Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House proposes wide "conscience clause" on abortion, contraception
CWN ^ | 7/17/2008

Posted on 07/17/2008 4:09:20 PM PDT by markomalley

Washington, Jul. 17, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Under a policy proposed by the Bush White House, the US government would require all recipients of federal health-care payments to certify that they do not discriminate against doctors or nurses who refuse to be involved in abortions.

New White House policies, circulated for comment this week, would ask all institutions receiving federal health-care grants to provide written assurance that they will not fire-- or refuse to hire-- health-care personnel who express moral objections to abortion.

The proposed guidelines extend to some abortifacient drugs that are commonly identified simply as contraceptives. They regulation circulated by the White House seeks protection for doctors and nurses who express moral objections to the use of "any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”??


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; bioethics; conscienceclause; contraception; moralabsolutes; prolife
Good news...if it is able to pass into regulation.
1 posted on 07/17/2008 4:09:20 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Cool!


2 posted on 07/17/2008 4:10:04 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Good news...if it is able to pass into regulation.

The MSM/Libs will do the same mis-information campaign they use on the stem cell taxpayer funding issue... they'll say "Bush proposes ban on abortions".

3 posted on 07/17/2008 4:11:48 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Could be an interesting dilemma for some companies which are located in states which force health care workers to do exactly what the feds say they can’t discriminate against.


4 posted on 07/17/2008 4:12:12 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Oh, the libs ain’t gonna like that at all! They SAY they believe in Freedom of Choice, but it seems that’s ONLY for women to CHOOSE to kill their babies.


5 posted on 07/17/2008 4:12:48 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
The MSM/Libs will do the same mis-information campaign they use on the stem cell taxpayer funding issue... they'll say "Bush proposes ban on abortions".

Actually, it's worse:

Bush Proposal to Change Abortion Definition

Democrats Argue Bush Administration Changes Would Limit Access to Contraception


6 posted on 07/17/2008 4:15:08 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Lies all lies.

Bush is a RINO
McCain is a RINO

A vote for Obama is a vote for the unborn!


7 posted on 07/17/2008 4:15:45 PM PDT by Artemis Webb ( OBAMA/HUCKABEE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; cpforlife.org

ping for your lists


8 posted on 07/17/2008 4:16:09 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

huh????


9 posted on 07/17/2008 4:21:44 PM PDT by mware (F-R-E-E, that spells free. Freerepublic.com baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“{Good news...if it is able to pass into regulation. “

Yes, good news. But why wasn’t this down 7 years ago with a Republican held Congress?


10 posted on 07/17/2008 4:25:47 PM PDT by Miles the Slasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

You forgot your sarcasm tags.


11 posted on 07/17/2008 4:30:57 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes, IF it is passed. I sure hope so. It seems the only protected behavior and/or ideas are the ones that harm people.


12 posted on 07/17/2008 4:32:14 PM PDT by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak; Artemis Webb

The class of 98 never needs sarcasm tags.


13 posted on 07/17/2008 5:32:15 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


14 posted on 07/17/2008 5:33:14 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is as it should be. The government is not in the business of reading people’s souls or interfering with their moral beliefs, though many pinheaded bureaucrats do try. Such a law will clarify the types of limits on government which should be there anyway.


15 posted on 07/17/2008 6:33:53 PM PDT by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

“A vote for Obama is a vote for” KILLING “the unborn!”

I fixed your mistake.


16 posted on 07/17/2008 6:44:41 PM PDT by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
"The class of 98 never needs sarcasm tags."

lol

17 posted on 07/17/2008 6:46:25 PM PDT by Artemis Webb ( OBAMA/HUCKABEE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This would be great.Shame we kill our kids in America.I would also like to see President Bush to get us vouchers for schools other than public before he leaves and give the public a real choice.Spoil us a little Mr.President.


18 posted on 07/17/2008 6:49:48 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
This is excellent. I wonder if he tried to do this when he had a Rep. controlled Congress? I don't remember, but I doubt it could pass either house right now?

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

19 posted on 07/17/2008 7:21:41 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Wow!


20 posted on 07/18/2008 2:46:44 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
This is excellent. I wonder if he tried to do this when he had a Rep. controlled Congress? I don't remember, but I doubt it could pass either house right now?

The proposed action is "rule making," not a law. The "rule" covers how an executive branch agency implements a law (for example, how, exactly, welfare benefits are made, or how, exactly, radio stations are licensed, or whatever). Therefore, the Executive Branch can do what it likes, as long as the proposed "rule" does not contradict a law. Congress has no role in this function at all.

21 posted on 07/18/2008 5:51:20 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Thanks Mark. I wonder why he’s waited to the end of his term. I’m guessing the next prez can change the rule.


22 posted on 07/18/2008 12:59:24 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
I wonder why he’s waited to the end of his term.

I think that he may have just realized that he isn't going to get Congress to cooperate on anything (comment not limited to pro-life issues) and so he may as well do what he can by himself before leaving office.

One other thing, had he done this earlier, Congress could have tacked an amendment onto the HHS appropriation bill (or the Defense Authorization Bill or any other legislation that Bush r e a l l y wanted passed to remove the conscience clause with the force of law. The only way the President could have not signed that amendment into law would have been to veto the whole bill (which might have included funding for Iraq...). Considering that there are a number of pro-abort Republicans, he might not have been able to count on the Republicans in Congress for support to get that amendment stricken out (even when the Repubs controlled Congress).

I’m guessing the next prez can change the rule.

You got it.

23 posted on 07/18/2008 2:01:31 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson