Obama To Rescind Bush Abortion Rule

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.