Get Rid of Bush's Last-Minute HHS Regulation

posted by Katha Pollitt on 04/08/2009 @ 08:57am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (57)

Subscribe Now

Thursday, April 9th, is the deadline for comments on the proposed rescission of the Bush administration's last-minute HHS regulation expanding provider "conscience" clauses to allow just about any health worker to deny contraceptive services to women. Under this vague, confusing rule, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a birth-control prescription, and also refuse to get another pharmacist to do so. A nurse could refuse to give emergency contraception to a rape victim, and give her a lecture about "babykilling." Abortion clinics would be forced to hire, and retain, personnel who refused to carry out the very duties they were hired to perform. Nor does the regulation stop there. Conceivably, a health-care worker could refuse to care for a gay, lesbian or transsexual person, on the grounds that to do so would violate their religious beliefs.

The law already provides "reasonable accomodation" for religious beliefs, by the way. This regulation is just President Bush's farewell gift to the religious right. It only takes a few minutes to encourage President Obama to return that gift to the store.

(Thanks to intrepid reporter Cynthia Cooper for the heads up.)

1) Go to this site: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648090229f

2) Sample letter from the Center for Reproductive Rights -- I am writing to support the "Rescission Proposal" to repeal the Provider Conscience Regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in December.

The regulation unnecessarily expands the current laws protecting healthcare workers at the expense of women's access to healthcare. The regulation creates uncertainty that could allow healthcare providers to deny access to contraceptive services by equating them with abortion. In addition, it allows providers to deny women the information necessary to provide informed–consent for their healthcare. Undoubtedly, the women who are hit the hardest by these regulations are the most vulnerable in our society. Many low–income women rely on federally–funded hospitals and clinics and cannot afford to shop around for healthcare providers. By expanding both the types of workers who can refuse services, and the range of services which can be denied, the government is restricting access to health services for those who already face significant barriers in accessing basic healthcare.

I ask that you rescind this unnecessary regulation which only exacerbates the lack of affordable healthcare for women in this country.

[Optional - add your additional comments here]

Your name

Comments (57)

As usual, expect the conversation to be dragged by the Right to abortion...

and carefully avoid the contraception question (no, not even "morning after"...pre-conception contraception).

Why? Because they can't win that one.

Yet the same rule applies. If a Catholic cannot "in good conscious" aid someone seeking contraception, they don't have to.

Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 10:28am
Sounds like another attack on the constitution by the good ol GW. This time a flagrant violation of the first amendment.

If I have religous issues with killing earthworms does that mean I can still operate a trackhoe at work?

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 10:42am
i have decided that this country will never progress so long as there are bush conservatives in positions of power and influence. bush's primary legacy is not the iraq war, torture, wiretapping, katrina, etc: it is sheer stupidity. and his followers are still out there, spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

Posted by darladoon at 04/08/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 10:42am 

I don't see any First Amendment violation here. Granted, it's still terrible policy if Katha is right (for overbreadth alone if nothing else), but I don't see how it's unconstitutional.

Also, the First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law." I know that it's been extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, but I'm not sure it's also been expanded to the Executive Branch, which is key since the HHS is an executive agency.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 11:22am

Thrawn will now slowly back off a position that he so OBVIOUSLY made, saying that the Executive Branch can supercede the 1st Amendment....and engage in several paragraphs of Constitutional discourse without directly answering the question.

Right, Thrawn?

Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 11:14am

If not a violation a blatent attempt to undermine it. So the president can make a law/regulation regulating the free excersie of religion? Lets take this a step further, the president could force an hour of prayer for all federal employees, and he would not be violating their constitutional rights? I can see it every morning at 10am all postal service employees, many against their will, stop get out of their cars, kneel facing east and pray toward Mecca... Sure does not sound constitutional to me. But as long as "Congress" did not do it, it is ok?

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 11:22am 

The thing here is that I'm not sure. Maybe it's been interpreted more broadly than I know of, but as far as I know, provisions that say "Congress shall not X" have been extended only to state governments, not to other BRANCHES of the federal government. As I think about it, though, I'm not sure this is actually a problem because the threat of an executive "establishing" a religion seems almost nil when you realize that virtually no power in the Constitution gives them the means by which to do that anyway. What would the President base it on? The Commander-in-Chief power? The vesting clause?

The other thing, and I think related, is that this isn't an Establishment violation even if it applies completely to the Executive. How does expanding religious freedom (and, I should add, freedom based on "conscience" more generally) violate the Establishment Clause in this context? To argue that it's problematic because it singles out a benefit for religion in general is silly even if true because "singling out a benefit for religion in general" is exactly what the Free Exercise Clause IS.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 12:58pm
"The thing here is that I'm not sure. Maybe it's been interpreted more broadly than I know of, but as far as I know, provisions that say ....."----Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

Like Hannibal Smith on the "A-Team", I love it when a prediction comes together!

