Obama To Rescind Bush Abortion Rule

Critics Say Lame Duck Rule Was Too Broad In Allowing Refusal Of Abortions, Birth Control On Moral Grounds

(AP)  President Barack Obama wants to rescind a Bush administration rule that strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse for moral reasons to perform abortions.

A Health and Human Services official said Friday the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, opening a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

The news that he was doing so drew praise from abortion-rights supporters and condemnation from groups opposed to abortion.

"It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming," said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. "What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences."

McClusky and other abortion opponents said the Bush regulation clarified federal policies and raised awareness about the rights of medical providers to follow their consciences. But abortion rights advocates said it was vague and overly broad, and could reduce access to other services - allowing a drug store clerk to refuse to sell birth control pills, for example.

"I think it's a wonderful step," Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who co-chairs the Congressional Pro-choice Caucus and has introduced legislation to overturn the regulation, said of Obama's move.

"That rule was actually a poorly drafted last-minute attempt to, I think, restrict health care access and I think it would have had far-reaching and unintended consequences."

Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official.

The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.

But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.

"The administration supports a tightly written conscience clause," said the HHS official. "While we are concerned about the Bush rule, we also understand there might be a need to clarify existing laws."

The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision. Options range from repealing the regulation to writing a new one with a narrower scope.

The administration's move was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

[phickey1]

America - find your voice - stand up and voice your objection to this President's action!! Too long have I sat by and watched others stand up for a cause - now I see I have sat too long, for now a right of faith and believe is about to be taken away! Unheard of in this country, yet happening now - right now it is happening! People in the medical field who are people of faith will be bound to uphold a law that is against their basic belief that life is precious and meaningful in all stages. If you are christian, if you are jew, if you are muslim, if you are athiest, if you are anyone who believes in a higher power than yourself, do you not think that this country will pay a large price for turning it's back on the unborn - are they any less alive than we are? America, look to your heart, look to your ancestry, look to your own mother - on this day when we celebrate our mothers - living and dead, we honor them - not only only for giving us life but for giving us love, for giving us a set of beliefs, a faith tradition, whatever it may be - honor it and stand up for the unborn, stand up for people of faith who should not be forced to violate their beliefs for a pay check!! How low do we need to get before we will say "no more? We are people of faith and we cannot allow this!" - Remember the motto of our country that was so dear to our ancestors, they printed it on our currency - "in God we trust" - if we still trust in God, we must stand up and fight against this President taking away our right to have a belief and honor that belief which is more important than any pay check!

[_zj_]

*** IS WRONG WITH YOU BASTARDS THAT ARE OKAY WITH ABORTION..!!
I HOPE YOU ROTE IN HELL AND I WISHED THEY WOULD OF ABORTED YOU!!
GOD HELP US IN THIS UGLY WORLD OF SIN!!
PEOPLE PLEASE REALIZE THAT ABORTION IS WRONG YOU SHOULDN'T KILL ANYONE ESPECIALLY YOUR OWN CHILD YOU SHOULD LOVE A CARE FOR YOUR BABY!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOUR NOT READY TO HAVE A CHILD THEN DON'T OPEN YOUR DAM LEGS.. STUPID PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IM AGAINST ABORTION AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!

[rennin1]

To realnews12: Before any woman ever finds herself in the awful position of having to consider whether to abort her unborn child, this woman has already descended from a vast number of women who gave birth to this woman and her ancestors. Who can say how many of this woman's ancestors were products of rape or incest and who would have been aborted if only their mother had access to abortion? Had even one ancestor of hers been aborted, then this woman would not even exist. But because abortion had yet to be made available on a large scale during the time of this woman?s ancestors, none of these women ever availed themselves of it. While it is entirely natural for a woman to desire to abort a pregnancy that results from rape or incest, the desire to do so has no effect on the human gene pool unless the woman actually aborts the pregnancy. If she gives birth instead, then her natural willingness to undergo abortion when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy gets passed along to the next generation.

Only in recent history has it become possible for abortions to occur on a large scale. As a result it is finally possible for the natural desire women have to abort unwanted pregnancies to have a consequential effect on the human gene pool. I believe the effect of large scale abortion is that it tends to weed out the natural desire women have to abort unwanted pregnancies. Over time as people who exhibit this natural desire get weeded out of the gene pool, we should expect there will be fewer and fewer people to receive and promote values consistent with the natural desire to abort unwanted pregnancies. This desire to abort unwanted pregnancies is what I call being pro-abortion.

I have tried in this forum to avoid personal attacks and to remain focused on the primary issue of abortion. I have communicated my views the best way I know how and have provided what evidence I can muster to get others to think about abortion in a way they perhaps have never considered before. It is not my intention here to offend anyone or to hurt anyone's feelings.

