Bush getting in your bush again... Posted: 07-18-08 13:40pm
Quote:
tr>
Bush Proposal to
Change Abortion Definition
Democrats Argue Bush Administration
Changes Would Limit Access to
Contraception
By MATTHEW JAFFE
July 17, 2008—
Congressional Democrats are criticizing
the Bush administration for a draft
proposal they say would change the
definition of abortion and limit women's
access to contraception.
The draft proposal from the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), which
began circulating around Capitol Hill
earlier this week, would withhold
government funds from health-care
providers and organizations that don't
hire people who refuse to perform
abortions or provide certain types of
birth control.
It immediately incited an uproar from
leading Democratic lawmakers, including
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash.,
warned in a letter to HHS Secretary Mike
Leavitt that the proposal has the
"potential to affect millions of women's
reproductive health."
"One of the most troubling aspects of the
proposed rules is the overly-broad
definition of 'abortion,'" write Clinton
and Murray. "This definition would allow
health-care corporations or individuals to
classify many common forms of
contraception including the birth
control pill, emergency contraception and
IUDs 'abortions' and therefore to refuse
to provide contraception to women who need
it.
"As a consequence, these draft regulations
could disrupt state laws securing women's
access to birth control. They could
jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid
and Title X that provide family-planning
services to millions of women. They could
even undermine state laws that ensure
survivors of sexual assault and rape
receive emergency contraception in
hospital emergency rooms," they write.
Current federal law prohibits health-care
providers and organizations from
discriminating against people who won't
provide abortions or birth control.
The Bush administration's new draft
proposal would require these agencies to
certify in writing their compliance with
the law before getting funding from HHS.
Critics say the proposal would limit
women's access to birth control, arguing
that it includes "an overly-broad
definition of abortion" and that in order
to receive government funding agencies
might have to hire employees who won't
perform every-day job responsibilities due
to their personal religious beliefs.
Prominent Democratic lawmakers on Capitol
Hill have already expressed their
opposition to the controversial potential
proposal.
"If the administration goes through with
this draft proposal, it will launch a
dangerous assault on women's health," said
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., calling on President Bush to
"reject this policy."
"The majority of Americans oppose this
out-of-touch position that redefines
contraception as abortion and represents a
sustained pattern of the Bush
administration to reject medical and sound
science in favor of a misguided ideology
that has no place in our government."
The Health department released a brief
statement arguing that it's looking into
various options in an effort to enforce
anti-discrimination laws.
"Over the past three decades, Congress has
passed several anti-discrimination laws to
protect institutional and individual
health care providers participating in
federal programs. HHS has an obligation to
enforce these laws, and is exploring a
number of options," the statement reads.
The White House declined to comment.
"We don't talk about possible proposed
rules," White House deputy spokesperson
Tony Fratto said Thursday.
A spokesperson for Murray said that the
two senators have not yet received a
response from the Health and Human
Services Secretary.
Well, I can't say I am surprised. This
just goes to prove that the conservative
"pro-life" politicians aren't pro-life at
all....it goes to show their true agenda
which the pro-choice crowd has know since
the beginning of this debate. Obviously
birth control reduces the need for
abortion. If they REALLY wanted to end
abortion....an assault on contraception
would NOT be the way to do it.
How on earth these people can claim to
support women OR children is beyond me.
Cut funding for sex ed programs, cut
funding for welfare, womens services, and
children's services that help women in
crisis pregnancy's ACTUALLY give birth AND
parent? How is that helping women, how is
it helping children, how is it helping
fetuses who might be aborted because those
social programs are NOT avaliable?
This is all about control. Women shouldn't
be able to sleep with just anyone and not
face any consequence at all...they want to
force women to either abstain from sex
until marriage at which time birth control
should not be an option as it is thier god
given responsibility to procreate as much
as physically possible (as their religion
tells them) or endure harsh punishment for
not doing so. Making access to
contraceptive difficult is just one more
way to force women to adhere to
conservative morality.
I tried to skim it over...what is the
definition of abortion that they are
using? Does it say? Reading on the
computer with print that small hurts mine
eyes somethimes.
I really loathe this man. I agree with
you...dangerous! People with power like
this and views like that are just hurtful
to society as a whole.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 07-18-08 18:13pm
All I can say is thank goodness I'm
Canadian. I could not stand living in
place where some religious values are
given that much precedence over what's
best for women.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2772 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
Posted: 07-18-08 21:41pm
Birch I have to say it is really funny how
you titled this thread..bush getting in
your bush hahaha
|
aochriss
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 737
Thanks: 93
Thanked:175
Posted: 07-20-08 20:32pm
Sydney123456
wrote:
I tried to skim it
over...what is the definition of abortion
that they are using? Does it say? Reading
on the computer with print that small
hurts mine eyes somethimes.
I really loathe this man. I agree with
you...dangerous! People with power like
this and views like that are just hurtful
to society as a
whole.
The correct definition of abortion is the
termination of a pregnancy, whether by
natural means (a.k.a. miscarriage) or by a
doctor (medical or surgical abortion). The
new, pro-life definition would include
fertilized eggs that fail to implant as an
abortion.
So, abortion will not mean the termination
of a pregnancy any longer, in fact it
won't have anything to do with pregnancy.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 07-20-08 21:21pm
This was the troublesome bit to me: The
draft proposal...would withhold government
funds from health-care providers and
organizations that don't hire people who
refuse to perform abortions or provide
certain types of birth control."
Sneaky way of regulating morality at, say,
PP.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 369 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 12
Thanked:2
Posted: 07-21-08 14:47pm
The good thing is Bush will be gone come
next January. Hopefully, a better man will
be in his place.
|
mlynn
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 Posts: 35
Thanks: 18
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-28-08 09:52am
Raptar....need a roommate? Come November
(should McCain win) I'm going to be
looking for a new address....hopefully a
Canadian one.