1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Last-minute Bush abortion ruling causes furor

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Nov 19, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,359
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

    The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

    It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.


    More Here
     
  2. windcatcher

    windcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is good...... Let's see if it will last or carry any weight!

    Any country who' s courts will rule for a religious group to break 5 times a day from employment for prayer, and also who receive informed consent before hire that their work might involve having to handle pork, a meat considered by their religion to be uncleaned and this is deemed as discrimination, ought to protect those who have consciencious and religious objections to taking part in any form of abortive procedure, and should not discriminate against them if public monies are provided for health care.
     
  3. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Ratings:
    +0
    this is good, but the new president will make sure it doesn't last.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    I thought this thread was about a President Bush action, not about the next president.

    Kudos to President Bush for this one.
     
  5. Andy T.

    Andy T. New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Ratings:
    +0
    I thought Republicans never did anything about abortion?

    Donna is right, Obama and other liberals would not tolerate a medical professional holding to his own conscience on the matter of abortion, thus showing that they are not really "pro-choice" but are ardently "pro-abortion."

    Yet another area where there is a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats on abortion, but yet we keep hearing "there is no difference."
     
  6. Agnus_Dei

    Agnus_Dei New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,399
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why wasn't this "last-minute...plan" put into motion some 8 years ago?

    If the Republican's are so against abortion, why didn't the President continue abusing his Executive Orders powers and overtun Wade or inact more sweeping abortion reform?

    In XC
    -
     
  7. Andy T.

    Andy T. New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Ratings:
    +0
    Because this has only become an issue the last few years. Before now, it has always been a given that medical professionals could heed their conscience. But that is not acceptable to the abortion supporters.

    Where in the Constitution does it permit a President to overturn a SCOTUS ruling?
     
  8. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Ratings:
    +0
    according to the op this is the topic, and this si what I commented on
     
  9. Agnus_Dei

    Agnus_Dei New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,399
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd like to see where in the Constitution does it permits the SCOTUS to enforce its rulings, in this case the Wade ruling over each individual State.

    In XC
    -
     
  10. Andy T.

    Andy T. New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ok, according to Roe and subsequent rulings, none of the 50 states can make certain laws to restrict abortion. If a state were to rebel and not follow the Court on this, then the Executive Branch could step in and enforce Roe, et al. (or it could let it slide by not enforcing it). But the Executive Branch cannot step in and say to each state, "You shall not follow Roe." So what exactly do you propose that the Executive Branch do on this?

    I am foremost a Constitutionalist, and we should by all means overturn Roe constitutionally, but not through other means.
     
  11. windcatcher

    windcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Ratings:
    +0
    Right! When individual states have tried to regulate abortions... ie. parental notification required for minors, nix late term abortions, require informed consent and a waiting period for abortion, REQUIRE THAT CLINICS PERFORMING ABORTION BE REGISTERED AND REGULATED BY DEPARTMENTS OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL OVERSIGTH FOR STANDARDS OF HYGIENE, INFECTION CONTROL, AND STANDARDS OF CARE, or reporting of numbers of abortions and incidents related to..... various laws...... they are struck down by the 'higher' courts! The states have to fight their legal battles with tax payer moneys... while these court cases are funded by abortion advocates and PAC monies..... with involvement by the very government agencies which the people would like to regulate.:tear: :BangHead:
     
  12. Agnus_Dei

    Agnus_Dei New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,399
    Ratings:
    +0
    Granted the President doesn’t have the authority to overrule a SCOTUS decision and it’s a shame that such a matter as the Wade decision was ever before the high court to begin with. But as President he can and should voice his opinion and garner support to persuade the High Court to turn the matter back over to the States (which can be done), where it belongs anyway. The Constitution is to protect the people from the Government. But this will never happen and here’s why in my opinion:

    “Abortion” is one of the very few cards the Republican’s have to play during election season. It’s the evangelical vote card and if the Republican’s can keep abortion an issue, then it’s better for them. We’ve had numerous Republican Presidents since the Wade decision and none have done anything to persuade the High Court to do what the Constitution says and that’s to let issues such as abortion be the States responsibility.

    I’m just sick of hearing Republican’s holler we’re against abortion and never do anything about it, but wait until the end of an 8 year term to try and save face and say…see we tried…

    In XC
    -

    PS. My posts aren't directed towards you. I believe we are both in agreement concerning State Rights and the Constitution. I've lost faith in the Republican Party and its issues such as abortion that has yet to be resolved with a Republican Administration that draw my rebuke.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,775
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Great move by President Bush!!

    Will it last? No.

    Obama will reverse it immediately.

    But I'm still glad he did it.:applause:
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Well put...........................
     
  15. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    I suppose most of you, being good Baptists, would support a law prohibiting discriminating against waitpersons for refusing to serve booze to customers?
     
  16. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    Um, that's not within three time zones of the topic at hand.
     
  17. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    My question is why has this provoked a torrent of objections? I don't understand the hypocrisy of the pro-choice side.

    They say a woman has the right to decide what she does with her body yet a hospital or doctor doesn't have a choice? Is federal health dollars only to be used for abortions or stem cell research? I compare this to forcing doctors to do assisted suicides.

    I am really curious to see what if anything Obama does to this legislation. He said in his campaign he was willing to sit down at the table of discussion and I think this is a good icebreaker...
     
  18. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    Very astute observation, I never thought of it this way...
     
  19. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Ratings:
    +96
    My question is where are the Obama voters voicing their approval of this action, late as it may be?
     
  20. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Ratings:
    +0
    President Bush did a good thing!

    Yet, some people are yelling about why he didn't do it sooner...better late than never!

    Some people just can't give credit where credit is due, I guess.
     
Loading...