Author Topic: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals  (Read 2163 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« 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

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2010, 09:52:01 AM »
Santorum's endorsement of Romney said a lot in 2008.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2010, 09:52:40 AM »
Which has zero to do with this issue.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2010, 09:59:40 AM »
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 :)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2010, 10:04:02 AM »
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. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2010, 10:41:20 AM »
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 ;)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2010, 10:43:06 AM »
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 ;)

 ::)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2010, 11:40:12 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

whats the problem?

if they want federal funds they should be required to provide all medical services including abortions.

Its a simple choice

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2010, 07:15:12 PM »
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.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2010, 07:42:13 PM »
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

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2010, 07:53:28 PM »
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

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2010, 08:01:10 PM »
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

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2010, 08:12:09 PM »
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?

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2010, 08:26:53 AM »
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2010, 08:28:23 AM »
Saul Alinsky tactic Number 1 - its right in there. 

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20503
  • loco like a fox
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2010, 11:00:25 AM »
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?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2010, 11:03:45 AM »
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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2010, 11:07:32 AM »
I need my balls washed.  Can an anyone refer me to a federally supported hospital for that? 

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2010, 11:08:38 AM »
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
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2010, 11:13:48 AM »
Sorry you are going to have to go to Africa for that

Maybe Aunt Zeituni is going to wash my nuts? 

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2010, 01:16:06 PM »
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

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2010, 03:58:27 PM »
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

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2010, 04:54:23 PM »
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
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2010, 05:45:26 PM »
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

Arnold jr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
  • fleshandiron.com
Re: A reckless liberal attack on nation's religious hospitals
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2010, 07:18:25 PM »
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.