The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Its supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
In praising the Bush administration last fall, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations."
But opponents of the regulation, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and Planned Parenthood, said it could have voided state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. It could also allow drugstore employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, critics of the regulation have said.
Moreover, opponents of the regulation have said, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers broad protection against discrimination based on religion, spelling out that an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee's practices and beliefs.
"Today's action by the Obama administration demonstrates that this president is not going to stand by and let women's health be placed in jeopardy," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said on Friday.
I find it vile both that anyone wants to use the majesty of the law to force Planned Parenthood to employ healthcare workers who will not perform abortions, or that they plan to do so in order to make Catholic hospitals perform abortions or hand out birth control. I think pharmacists have a perfect right of conscience to refuse to dispense birth control, but the pharmacy has a perfect right of conscience to fire him for not doing his job. What's next? A first amendment right for Christian scientists to become surgeons without performing procedures? A legal obligation for doctors to preside over executions?
The military draft (I'm that old) had exemptions for 'conscientious objectors' but only if they could prove membership in a traditionally pacifist faith such as 'Friends' or 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. It became fraught with controversy as Baptist and Episcopalian and Catholic boys discovered that they were 'C.O.s' but the basic rule seemed reasonable and would carry over today. That is a Hospital accepting Federal funds cannot refuse to perform abortion services unless it can demonstrate connection with historically 'right to life' churches, not just to suit their neighborhood, state legislature or insurance policy-holder. What's so hard about that?
JohnMcC:
Well, I can see two problems with it. For one, it enshrines in law the liberal prejudice that everyone against abortion is just a religious kook trying to impose their will on others. Not so; there are many people who are agnostic and atheist or just not firm theists who yet believe abortion is murder; those ultrasounds and pictures of children's body parts have convinced many non-believers of the utter wrongness of abortion. So requiring an atheist to be a religious objector to get our of killing a kid seems to be a bunch of unfair and potentially 1st A. type issues.
Second, it explicitly puts the government on the pro-abortion side of the argument. This is after years of liberals arguing that states coming out against abortion---including showing women pictures of their unborn child before the procedure---was wrongfully "interfering" with abortion. If the liberals want the state to not regulate the process, then, ahem, they shouldn't be arguing that the state should regulate the process.
However, despite my hatred of child murder and my sympathy for the objectors, it does seem to make sense that if a government is going to state that some children should die---which is what federal funding of pro-abortion-hospitals-only means---then the Catholic/Jewish hospitals and their ilk should just reject the funding. Similar to the law schools that tried to ban ROTC but still get federal funds---i.e. the Soloman Amendment---this is about funding, not forcing.
In my view, the religious hospitals should reinvigorate their donorship process if they want to come back.
Personally, this just shows how committed NotMyPresident is to having children murdered. Every child dead he can get.
There is nothing in the law that allows anyone to pressure Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Many people would like to be confident that they can access necessary healthcare regardless of the religious beliefs of others who stand as gatekeepers, and especially in light of the recent trend toward the Catholic church buying up local hospitals and then denying selected forms of healthcare in that community, and especially given that many communities can only support one local hospital and that is often one that discriminates on a religious basis in providing care. But however much this harms the many women who deserve to have the care they need, on their own terms, there has yet been no recognized claim under the law for the provision of specific services any religious yahoo may choose to deny (other than life-saving services in emergency circumstances).
The "conscience clause" only exempts employees of institutions that do provide needed services from performing their jobs when they decide, for religious reasons, that they don't want to. Even after they take a job at a facility with explicit policies of providing services to patients, under the "conscience clause" an employee may refuse to do so on their own, personal whim. The clause requires referral to another employee, but in practice that requirement is often vacated, and patients (invariably women) have often been harassed, and in many cases outrightly denied, while seeking services at a facility that does, by policy, actually offer them.
In other words, the conscience clause gives all healthcare staff - and not just professionals, but any staff, including technicians, aides, and all the way down to pharmacy clerks - the right to refuse to provide care a patient needs and is otherwise entitled to expect, at a facility that nominally offers it. It does not give patients any practical rights whatsoever, let alone the right to demand that a facility offer needed services in the first place. It gives religious extremists a heckler's veto over other people's healthcare, and prohibits employers from enforcing the simple requirement that employees actually do their jobs, comply with the employers' policies, serve the employers' customers or patients, and provide the services the employer promises and which they have been hired to provide. It gives misogynistic healthcare workers the right to withhold healthcare, in a healthcare institution, from particular patients on the basis of their own personal inclinations and prejudices, and prohibits healthcare institutions from demanding otherwise from their own staff.
