[Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule

[Tom Hansen]

BOTTOM LINE:  Criminalizing abortions does not eliminate, or even reduce, 
the instances of abortion.  It merely eliminates the reporting of 
abortions.

In fact . . . criminalizing abortions provides unprincipaled physicians 
with a tax-exempt revenue source.

And, of course, as we all know . . . those, who cannot afford the fees 
charged by those unprincipaled physicians, my opt for the much less 
healthy and potentially fatal "coat hanger" alternative.

Either, or both, of the above options could be easily circumvented after 
thorough counseling as a final option of choice in a clean, safe, and 
legal environment.

Let me close this posting with the comment that I am NOT pro-abortion.  I 
am pro-choice.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
  


> If the business the person in question works for is dissatisfied with 
their job
performance, then it seems it would be up to them to decide what to do 
with that person.
As long as they not breaking the law, why should the government be 
managing personale
issues?
> 
> Perhaps it's up to the Amer. Med Assoc. to decide what qualifies as 
proper job
performance.
> 
> Is the Hypocratic Oath a contract, or an attempt to steer doctors 
towards best practices?
Just like most things, is it open to interpretation? If people believe 
abortion is murder
and unsafe for the woman, how could they in good conscience approve of the 
procedure?
> 
> There are probably nuances to the 'conscience rule' I don't understand, 
and according to
the article in question, it seems Obama is trying to clarify what this 
rule says, which
makes sense.
> 
> I had initially came to the same conclusion as those who criticized my 
final statement in
my last email, until I thought about the implications of complete 
withdrawal of what that
rule meant: government interfering with people's religious views and free 
speech, and by
default, mandating they do things against their morals.
> 
> I had written "ensure women have access to abortions that are as safe as 
possible." I was
talking about the safety for the woman, not the fetus. I also never said 
taxpayers should
be paying it. But now I'll say that it should be covered by Medicaid under 
certain
circumstances.
> 
> I'm no health care expert, but this makes sense to me in my limited 
understanding of it
all...
> 
> gclev
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com, garrettmc at verizon.net
> > Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 12:53 PM
> > Garret,
> > 
> > I believe that abortion is murder in the eyes of God. It is
> > the intentional taking of a developing life. I think any
> > woman that has an abortion should feel more guilty of that
> > than a person who commits accidential manslaughter. They
> > should be highly discouraged from having an abortion because
> > they will have to live with that decision for the rest of
> > their life. 
> > 
> > Having said that though. I don't think a fetus can be
> > considered a person according to the law. It isn't
> > something the law can touch. It is kind of like hating your
> > neighbor, abandoning you elderly parents, or not obeying
> > God. It may be evil and wrong, but you really cannot make it
> > illegal or force people to behave the way you want. 
> > 
> > I think someone that has more children than they can
> > provide for should be charged with child abuse and neglect.
> > A farmer that doesn't feed this cattle and horses goes
> > to jail, so should parents. 
> > 
> > I don't agree with the conscious rule. If you cannot do
> > the job, quit, that is what the rest of us have to do. Does
> > a banker say, "Hey, it is against the Bible to charge
> > such an interest rate." Bullshit, a doctor, lawyer,
> > teacher, banker, and others, everyday do crap at their jobs
> > they have moral problems with. That is the challenge in
> > life, live and not commit sins against the others. You
> > cannot pick and choose the treatment you want to give and
> > withhold based on your feelings about a situation you know
> > little or nothing about. 
> > 
> > 
> > "That being the case, it seems wise to ensure women
> > have access to abortions that are
> > as safe as possible."
> > 
> > Two points, one, it is impossible for it to be safe because
> > it is terminating a life. That is the
> > opposite of safe. 
> > 
> > Second, when people are not ensured to have access to life
> > saving 
> > procedures which they have no control over or decision in,
> > such as certain
> > operations and treatments, why should a woman have access
> > to a voluntary
> > procedure which most people object to wanting to pay or
