8mm
Posted on 08/21/2008 2:57:32 PM PDT by fightinJAG
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
a young girl who is that promiscuous is almost certainly being molested.
Abortion or birth control was not the problem. The child needed help.
AMEN!
Awesome. W is finishing strong on Life.
If the youth chose to participate in sex and are aware of the conseqences, they should have a right to thwart said possible pregnancy/abortions.
The Catholic Church continues to teach that the use of Artificial Birth Control is wrong. The teaching was most clearly re-affirmed in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae And that was before the abortifacient characteristic of some contraceptives was known.
In related news I know a GP who will not prescribe Viagra for unmarried men, if what they want it for is to enable sexual intercourse.
It seems to me the major practical consequence of this is that if you are going to engage in sexual intercourse with the intention that it be sterile, line up your docs ahead of time. In the long history of the world it has been only a short time that this was not considered a bad thing. Why physicians and pharmacists should be compelled to become accessories to acts they consider wrong is not clear to me.
Congress has no part in this. It is a proposed regulation, strictly internal to the Executive branch.
As McCain would say: My Friends, Obama said in a July speech “The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,”
So when Obama says anything about reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions he is LIEING.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: “It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”
After McCain picks a Pro-Life VP I will be 100% behind him all the way.
Jill Stanek - Obama, “feeling blue,” FOCA, and gotcha
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/obama_mental_he.html
Obama’s Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061010.html
I agree with you there. But I don't believe that right should extend to forcing others to help in preventing the pregnancies. This is especially so when that forced assistance goes against the deeply held beliefs of the doctor/pharmacist.
This isn't the usual case of the government stepping in between two willing adults. This is the government stepping *out* and not forcing someone go through with a transaction that is morally repugnant to them.
I believe I have the right to keep and bear arms. But that doesn't mean I have the right to force anyone to sell me a gun, least of all a pacifist.
“After McCain picks a Pro-Life VP I will be 100% behind him all the way.”
I heard on Fox News radio this evening that Senator McCain has made up his mind (but of course isn’t telling yet).
Oh yeah. THAT'S the ticket!
What if these youth want to do some serious drugs? Hand out the NEEDLES?????
And contraceptives, too?
In that case, condoms are sold over-the-counter and would not be affected by the regulations.
And I’m sure Planned Parenthood will feel no moral compunction to abide by the law. So someone unintelligent enough to go to a different pharmacy...or even ask if there is another pharm on duty would have no problem buying their security.
I suppose they could just close their legs or put up with the consequences. Wait...no...that would be the mature, responsible thing to do.
That’s already being done.
And the dims are going to be free to break out the doobies at the convention too.
< my eyes are rolling so fast they look like a slot machine >
I don’t think every doctor and pharamacist who received his or her education foresaw the social experiments that our nation is now enduring. While I normally prefer employers to be free to fire people, religious convictions do need some level of protection in a free society. I don’t have all the answers [obviously]. But it would be a sick world indeed for someone to study medicine for the purpose of healing and then, due to medical debt, feel coerced into practicing an abortion.
“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.”
Weren't you grateful your mother took you to the doctor for a birth control prescription?
Um, no. In fact, she didn't do that. I started the pill when I married. I went to the local health department and they gave me the exam and pills. Years later, I now a reasonable, intelligent adult stopped taking them altogether because I did the research and found the truth about them. I now regret taking them - not only on a moral level but with regard to health issues. I unwittingly exposed myself to all kinds of health risks including an increased chance for breast cancer. As an adult adoptee, I only recently found out that breast cancer is a real killer in our family. Without understanding the consequences of taking that little pill, I heightened my risk.
Not only that, the bc pills of today promise things like only 4 periods a year. Wow. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist (or even someone only slightly above the drool level) to realize that cannot possibly be healthy.
Weren't you damn glad your boyfriend brought a condom along on the date with the pizza and bottle of wine? Yep. I sure was. But if I'd been smart, I'd have gone to the movie with that nice young man who wouldn't have taken advantage of me. Part of being a responsible adult is not running around like an animal in heat.
Not to mention the fact that condoms are not under pharmacological control. You can get 'em at Wal-Mart, Target, in the bathroom at the truck stop along with some very fine perfume < ahem > or at Bubba's Beer, Bait and Lotto Emporium. If a "responsible" youth can't find a condom to buy they certainly don't need to be having sex. 'Cause they're stooopid.
Idiot! Nitwit!
“due to medical debt” ? Urg — due to medical education debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.