There is no serious clash of liberties here. There is only the question whether obstructionist jerks and extremists can claim a legal right to literally force other people to live (or, die) by their religious values in direct defiance of the ethos of their supposed profession and the policies of the institutions that employ and pay them. I hope the answer is obvious.
Inimical? Who talks like that?
Using Megan's reasoning, isn't the government as a whole inimical to liberty?
1.The rights of the unborn are not protected.
2.The reproductive rights of women are not protected.
3.Taxes are used to fund these contradictory policies, so the property rights of taxpayers are violated.
I see no reason why the rights of taxpayers are less important than the others.
Kevin T. Keith:
"There is nothing in the law that allows anyone to pressure Catholic hospitals to perform abortions."
--- And there was nothing in voter literacy tests to suggest prejudice against blacks.
And there is nothing in hate crime legislation to suggest it will be wielded by race-baiters as a club to promote black supremacy.
And the ACLU mission statement doesn't have any mention of targeting religious institutions and promoting child-killing.
"But however much this harms the many women who deserve to have the care they need, "
---Women do not have the right to kill their child.
"necessary healthcare."
---necessary healthcare, in this day and age, never requires murdering a child.
"The clause requires referral to another employee, but in practice that requirement is often vacated, and patients (invariably women) have often been harassed, and in many cases outrightly denied, while seeking services at a facility that does, by policy, actually offer them."
---You're right; its horrible that attempted child murderers aren't allowed to kill a child they could be rid of by waiting to the end of their term.
"withhold healthcare, in a healthcare institution,"
---murdering a child is the opposite of health and care, kiddo.
"misogynistic healthcare workers"
---Sigh. Feminists, and the morons who listen to them. Do you not understand, in your wee little conspiracy-theory minded heads, that the point is to *save the child's life*? Trust me, if I could take everyone one of these children away from these hateful, unloving harpy mothers who would spill their blood *on the first day of pregnancy* I would. Hopefully, science will get there one day.
I don't want a law prevented your precious little bodies from skanking around like Gloria Steinem told you to. I want the law to prevent you from killing the child you got from doing so.
"There is no serious clash of liberties here."
----You're right. 9 months of pregancy is *not worse* than murder. Not by a long shot, kiddo.
Kevin,
Thought of responding to yet another bit of "libertarian" bs, but you did it so much better than I could have hoped to.
Thanks.
And now we have another baby killer, joining our midsts. Welcome, Chris.
There are, indeed, lots of groups trying to legally force the catholic church to offer contraception to its employees, to offer emergency contraception at their emergency rooms, etc. I find that appalling. Just as I find it appalling that a pharmacists would either be forced to supply contraception at his shop, or forced to employ a conscientious objector who didn't want to fill those scrips.
Megan, explaining to the feminist child killing hordes why they are being unreasonable is a nonstarter. They knwo they are being completely obtuse, unreasonable, and muderderous, and they don't care; to them it is all about the end goal: dead children and degradation of the human family.
Personally, I take great comfort in knowing that my political opponents do not merely have different values or opinions, are not simply wrong; they are actively evil.
I take no comfort in it, Lorenzo; for, while a debate on Affirmative-action or tax plans or the bailout is among people striving for the same good, this debate shows the true face of our society, where one half is bent on killing children.
That such a large percentage fights for these murders only shows our inevitable doom as a species.
Imagine the logic behind the "conscience rule" carried over to other jobs:
- A police officer whose religion (and conscience) states that homosexuality is a sin and that such sinners should be stoned comes upon a group of skinheads beating a gay man. If this rule applied to him, he could simply run and walk away.
- A firefighter who believes abortion is murder responds to a fire. The fire is in a building where an abortion provider works. According to the "conscience rule", that firefighter could simply sit down and let the fire rage, and let anybody trapped in the fire burn.
- A Secret Service agent believes that starting preemptive wars is wrong. A protester against the war in Iraq rushes ex-President Bush in Dallas. That agent could step aside and let the protester through.
