These clowns are always braying about the need for smaller and less intrusive government - yet, they have no qualms about big government intruding into a decision and a procedure that should be left to a woman and her doctor. If that isn't running women's lives, I don't know what is!
And BTW "churchmouse" - if we don't get a handle on Medicare, there will be rationing which, to some extent, goes on with private health insurers and the state of Arizona where Jan Brewer can give tax breaks to corporations while 98 Medicaid patients await transplant operations. Oh right, they're poor people so who cares! Betcha Jan Brewer is a good "pro-lifer."
That the newest tax package doesn't guarantee a dime of that money will stay in Arizona or definitively create a single job. The most optimistic estimates cap the job creation at 30,000. Yet the cuts to Medicaid not only kick 280,000 people off health care, but it will eliminate 48,000 health care jobs that people have right now.
Double post. Sorry!
A smaller, less intrusive government does not mean a government that doesn't regulate people's actions, letting them do as they please.
Forcing me to undergo 9 months of pregnancy followed by 18 hours of labor and delivery, thereby guaranteeing immense physical pain and harm throughout the process and during recovery and placing me at risk of permanent injury and death is about as intrusive as it gets. Add that to the fact that this government-sanctioned torture is arbitrarily applied to half the population, while leaving the other half free from the same torturous punishment for the same act, and it's also discriminitory.
But what do I know? I'm just a uterus with legs.
It'd be nice if, just once, there could be a thread without someone here insinuating that they speak for all women, without mentioning or even insinuating anything about discrimination, misogyny or sexism.
Anyway, there is nothing arbitrary here. Do you really not understand that women aren't denied an abortion because they are women? Are you really so content to ignore why abortion is a contentious issue? Do you really not realize that people often have their "private" lives intruded upon in order to protect the well-being of someone else?
It's not my fault I was born female. That was arbitrary. It's not my fault that if my partner and I engage in sex and an unwanted pregnancy results, I'm the one it happens inside. We both chose to do it, but the consequences leave me in pain, in harm's way, and at risk of permanent injury and death. So yes, it IS discriminatory to expect me to complete an unwanted pregnancy when my partner is free from the same effects for the same act.
As for the intrusion on people's private lives, the anti-choice crowd is attempting to protect the "well-being" of a fetus in a way we make no effort to protect any other human's.
Go re-read Julie's posts on the sexism of nature. She explains it more eloquently than I ever could.
It'd be nice if, just once, there could be a thread without someone here insinuating that they speak for all women, or trying to play the discrimination/misogyny/sexism card.
It'd be nice, if, just once, there could be a thread without someone here insinuating that they speak for all unborn or trying to deny the privileged end of the spectrum they speak from as a part of the patriarchy.
Anyway, there is nothing arbitrary here. If women didn't have vaginas, if women didn't ovulate, if women weren't on the receiving end of penetrative sex, if women didn't have their eggs fertilized by sperm inside their bodies, if women weren't on the receiving end of implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta, if women didn't gestate the fetus within their own bodies for nine months, if women didn't have to endure labour and delivery, if women didn't have to opt-OUT of organ sharing and, finally, if women didn't have uteruses, THEN, maybe, you could say women aren't denied abortions simply because they are women. As it stands, now, you are simply supporting nature's sexism.
Do you really not realize that people often have their "private" lives intruded upon in order to protect the well-being of someone else?
Do you really not realize that people often have their private lives intruded upon in order to protect the well-being of someone else, because they've intruded in on someone else's well-being and rights, already?
We are saying that we have the right to control our own bodies and our reproduction, not another woman's. We are not seeking to prevent women from doing anything. You are the one who is insinuating that he speaks for all women, indicated by your desire to prevent all women from having abortions or using birth control.
Women are the only people capable of pregnancy and birth. There is no equivalent consequence in the world that would punish men for having sex in the same way that anti-choicers want to punish women by forcing them to give birth. Anti-choicer's do not seek to control men's reproductive and bodily functioning. So, yes, at its core, being denied a much-needed abortion is equivalent to being punished for being a woman, when you did not ask for a uterus, and when you never asked for pregnancy to occur.
So it's just coincidence that there is all of this to-do over protecting the rights of not-people when that protection just happens to only affect women? It's just a coincidence that it's only women who need to be forced to risk life and health for the well-being of others? I'm not buying it.
Because there's nobody out there defending the rights of those who need blood or other organs to make sure that they are protected and taken care of despite the intrustion into people's 'private' lives that would be necessary for this. In this scenario, the inconvenience, pain, and health risks fall across everyone equally should we put mandates in place. So you won't see armies out arguing for that.
