Seriously Why Was He Even Elected?

Published August 22, 2008 by sadistickitten

*taken from another person, just reposting it here*

It has become official.

The Bush administration officially proposes conscience rule protecting doctors who don't want to do their fucking jobs.

You want an abortion? A sterilization? Well, you might not be able to get it. Not just doctors, but anyone from the anesthesiologist to the scalpel-scrubber, could also opt out. Anyone could walk away at any time from a woman who is simply trying to live her life the way she thinks most wise.

Clinics that receive government funds would have to abide by this rule, and could not fire someone for not doing their job, even if they are the only person in a hundred miles who could do it. Even if it is the only abortion-providing facility in the state.

There are no provisions for assisting women who have been denied — none. No statement that a doctor must help the woman find another doctor who will help her. No offers to help with transportation, should a woman need to go to a different city to get help. Nothing. We get nothing. We are their patients and we are not only being put behind our employees' consciences, we are being left with nothing as recourse.

“Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure,” [Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt] said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

No, you fucking idiot, it doesn't change my right to do it, but it is going to mean that thousands upon thousands of women are not going to be able to do it.

You don't have to make a thing illegal to make it impossible to fucking get, and that is the effect this is going to have. That should scare the shit out of every single one of you who values their ability to do as they wish with their bodies.

This is the rule. Not the draft, the actual rule that will go into effect if we do not act to stop it and act now.

The rule goes into effect in 30 days.

We have one month to stop this.

Do something.

Planned Parenthood is fighting this as hard as they can. Make a donation here.

Write to your legislator, telling them you oppose the rule, and asking them to fight it.

The public is encouraged to comment on this. You can send your comments to Make sure to use “provider conscience regulation” as the subject line. All comments will be published for public viewing. So, maybe don't swear or include personal information you don't want available to the public. There are other ways to contact them as well. They are listed
on page two of this document&183;

I posted this in my journal, yes, but I am also posting this here in cf_hardcore because this is an issue directly relevant to being childfree, and the support of the childfree community will be needed to shout this down.

It does not matter how articulate you are. It does not matter that you are a man, or not political, or too busy, or whatever. What matters is that we speak out now so that our voices, the voice of reason, is heard. If they pass this abominable rule, do not let it be because you sat by and said nothing.

Go and do something. Goddammit. Go!




snagged from article:

The Bush administration has proposed stronger protections for health-care workers who refuse to participate in abortions, issuing a sweeping regulation that could also undercut access to birth-control pills and other forms of contraception.

PERSONAL NOTE: Please note the law also means that birth control pills might not be allowed if this law becomes a bill. So if you are taking birth control or the pilll

The Bush administration has proposed stronger protections for health-care workers who refuse to participate in abortions, issuing a sweeping regulation that could also undercut access to birth-control pills and other forms of contraception.

[passing the bill]

The new rules, which could take effect after a 30-day comment period, threaten state governments with a cutoff in federal funding if they force medical personnel to perform, assist in or refer patients to abortion services.

But supporters and opponents of abortion rights said the regulation is ambiguous enough to affect contraception services, including the so-called morning-after pill.

An earlier draft of the regulation had defined abortion to include contraceptive pills, as well as the intrauterine device, which can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The 42-page document issued Thursday doesn't include that definition.

“This regulation is not about contraception. It's about abortion,” said Mike Leavitt, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

But Mr. Leavitt acknowledged that some medical providers may want to “press the definition” and make the case that some forms of contraception are tantamount to abortion.

Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, said she expects members of her group will do exactly that. “It would be pretty excellent,” she said, if states lost federal funding over laws requiring pharmacists to fill birth-control prescriptions.

Activists on both sides of the debate said that hospitals, insurers and HMOs may be able to use the regulations to challenge other state laws, such as requirements that insurers include contraception as part of prescription-drug benefits. Or the federal government could force states to change those laws as a requirement for federal funding. “We fear that's possible,” said Roger Evans, director of litigation for Planned Parenthood.

If the regulation passes, his group would try to convince the federal government that it has “gone awry,” he said. If that fails, he added, the group will consider litigation to block the regulation.

From the other side of the issue, Casey Mattox, an attorney with the Christian Legal Society, expressed strong support for the regulation. “It's about time,” he said.

The religious right — a key ally of Republicans in this election year — has long pressed for more restrictions on abortion and contraceptive access. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has repeatedly said he would enact “pro-life” policies, including expanded protections of life in the womb, if elected. He hasn't signaled his stance on this regulation and declined to comment when asked about an earlier draft.

Barack Obama, expected to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, signed a letter opposing that draft. If he were to win the White House, he could reverse the regulation.

It is unclear how many women might be affected if the regulation takes effect as written. Catholic hospitals account for more than 10% of the nation's emergency rooms, and many would like to be freed from state mandates requiring them to offer emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.

Studies have shown that state laws requiring insurance companies to cover contraception have significantly expanded access for women. But it isn't known whether those insurers would remove birth control from their coverage plans if those state mandates expired.

The Department of Health and Human Services wouldn't comment on any state laws or how they might be affected.

Mr. Leavitt stressed that the regulation “does not affect the rights of patients” to obtain “any legal procedure.”

But it could make access to those procedures more difficult. Institutions and individuals opposed to abortion need not refer patients to other providers, Mr. Leavitt said. That could leave some patients stranded, especially women in isolated areas, or those who need quick access to the morning-after pill.

The number of abortions in the U.S. has dropped steadily over the past two decades and now stands at about 1.2 million a year. More than a third of American women live in counties with no abortion provider.

Opponents of the regulation said they were most concerned about the prospect that some federally funded clinics, which serve mostly low-income women, could assert a right to refuse to prescribe or even discuss birth-control pills with their patients.

“This raises very serious questions about contraceptive access,” said Louise Melling, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project.

Mr. Leavitt has been intensely lobbied about this regulation for weeks, since a draft was leaked by opponents of the Bush administration. Earlier this week, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Political Action delivered 325,000 signatures of protest to Mr. Leavitt.

Other strong criticism came from the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dozens of members of Congress raised objections as well.

In the face of this criticism, Mr. Leavitt wrote a blog post distancing himself from the draft, suggesting that he might not issue any regulation at all.

Thursday, however, he signaled his desire to go forward, citing the need to protect medical professionals. Their right to refuse to perform — or inform patients about — certain procedures is “a fundamental freedom,” he said, “something every American values.”

My comment:

Fuckin' bush!!! He has to get in EVERY little fuckin' bill that he has to pass before he's gone. Wtf? I seriously don't understand why they would do this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: