Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 10, 2010, 09:45:35 AM
-
Let's see how Obama handles this, given his purported attempt to de-politicize abortion.
A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
By Rick Santorum
Liberal elites are once again using health-care policy to advance one of their agenda items, this time on the abortion front.
The American Civil Liberties Union has launched an effort to force religious hospitals to provide abortions. The organization is asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - which controls nearly $800 billion in President Obama's latest budget - to force hospitals to provide abortions or lose federal funding.
The views of the centers' administrator, Dr. Donald Berwick, are so controversial that Obama had to appoint him while Congress was in recess. Now he is overseeing the writing of countless new health-care regulations, and the ACLU can't let an opportunity like that slip by.
Using a handful of mostly anonymous anecdotes about pregnant women who were denied abortions at religiously affiliated hospitals, the group is demanding that Berwick's agency rewrite the rules of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act to force care providers to perform abortions.
The ACLU's argument stands on flimsy legal ground, according to attorneys at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has vowed to defend any hospital that comes under attack. First of all, the law in question clearly requires hospitals to safeguard "the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child." So it's no wonder that no court has declared that it requires religious hospitals to violate their conscience.
Congress passed the 1986 law simply to keep hospitals from refusing service to poor patients. That's not an issue here, because even the ACLU doesn't claim that religious hospitals provide abortions only to the rich.
Of course, the ACLU's lawyers will have an easier time making their case if, as they are asking, Berwick slips in some new regulations that they can cite in arguments before activist judges. If the organization succeeds, it will score two victories: a new path to abortions, and a massive blow to the rights of religious Americans.
That won't bother the ACLU's friends in the Obama administration. In its early days, the administration began to throw out federal regulations that protect the consciences of health-care workers. Soon after, it began pressuring a religious school, Belmont Abbey College, to provide employees with insurance coverage that violates the school's conscientious beliefs.
This abuse of conscience betrays American principles that go back at least to the country's founding, when George Washington respected the pacifist consciences of Quakers. Similarly, since Roe v. Wade and under both political parties, Congress has passed laws that respect the consciences of health-care workers.
In 1973, just months after Roe was decided, Congress passed the Church Amendment, declaring that health-care institutions cannot be required to perform abortions to keep their federal funding. The so-called Weldon Amendment, which has been included in appropriations bills since 2005, says any agency that tries to discriminate against hospitals that don't provide abortions will lose its own federal funds. These laws make a mockery of the ACLU's legal claims.
Apart from the dubious legal notions involved, the ACLU is contemplating an action that could eliminate at least 15 percent of the nation's hospital beds - the proportion provided by Catholic hospitals alone. It's threatening not only to trample the consciences of religious health-care workers and institutions, but to hurt every American through the loss of hospitals, doctors, and nurses who can no longer carry out their ministry of healing.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/104552734.html
-
Santorum's endorsement of Romney said a lot in 2008.
-
Which has zero to do with this issue.
-
Which has zero to do with this issue.
Santorum was ousted for being a moderate. He endorsed Romney VERY early in the 2008 campaign - feb 1st I believe - over more conservative candidates. Santy would love to attach himself to the tea party, and his attacks on "Liberal elites" and the ACLU are a transparent effort to endear himself to the tea party voters for his own future political endeavors. He's as transparent as the rest of the "Romney Tea partiers" that are trying to wash the RINO stick off of themselves by invoking religious emotion.
Enough thinking for me. Football time :)
-
Santorum was ousted for being a moderate. He endorsed Romney VERY early in the 2008 campaign - feb 1st I believe - over more conservative candidates. Santy would love to attach himself to the tea party, and his attacks on "Liberal elites" and the ACLU are a transparent effort to endear himself to the tea party voters for his own future political endeavors. He's as transparent as the rest of the "Romney Tea partiers" that are trying to wash the RINO stick off of themselves by invoking religious emotion.
Enough thinking for me. Football time :)
Which again has zero to do with this issue.
-
Which again has zero to do with this issue.