There's nobody out there pushing to regulate what parents feed their kids, which greatly affects their health and well-being. We're willing to put rules in place to attempt to get public entities (schools for example) to stop marketing and feeding them unhealthy food, but even those efforts are half-hearted (and generally derided as liberal nanny-stateism). Because that would cause inconvienence to many, including businesses with a financial stake. We're certainly not going to go into people's 'private' lives to regulate this at all.
There is no great push to alter existing rules in place for determining when to end artificial life support for those who have become brain dead, in vegetative states, etc. It's pretty much left to family and medical professionals with rules in place mostly regarding who is allowed to make the decision, not whether the decision can be made at all. Certainly you don't see a concerted effort to effect changes in the status quo here. And what do you know, this issue affects men and women.
So the idea that there's somehow something special about the case of abortion-- something that doesn't have to do with our society's deep-seated hang-ups regarding women and sex--seems rather suspect. Is there really some reason that potential people require such strong intrusions into private life? Seriously? When we're talking about people who object to contraception, does anyone really believe that this is because the well being of those potential people is really worth that kind of intrusion into people's private lives.
It's especially 'surprising' since the intrusion into people's private lives in any of the politically charged spheres you mentioned, would take far less effort on the part of the individual whose life was being intruded upon, too, than the demands of pregnancy ever would require women to undertake.
You do not get to offer my vagina up, to have unwanted vaginal pain against my will to save a life.
I suppose we will be hearing more brainwashed lies like this. Once agian it is alright to CONTROL women,Blacks,Native Americans,Hispanics,gays and lesbians,transgenders and anyone who does not fit the white MALE and a straight profile.
It is ok to create wars by lies from the leaders of the country that ALSO kill and maime for life and they also kill innocent fetuses and children! Worse than abortion in many cases!
It is ok to make us pay for endless tax payer funded appeals for death row prisoners who may or may not be guilty. Which in the long run costs the taxpayers more money.
It is ok to put people in our overcrowded tax payer prisons for drug offenses when these peolple should be in hospitols and or getting out patient care to beat their addictions. if not treated they can turn violent and or steal and once again wind up in the system.
This does not represent most of this country's beliefs that you claim it does only the extreme right's opiions.
This is not freedom, patriarchy is not freedom,slavery is not freedom,forcing theocracy is not freedom. What country is this anyway?
Less intursive like the Patriot Act? less intrusive like the personhood bills?
What drugs are you on?
per SCOTUS on Citizens United, these Norquistian creeps will NOT impose any annoying regulations.
Only LIVING BREATHING HUMAN AMERICAN FEMALE CITIZENS will be forced by these creeps to undergo strenuous personal regulations.
If you're a dude, or Halliburton, you're okay, these creeps don't want to regulate you - only LIVING BREATHING HUMAN AMERICAN FEMALE CITIZENS.
Pregnant women are CONTAINERS for citizens. The ability of pregnant women to live and breath is entirely for the benefit of that 'innocent' citizen inside them and the human rights of the container are suspended for the duration of the pregnancy.
while 98 Medicaid patients await transplant operations.
Makes it rather curious, then, that pregnant women who seek abortions can't choose to terminate, the fetus is in the same position as those transplant patients on medicaid. Hypocrisy, at its finest.
YOU CAN'T FORCE ME TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTHCARE!!!!!! (but pregnant women should be forced to provide physical healthcare to fetuses)
PREGNANT LADIES HAVE A DUTY TO LIFE!!!!!! (but the government doesn't)
POOR PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE SO MANY KIDS!!!!!!!! (but they also shouldn't have access to contraception or abortion)
"Why don't you pack your suitcase and mover over to the middle east....You are not forced to do anything in America. We are the land that you can KILL YOUR BABY if you are a woman. You won't get that in the middle east"
churchmouse - February 19, 2011 - 10:17am
Oh really? "In the Muslim world, there are also a range of theological positions on abortion that have shaped legal policies in different countries. The Koran does not explicitly address abortion, but the view that “life is breathed” into the fetus at 120 days (or alternatively, 40 or 80 days) was integrated into Islamic jurisprudence...All Islamic legal schools prohibit the abortion of a fetus after 120 days, although some allow exceptions when the mother’s life is in danger, the pregnancy is harming an already suckling child, or the fetus is expected to be deformed.."
Try doing some research before you spout off about something about which you have no clue.