"Thrawn will now slowly back off a position that he so OBVIOUSLY made, saying that the Executive Branch can supercede the 1st Amendment....and engage in several paragraphs of Constitutional discourse without directly answering the question."----Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 11:37am

Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 1:03pm
How does expanding religious freedom (and, I should add, freedom based on "conscience" more generally) violate the Establishment Clause in this context?

Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

Because it has the potential to harm others rights by granting existing rights to the religous. It is a infringment upon a patients rights to not give them all of their medical options, just because the patients nurse is uncomfortable proving that information. This basically forces the healthcare providers morality and religion upon the patient.

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 1:48pm
Existing should be additional - oops

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 1:56pm
Well, this is why I think healthcare should be national (and therefore secular). Call me a socialist. I don't mind. I guess I am one -- I did benefit from national health care in France for 14 years while I lived and worked there. I'm very grateful for it, and happy to have contributed to that institution. (Not so, my expensive private health insurance, here, which I resent paying very much!)

Posted by cucarachita at 04/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 1:03pm 

No, your prediction was wrong. I made the same argument as before with the same "maybe there's more than I know" caveat.

Posted by snowball666 at 04/08/2009 @ 1:33pm 

On powers...they didn't just put in "Congress" for the fun of it; canons of interpretation require that we treat that as actually specifying a subject. The only way it can be expanded to the states is the 14th Amendment, and I'm not sure how exactly one would expand it to other organs of the federal government. I also don't quite follow the "lifetime appointments" point; are you talking about appointing judges, because if it's executive officials, they don't have power that the Executive Branch doesn't have (or that Congress doesn't give them), so we're back at Square One.

As for the Clause...I genuinely don't understand your response here. No one's forcing patients to do anything; the only force in play here is NOT forcing doctors to act contrary to their religious beliefs. Not compelling services is not even REMOTELY an establishment of religion by any rational standard. Moreover, free exercise doesn't just mean "the government can't tell you what religion to be." No one has EVER understood it to mean that, even since the very beginning.

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 1:48pm 

No, that's not a violation of rights, and even if were, it's not by the Establishment Clause. First, the decision is made not by the government but by an individual pharmacist, so any claimed denial of rights isn't Establishment by any standard. Second, it's not even a right because patients don't have a right to compel the services of a specific pharmacist to get what that patient wants.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 3:08pm
Nawwww, THRAWN, here's what you do. Modus operandi-wise-

1. Knee-jerk right-wing response to something.

"Also, the First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law." I know that it's been extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, but I'm not sure it's also been expanded to the Executive Branch, which is key since the HHS is an executive agency."----Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 11:14am

In other words, Congress can't interfere with Free Speech...the States have had that prohibition extended to them, but "I'm not sure" it's been extended to the Executive Branch. So, the Exec doesn't need to protect Free Speech...a standard right-wing response, given the Right's innate love of authority invested in the President, not Congress.

2. Then when called on it, you start backpedalling and adding caveats...

"The thing here is that I'm not sure. Maybe it's been interpreted more broadly than I know of, but as far as I know, provisions that say ....."----Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

3. And finally, a verrrrrrrrrrry long dissertation on the Constitution with conservative interpretations that will go on for seven or eight posts and counter-posts.

When the basic question, that will get buried in that morass of text, is....do you stand by your ORIGINAL and OBVIOUS implication that the Executive Branch of the Government isn't required to defend Free Speech? Yes or No?

Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 3:31pm

First, your account is just wrong. The caveat was built in from the very beginning; in fact, it was in the part you quoted:

<<Also, the First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law." I know that it's been extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, but I'M NOT SURE it's also been expanded to the Executive Branch, which is key since the HHS is an executive agency>> (emphasis added)

Second, that's the best answer I can give you. If the Court has said otherwise, I don't know, but I have a hard time seeing how prohibitions explicitly on Congress would apply outside Congress. How do we know this? Because the only basis for incorporation to the states was a new provision: the Fourteenth Amendment. Since it has NOTHING to say about other branches, I don't know how this WOULD apply to the Executive.

So, from my own limited state of knowledge, I'd maintain that any prohibition in the Constitution that is specific to Congress does not apply to the Executive. Even then, as I said, the Executive can only do what the Constitution empowers it to do.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 4:46pm
What is overlooked in this article by Katha Pollitt is the other side of the coin.......health care workers not having adequate protection from discrimination should they not wish to participate in abortions (baby killing).

