Bush administration unveils new abortion regulation

LAT ^ | August 21, 2008 | James Gerstenzang

[fightinJAG]

The Bush administration proposed new rules today that critics say would make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, and for men and women to obtain contraceptives.

After more than a month of internal -- and eventually public -- debate, the administration unveiled regulations that, if enacted, would provide stronger protections for doctors and other healthcare providers to refuse to perform medical procedures -- or, possibly, sell contraceptives -- if such steps violate their religious beliefs.

Jill Morrison, the senior counsel of the National Women's Law Center, told Countdown to Crawford when we reported on the draft regulation in July that it was "essentially a hit list against anything that protects a patient's rights to get access to legal and needed health services" in the area of reproduction.

[wk4bush2004]

They just need to outlaw abortion, period. But this is a good first step. Now the likelihood of Congress passing something like this is a different story...

[scory]

There can be no choice allowed that will oppose the will of Moloch.

[Sacajaweau]

Abortion isn’t a “Needed” health service...and is against the very goal of “giving help and comfort”.

[muawiyah]

Think about it a sec ~ guy goes to a doctor for a vasectomy. The doctor says he's opposed to such surgery on religious grounds, but if he wishes, he'll remove the entire offending organ (reciting an appropriate piece of Scripture in Paul's writings).

Definitely a high risk there ~ on the other hand you have some of these pro-abortion ol'gals who complain that the pharmacist wouldn't give them the "morning after pill" even though there's a guy across the street who will, so they sue the one they went to (even though they knew about the guy across the street).

What kind of nonsense is that. Guess women don't have the same sense of risk the guy's do, nor could they possibly understand eh!

This James Gerstenzang at the LA times seems not to comprehend the difference either. Is he gay or something? Fixed perhaps!

The mind boggles at the sort of people the LA Times hires these days.

[tpanther]

Excellent, extend it to homosexuality being crammed down society’s throats as somehow “normal” now!

[CindyDawg]

An abortion is not needed health care.

[Southack]

Civil Rights Progress!

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Well, well, well. He's either taken his visits with the Pope to heart, or he's just decided to sock the Democrats in the eye with no hope of it passing.

I personally know of some of the most qualified OB/GYNs in the country leaving one of the top ten teaching medical schools/hospitals because they simply couldn't stomach triaging for abortions (and it was mandatory). A lot was lost when they left en masse. No one should be forced to act against his or her conscience.

[SouthDixie]

The Bush administration proposed new rules today that critics say would make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, and for men and women to obtain contraceptives.

Okay, i understand the abortions wholeheartedly but wtf is up with contraception restrictions? Sounds religious and i'm scared.

[the anti-liberal]

Will this make even a dent in the birth-rate nosedive?

[hunter112]

The critics of this rule will not be happy until every health care provider has personally done an abortion.

[Aliska]

No one should be forced to act against his or her conscience.

I certainly agree.

Not exactly on topic, but I stumbled across this old interview by Mike Wallace of Margaret Sanger, a little tedious with the cigarette commercials, but I'd never seen her in on film before. I was rather surprised by some of it especially he seemed a little put off by some of it himself; let's just say she didn't come across to me as someone I'd like to get to know better, not an engagine personality to say the least.

Mike Wallace Interview Margaret Sanger 9/21/57

Maybe some of you had already seen it.

[gidget7]

Scared? You're kidding right? The CRITICS say that. It would do nothing to contraception, except maybe..............maybe, allow pharmacists to opt out of offering the morning after pill. Even if they did, the pharmacy down the street would, so what is the problem?

Abortion is not a for of contraception! Even though libs treat it as such. And Insemination should give doctors the right to refuse for single women or lesbians.

[SouthDixie]

No i’m not kidding...that’s a lot of ‘maybes’ for a FReeper prophet. You are evidently beyond the child bearing years or you would understand. But since that isnt possible, get off your soapbox and talk to the hand.

[timm22]

Okay, i understand the abortions wholeheartedly but wtf is up with contraception restrictions? Sounds religious and i'm scared.

There are some physicians and pharmacists who are opposed to the use of contraception. Probably for the vast majority of them it is indeed a religious issue.

Even so, it's nothing to be afraid of. I think there is only a small minority of people in the medical field who are opposed to the use of contraception, let alone so strongly opposed that they would refuse to provide them to patients/customers.

But even if a lot of doctors and pharmacists DID have religious objections, shouldn't it be there right to decide which products and services they provide? After all, this is a country which embraces free markets and individual liberty. It's *their* practice, *their* business, and *their* reputation at stake.

Forcing them to provide products or services against their will makes them little better than slaves.

[gidget7]

My “years” have nothing to do with anything. I am a conservative, and I do not believe in the taking of innocent life, and absolutely never would partake in the practice. Doctors should not be forced to perform them either. There are plenty of doctors who will. Simple as that.

[WellyP]

This is a sick story but it drives home a point: A very religious overbearing family moved in down the street from me some years ago. I was living in the North East. It was common knowledge in the neighborhood that their daughter, who I remember as a kind of skinny little thing and 11, no I guess she had to be almost 12 year old, was a “hot” little number. She was always grounded but would find a way to she sneak out. As the story played out and the word got around that she had a very active sex life. The boys were not more than a couple of years older than she was. For some reason there was obvious lack of total control over “miss hot pants”. Some questions are better not asked. As anyone could guess, she got pregnant. She was then “sent away” so not to embarrass the family. I never saw her again but learned some time later that THE 12 YEAR OLD MOTHER TO BE AND THE BABY BOTH DIED IN CHILD BIRTH!

You can set blame where ever you want but you have to ask your self this one question, DID THE PARENTS ASSIST IN KILLING THEIR CHILD???????

[Salvation]

**the administration unveiled regulations that, if enacted, would provide stronger protections for doctors and other healthcare providers to refuse to perform medical procedures -- or, possibly, sell contraceptives -- if such steps violate their religious beliefs.**

Catholic Ping!

[SouthDixie]

Ma'am and nor do i believe in taking a life...my contention was the restriction of contraceptives. Goodness gracious, if you are correct and it's just a pharmaceutical gig, it isnt very funny and puts a lot of young people in jeopardy and that isn't fair either. I apologize for my abruptness.