Obama plans to reverse abortion rule

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ajg1959, Feb 27, 2009.

  1. ajg1959

    ajg1959
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 ajg1959, Feb 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2009
  2. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    No...that is not what this is about at all. Did you even read the article?

    This rule that is talked about only deals with money. It stops the flow of federal money to institutions of they don't "certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors."

    There are existing laws that already ban this discrimination. This rule only stops the flow of money if the institutions don't certify that their compliance. The existing laws will not go away and are still enforceable.

    I agree that it's a bad thing to reverse this rule....but you need to make sure you are posting true statements!

    BTW...there's another thread about this already.
     
  3. ajg1959

    ajg1959
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0

    ""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."


    This sounds to me like Obama wants to remove the job protection that some nurses and doctors have that object to abortions?????? What is your point?


    ""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.""

    Clearly it is the intention of the rule to block funds from the federal government to institutions that refuse to protect the jobs of these doctors and nurses.

    I dont understand your objection to my OP (and I did read the article), and I didnt realize that another thread was already started.....and if this irritates you so much then why did you even bother to respond? To irritate me?

    AJ
     
  4. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    It doesn't irritate me that you started another thread. I just let you know. Don't be so touchy!

    The reason I object your OP is because you made the statement "Evidently he plans to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they are pro-life." That's just not true. This rule has nothing to do with forcing anyone to do anything. This rule only deals with withholding money from institutions that don't certify that they will play friendly with other laws. The other laws already allow medical providers to not perform abortions.

    No one, before or after, this rule was forced to perform an abortion. This rule wasn't even put in effect until close to the end of Bush's last term. Was anyone forced to perform abortions before Bush put the rule in effect? No, they weren't and no one will be forced to perform an abortion if this ruleis taken out of effect.

    Like I said, I think the rule should stay in place. It's just one more stupid and immoral thing Obama is doing, but revoking this rule will not "force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they are pro-life."
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    It turned out the rule was too broad, it meant a cab driver didn't have to work on the sabbath by declaring it against his religion. It needed to be a little better thought out.
     
  6. ajg1959

    ajg1959
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0

    I firmly believe that this is Obama's ultimate goal, and I did use the word "evidently"

    AJ
     
  7. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76

    Yes, you used the word evidently, the definition of which is "In an evident manner; obviously." The definition of evident is "obviously true by simple observation".

    Given those definitions, the statement you made said that based on simple observation Obama is going to force medical providers to perform abortion, even if they don't want to. The evidence you gave us for observation was an article that stated nothing close to that and the article you provided even gave this quote:

    So, no it is not evident to me that Obama will force medical providers to perform abortions. Obama is a murderer for sure, but what you've posted is just not true.
     

Share This Page

Loading...