She says the law provides reasonable accomodation for religious beliefs.

I for one am not willing to defer to the opinion of Katha Pollitt or trust the word of Katha Pollitt with regard to that, nor should anybody else.

She, after all, had a recent article advocating a national day of appreciation for Baby killers!

We see in many other areas now where leftist policy and increased government control is going to be the order of the day for some time now (until January 20, 2013 when President Sarah Palin takes office as the 45th President of the U.S.). President Obama is going full throttle with his agenda.

Thus, the last thing that should happen is for laws which protect health care workers if they do not want to engage in baby killing to be changed or rescinded or repealed.

In the leftist Obama government, the propensity will then be to go the other way, those health care workers who refuse to engage in baby killing would have worse discrimination, lose their jobs, and be subject to ridicule and condemnation and scorn.

We see this with global warming (soon to be called the generic "climate change" as the earth is now cooling) where those who do not buy into that are condemned as "deniers"

We certainly do not need a leftist society where those who do not want to kill babies are treated as outcasts and accused of not wanting to provide people health services and blamed/accused for inadequate health services in some cases, despite what the truth really is.

In the leftist world, truth doesn't matter, only the agenda does.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/08/2009 @ 5:01pm
Because it has the potential to harm others rights by granting existing rights to the religous. It is a infringment upon a patients rights to not give them all of their medical options, just because the patients nurse is uncomfortable proving that information. This basically forces the healthcare providers morality and religion upon the patient.

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 1:48pm

Despite the attempts by the left to portray this as the right trying to dictate to others, it is actually just the opposite.

the left is trying to dictate under the force of legal threat if someone refuses to violate their own moral conscience.

They are all for it when it comes to war resistance, but let someone find the unborn to be worth protecting and suddenly your individual beliefs and citizenship rights are out the window in the name of leftist ideology and infanticide.

This is indeed a slippery slope. It is the continued onslaught of leftist and ant-faith forces to impose their will on anyone who disagrees with them.

Mark Levin has correctly called it the Tyranny of Liberalism.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 5:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 5:25pm

No one if forcing these people to work in offices that provide fertility and family planning services. If they have ethical issues based off their chosen religion they should find a job somewhere else. Furthermore, patients of these clinics expect to recieve unbiased medical options. Allowing medical profesionals to bias their counseling or treatment based off their personal beliefs undermines the medical and scientific standards of the profession.

"they are all for it when it comes to war resistance"

Not really the same thing, no one is being drafted into work for family planning clinics. Anyone who enlists in the armed forces in this day and age and does not ever expect to be placed in a situation where they may have to kill someone is an idiot and if they refuse to follow orders they should be court martialed.

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 6:21pm
No one if forcing these people to work in offices that provide fertility and family planning services. If they have ethical issues based off their chosen religion they should find a job somewhere else. Furthermore, patients of these clinics expect to recieve unbiased medical options. Allowing medical profesionals to bias their counseling or treatment based off their personal beliefs undermines the medical and scientific standards of the profession.

"they are all for it when it comes to war resistance"

Not really the same thing, no one is being drafted into work for family planning clinics. Anyone who enlists in the armed forces in this day and age and does not ever expect to be placed in a situation where they may have to kill someone is an idiot and if they refuse to follow orders they should be court martialed.

Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 6:21pm

This issue surfaced regarding Pharmacists. Pharmacies are not the same as family planning clinics. Pharmacists should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 6:25pm
it's obvious that sjchermak and antisocailist....

didn't read the article.....

or completely misunderstood it.

Posted by darladoon at 04/08/2009 @ 6:33pm
darladoon,

I can assure you I did not misunderstand anything. I understand the ramifications of what is being considered by the Obama administration regarding this.

I also understand fully how pro-Baby killing Obama is. His past actions and votes speak for themselves.

And I understand fully where Katha Pollitt is coming from regarding this. That understanding became loud and clear the day the article appeared on this site where she advocated a national day of appreciation for Baby killers.

There are people on the left who are pro-abortion (most all), but when one starts advocating a national day of appreciation for abortionists (Baby killers) then that moves it to another level altogether.

You tie all this together and you can see there is no misunderstanding at all.

If you imply that I misunderstand, then you are just applying the standard ploy by the left that seems now to be in use in a lot of areas, such as arguments about the definition of socialism where leftists try to imply Obama is not inclined that way and Conservatives who say so do not really understand what it means, etc.... all designed to divert attention from the agenda Obama is pursuing to move the country towards socialism as much as he can.

