New Bush Legislation Uses Religion to Deny Federal Funding to Womens Clinics

If you haven't heard, the President is on his last few months, and as many Lame Duck Presidents do..he is paying back those who helped get him elected.

From The Mansfield Herald:

President George Bush is proposing legislation that would deny federal funding to family planning clinics unless they turn a blind eye to health care providers’ views on abortion and certain kinds of birth control, such as emergency contraception.

If implemented, the rule would require family planning programs at hospitals and clinics to hire people even if they oppose abortion or birth control. In other words, health care providers would have the right to refuse to provide patients with comprehensive information about abortion or birth control even if they ask for it.

Providers could also refuse to write prescriptions for birth control or provide referrals for abortion services based on their personal beliefs, adding to a trend that is already reflected in litigation involving pharmacists around the country who argue religious freedoms in their refusal to dispense emergency contraception.

Organizations that don’t comply with the proposed rule could be forced to scale back services due to lack of funding, leaving women who rely on government-funded family-planning clinics with fewer options for affordable services and supplies, Richards said. That would compound their financial difficulties at a time of rising rates of unemployment and higher costs for food and fuel.

What ever side of the issue you are on...the Government Legislating beliefs and religious values is a bad thing.

As I pointed out in the article, Most Presidents spend the last days passing Environmental, Charitable, and Research for Cancer. But Ole' George is going to Legislate Ethics.

I an sure Female Republicans Everywhere are Proud.

 

If your 'personal beliefs' effect your ability to do your job correctly, especially when it comes to health care you have no reason/right to be in that job and should find a different line of work.

At the very least you should have the job in a situation that like minded people who have the same personal beliefs will be your only clientele/patients.

 

I think this is a great thing. And every president does things like this. Not just 'lame duck' ones.
Family planning is just another word for abortion as well as emergency contraceptive.

 

It wont work in reality. There are always others reasons you can find to refuse to hire someone or fire them.

 

I love those who think their morals should be inflicted upon others, especially when it comes to health issues.

 

That's what everyone does is push their beliefs and morals.

 

When it comes to health care beliefs and morals should be checked at the door.

 

#1 Abortion is not just a religious issue. It is also a moral issue with many people. Moral issues guide a lot of medical decisions. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors take is a set of moral and ethical guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

#2 Proposing legislation is a long way from seeing it implemented. The law would still have to be written by the Senate and make it through the political process.

I believe there was a recent court case regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills based upon his religious beliefs. He lost his case when the court ruled that he had to fill the prescription, regardless of his personal belief because the nature of his job required him to do so.

The first thing you learn in law school is that we do not have a legal system based upon laws. We have a legal system based upon legal precedence, which basically means a judge must view a case in terms of how similar cases have been decided in the past. Legal precedence has been established.

A new law just establishes new guidelines to be used to establish precedence for the next court case. Beyond that, it is all a matter of how judges rule on the matter. That is one of the reasons as to why so many new laws are worded so vaguely. The politicians leave it up to the courts to establish precedence.

A proposal from the president means nothing. The president does not make laws except by Executive Order.

 

Atheists always look closely at these sorts of things. because the funny thing about laws or guidelines introduced to promote or protect someones religious views is they can generally be used against the theists for much greater effect. Recently the ID movement have proposed guidelines to "encourage critical thinking" in schools. In their mind this will be used to undermine evolutionary theory and push creationism, But atheists know it would be used to much greater effect to pull apart religious mythology and dogma in religious education classes, Let's "encourage critical thinking" in religious classes too. There are even a few atheist groups thinking about pushing for inclusion of faith based school in this proposal. Imagine that, At the beginning of sermon the priest has to read a disclaimer "the following is from an ancient book and there is no evidence to support the opinion that any of it actually happened. It is for entertainment purposes only".

It already backfired when they got an insert put in evolutionary theory text books saying "evolution is a theory and should be treated as such". It was countered by 1) putting the "disclaimer" in all text book that deal with "theories" and 2) gave the teachers an excuse to take the time to explain exactly what a scientific theory is and how it differs from speculation or supposition.

 

But the great thing about this country is that your views are your right. It is not a prerequisite to be a Christian, or have religious moral beliefs to be an American, and those views and opinions have no place when it comes to making laws that effect everyone, or governing federal funds.

The government is not supposed to be the morality police, their job is to provide laws and order that serve the best interest of the people, not just the "moral majority" (which is a huge oxymoron by the way).

As I say on my blog, If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex, but for you to tell others how to feel, and what to believe, is arrogant, and self righteous, and the federal government has no place to legislate morality. Who's morality ?

You would think with the problems we have now in the world with others hell bent on destroying America and Americans, based on religion, we would be careful to tread lightly not to do the same when it comes to governing our society.

As far as the legislation is concerned about hiring practices...there is not a company in the world that would hire an employee that has reservations about the type of business that they are in.