I think 'motive of the author' is kinda a big deal around here.
When I post something, we always have 3-4 responses of "you're just faking being a conservative to mask your liberal bullshit beliefs"
Same thing here ;)
-
I think 'motive of the author' is kinda a big deal around here.
When I post something, we always have 3-4 responses of "you're just faking being a conservative to mask your liberal bullshit beliefs"
Same thing here ;)
::)
-
Let's see how Obama handles this, given his purported attempt to de-politicize abortion.
A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
By Rick Santorum
Liberal elites are once again using health-care policy to advance one of their agenda items, this time on the abortion front.
The American Civil Liberties Union has launched an effort to force religious hospitals to provide abortions. The organization is asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - which controls nearly $800 billion in President Obama's latest budget - to force hospitals to provide abortions or lose federal funding.
The views of the centers' administrator, Dr. Donald Berwick, are so controversial that Obama had to appoint him while Congress was in recess. Now he is overseeing the writing of countless new health-care regulations, and the ACLU can't let an opportunity like that slip by.
Using a handful of mostly anonymous anecdotes about pregnant women who were denied abortions at religiously affiliated hospitals, the group is demanding that Berwick's agency rewrite the rules of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act to force care providers to perform abortions.
The ACLU's argument stands on flimsy legal ground, according to attorneys at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has vowed to defend any hospital that comes under attack. First of all, the law in question clearly requires hospitals to safeguard "the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child." So it's no wonder that no court has declared that it requires religious hospitals to violate their conscience.
Congress passed the 1986 law simply to keep hospitals from refusing service to poor patients. That's not an issue here, because even the ACLU doesn't claim that religious hospitals provide abortions only to the rich.
Of course, the ACLU's lawyers will have an easier time making their case if, as they are asking, Berwick slips in some new regulations that they can cite in arguments before activist judges. If the organization succeeds, it will score two victories: a new path to abortions, and a massive blow to the rights of religious Americans.
That won't bother the ACLU's friends in the Obama administration. In its early days, the administration began to throw out federal regulations that protect the consciences of health-care workers. Soon after, it began pressuring a religious school, Belmont Abbey College, to provide employees with insurance coverage that violates the school's conscientious beliefs.
This abuse of conscience betrays American principles that go back at least to the country's founding, when George Washington respected the pacifist consciences of Quakers. Similarly, since Roe v. Wade and under both political parties, Congress has passed laws that respect the consciences of health-care workers.
In 1973, just months after Roe was decided, Congress passed the Church Amendment, declaring that health-care institutions cannot be required to perform abortions to keep their federal funding. The so-called Weldon Amendment, which has been included in appropriations bills since 2005, says any agency that tries to discriminate against hospitals that don't provide abortions will lose its own federal funds. These laws make a mockery of the ACLU's legal claims.
Apart from the dubious legal notions involved, the ACLU is contemplating an action that could eliminate at least 15 percent of the nation's hospital beds - the proportion provided by Catholic hospitals alone. It's threatening not only to trample the consciences of religious health-care workers and institutions, but to hurt every American through the loss of hospitals, doctors, and nurses who can no longer carry out their ministry of healing.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/104552734.html
whats the problem?
if they want federal funds they should be required to provide all medical services including abortions.
Its a simple choice
-
Its a simple choice? Not every doctor believes abortion in a "medical procedure". The federal government will spend money on a Africa ball washing campaign, but this isn't OK.
-
Its a simple choice? Not every doctor believes abortion in a "medical procedure". The federal government will spend money on a Africa ball washing campaign, but this isn't OK.
no one is saying someone should be forced to perform the procedure but the hospitals have to provide it
I know you're against wasteful spending and I am too
it woudl be wasteful to spend tax dollars and not get a full spectrum of basic healthcare services
-
no one is saying someone should be forced to perform the procedure but the hospitals have to provide it
I know you're against wasteful spending and I am too
it woudl be wasteful to spend tax dollars and not get a full spectrum of basic healthcare services
abortions which are 99% elective are not a basic healthcare service ::)
thats like saying tit jobs are a basic healthcare service
-
abortions which are 99% elective are not a basic healthcare service ::)
thats like saying tit jobs are a basic healthcare service
I'm glad you picked up on that
they are absolutely a part of basic health care services
that's the point
-
I'm glad you picked up on that
they are absolutely a part of basic health care services
that's the point
sure they are ::)
how about tit jobs? should hospitals be forced to perform those as well?
