 
|
Isn’t life in a theocracy grand where science and open thought are laughed into their place and we can impose our will on those Godless heathen liberal states and people who, for some reason, we can’t yet toss out of the country? Especially woman who think they own their bodies? Ha! Good times, good times…
The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.
Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.
[…]
Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”“We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women,” Ms. Gallagher said.
That’s the thing these religious “right to lifers” won’t tell you: this doesn’t stop with banning abortion.
So, receivers of fed $ have to have a non-discrimination policy. Pretty standard.
I’m looking for the truth past the hyperbole.
Notice, it says in the article above “all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.”
So, in other words, you cannot refuse to hire a nurse for your hospital based strictly on the fact that she’s pro-life. How is this re-defining birth control or abortion???
Looks like the nutballs have decided changing the topic is easier than addressing issues. But, then, that’s not news either.
If I own my own body and have complete control of it, why can I have a legal abortion but I can’t legally sell my extra kidney? (Seriously, I could use the money).
I think that is the current requirements of law except for the certification part and more importantly except when there is a valid job requirement to provide the services?
Imagine a family planning clinic. Can they require the only nurse present on the night shift provide all their patients with information about all their options? Right now, such employers can require pro choice nursing staff. Whether common sense will be an exception under this new rule will be subject to litigation.
This is dumb. If the employer requires the employee to perform a lawful service, and they refuse on moral grounds, they should be fired and replaced with somebody who will.
Ultimately, this is what happens when you allow the government to meddle in hiring decisions. This just happens to be a situation where you all don’t agree with the meddling.
Nice spin, only it’s talking about discrimination based on personal beliefs. And why should tax payers pay for it anyway?!
Not to mention the 30 or 40 million Americans who have been murdered thanks to Roe v. Wade anyway.
See? I can spin it too!
and since abstinence is a form a birth control………….
#13, adm,
Besides the one on your head, do you have a point?
#15, people aren’t very consistent with their definitions of ownership anyway – if the products of your labor can be taken from you at the whim of another person, how much of you do you really own? I don’t see what all the fuss is about; it’s not like these sorts of things should be unexpected by now.
Sorry, Uncle Dave, but the root of the proposal is about discrimination.
“it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.””
This draft relates solely to entities that take government money, and by law the government cannot discriminate on religious or moral grounds.
Anti-discrimination laws – very much to the left’s credit – has changed the public landscape. They have opened up society to the point that a Black man has a very good chance of becoming President! That’s a good thing.
But there is always two sides to every coin.
Case in point. The ACLU sued the Boy Scouts of America because the Boy Scouts refused to hire Gay troop leaders. The ACLU argued that the since the Boy Scouts were benefiting from the government (mostly in the use of government buildings, but also with some funding), that they were required not to discriminate based on moral grounds.
Well, the only options left to the Boy Scouts was to either hire Gay troop leaders or entirely separate themselves from the government.
The BSA opted, at great expense, to divorce itself entirely from the government, thereby eliminating these government requirements.
It’s the same thing here. If these medical institutions want government funding, they cannot discriminate on the basis of Religion or Morality.
So, it is no more acceptable or legal for a medical institution which takes government money to hire solely pro-choice workers than the BSA hiring solely Heterosexual troop leaders.
#15, “With such blatant totalitarian behavior you can see why many people think the leftist and their ideology is the real enemy of freedom.”
Today’s Liberals have hijacked the term. They aren’t so much about advocating freedom as they are about pushing a type of coerced fraternity.
#17 MS
Yes you do seem to float far left which is why I answered or maybe even strayed a bit from topic.
As you felt it necessary to attack and label Christians as the problem instead of the people actually doing the deed it seemed like an indulgence worth taking.
I always laugh when someone says “Pah! Those fools aren’t like us free thinkers” because they’re blind to themselves as they laugh and deride anyone who doesn’t ‘free think’ the same ‘free thoughts’ as them.
The sooner liberals accept and admit to being as restrictive and prescriptive as the people they try and dehumanise, the sooner open debate will be possible.
#19 – Sea Lawyer,
Today’s Liberals have hijacked the term. They aren’t so much about advocating freedom as they are about pushing a type of coerced fraternity.
Provide an example if you want people to believe this ludicrous bullshit.
#21 – Technolocheese,
The sooner liberals accept and admit to being as restrictive and prescriptive as the people they try and dehumanise, the sooner open debate will be possible.
Ditto. Example please.
Perhaps one of you neocons would back these claims up with a link? No? I thought not.
Dr. Dodd? Perhaps you have a link to a reputable news article about lefties taking away your rights?
#23 – “Dr. Dodd? Perhaps you have a link to a reputable news article about lefties taking away your rights?”