> > participate in? If she
> > wants to pay for the procedure herself, that is her body,
> > we cannot stop it, but
> > why should I have to pay for it, and make sure she can get
> > one on my dime?
> > 
> > I agree with you about birth control. I think that everyone
> > should be given education
> > about birth control. The government should not hide
> > information.  
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Donovan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Garrett Clevenger
> > <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
> > From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 11:14 AM
> > 
> > The right of woman to be able to terminate a pregnancy she
> > is unwilling or
> > unable to see through trumps the right of a fetus. That may
> > seem harsh and I
> > would never encourage a woman to have an abortion. The fact
> > is, having an
> > abortion is probably the hardest decision a woman will ever
> > make. You can make
> > them feel guilty about that, and perhaps some will choose
> > not to have an
> > abortion, but there will always be some who decide to have
> > an abortion. That
> > being the case, it seems wise to ensure women have access
> > to abortions that are
> > as safe as possible.
> > 
> > According to
> > http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/dept.aspx?PageID=8&ID=35,
> > between 10% to 50% or more of pregnancies end in
> > spontaneous abortion. That
> > being the case, the argument that God wants all pregnant
> > women to give birth
> > becomes ridiculous. Why would there be such a high
> > miscarriage rate if that were
> > so?
> > 
> > It's ironic that many of the same people against
> > abortion also promote
> > abstinence-only sex ed, or try to limit access to birth
> > control, which makes me
> > think they aren't too interested in reducing unwanted
> > pregnancies, but
> > mostly in promoting the idea that woman are baby-making
> > machines.
> > 
> > Which brings us to the woman who recently had octuplets.
> > Does she have the
> > right to have 8 babies at once when taxpayers are going to
> > be paying up to $1
> > million a piece for their post-natal care, particularly
> > when she already has 6
> > kids, particularly when she is a single mom, particularly
> > when she is
> > emotionally unstable? Does the fertility doctor who
> > implanted those 8 embryos in
> > her have the right to do so, particularly knowing the
> > woman's issues?
> > 
> > There are too many kids born into irresponsible households,
> > leading to all
> > kinds of problems down the road that society as a whole
> > will have to deal with.
> > It only makes sense that if there are some who see that
> > they won't be able
> > to responsibly care for that child, or that their pregnancy
> > will lead to health
> > issues for the woman, that they should be given a safe way
> > to terminate their
> > pregnancy. That is a personal decision that government
> > should keeps its nose out
> > of apart from ensuring that doctors are allowed to do their
> > job.
> > 
> > Until all adults are given equal rights to live as they see
> > fit, extending
> > rights to fetuses seems hypocritical since some
> > peoples' rights are thought
> > by some to be a little more special than other peoples
> > rights. 
> > 
> > This issue is yet again another example of religious people
> > trying to force
> > their views on everybody else. There is a reason it is
> > illegal to pass religious
> > laws, and we need to ensure fanatics don't violate our
> > Constitution.
> > 
> > Saying all this, I have to wonder if the 'conscience
> > rule' as I
> > understand it, is a big deal. Isn't preventing people
> > from expressing their
> > religious views all illegal, too?
> > 
> > I'm not too keen on government restricting that right,
> > nor am I keen on
> > government forcing people to do things they aren't
> > morally inclined to do.
> > 
> > gclev
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > g writes:
> > 
> > "Looks as though the right to kill the unborn trumps
> > another's right
> > to 
> > conduct their business as they, in accordance with their
> > conscience and 
> > their morals, deem appropriate.
> > 
> > I guess some peoples rights are a little more special than
> > other peoples 
> > rights."
> > 
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
> >                http://www.fsr.net                       
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 


"For a lapsed Lutheran born-again Buddhist pan-Humanist Universalist 
Unitarian Wiccan Agnostic like myself there's really no reason ever to go 
to work."

- Roy Zimmerman


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/