One would have to ask, what is it about you leftists that you keep trying to hide your agenda?

Is it because you know it will not be accepted if people see it for what it really is?

Slick Willie tried to argue what the definition of "is" is, but compared to some of you on the left, he was just a rank amateur at this game you play.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/08/2009 @ 7:07pm
Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 1:48pm:

So, go to a different health-care provider.

Posted by pyeatte at 04/08/2009 @ 7:36pm
Mark Levin has correctly called it the Tyranny of Liberalism.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 5:25pm

And as Jon Stewart corrected called it...

you guys confuse "tyranny"...

with "losing".

Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 9:34pm
OATH OF A PHARMACIST The revised Oath was adopted by the AACP House of Delegates in July 2007 and has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association. AACP member institutions should plan to use the revised Oath of a Pharmacist during the 2008-09 academic year and with spring 2009 graduates.

"I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns. I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients. I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me. I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence. I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession's "MORAL", ethical and legal conduct. I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care. I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists. I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public."

It the MORAL part that the Obamanation of desolation and the Demoncrats despise and HATE so they will just get rid of it!

Next the hippicratic oath of Doctors is going to take a hit! The evil ones must get rid of this;

#4.To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

Now were talking some real control of citizens, right Obamanation?

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/08/2009 @ 9:46pm
And as Jon Stewart corrected called it...

you guys confuse "tyranny"...

with "losing".

Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 9:34pm

Like you, Stewart is just as wrong. It is pure tyranny from the left that is intended. They want to choke out any views that are contrary to their own,

Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:05pm
Like you, Stewart is just as wrong. It is pure tyranny from the left that is intended. They want to choke out any views that are contrary to their own,

Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:05pm

Can you even begin to describe how this is so LVL? A person can deny to provide someone medication and then deny them access to it through someone else. That is taking away patients rights. If the person doesn't want to do their job they should get another job plain and simple. If they think it is unethical to provide birth control then they can get a job where they don't have to provide birth control. It should not be dictated that they can refuse to help and then on top of that block them from getting help elsewhere.

The scope of this law is absolutely ridiculous and for you to not be able to acknowledge that show a complete and utter brainwashing. This is a slippery slope indeed because it could lead to Christians refusing to care for atheists. This law is basically protecting physicians from having people on their staffs who refuse do their jobs. You guys seem to always be keen on protecting the right of employers to fire workers who refuse to do their jobs but right now you are defending a law that forces employers to hire people who they KNOW will not do their job and then not allowing them to fire them BECAUSE they are not doing their job.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2009 @ 10:56pm
They want to choke out any views that are contrary to their own,

Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:05pm

Again LVL you use these broad strokes generalizations that belie an opinion not worth hearing. If you constantly make statements like this you sound like the nuts on the left who claim the right is trying to turn our government into a fascist dictatorship. Now if you actually believe this then fine but you had better know that every time you make a statement like this you deflate the rationality and consequence of every statement you have made before this because in the end you are no different than any other conspiracy nut.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2009 @ 11:03pm
They want to choke out any views that are contrary to their own,

Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:05pm

And aren't you also the one who once reminisced about the good old days when anyone who openly discussed their opposition to a certain war would be shot as traitors? I would say THAT is a want to stifle views contrary to your own. Or how about the multiple journalists who were arrested under the Bush administration. Or the NSA tapping journalists? I would say THAT is attempting to stifle views. Yet you defend that because they were "leftists" but when someone on the left tries to defend a patients right to receive ALL options for care from their doctor and defend business owners right to hire people who are actually going to do their jobs, you say that is about just stifling peoples views.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2009 @ 11:16pm
On the last note. LVL. Let's say an engineering firm hired an engineer to work on satellites. When the employee found out that the satellites were for military application that employee refused to participate in anything that had to do with military application and in one way or another stood in the way of the firm building things that had military application.

Would you defend the firm and say they have the right to fire that employee because he is refusing to do his/her job and may be standing in the way of certain people receiving what they ordered or would you defend the government if it stepped in and said they have no right to fire the employee even if they are refusing to do their job based on a moral objection?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2009 @ 11:53pm
They want to choke out any views that are contrary to their own----Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 10:05pm

Really? Fox News getting shut down? For all his whining about the "imminent imposition of censorship via the Fairness Doctrine", has Rush been silenced?

OR in fact, is Obama doing what guys like you want...and making Rush MORE the voice of opposition as the "face" of the Republican Party?