You mean like illegal gun control laws? There are many examples. Just think for half a second. The right does it too of course, illegal wiretapping, etc.
#18–Ah Yea==close, but no banana. To make the analogy fit, you would have to have the Boy Scouts doing more than refusing to hire. You would have to have the Boy Scouts being required to allow the Gay Scout Leaders to reject heterosexualism and indoctrinate the kiddies into a gay life style. With the Nurse shortage going on its 30th year, Hospitals will hire any nurse they can find==but the nurse has to do all the basic nursing skills when they are the only ones around. This law throws that notion into doubt.
#19 & 21–Sea Lawyer==why are you on the wrong side of so many definitional arguments these days? OBVIOUSLY, there is “liberal” standing for free speech, free inquiry, free practice, free-dom in life’s pursuits, then there is a lefter fringe who would prefer the enforced fraternity you graciously offer. Actually, I would prefer the enforced fraternity of the far left to the labor camps and debtor prisons of the far right==so the liberal side still wins.
#20–Dr D==who else but far right Christians is against a woman’s right to choose? Silly man.
#23, “Provide an example if you want people to believe this ludicrous bullshit.”
Ooh, profanity; the mirror must sting.
“Perhaps one of you neocons would back these claims up with a link? No? I thought not.”
perhaps if you had any clue what a “neocon” is, maybe one could be able to reply to you.
#25, the problem is you only want freedom where it suits you, no different than those on the right. You can’t claim to a champion of liberalism while at the same time throwing up bars around the freedoms you find distasteful.
#27–Sea Lawyer==are you talking to me, or a group of strawmen you fantacize as boogey-woogie liberals? You could find many posts on this blog wherein I say I would prefer x but I realize the majority want y and I say let the majority rule.
But to your misplaced point, any “liberal” such as you describe is in fact not a liberal, but rather either a far left or far right fascist==as you say, not one interested in liberty, liberal values, or freedom.
Don’t let easy labels deny you common sense thinking.
I would love to see one of these right-wing pencil-dicks that toss around the term “liberal” like it was a fucking mental illness actually define what the fuck they are talking about.
What do you think a liberal thinks?
#29 smartalix
>What do you think a liberal thinks?
That’s the problem, liberals rarely think with anything more than feelings and good intentions.
Every now and then you have to step back and view the results.
#28, I wonder, bobbo, if you could glean any distinction between my deliberate use of “Liberal” vice “liberal”? I am a republican, but I’m no Republican.
#30–Dr D==one day you will catch on to how vapid and inane your insight/postings are:
>What do you think a Conservative thinks?
That’s the problem, Conservatives rarely think with anything more than spite and bad intentions.
Every now and then you have to step back and view the results.
So thin, vapid, devoid of critical thinking. You know, if you put yourself to it, you could do better.
30,
I’d love to see you provide a quote from me, and I have written planty here and elsewhere, that is crafted with nothing more than feelings and good intentions. You tar me with a sloppy brush in the attempt to divert attention from the fact you cannot refute any of my points in any of the interlocutions we’ve had.
You call me a liberal without knowing who I am and yet without the ability to debate at a level higher than a grade-school lunchroom. You can’t support your attacks with fats and only exist as a mouthpiece for the fascist assholes that put this country in a deep hole.
The Democrats aren’t really liberal, BTW. they are a spineless group of pussies who long ago abandoned their principles for lucre and political leverage (the neo-cons sold theiir souls for same).
But even the Democrats aren’t advoicating the positions you thrust upon them. But show me some examples and we can discuss it, if you have the ability to do more than bluster.
Misanthrope and Bobbo, I do agree with both of your statements with this exception. This draft involves federal money which means it involves federal employees which means it involves politicians.
While both of you make intelligent and insightful comments which speaks to the root of the issue, I simply don’t have so much faith in most of our elected officials to be able to comprehend these same insights.
Politicians only seem capable of swatting flys with sledgehammers.
So for them, and to get their money, discrimination is discrimination.
All we can hope for is if one doctor or nurse refuses to provide service, that the patient can request another doctor on staff who didn’t earn their degree from a box of Cheerios.
#31–Sea Lawyer==I “feel” you are saying something worthwhile, but I’m not on the same wavelength.
Is you point there is a difference between capital and small letter l/Liberal? Or that the Vice of any given philosophy does or does not define the group?
Whatever wisdom you are offering has to be dumbed down for me to grasp–or be more expository? Or would that be Expository?
#34–Ah Yea==if you’re saying the stupidity that you posted was the governments fault, then you are forgiven. But only in that case.
#33 smartalix
Quite right in your complaint, but you are the one that asked the question.