[realnews12]

rennin -- You have thrown common sense out the window. If a willingness to undergo abortion when confronted with unwanted pregnancy were encoded in the genes as you say, abortion would have ceased to exist eons ago. Taking a sentence from a book (about rape, no less) out of context does not change this. Also, I urge you to listen to what your conversational partners are saying rather than simply attributing attitudes and beliefs to them that they do not have. The history of the practice of abortion is a fine topic for research, but this does not imply that complex attitudes and beliefs are determined by genetics as opposed to the myriad influences (circumstances, education, etc.) I referred to earlier.

[rennin1]

You just don't seem capable of comprehending the main point in this whole discussion. Or is it willful avoidance of comprehension?
Posted by realnews12 at 8:29 AM : Mar 4, 2009
-------------
I agree there is some selective non-comprehending going on here; but I'm not the one responsible for it. I refer you to Cheryl Brown Travis' book "Evolution, Gender, and Rape." Dr. Travis is a professor of psychology and is Chair of Women's Studies at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. On page 126 of her book she states "The practice of abortion in the course of human evolution and history should not be overlooked." Well hold on a minute. According to you, the abortion effect on human evolution does not even exist. If people like you have their way, respected researchers like Dr. Travis could be prevented from even entertaining questions related to abortion's effects on human evolution in the first place. Is this the kind of person you really want to be?

Millions of children are aborted every year. These children never have a chance to add their genes to the gene pool. Dr. Travis says that the effect of all of this aborting of children on human evolution needs to be investigated. What is needed here is a metric whereby to measure abortion's effects on the population. I believe that the metric is statistical. Specifically, over time people who practice abortion tend to weed their descendents out of the gene pool. As a result, there are fewer and fewer descendents to receive and promote their pro-abortion values. Dr. Travis says the relationship between abortion and evolution needs to be looked in to. I am saying how it should be measured. The fact that you don't like this changes nothing.

[brainteaser2]

rennin1,
I'd say that your cheese has slipped off your cracker. Or perhaps you need a medication adjustment as you have launched into "word salad" associated with your psychosis.

[realnews12]

Posted by rennin1 at 6:11 PM : Mar 3, 2009

You just don't seem capable of comprehending the main point in this whole discussion. Or is it willful avoidance of comprehension? Whether a person regards abortion as a possible option for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is NOT an inherited characteristic. People are not BORN "pro-abortion", "anti-abortion", or "neutral on abortion" as you suggest. There is no evidence whatsoever for your ridiculous assertion.

A person's views and beliefs are a function of their upbringing, their thinking, their experience, their education, their peer group, and myriad other circumstances that have nothing to do with their genes!

[rennin1]

To andie52: What realnews12 was getting at in his latest post was the idea that while women have abortions for a variety of reasons, no woman ever had an abortion due to that woman being pro-abortion. realnews12 has somehow gotten the idea that when I say someone is pro-abortion that I am saying that that person just likes having abortions. This of course is ridiculous. When I refer to someone being pro-abortion, I am saying this person is in favor of it as an option compared to other choices that present themselves. I believe that abortion is not a liberal issue or a conservation issue; it is a statistical issue. Over time people who practice abortion tend to weed their descendents out of the gene pool. As a result, there are fewer and fewer people to receive and promote their pro-abortion values. This is why pro-abortion advocates must constantly seek converts within the neutral or anti-abortion ranks if they are to continue the pro-abortion cause. The conclusion of this is inescapable: pro-abortion values are unstable and unsustainable without subversion and coercion of people who are not pro-abortion.

[andie52]

If no one is pro-abortion, then why do millions of women have them every year?
Posted by rennin1 at 4:13 PM : Mar 2, 2009

-------------
Here a few of the stats:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

? Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

[Ladiebug]

It's a shame that contributors such as troutfisher9 can't seem to restrain themselves in order to abide by the site's Rules of Engagement so that their posts wouldn't be deleted.

[realnews12]

why do millions of women have them every year?

Posted by rennin1 at 4:13 PM : Mar 2, 2009

Rennin: troutfisher9 posted a very good and informative answer to this question last night in a post directed specifically to you. Did you not see it?

Oddly, his post seems to have been deleted by the CBS censors. It gave a variety of reasons for why women choose to have an abortion with percentage of cases for which each reason is applicable (based on surveys).

Perhaps the CBS editors would like to restore this message since it is integral to the discussion?

[rennin1]

To slownewsday-2009: It is you who seems to be having the comprehension problem here. Since you claim to understand the abortion issue, let me ask you a simple question: If no one is pro-abortion, then why do millions of women have them every year?

[slownewsday-2009]

Well, those who have abortions are certainly pro-abortion. Those who are adherents to abortion ideology are certainly pro-abortion. Those who try to coerce others into becoming pro-abortion are certainly pro-abortion. What about this is so hard to understand?

Posted by rennin1


You appear to be the one who is having the comprehension problem... no one is "pro"-abortion. Just like realnews12 said.