Did you ever consider Larry that having guys like you talk MORE and be out there MORE....is the best thing for the Left?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 07:48am
On the last note. LVL. Let's say an engineering firm hired an engineer to work on satellites. When the employee found out that the satellites were for military application that employee refused to participate in anything that had to do with military application and in one way or another stood in the way of the firm building things that had military application.

Would you defend the firm and say they have the right to fire that employee because he is refusing to do his/her job and may be standing in the way of certain people receiving what they ordered or would you defend the government if it stepped in and said they have no right to fire the employee even if they are refusing to do their job based on a moral objection?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2009 @ 11:53pm

The fallacy in your argument is that an employer should be free to hire or fire whomever they want; but when you interject govt law, you have removed the liberty from the employer and now you have totalitarian govt.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:15am
Really? Fox News getting shut down? For all his whining about the "imminent imposition of censorship via the Fairness Doctrine", has Rush been silenced?

OR in fact, is Obama doing what guys like you want...and making Rush MORE the voice of opposition as the "face" of the Republican Party?

Did you ever consider Larry that having guys like you talk MORE and be out there MORE....is the best thing for the Left?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 07:48am

I didn't say that you have been able to accomplish this yet, but a great many on the left want to see this happen.

It is only the best thing for the left in terms of appealing to their viewpoint. For any American who actually learns the constitution, it will not aid the left. The left relies heavily upon the ignorance of the vast majority of Americans on the Constitution.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:18am
Here is some food for thought (or gasoline on the fire, perhaps):

There are Catholic-run and owned hospitals in this country.

I would think most of them do not have any baby-killing at their facilities.

The Obama administration is working to set laws impacting baby-killing to the way Obama wants them.

What happens, if a woman with the full compliment of reproductive rights that people like Katha Pollitt say she has and claims the Constitution guarantees, decides she "needs" an abortion and shows up at a Catholic hospital and is told to go somewhere else?

Will that hospital be condemned by people like Katha Pollitt as refusing to provide health care?

Will the hospital be excoriated and crucified for denying the woman the ability to exercise her reproductive rights?

Will the hospital legally be able to do that?

Will the hospital have to kill the baby if requested, or face legal trouble if it does not?

Will the hospital be required to have baby-killers on their staff, if some on the staff do not want to do that.... OR.... will the requirement be that anybody on the staff must kill the baby if requested?

On the opposite end of the spectrum but kind of the same subject, there is euthanasia allowed in the Netherlands. When does the push to allow that start here? Is that on the Obama agenda, or has the left tabled that for a future lib president?

These are valid questions, because in the brave new world of the left, it is a short hop from libs having an opinion about something to libs condemning you if you do not do what they think you should, and then another short hop to legal requirements put in place to make you do what you do not want to do, because a lib thinks you should.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 11:28am
I didn't say that you have been able to accomplish this yet, but a great many on the left want to see this happen.---Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:18am

SO it has happened, but you know that's what they want.

So if I said "George W. Bush wanted to bug my phone, but he hasn't been able to accomplish it yet"...same deal?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 11:50am
As usual, expect the conversation to be dragged by the Right to abortion...

and carefully avoid the contraception question (no, not even "morning after"...pre-conception contraception).---Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 10:28am

Again, I love it when a prediction comes to pass...

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 11:28am

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 11:51am
Mask,

I was unaware of your prediction because I have gotten into the habit of ignoring some of your posts (i.e., your BS) unless you are specifically asking me one of your loaded questions.

You seem to have been aware that the subject would be "dragged" to abortion.

It is obvious you have no clue why.

With regard to the circumstances of the topic (health care workers who by conscience do not choose to do certain medical related functions), abortion (Baby-killing) is by far the most serious concern. It is logical that the conversation be "dragged" to that... you of course would like to see that it is not.

This once again demonstrates an attempt by the left to cloud and obfuscate the issue, and divert attention from the real problem.

This is getting to be a standard theme by you on the left:

1. The left (on this site) will claim that something Obama wants to do is not as leftist as it is being portrayed to be.... OR ... that what Obama wants to do is not really what Conservatives say he is trying to do.

2. The left will say Conservatives really do not understand the issue or the terminology.

3. The left will say Conservatives are trying to divert discussion away from the important things to some standard topics that are "third rails" in political discourse.

4. The left thus implys that Conservatives are raising a ruckus over nothing. (much ado about nothing).

5. The hoped-for goal is that the left will convince people not to pay attention to Conservatives.... and an even more hoped for goal is that the left can convince Conservatives to meekly back off.

6. If 5 is achieved, then Obama is free to put the throttle down and implement agenda that otherwise would not see the light of day.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 12:07pm

Well, back on topic (and not another screed about "The left wants to kill and eat me")....first things first, so we know where you're coming from...