-
whats the problem?
if they want federal funds they should be required to provide all medical services including abortions.
Its a simple choice
In 1973, just months after Roe was decided, Congress passed the Church Amendment, declaring that health-care institutions cannot be required to perform abortions to keep their federal funding. The so-called Weldon Amendment, which has been included in appropriations bills since 2005, says any agency that tries to discriminate against hospitals that don't provide abortions will lose its own federal funds. These laws make a mockery of the ACLU's legal claims.
-
Saul Alinsky tactic Number 1 - its right in there.
-
Religious hospitals are some of the least deadly hospitals, while academic hospitals are some of the deadliest. If I had to choose between an academic hospital and a religious hospital to have surgery, I'd choose the religious hospital any day.
The Least Deadly Hospitals
Rebecca Ruiz, 01.26.10, 12:30 PM EST
Some regional hospitals do a better job preventing fatal complications than famous academic medical centers.
The following hospitals were designated as among the best hospitals in the country by HealthGrades, a hospital rating company based in Golden, Colo. Their low complication and mortality rates for a variety of procedures place them in the top 5% of hospitals nationwide, HealthGrades says. For more information about how HealthGrades compiles its ratings, please visit www.healthgrades.com/.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/26/hospitals-complications-surgery-lifestyle-health-death-rate_chart.html?
-
sure they are ::)
how about tit jobs? should hospitals be forced to perform those as well?
no but you know full well ( or I assume you do) that elective plastic surgery is not the same as abortion
I'm sure also that there are many breast cancer patients for whom breast implants are part of basic healthcare so in that circumstance I would have no problem having tax dollars spent on breast implants
-
I need my balls washed. Can an anyone refer me to a federally supported hospital for that?
-
I need my balls washed. Can an anyone refer me to a federally supported hospital for that?
Sorry you are going to have to go to Africa for that
-
Sorry you are going to have to go to Africa for that
Maybe Aunt Zeituni is going to wash my nuts?
-
no but you know full well ( or I assume you do) that elective plastic surgery is not the same as abortion
I'm sure also that there are many breast cancer patients for whom breast implants are part of basic healthcare so in that circumstance I would have no problem having tax dollars spent on breast implants
abortion for medical purposes is a legit medical procedure...
abortion for other reasons isnt a legit medical procedure it is elective same as tit jobs for the most part
-
abortion for medical purposes is a legit medical procedure...
abortion for other reasons isnt a legit medical procedure it is elective same as tit jobs for the most part
not exactly the same as a tit job
it's not a cosmetic procedure
it's part of basic healthcare for women
-
not exactly the same as a tit job
it's not a cosmetic procedure
it's part of basic healthcare for women
Give me a fucking break, unless their is a life threatening issue, abortion is elective and no more basic health care for women than a breast enhancment
-
Give me a fucking break, unless their is a life threatening issue, abortion is elective and no more basic health care for women than a breast enhancment
there are critical personal reasons for an abortion that are not life threatening yet that doesn't make it the equivalent of a cosmetic treatment
anyone who has an issue with this probably just has a basic issue with abortion and, as always, if thats the case then don't get one
Right now, all federal employees, including all members of congress and there families have health care coverage that includes access to abortion (and probably vasectomies and gastric bypass surgery too) so I see no reason why we need a double standard for any of our tax dollars that go to pay for healthcare.
All the hospital has to do is hire someone who is willing to perform the surgery. No one is saying that any individual should be forced to perfom the surgery against their will.
