Bush's Latest Act of Wizardry: Making Choice Disappear

Maybe President Bush is smarter than he appears. After all, it takes an aspect of cunning to introduce a proposal that would require federally funded medical institutions to hire health care providers who don't believe in abortion or birth control, and present it as an "anti-discrimination rule." I imagine even Houdini could not achieve such an act of illusion.

But it's a pretty cruel trick. The new rule would basically force hospitals, medical schools, clinics and researchers to hire health care providers who don't believe in providing certain medical services.

This may be President Bush's last gasp at an attempt to leave a legacy appeasing the evangelical right that brought him into office. Bush's sneaky attempt to impose his own moral and religious framework onto institutions responsible for caring for the health of our citizens worries many family planning professionals, who say that the rule will result in decreased access to birth control for many women.

Furthermore, the proposal expresses concern about state laws requiring hospitals to issue emergency contraception to rape victims who request it. Is the Bush administration telling hospitals that they have to hire people who will ignore a patient's request AND state law? Bush really knows how to pick worthy recipients of federal funding.

The proposal claims the requirement is needed to ensure that federal money "does not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices." And yet, if this proposal is not a morally coercive and discriminatory slap in the face to women who want a choice for their own bodies, I don't know what is. Help us defeat this proposal and support the choices of our nation's women by signing Progressive Future's petition to the Department of Health and Human Services, asking them to reject Bush's deceitful proposal.



Display:


Ugh (2.00 / 1)

This is like the pharmacists who couldn't be forced to do their job by perscribing birth control pills.

Because it's not like a willingness to actually do your job should be a hiring concern or anything.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST

Re: Bush's Latest Act of Wizardry: Making Choice (2.00 / 1)

The one silver lining is that an administrative rule can also be repealed by the agency, such as when it is staffed by a Democratic appointee.  Also, rulemaking generally takes a long time - what is the quickest that this could be adopted?


by rfahey22 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:46:05 PM EST

Re: Bush's Latest Act of Wizardry (none / 0)

That's not even the worst part of the whole thing- this is how this proposal wants to define abortion:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

I read  about this on DK earlier (diary here).
Here is the actual text from the definitions part of the proposal:

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  There
are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy
begins.  Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the
fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to
begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the
uterus).  A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that
49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception.

Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that
destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy,
and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion."
Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term
"abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has
implanted in the lining of the uterus.

The proposal continues,

Both definitions of pregnancy
inform medical practice.  Some medical authorities, like the American
Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined
the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other
medical authorities present different definitions.  Stedman's Medical
Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female
after conception and until the termination of the gestation."
Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as
"the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body,
after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.

It seems that the HHS wants to define pregnancy according to a Zogby poll, doesn't it?

This is the first step to outlawing contraceptives- redefine "pregnancy", make abortions illegal, and then outlaw most contraceptives such as the pill because they don't prevent conception, but do prevent implantation.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:40:46 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.