Do you think use of contraception (not the "morning after" pill, but PRE-fertilization contraception) is moral?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 1:10pm
Mask,

The left doesn't want to eat and kill me. The left says it is opposed to killing, unless it is Baby-killing... and the left promotes eating organic foods. I am not a baby or an organic food.

The left wants Obamas agenda implemented.... despite the fact that me and other Conservatives do not want it.

As far as contraception, at the moment I am more concerned about stopping the Obama efforts to change policy that could put those who do not want to engage in Baby-killing at professional risk.

Let's concentrate on that, shall we, instead of your diversions?

You think you can hop in and divert me, but I am communicating with someone (you) who still owes me evidence that WXYZ television in Detroit (not Massachusetts) is biased towards Israel in their news stories. As you can see, I am not easily diverted, I still have you listed as owing me an answer on that one.

Since you want your questions answered, I will answer another one of yours with a question of mine.

You say George W. Bush wanted to bug your phone. Why do you say that?

Are you a potential terrorist in a foreign country communicating with someone in the U.S, or you someone here communicating with a potential terrorist on foreign soil?

Those are the only circumstances where wiretapping happened or was going to happen?

If not, then George W. Bush did not want to bug your phone, and you know that.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 1:36pm
Typo above,

My sentence above "Those are the only circumstances where wiretapping happened or was going to happen?"

should have been

"Those are the only circumstances where wiretapping happened or was going to happen." (ending with a period instead of question mark)

That portion started out as part of the question in the paragraph above, but then I decided to break it off into a separate sentance and forgot to take out the question mark.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 1:40pm
Mask,

I know what is coming next so I had better head it off.

You will say the contraception issue is not a diversion because, after all, that is the significant part of Ms. Pollitt's article above...... and then you contend that I am going off topic.

However, Ms. Pollitt's bringing up the contraception issue IS A DIVERSION, because the most important issue with regard to this whole subject is the Baby-killing..

The left seeks to dilute the impact of that and dilute Conservative opposition to Obama policy by discussing peripheral issues that are not as contentious as the Baby-killing... and then seeks to show that Conservative opposition could make it difficult for someone to get contraceptives, and thus the left seeks to make Conservatives seem wrong and reactionary and trying to impose their morality on others, etc etc...

In other words, the left is doing what I said earlier in the thread. The most significant impact of the policy is on the Baby-killing.

In this case you are not doing the initial diversion, Katha Pollitt did that for you. You are just trying to return to that diversion and avoid the meat of the subject.

On the abortion issue, the left does this all the time by always highlighting those for who abortion is a difficult situation filled with trauma upon people in difficult circumstances......as they paint Conservatives as uncaring monsters..... hoping to draw attention away from the fact that the left wants wide open unrestricted abortion paid by taxpayers......available to any woman no matter what, including those who are "choosing" because it is a lifestyle choice and they do not want a baby to hamper their life plans.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 1:50pm

No, actually what's coming next is proof that you're as gutless as your AM radio mentor.

You're fine talking abortion and keeping the pro-life and Catholic conservatives happy...but you won't answer on contraception because you SUPPORT the use of contraception. (So does Rush, otherwise we'd have seen a bambino from ONE of the three wives atleast)

But to support contraception drives a wedge in the pro-life movement...and you know it. Hard-line Catholics as well as some fundey/evangey Protestants OPPOSE contraception of any kind....but that position is so radical and wild-eyed that almost none of the country, not even "mainstream conservatives" like yourself can defend it.

So...you WON'T answer my first basic, ground rule-setting question...because it immediately hurts your with your allies.

Not a dumb move strategically...but a dishonest one nonetheless.

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 2:44pm
When anesthesia was invented, numberless christian clergy denounced it as against god's will--pain and suffering, of course, being god's source of amusement.Imagine all the screaming surgery victims had that "conscience" prevailed.

Posted by godistwaddle at 04/09/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by Extraneous at 04/08/2009 @ 10:42am 

I don't see any First Amendment violation here. Granted, it's still terrible policy if Katha is right (for overbreadth alone if nothing else), but I don't see how it's unconstitutional.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2009 @ 11:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

"Overbreadth" is one of the possible criteria for something's being unconstitutional.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/09/2009 @ 3:13pm
Overbreadth isn't by itself unconstitutional unless it results in violation of a constitutional right or undercuts any possible rational basis for the policy.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2009 @ 3:17pm
So something can't be unconstitutional unless it involves a violation of a constitutional right?

Sounds good to me.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/09/2009 @ 3:36pm
Mask,

Your question was not a "basic, ground rule setting question" ... it was a "continue Katha Pollitt's diversion question".

