Abortion Debate Forum - Bush getting in your bush again...
medical questions | health forums

Bush getting in your bush again...

New Topic  Reply  Ask A Doctor - Offline
Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> Bush getting in your bush again...
Author Message
Birch

Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4159
Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Bush getting in your bush again...
Posted: 07-18-08 13:40pm

Quote:
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.


Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics /Vote2008/Story?id=5397146&page=2

Lame duck conservatives are dangerous.
Did you find this post useful?
|
mlynn

New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 35
Thanks: 18
Thanked:0

Posted: 07-18-08 13:57pm

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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Sydney123456

Supporter
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 385
Location: Minnesota,
Thanks: 32
Thanked:2

Posted: 07-18-08 14:26pm

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. Sad

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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
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
Did you find this post useful?
|
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. Sad

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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
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.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Related Topics
This Forum This Category All Forums
Jump to:  
New Topic   Reply



We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health
information:
verify here.