The Bush administration is proposing a new regulation that would discourage doctors and health-care clinics from providing birth control to women who need it. This regulation would require federal health programs to certify that they will hire nurses and other providers who openly object to abortion or contraception in order to receive federal aid to run their programs.
The regulation could seriously jeopardize state laws and policies that protect women's access to birth control. For example, state laws that require hospitals to provide sexual-assault victims with access to emergency contraception could be jeopardized!
Members of Congress are calling on the Bush administration to change course. Please let your members of Congress know that you strongly oppose this attack on women's health and individual rights.
Here's the link:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/123393979?z00m=15841145
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
(I'd give you an 11 for such an important issue, but I can't.)
McSame would continue Bush's disastrous policies on issues such as Birth Control.
A vote for Obama is a vote for women's health.
The rules would also apply to state and local governments, and forbid them from disqualifying hospitals and other institutions that refuse to perform abortions from receiving grant money.
The Times reports that the HSS proposed the new requirement in order to make sure that federal money would not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.”
Those individuals or organizations found discriminating against health care workers or entities who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions” would face the consequence of loss of federal aid.
Those whose religious beliefs interfere with performing their jobs should find new jobs. Better yet, they should never have gone into the wrong field in the first place.
Larry, I don't think any hospital or clinic is being discriminated against for refusing to offer birth control. If they don't want to offer it, they can just refer the patient to a ob/gyn or something.
Once again the pendulum swings far right, as it did when swinging far left. We fought for the right to government grants, etc to support abortion and won. I think it is only fair that those who do not support abortions, birth control also be protected, but not at the expense of discrimination swinging the other way.
Where's the "happy medium"?
I went through this years ago with nurses who suddenly decided they didn't want to work nights or weekends, or on religious holidays. They knew before they went to nursing school, and when they accepted their jobs in a hospital, that patient care was 24/7. Why would they choose that career path if it didn't fit their lives?
Wasn't it the fundamentalists who were screaming when Muslim employees of Target wanted to be allowed NOT to check out customers buying pork products? Which, I think is also ridiculous. Go work in a strictly Muslim market if you feel that strongly about things.
We have the freedom to work where we wish. If you want to live a narrowly religious existence, stick to narrowly religious-type employers. Not public or Federally-funded employers.
This administration has time and again gone out of it's way to do it's best to enforce it's belief system on everyone else. And he did the same thing as governor of Texas. Too bad it resulted in the death of a young girl who in a test run of privatizing a governement system landed this young girls life into the hands of a wealthy supporter of his who believed he could beat faith into her. She DIED.
This is no different than the abstinence only programs, which sounds harmless enough. But what about no federal funding unless the schools confine their sex education to be abstinence only. And it isn't really so bad to tell teens that abstinence, true abstinence is the only way to truly 100% effective way to prevent the spread of STDs and pregnancy. But NO that isn't what it is. It is about teaching them incorrect information. They have to lie to these kids and not give them true information in order to get funding from the federal program. Guess what, since it hasn't lowered the rate of teens having sex, and certainly you have all heard what they are doing sexually that allows them to say they have maintained their "virginity"? Schools need to stand up and let the federal government know that they will forgo the class all together if they are not able to teach them truth over someone elses morality.
And what about the programs to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, and many other parts of the world, and all the last minute pull backs on those programs and the clauses that say "we will give you the help that you desperately need but only if you adopt my morals and values".
And what about the guy who was in charge of Women's Health Issues who said that women who suffer severe cramps should read scripture. And the devil was in the details alright. The details of his divorce. His wife finally left this OB/GYN after being awoken in the middle of the night on several occassions while he ......forced himself upon her but, well not in the more commonly thought of oraface of her body vbut one slightly behind that one. His excuse "he couldn't find her vagina, and thought he was raping her vaginally not anally." ????????????????
These moments of US History have all been brought to you and me over the last 7 years courtesy of W and crew. Seriously who voted for him in 2004 and made the suffering continue? Who????
