Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Bush up in yours yet again
User Profile
Q: Bush up in yours yet again
asked by: Birch on August 22nd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
The Bush administration proposed new rules today that critics say would make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, and for men and women to obtain contraceptives.

After more than a month of internal -- and eventually public -- debate, the administration unveiled regulations that, if enacted, would provide stronger protections for doctors and other healthcare providers to refuse to perform medical procedures -- or, possibly, sell contraceptives -- if such steps violate their religious beliefs.

Jill Morrison, the senior counsel of the National Women's Law Center, told Countdown to Crawford when we reported on the draft regulation in July that it was "essentially a hit list against anything that protects a patient's rights to get access to legal and needed health services" in the area of reproduction.

Publication of the rule in the Federal Register triggered a 30-day public comment period, after which the Bush administration could implement a final rule.

Announcing the proposed regulation today, Mike Leavitt, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said it was "about the legal right of a healthcare professional to practice according to their conscience."

He said:

Doctors and other healthcare providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree.

The department said the rule would make it clear that protections against discrimination "apply to institutional healthcare providers as well as to individual employees" whose offices receive certain federal funds.

The department argued that the regulation "would in no way restrict healthcare providers from performing any legal service or procedure" and that patients would be able to obtain the procedure -- an abortion, for example -- from someone who did not assert "a conflict of conscience."

The proposal is certain to face challenge from abortion rights supporters.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said: “Women’s ability to manage their own healthcare is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology."

She said, the Associated Press reported, that the organization was concerned that the regulation posed "a serious threat to women’s healthcare by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services."
Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(6)
User Profile
motherofhighspiritedones
replied on August 22nd, 2008
Moderator
Oh yea...just want I wanted to hear...geeze Mr. President...why not pass a bill making BC easy and free to obtain...then see how low the abortion rates go.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Sydney123456
replied on August 23rd, 2008
Experienced User
I thought doctors could already refuse care if it interfered with their religious beliefs? I know pharmacists can do that, correct?

I am concerned...but at the same time, I feel like economic demands will even some of it out. Wouldn't women be more likely to go to a gyno that DOES prescribe BC rather than one that doesn't? So, they lose more patients. The same would go for abortions. If the patient can only get this procedure done at PP, they will get a little more cash and other docs lose the patient.

Regardless, this concerns me. Lame duck president trying to get a couple more punches in before he goes. What an absolute fool.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Sydney123456 for this post: motherofhighspiritedones 
Avatar
msrosie
replied on August 23rd, 2008
Experienced User
Sydney123456 wrote:

Regardless, this concerns me. Lame duck president trying to get a couple more punches in before he goes. What an absolute fool.



Hopefully, this time around, y'all will elect someone with at least *half* a brain. Wink
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Sydney123456
replied on August 24th, 2008
Experienced User
Hey- don't look at me...I exercised my right to vote for someone who ISN'T a self-righteous, pushy jerk (among other things).

I still don't think he should've been in the office in the first place...but, that's another debate entirely. Smile
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
aochriss
replied on August 31st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
The purpose of this legislation is not to protect doctors and pharmacists or anyone else, they all already had that protection. The purpose is to change the definition of abortion to include taking birth control pills, as in taking birth control pills = having an abortion.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank aochriss for this post: diamondsz 
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on October 3rd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
I think when you are hired for a job you are supposed to be impartial. If America has 50 religions and we alet our religious beliefs impact those of non or other religious people we would have other problems.

I still think that people should keep their beliefs to themselves or share with someone who gives a damn but shove it down My atheist throat...

Chris wicked point as always, I wonder why they care so much, does bush really want that much more power over woman?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Quick Reply
Search