Bush Admin tries to redefine contraception as abortion

nanna

Devil's Advocate
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1441

(Good to see Bush has his priorities....)


(fair use rules!)

The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is drafting a rule that would place new restrictions on domestic family planning programs. While current law allows health care providers and professionals to refuse to provide abortions based on their religious beliefs, this provision would threaten the funding of organizations and health facilities if they do not hire people who would refuse to provide birth control and defines abortion so broadly that it would include many types of birth control, including oral contraception.

Speaker Pelosi released the following statement on the Administration’s draft proposal:

If the Administration goes through with this draft proposal, it will launch a dangerous assault on women’s health.

The majority of Americans oppose this out of touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush Administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government.

I urge the President to reject this policy and join with Democrats to focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services and access to affordable birth control.

(snip)



nanna
 

BH

. . . .
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]... a rule that would place new restrictions on domestic family planning programs ...

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Maybe this is their way of addressing the upcoming Social Security problems and to build a larger work force/tax base over the next 20 years....

Wonder if I can use that same logic stretch regarding the taxes I owe????

[/FONT]
 

Maryh

Veteran Member
I would say that any pill or device that prevents implantation after fertilization is an abortifacient. It is so sad that children are not looked upon as a blessing in our times. What has happened to so radically change the opinion of society?
 

kozanne

Inactive
Choice is a God given right. Even over and above the Constitution or any other law in any other land anywhere. If a woman [or a couple] decide to abort their child, that is their choice. But they bear the responsibility for their choice, individually, as a couple, and before God. And God knows those who have aborted children for reasons only God and they understand versus those who abort children as a sacrifice on the altar of their own convenience.

Having said that, I worked in a 'womens health' clinic. Contraception is not abortion. Abortifacients are not contraceptives. Contraception prevents pregnancy; abortion and abortifacients are 'after the fact', in a manner of speaking.

To include contraception in the definition of abortion is silly. But I will tell you that I have seen abortion used as a method of family planning. The young ones who think 'Oh, it's okay if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion' have no freaking clue what that means. It is neither quick nor painless. And there are consequences, both physiologically and mentally.

It's the responsibility of the freedom of choice God gave man when he made,formed and created him in the Garden that no one ever talks about.
 

Worrier King

Deceased
What's Junior want, more people to kill off when the globalists make their move towards a world population of 500 million? :shr:

What next, masturbation is classified as abortion?
 

spinnerholic

Inactive
Here we are with our world going down the tubes and Bush wants to tie up Congressional time and energy with this totally insane, ignorant and utterly useless proposal? Congress ought to deal with it by refusing to ignore our critical national problems and just dump this one right into the trash can, where it belongs.

Guess he and his wife only had sex 2 times and that's how he got his two daughters?????

Or, more likely, she long ago refused to sleep with him at all. That's certainly one method of birth control, isn't it?
 

Emily

One Day Closer
Contraceptives are not abortion. I think that people who go to this extreme to argue for the rights of the unborn are seriously damaging the whole discussion.

I think there is a bit of word play going on with Pelosi's interpretation which is typical fear tactics to get people to reject any law to protect the unborn.

If Bush is truly trying to label contraception as a form of abortion then his catechism classes are showing as he is considering becoming catholic like his buddy Tony.
 

Worrier King

Deceased
It is a very Hispanic point of view. I would guess this is targeted at the cheap labor groups to insure plenty of future submissive, compliant Human Resources needed to replace the American middle class Jorge and Bubba and all their other cronies have eradicated.
 

fruit loop

Inactive
Birth Control PREVENTS abortions. For goodness sakes - he wants to define some birth control pills as abortifacients! Lots of women on those aren't even using them for birth control devices....many of them are prescribed birth control to help with endometriosis, severe PMS, ovarian cysts.....do you want to tell your daughter with pelvic inflammatory disease that she must suffer the torments of the damned because George Bush says the pill is evil???