Why is it that despite all the strides we have made there are still so many out there who are hell bent on telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? It was just a few years ago that a nearby college town ER treated a young lady for rape. She reported it. She went to the ER and they collected evidence whil working to heal her physically. She was not on birth control, for whatever reason, and was given a script for the Plan B pills. She took them to a local pharmacy that was part of a chain and after all she had been through this pharmacist comes down off his perch, no kidding the pharmacy was a good three steps up from the cash registers, and lectured her on how he would not feel the script just because she was careless. He said it was against his moral beliefs. Where does it say that in the dealings of day to day when you encounter someone who does not follow the exact same thing you do that you should scold them, lecture them, deny them, and beat them into following your faith. The pharmacist was dismissed when it hit the news and good for her for doing so.
The real question isn't just birth control, Roe v Wade, Abnstinence Only. It is when will Americans decide to treat others with decency, compassion, intelligence, and equality.?
I wonder how the scales would tip if the subject matter were about euthanasia. Killing the elderly, infirmed, dying patients. It IS a subject concerning individual morals. On one hand we say the health profession is in the business of SAVING lives, not destroying lives. Would a doctor who couldn't conceive of taking a life under any circumstance be forced out of business if he couldn't support such an act?
How do we know if the majority of people support the taking of life, when we are not really involved in that law making by vote. Presidents, law makers, and High courts make those decisions for us. correct?
Are you that naive? Birth control and womens health are completely intertwined.
I believe that if you are against abortion, you should not have one. What others do is none of your business.
That's all that needs to be said.
no, I'm not naive at all. The two are so intertwined that they over look the dangers of health problems it causes women, in favor of not reproducing unwanted children. I have nothing against birth control, except when the health profession uses us as guinea pigs (which accounts for much of the cancer middle aged women face now)
I believe that if you are against abortion, you should not have one. What others do is none of your business.
When it's government funded, it makes it tax payer's business.
Funny how W et al put so many restrictions on things they shouldn't and opt not to regulate things like the futures market and the sub prime housing market and look where we are now.
As for your friends father with his specialty I can tell you that as long as women are having babies there will always be a need for higher risk pregnancy specialist. I seriously doubt that most people who come to see him are even requesting an abortion at least in the beginning. So if he refuses to preform abortions then what does he do say when a woman comes in who has malignant cancer, a heart condition, etc. that will almost assuredly result in her death if she continues the pregnancy? I mean yes there are some who will decide that it is more important to them to take that risk and hope for the best but is it really wrong for someone to decided they would really like to live, maybe raise the kids they already have? Or what does he do when the fetus has died in utero? Technically speaking no matter if labor is induced or the dead fetus is removed surgically it is an abortion? This makes up over 75% of third term abortions. Does he at least provide them with the name of a doctor who will look out for the patients best interest?
My view on abortion is this- if a man can choose not to be a father,(walking out on the woman while she is pregnant or leaving once the child is born and never paying child support or seeing the child) than WHY is it so wrong for a woman to decide not to carry a child to term.
Doing anything to Roe v Wade will just throw abortions into the back alley being performed by unskilled people or leaving women to do it themselves with a hanger. We as a nation are so behind in the times we might as well over turn the high courts decission and let the rest of the world laugh and wonder what happened to this "great" nation.
If woman have the "right to choose" then physicians have the right to choose their own avenues of support.
That's not how I read it. I read it like TJ explained it. I'm not a conservative in many respects. I support a woman's right to chose. I agree that free aid should be available to those who have been raped, and those who must terminate a pregnancy due to complications. I don't support those who behave irresponsibly, and make a practice to do so. I didn't get her pregnant, and I don't want to pay for her poor choices.
Since it is our tax dollar, we should ALL have a say, and the fairness should be equal.
No one should be discriminated against, whether they're pro choice or not. I think it's unfair to force pro lifers to chose between their jobs and their ethics.