When you choose certain professions that relate to the health and well-being of others, you choose to help your fellow man first. You don't have to give up your conscience, but you must do your job. If your conscience dictates that you cannot perform certain acts, then it is time to find a new job.
a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations
These efforts, whatever they are, certainly constitute a major infringement of liberty -- if they're backed by the power of the government, that is. But perhaps the regulation being discussed is simply another instance of a cure that's worse than the disease?
Ah, Tom woolf would love if all thsoe child-loving doctors would just get out of hsi way of strangling his child:
"When you choose certain professions that relate to the health and well-being of others, you choose to help your fellow man first. You don't have to give up your conscience, but you must do your job. If your conscience dictates that you cannot perform certain acts, then it is time to find a new job."
---Strawman: only required acts. murdering a child is never required nowadays to save a mother's life.
There are, indeed, lots of groups trying to legally force the catholic church to offer contraception to its employees, to offer emergency contraception at their emergency rooms, etc.
Name one, that's all you have to do, but you can't, because you're full of it. And when hospitals are pressured to provide services it's because they receive public money, which means whatever crackpot theological nonsense they espouse becomes moot. Your god takes no precedence over another's health.
There is no impingement on liberties here, what we see are self-righteous clowns who take their personal beliefs into work with them and expect the rest of us to abide by whatever bullshit they happen to hold dear.
We are speaking of health care, not illogical moral relativism as practiced by our theistic brothers and sisters.
p.s. woolfy, love your nonsequitor comparisons. You baby killers sure do know that confusing an argument with false analogies is the surest way to kill a child!
There is no impingement on liberties here
Yeah, for those who wouldn't know liberty if it bit their rear end.
'NotherDumbRepublican:
"Name one"
---NOW. NARAL. ACLU. Planned Parenthood.
"Your god takes no precedence over another's health. "
----abortion is not for anyone's health. it is for a child's death.
"There is no impingement on liberties here"
--agreed. i think they should forgo funding, then all you liberals can kill the children and show how loving you are.
"whatever bullshit they happen to hold dear."
---like murdering innocent children=wrong. You're right, totally warped man.
"We are speaking of health care"
--murdering a child is neither healthy nor caring, killer.
I personally prowl the streets looking to prevent one-night stands to save infant lives.
I take several cum bullets every night, knowing that at least one of those shots every year would have become an aborted fetus without my intervention.
Are any of you murderers that dedicated?
5:47, obviously an imposter.
Just like a baby killer, to try to conflate "not letting me kill this kid" with "not letting me have sex." That's int he feminist playbook: never let them talk about humanity, because we always look like the heartless harpies we are when they do.
5:51, the real imposter.
I walk the walk to the point I can't walk at all sometimes.
You do the math; 100 ass-fuckings => 1 life saved.
I've saved more lives than Schindler.
love the sex-defamation and gay defamation. Right out of the Gloria Steinem "it's all about sex, kid's need to die" backasswards philosophy.
with scum like this around, we are doomed.
ah, SoV, how I missed you. Tell me, what is it like to murder a child?
what's wrong with murdering a child?
Whether there is a problem depends somewhat on what is meant by "accepting Federal funds." If a hospital accepts a federal earmark to build a new wing, that would seem to justify interference in the hospital's internal affairs to a substantial degree. On the other hand, if what is meant is that the hospital takes Medicare patients, it strikes me to be rather overbearing to expect that merely accepting payment for services rendered should subject the hospital to a host of regulations totally unrelated to that payment or those services. It would also be contrary to the interests of the Medicare patients; they have enough trouble finding doctors without this.
On the other hand, if you don't want to do your damn job, then out the door you go.
5:53, unable to accept my dedication to the cause.
I don't like the taste of cum; but it tastes sweet knowing what I've helped prevent.
I also have many 'regulars' - think of how many harpies they would have inseminated if not for my holes.
I think we should murder children up to age 2. And kill mentally retarded children. They're worthless.
one time, I molested a child. And that time is EVERY THURSDAY.
Rob,
et tu? baby killer Qu'est-ce que c'est?
keep them coming, babykiller, I got all night for you, bitch.
Obviously, since it would mean you save the sperm which would have otherwise become an baby.
Though that would result in you being the 'bitch', no?
Rob, don't bother. This child murderer is conflating his desire for death with his repressed homosexual fantasies, which he tries to project on anyone who rejects his death-dealing ways.
Is impersonating Will Allen and me the best you can do, scumbag?
Surely I expect better from the *well-educated* womyn's studies major. *snort*
BF,
I have homosexual fantasies; that doesn't make me a baby killer.