[rennin1]

To troutfisher9: The understanding among genetics researchers that abortion eliminates its own adherents has been around a long time. The same understanding goes for celibacy, homosexuality, infanticide, and suicide. All of these behaviors are genetically disadvantaged and tend to weed themselves out of the gene pool over time. Frankly, as smart as you seem to be I am surprised that you have not heard of this. The only thing odd to me is the need you seem to have to rely on personal attacks to win an argument rather than facing an issue head on.
So you want some evidence? It was Charles Darwin who first stated that our behavior and the attitudes that underpin it are, to a large extent, evolved. That?s his quote, not mine. Perhaps you will agree that abortion is a behavior. If so, then ask yourself why evolution should give this particular behavior any competitive advantage when the genes that underpin it tend to reduce their own chances of survival into the next generation? According to Darwin, the answer is that it would not. So, the genes that cause people to be pro-abortion are at a competitive disadvantage and the people who practice it are constantly weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

[rennin1]

To realnews12: You left out the part where the girl?s boyfriend threatens to beat her brains out if she doesn?t have the abortion. Have never seen a case where a girl gets the crap beaten out of her by her boyfriend but then refuses to press charges against him? You might not know everything about that situation, but you can be sure that she has been subjected to coercion, perhaps because she resisted getting the abortion he insisted that she get.
The pro-abortion ideology is a group of likeminded people. They recognize that abortion advocates are always in the minority. They may or may not know that this is because of the genetic weeding out process that they are constantly subjected to. They also know that there are two other abortion-related groups: the neutrals and the anti-abortion people. The neutrals are a large group, but since they are unorganized, they have almost no say in abortion-related matters. Over time the pro-abortion folks have conceived an ideology that says abortion is a choice issue and that they need to elect government officials to protect it. Once these officials are in place they reward their pro-abortion constituencies by enforcing so-called ethics and morality training programs that government contractors must enact in order to indoctrinate large numbers of otherwise neutral or anti-abortion employees to the pro-abortion cause. By the time the other two groups figure out what?s going on, they must decide whether to become indoctrinated or to lose their job. If that is not trying to force others into a pro-abortion ideology, then perhaps you can tell me what it is.

[realnews12]

Reposted for luke_4m:

IT HAS LONG BEEN FEDERAL LAW THAT MEDICAL PERSONNEL CAN REFUSE TO PERFORM ABORTIONS. THIS LAW IS NOT --- REPEAT, NOT --- BEING CHALLENGED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Bush added a separate regulation attempting to broaden and strengthen this law. It could have unintended consequences because it is POORLY WRITTEN. It is this SEPARATE BUSH REGULATION that Obama is challenging, not the original Federal law about refusing to perform abortions.

The CBS article is poorly written and has a misleading headline.

[luke_4u]

Great, just great ! Makes it just that much easier to kill innocent unborn babies. Geez, am I glad the whackos voted in a stupid left wing liberal, or what ? Kinda makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it ? Nutz ! The libs are well on the way to ruining this country. Unfortunately, if the moral attitude of the voters don't change, they just might get it done. There's another election coming along in 2012, this time I hope the voters will do the "right thing".

[realnews12]

Correction: "after the 2nd trimester" should have read "before the 3rd trimester" in my previous post.

[realnews12]

Well, those who have abortions are certainly pro-abortion. Those who are adherents to abortion ideology are certainly pro-abortion. Those who try to coerce others into becoming pro-abortion are certainly pro-abortion. What about this is so hard to understand?

Posted by rennin1 at 7:49 PM : Mar 1, 2009

Women who choose to have an abortion do so only after considerable soul-searching and consideration of the merits and undesirable consequences of the alternatives. No women is happy about the need to have an abortion. No woman has an abortion because she is "genetically predisposed to have abortions". That truly is the stupidest, most outrageous idea I have ever heard.

Women who choose to have an abortion do so because of the particular circumstances of the undesired pregnancy. Troutfisher enumerated the various possible reasons quite well. A woman who chooses an abortion may choose to have a baby the next time she is pregnant. It all depends on her circumstances. The choice is hers to make in each particular case.

I simply don't know what you could possibly mean by "the pro-abortion ideology". There is no "ideology" involved. A woman may choose to have an abortion regardless of whether she feels abortion is "wrong" or whether she feels it is OK to have one. Some people believe abortion is OK only in certain cases, like when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest. Some people believe abortion is permisable only when it is not being used as a form of birth control. Birth control devices sometimes fail, in spite of the best efforts of the sexual participants.

The idea that there are people trying to FORCE others into a "pro-abortion ideology" is nonsensical to me. It is illegal to FORCE someone else to have an abortion, just as it is illegal to FORCE someone else to carry a fetus to term (after the 2nd trimester). THE CHOICE IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT. THAT IS THE LAW. It was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Is someone trying to force you to have an abortion????

[rennin1]

To realnews12: You said, NO ONE is ?pro-abortion?.

Well, those who have abortions are certainly pro-abortion. Those who are adherents to abortion ideology are certainly pro-abortion. Those who try to coerce others into becoming pro-abortion are certainly pro-abortion. What about this is so hard to understand?