This man is pandering at the expense of women's lives and health, and the unborn babies that will be aborted because he denied their mothers the right to responsibility to avoid conceiving them. How about the babies who will be abused by irresponsible parents because they weren't wanted in the first place? There are some "mothers" who should have gotten Norplant as a court order!

What about rape victims who can't get morning after medication? Is El Shrubbo willing to look a woman like that Austrian incest victim in the face and tell her that she can't have a pill because HE doesn't believe in it????

Leave this between women and doctors. The women who ask for birth control should be applauded for their responsibility!
 

G-Man

Membership Revoked
Today 03:52 PM
fruit loop Birth Control PREVENTS abortions. For goodness sakes - he wants to define some birth control pills as abortifacients! Lots of women on those aren't even using them for birth control devices....many of them are prescribed birth control to help with endometriosis, severe PMS, ovarian cysts.....do you want to tell your daughter with pelvic inflammatory disease that she must suffer the torments of the damned because George Bush says the pill is evil???

This man is pandering at the expense of women's lives and health, and the unborn babies that will be aborted because he denied their mothers the right to responsibility to avoid conceiving them. How about the babies who will be abused by irresponsible parents because they weren't wanted in the first place? There are some "mothers" who should have gotten Norplant as a court order!

What about rape victims who can't get morning after medication? Is El Shrubbo willing to look a woman like that Austrian incest victim in the face and tell her that she can't have a pill because HE doesn't believe in it????

Leave this between women and doctors. The women who ask for birth control should be applauded for their responsibility!
I see no reason to get excited here :shr:

Millions of babies (ie American Citizens :whistle:) have been aborted and I am sure there are millions more to come.:rolleyes:

The Catholic doctrine has always taught aganist birth control (except rythmn method) as a form of abortion; nothing new here.

I assure you Bush WILL NOT do anything to disrupt this. Way too much money to be made among other things.
 

Trek

Inactive
I think there is a bit of word play going on with Pelosi's interpretation which is typical fear tactics to get people to reject any law to protect the unborn.

I'm betting you are right, Emily. The OP quotes from Nancy Pelosi's blog "The Gavel".

Here is the article her blog references:

(Fair Use!) Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “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.”

(snip... article continues at the above link)

It sounds to me like this proposal is putting the "choice" back into "pro choice".

It also sounds to me like this proposal actually brings our country just the slightest bit closer to following the constitution... Remember that little thing in there about freedom of religion???

Anti-abortionists should NOT be allowed to force their beliefs on others, but... the rule works both ways.

Abortionists should not be allowed to force their beliefs on others as well!

This proposal seems to make the playing field just a little more level.
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"I've heard rumors that George Bush has converted to Catholicism"

AFAIK there's nothing to bear this out. Jeb Bush is a convert to Catholicism, which makes some people think that George may follow (George having conversations with the Pope apparently feeds this line of thinking as well); Tony Blair's recent conversion may function in somewhat the same fashion, but both of these converts are married to Catholics, which would be a serious factor, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, according to the Constitution, the federal government has zero role to play in funding any of this stuff, period. Having said that, the proposal's defiition of "abortion" is accurate by any measure of common sense.
And proponents of "choice" are generally adamant that those who disagree with them are not to be accomodated in any way. The concept of rights in that case only goes one way.
 

MataPam

Veteran Member
More unwanted pregnancies are going to raise, not lower, the number of abortions, dumpster babies, abandoned and abused children.

Hey Bush! I gotta plan! Men are no longer allowed to have sex, without a signed and witnessed contract of attempting consensual pregnancy. Any man would ****s without a contract gets gelded.

You can go first.
 

G-Man

Membership Revoked
Anti-abortionists should NOT be allowed to force their beliefs on others, but... the rule works both ways.

*** Abortionists should not be allowed to force their beliefs on others as well!

*** Bingo! and that is what has been happening.....:whistle:
 
Top