The audacity of President Bush, seeking to protect the right of medical doctors and nurses to refuse to peform or participate in performing abortions.
From Lifesitenews.com (my comments italicized):
Bush Pushes Ahead with Regulations to Protect Doctors’ Conscience Rights
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON D.C., November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In spite of pro-abortion anger and the looming pro-abortion Obama administration, President Bush is poised to sign regulations that will help protect the rights of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions on moral or religious grounds.
The regulations will enforce existing federal law that requires taxpayer-funded medical institutions not to discriminate against medical personnel who conscientiously object to performing abortions or assisting “in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity,” including the distribution of abortifacient contraceptives.
Pro-life advocates have hailed the regulations as a much-needed reminder to medical establishments of their employee’s religious rights under the Constitution. In recent years pro-life doctors frequently claim to have been discriminated against for refusing to perform procedures that went against their consciences.
Abortion supporters, however, continue to wage war against the regulations, denouncing them as a threat to women’s access to abortion. How, exactly? I’m guessing the doctors who would benefit from this legislation weren’t performing abortions to begin with, anyway.
Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced legislation Thursday to halt the regulations, accusing President Bush of “again putting ideology first” in a “last-minute attempt to undermine women’s health care.” Ideology first? Are you kidding me? How is this putting ideology first? I think it is just an adherence to the Constitutional right to religious freedom. Undermine women’s health care? Abortion has devastating physical and emotional effects on women. But, I suppose if one is a Democrat politician, one must blindly bow to the sacrament of abortion if one wants to retain office, all documentable facts aside. Talk about ideology. The legislation cites a directive from White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton that discourages the submission of regulation proposals late in an administration.
Though the proposed regulations do not change federal law, both abortion groups and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency assigned to enforce such regulations, complain that they are redundant and will result in a reduction of abortions. Um, WHAT?!?! Did I actually just read that correctly? I thought a reduction in abortions was a GOOD thing, no matter where one stands on the abortion debate. I’m sorry, I think my head just exploded due to the inability to process that asinine statement.
“It’s unconscionable that the Bush administration, while promising a smooth transition, would take a final opportunity to politicize women’s health,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards. Plus, it would really undermine your bottom line if abortions were reduced, eh, Cecile? Performing abortions is a profitable venture. Actually, politicizing women’s health has generally been the job of the liberal left. Besides, I think this debate transcends “women’s health.” (Although, abortion has been proven devastating on women’s bodies.) Abortion is not necessarily easy on pre-born babies, either. I don’t favor a smooth transition into government-coerced infanticide, sorry. See BAIPA, Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which Obama voted against four times. Not a good indicator that he’s going to forget about his promise to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt sponsored and vigorously defended the regulations throughout the verification process.
“Federal law is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable,” Leavitt told the New York Times.
The religious and civil rights coalition Catholic League released a statement urging President Bush to “move with dispatch” on the regulations, before the Obama administration can snuff them out. Which he will do should he go forward with the Freedom of Choice Act. Remember conscientious objection is fine—as long as it’s liberals doing it.
Catholic League President Bill Donohue noted that the religious rights of Catholic hospitals were soon to be gravely threatened by the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make it illegal for a doctor to refuse to kill an unborn child. Take a moment to let that sink in. FOCA would equire that even Catholic hospitals, of which there are many, would be required to perform abortions. US Bishops have warned that such actions would result in their having to close down Catholic hospitals. That’s a lot of lost jobs and care for the poor. Passing regulations as a last stand for religious rights, says Donohue, will help set up the case against Obama’s extreme agenda against life and the civil right to conscientious objection.
“If Obama wants to undo them, it will set up a confrontation he will surely regret,” Donohue stated. Any liberal and/or pro-abortion people perhaps reading this, you who are so open-minded and tolerant of opposing viewpoints (I’m really trying to type with a straight face here): Would you really support any type of legislation that would FORCE someone to act against his or her conscience? Really? If the answer is yes, I say, “How intolerant and oppressive of you.” If the answer is no, then you might want to reconsider voicing your support for Obama and his quest for such legislation.