Abortion is legal in this country and part of basic womens health care and if we're going to give money to hospitals then they should offer the full spectrum of services or we should give those funds to another hospital that will
-
there are critical personal reasons for an abortion that are not life threatening yet that doesn't make it the equivalent of a cosmetic treatment
anyone who has an issue with this probably just has a basic issue with abortion and, as always, if thats the case then don't get one
Right now, all federal employees, including all members of congress and there families have health care coverage that includes access to abortion (and probably vasectomies and gastric bypass surgery too) so I see no reason why we need a double standard for any of our tax dollars that go to pay for healthcare.
All the hospital has to do is hire someone who is willing to perform the surgery. No one is saying that any individual should be forced to perfom the surgery against their will.
Abortion is legal in this country and part of basic womens health care and if we're going to give money to hospitals then they should offer the full spectrum of services or we should give those funds to another hospital that will
For a lot of women there is a "Critical Personal Reason" for having plastic surgery...they feel butt ugly without it.
This whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
-
there are critical personal reasons for an abortion that are not life threatening yet that doesn't make it the equivalent of a cosmetic treatment
anyone who has an issue with this probably just has a basic issue with abortion and, as always, if thats the case then don't get one
Right now, all federal employees, including all members of congress and there families have health care coverage that includes access to abortion (and probably vasectomies and gastric bypass surgery too) so I see no reason why we need a double standard for any of our tax dollars that go to pay for healthcare.
All the hospital has to do is hire someone who is willing to perform the surgery. No one is saying that any individual should be forced to perfom the surgery against their will.
Abortion is legal in this country and part of basic womens health care and if we're going to give money to hospitals then they should offer the full spectrum of services or we should give those funds to another hospital that will
I guess we just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, I see abortion as ending a life, I guess you don't so there will be no common ground on this issue.
-
I guess we just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, I see abortion as ending a life, I guess you don't so there will be no common ground on this issue.
Abortion is a sacred to the left as Mecca is to muslims.
-
there are critical personal reasons for an abortion that are not life threatening yet that doesn't make it the equivalent of a cosmetic treatment
anyone who has an issue with this probably just has a basic issue with abortion and, as always, if thats the case then don't get one
Right now, all federal employees, including all members of congress and there families have health care coverage that includes access to abortion (and probably vasectomies and gastric bypass surgery too) so I see no reason why we need a double standard for any of our tax dollars that go to pay for healthcare.
All the hospital has to do is hire someone who is willing to perform the surgery. No one is saying that any individual should be forced to perfom the surgery against their will.
Abortion is legal in this country and part of basic womens health care and if we're going to give money to hospitals then they should offer the full spectrum of services or we should give those funds to another hospital that will
LOL you mean to personal life? well there are reasons for tit jobs that arent simply physical as well very personal issues with them as well... ::) ::) ::)
there is that whole little law that allows a docter to not perform abortions...but i guess you want to do away with that?
-
I guess we just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, I see abortion as ending a life, I guess you don't so there will be no common ground on this issue.
good summation
and I agree that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on abortion and it makes sense to agree to disagree rather than debate endlessly
-
In 1973, just months after Roe was decided, Congress passed the Church Amendment, declaring that health-care institutions cannot be required to perform abortions to keep their federal funding. The so-called Weldon Amendment, which has been included in appropriations bills since 2005, says any agency that tries to discriminate against hospitals that don't provide abortions will lose its own federal funds. These laws make a mockery of the ACLU's legal claims.
Good find. Thanks.
-
An abortion when choosen becomes an elective proceedure. When forced it is not. I don't see why a hospital should be forced under the threat of pulling funding to perform abortions when there are plenty of hospitals that will do it.
This is another example of a gigantic waste of time and money by both the federal government and the ACLU.
-
An abortion when choosen becomes an elective proceedure. When forced it is not. I don't see why a hospital should be forced under the threat of pulling funding to perform abortions when there are plenty of hospitals that will do it.
This is another example of a gigantic waste of time and money by both the federal government and the ACLU.
exactly and exactly