You walked right into the whole 9 yards about this... explaining why you want to engage in discussion in the "contraception arena".

You clarified for all why you, Katha Pollitt, et. al. do what you do.

If you can move the topic from Baby-killing to contraception, then you can start playing Conservatives off against each other. We both know that there are disagreements and controversies about this topic.

If you find a Conservative that supports contraception, then you can start to try and weaken the arguments of those who don't or stoke dissention amongst the right that you hope will benefit the left.

If you find a Conservative that does not support contraception, then you put the hammer down and crucify them becaause you say if they oppose contraception and they oppose abortion then are they saying people should not have sex at all unless they want to make a baby, etc...and then you start portraying them as super moral hypocrites or idiots because they are not realistic, etc...

And you do all this in order to divert the topic from Baby-killing.

And the fact is the topic at hand, the situation the Obama administration is considering now, has the greatest impact on those who may be in danger professionally or job-wise if they try and excercise their conscience and not kill a baby.

The impact of somebody handing out or not handing out contraceptions is minor compared to this.

And this argument at the moment is not even about the legality or permissability of the Baby-killing...it is just about the ability for people to not engage in it if their conscience says no.

I will have to continue.

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 3:48pm
Mask,

So the real issue is whether there will be protection or not for those in the medical community who do not want to kill babies.

That is the actual issue at hand regarding what the Obama administration is contemplating.

The issue at hand at the moment is not the legality (by our law at the moment) of the baby killing.

The issue at hand at the moment is not anywhere near as much how it will impact those who work at a pharmacy or own a pharmacy and sell contraceptives.

The reality is that there are many people who are opposed to Baby killing who are not opposed to contraception.

And there may be many more among those who don't like the idea of contraception but would still sell contraceptives to someone in a pharmacy. Even if one is opposed to contraception..if they do sell the contraceptives nevertheless that is hardly the moral issue in their conscience as killing or not killing a baby would be.

Thus the people who are impacted by the issue at hand with regard to contraceptives is a much smaller group than people impacted by the Baby-killing issue.

That is why I have said that Katha Pollitts article about this issue is a typical diversion from the major problem....it brings up a peripheral issue.

And you wound up explaining why...explaining why you and she want to divert it that way...you did not do that intentionally, of course, you thought you were explaining my or other Conservative's behavior.

Two questions for you:

1. You indicated my "move" was dishonest. How so? How is identifying the lib attempts at diversion and identifying the real issue a dishonest move?

2. You again mention my "AM Radio Mentor". Will you explain (I know you won't) what your fixation with Rush Limbaugh is?

Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 3:59pm
The fallacy in your argument is that an employer should be free to hire or fire whomever they want; but when you interject govt law, you have removed the liberty from the employer and now you have totalitarian govt.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:15am

So this is you basically saying you want to side step my question instead of answer it because it demeans your entire argument if you say yes you would defend them and proves that the only reason you are arguing this is because it's being pushed by those "leftists".

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2009 @ 5:04pm
I didn't say that you have been able to accomplish this yet, but a great many on the left want to see this happen.

It is only the best thing for the left in terms of appealing to their viewpoint. For any American who actually learns the constitution, it will not aid the left. The left relies heavily upon the ignorance of the vast majority of Americans on the Constitution.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:18am

I love that you make general assertions about the minds of people you know nothing about LVL. Should I say that in your mind you want the government to take over my personal life. Monitoring everyone 24/7 and waging war after until we "spread democracy" to the entire world and they are all bent to our will? Jesus you sure are arrogant to think you can speak for an entire people that you neither agree with nor know anything about.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2009 @ 5:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/09/2009 @ 11:28am

Don't worry SJ, Catholic hospitals are exempt from performing any abortions and dispensing contraceptives. The Federal government won't force them to do it because the hospitals are deemed part of the Catholic church. That applies to all religous hospitals.

Posted by ACook at 04/09/2009 @ 7:51pm
The fallacy in your argument is that an employer should be free to hire or fire whomever they want; but when you interject govt law, you have removed the liberty from the employer and now you have totalitarian govt.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 10:15am

So this is you basically saying you want to side step my question instead of answer it because it demeans your entire argument if you say yes you would defend them and proves that the only reason you are arguing this is because it's being pushed by those "leftists".

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2009 @ 5:04pm

I didn't sidestep anything. You cannot equate a private employers decision with govt forced action.

I would as I stated support the right of a business to fire the engineer. But I'm against the govt passing a law dictating when an employer should hire or fire.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 9:08pm
I didn't sidestep anything. You cannot equate a private employers decision with govt forced action.