Beer companies don't hire people who are against drinking, Casinos don't hire people that think gambling is the devils playground. So you cannot legislate that you have to hire people in Abortion clinics, that don't believe in abortion. The last time I checked, Family planning, birth control, and abortions were not free.

What's next, forcing makers of birth control pills, condoms, contraceptive devices to hire devout Catholics who believe, and teach in the rhythm method to their customers?

 

Too bad I do not see abortion as a moral issue but as something that should be illegal for other reasons.

 

...and there are times that I may agree with you, but , as long as it is legal, my beliefs have no place in determining the execution of the law, or who does, or doesn't receive federal funds.

Personally, Except for matters of Life, Death, Disease, Incest and Rape, I don't think Federal Funds should be used for abortions (and I am not sure that they are), but my beliefs serve my interest and opinions, and may not be in the best interest of everyone in the country.

 

#1 It appears there is more to this other than simply abortion.
#2 The law of the land would tend to disagree with you, making it a moral issue NOT a legal issue as you are trying to portrait it.

 

The law of the land is wrong and was based off of a fraud. The constitution clearly is against abortion.

And the religious people have taken abortion to be their main concern but religious people do not know how to debate or to stop abortion. They use the "because its against the bible" argument when that is worthless

But no it is not a moral issue. Though people may make it out to be so.

 

I love this country. "Land of the free - unless you have a uterus". I disagree with Abortion, but I do not believe the government has the moral responsibility to prohibit, just as I believe that it has no right to stop gays from entering the military.

Could you imagine what the Roman Army would have been like under Julius Caesar if no gays were allowed? Very small, and very ill-equipped... as many were bisexual back then. So, why does the government have the audacity to tell a gay man or woman "you can serve, just don't talk about it, because if you do you will be kicked out". However, I do see it as a way to get out of Iraq I suppose... 'They found gay porn! SEND HIM BACK TO THE USA!'

Very funny. Both sides spend, both sides want a bigger government, both sides are determined to do it, and both sides are doing it. One wants a slightly fascist direction, the other wants a socialist direction - none want a smaller government direction. The less rules, regulations, and bullcrap you have clogging the pipes of a legal system while not compromising its effectiveness, the better it will run. The more you leave it up to local governments, the less it will cost.

But then again, our money has no backing except borrowed backing from other currencies... so I figure when they spend a few trillion here and there to bail people out, they're just playing LEGO with the budget. I mean, golly gee, its not like the Soviets ever did thaaaat...

If its gonna die, its gonna die. Stay out of our lives, and get your old white pasty hands out of the collective uteri, and out of our checkbooks and our lives.

 

Please show me how the constitution is 'clearly' against abortion.

You are in fact making it a moral issue, that is how almost all laws are created 'morals'

Again this legislation appears to be more than just abortion as well.

 

I fully agree 100%. I read this thread in full tidusyuna, and I have to say you really want to push your beliefs on everyone else. And that is wrong in my eyes.

At the risk of sounding like guerilla here I have to say that if we allow the government to start making huge moral decisions for everyone, this country is not going to be free anymore. You don't like birth control and want the government to stop its use. But where will it end? It is NOT the governments job to enforce your morals or anyone elses.

Just because I hate mayo on my sandwiches, does that mean I have the right to prevent everyone else from enjoying it?

And if you are morally against birth control, you should not take a job where you will have to hand it out. Nowhere in the job description for pharmacist does it state you are supposed to force your morals on others.

And what if I'm taking birth control for an actual medical condition and not just to prevent pregnancy??? There is NO WAY a pharmacist can see my medical records and has no way of knowing why someone could be taking it. What if I am denied my birth control and die months later from a ovarian cyst that developed because I wasn't on birth control to help level out my hormones? Can my family sue you for wrongful death because you are the one that denied me? These people SHOULD NOT be allowed to play God as they don't know all the circumstances and could be risking lives for their moral beliefs.

 

ya, I agree... it should be all about what is best for everyone.. ...and everyone should have the choices to decide for themselves how they're going to proceed.. ^_^ ...The President is trying some issues to push other ones off the table... this isn't a new tactic and it sure isn't going to be the last time that its used...

 

Excellent post.

Also glad to see a ladies 'I assume you are from your user title' view on this issue.

Nothing like men deciding for woman when it comes to health conditions and their body, hey?

 

Thank you, Grim.

Yes I am female and this particular issue infuriates me. It makes me so angry that people want to infringe on my right to be a responsible woman and not have children until I can stay home and take care of them.

Just because people have the ability to have children, doesn't mean they should have 6 by the time they are 25. All too often I see these people in public causing a scene because they can't afford or control 1 child, let alone 6. I'm doing society a favor by waiting until I am more prepared. I see soooo many younger people these days that act like having a kid is as easy as taking a trip to the mall. I think having a child is one of the BIGGEST responsibilities in life, totally life changing and enjoy the fact I have control of that responsibility.