I would as I stated support the right of a business to fire the engineer. But I'm against the govt passing a law dictating when an employer should hire or fire.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 9:08pm

They already have weighed in when they said an employer CAN'T fire someone who doesn't want to sell contraceptives or a clinic being forced to keep on someone who refuses to perform their job. So then you are FOR this law. Bush weighed in on the matter with this Regulation that basically said a private employer is not allowed to fire someone because they refuse to do their job. So then we are in agreeance that if an employee refuses to sell contraceptives or to give accurate information about abortions then the employer should have the right to fire said employee, which means you should be FOR the repeal of this regulation not against it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2009 @ 10:06pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2009 @ 10:06pm

We're coming from two different issues on this.

You are talking about the hiring and firing.

I don't believe that is the main purpose behind it.

I think it protects workers from being forced by the consumer to go against their religious beliefs.

It is simple enough for an employer to interview prospective employees on sensitive issues that could arise in the performance of their duties. both the employer and the employee would then make an informed decision. If the employer felt that he could accomodate any faith issues, there should be no problem. Any customer could either be serviced by another employee or go elsewhere.

If those services are not available anywhere locally, they could make other arrangements or seek to find those who would see a market for their need and set up a business to service that need.

That is how we should function if we actually operate by the US constitution.

As a business owner I reserve the right to provide my services to whomever I choose. Consumers are free to seek services elsewhere if they desire.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/10/2009 @ 8:43pm
Right does not mean correct. So stop kidding yourselves. It may be the direction you look to find some arrogant loudmouth to tell you what opinion to have, but that's all. The left is truly the remainder (what's left)of decency and humanity. If you disagree, ask your self, "How can I be pro-life and pro-war at the same time? The only answer possible is that you are incapable of thinking for yourself and must have someone do it for you. May I suggest finding a puppeteer that isn't paid by republicans to form your thoughts. Most have no opinion without consensus. Only the strongest can swim against the mainstream. Please don't respond unless you agree. And if you don't agree have some one nail your right foot to the floor and walk, eternally, around your left while you argue with yourself. I don't want or will I respect your opinion so save your time. By respond against this posting you will only confirm your stupidity and inability to reason.

Posted by RICKDAY at 04/10/2009 @ 9:11pm
"It is simple enough for an employer to interview prospective employees on sensitive issues that could arise in the performance of their duties. both the employer and the employee would then make an informed decision. If the employer felt that he could accomodate any faith issues, there should be no problem. Any customer could either be serviced by another employee or go elsewhere. "

That's the problem. This regulation makes it so he CAN'T screen out employees for their relgious beliefs even if he wants to.

"If those services are not available anywhere locally, they could make other arrangements or seek to find those who would see a market for their need and set up a business to service that need.

That is how we should function if we actually operate by the US constitution. "

Things never function like they are supposed to in a social system. You think a poor person who can barely afford to travel to medial area close to them can travel long distaces to get another service?

"As a business owner I reserve the right to provide my services to whomever I choose. Consumers are free to seek services elsewhere if they desire."

And employers should be allowed to fire employees who don't do their jobs. Whether you think this is the way it is going to be used or not it doesn't matter. The scope of the law is much much much too wide and it CAN be used in this way which is why it is incredibly dangerous.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2009 @ 9:18pm
Posted by RICKDAY at 04/10/2009 @ 9:11pm

another arrogant leftist snob who hates democratic debate

Posted by antisocialist at 04/11/2009 @ 12:28pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2009 @ 9:18pm

there is nothing in the regulation that prevents an employer from screening applicants for this issue or related issues.

You are still out in left field with your interpretation.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/11/2009 @ 12:30pm
1. The people who have abortions have lives, too. Sometimes they have other children, who need their support.

2. If abortion is not legal, and available, many of these people will wind up in renal failure from gram-negative sepsis, blood loss( folks, that can be fatal) or neutered as the result of emergency surgery, IF they're lucky enough to get medical care in time

3. Life may begin at conception, I, personally have my doubts ( have you ever heard of the placental cancer that IS a "product of conception"?). but our system pretty much ensures that it is not supported after birth.

4. As a health care professional, I have too often been involved in things like hip surgeries that were "emergencies" because "the patient won't live long enough" to wait 2 days for a schedule opening.

5. Our health care system needs to be funded( how about the medical insurance companies whose CEOs are getting bonuses?) with the SOLE objective of getting reasonable care, without bias, to those who need it.

6. Thanks for your attention.

Posted by etherbunny at 04/14/2009 @ 5:44pm