Tom Woolf every one of your hypothetical's results in either death or injury to a human being. Those of us who object to abortion view it as resulting in the death of a human being. So your hypothetical's don't apply very well.
'NotherDumbRepublican what your propose is to force those of us who do belive that abortion is the murder of a human being to actively participate in murder. You are a self righteous clown trying to force everyone to follow your personal belief that abortion is just a medical procedure and not murder.
It's been years since I've studied a woman. The closest I get is a perfumed asshole.
All for the cause.
Never said it did, Yancy.
ah, imposter, again with his repressed sexuality. dude, just move to SF and come out already.
imposter...imposter...where are you...
Imposter Basic Fact,
How would YOU prevent unwanted pregnancy?
You have a better idea?
All talk.
oooh....not even a minute between posts.
Desperate for a fight?
You're repressing something fake BF
I'm not repressing anything.
I'm celibate by choice.
No sperm of mine is going to go unwanted.
oh, imposter, I love your weak attempts to impersonate.
unwanted pregnancy does not justify murder. Two separate issues.
Ban abortion, throw the babykillers in jail, and we'll talk.
Not spoiling for a fight, kiddo. Just kicking your keister in this one, which, as usual, you started.
typical imposter babykiller----again conflating contorlling sex with preventing murder.
Please follow up with your next repressed cruisin' implication.
imposter...imposter...where are you....
what are we going to talk about fake BF?
or are you wanting to do more than kick my keister?
poor wittle imposter...I've ripped off 4 posts while he tries to stutter out another "you're gay" story.
very smart, babykiller.
and again, not even a minute between your posts.
You're so desperate for human contact?
bless.
I love you.
there you are, imposter! and a fine gay innuendo to boot! My goodness, you've never gotten out of high school, have you?
no, babykiller, nobody wants your keister. unforunately, even out of the closet, you're still at the bottom of your murderous little barrel.
I want to have your babies.
May I suggest, once again, that spoofing somebody else's handle be made a banning offense?
imposter, you know you're not human. lol
I second that!
I've asked Megan several times, Rob. She, apparently, won't do it.
but if you 2nd it, imposter, you know you'll be gone, right?
babykillers: logic left them long ago.
imposter...imposter...where are you...
The true Basic Fact declares victory; babykilling imposter Basic Fact has gone back to his fantasy world.
Given that both Basic Facts have indeed impersonated, then both would banned, since the one not impersonating Basic Fact is clearly impersonating Mike M and sov.
I'm actually about to go out - apologies for not having your intensity/insanity.
Can hang around for a bit, if you want to save my sperm.
I've won, baby killer.
admit it.
to imposter at 6:29pm
nice try, kiddo. Megan has my email and I've talked with her on several exchanges. She's well aware you're a little liar.
I'm so sorry you picked a fight and now are running away. But cheer up; maybe you can have some that illicit gay sex you keep implicating me with.
another imposter at 6:31?
It boggles the mind how many of these baby killers are obsessed with me. In a really latent homsexual sort of way.
"I won" is reserved for you classless liberals, 6:31. For now.
Once again, child murderers:
The true Basic Fact declares victory; babykilling imposters of Basic Fact has gone back to his fantasy world.
Basic Fact,
If Megan was even partially aware of IP addresses, it would be clear you've impersonated Mike M, and sov in this thread.
Megan is in constant contact? how wonderful, and yet completely at odds with her not contacting you a week or so ago.
Why is gay sex such a smear for you?
don't you just love the liberal mindset?
Sanity: stealing someone's identity to take cheap shots at them when you can't raise a point for yourself.
Insanity: defending yourself from such attacks.
No wonder the NYU kids act like this. Liberalism really is a mental disease.
My fantasy world as opposed to your bipolar passive aggressive fruitcake realm.
How are gay people killing children?
ah 6:36 imposter:
"Constant" contact? Nope, didn't say it, baby killer. once again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. So you're little gotcha fails. But hey, thanks for playing.
"several exchanges", fucknuts
sorry for paraphrasing in a way that you disagreed with.
and sorry your mommy didn't love you.
but at least she only left you in a dumpster.
6:37 imposter:
Never said they did. You're the one trying to suppress his gayness by convoluting it into some weird obsession with those of us who would save children's lives.
I'd suggest counseling for your projection issues, since every personal attack from you is mainly based on my sexuality and your obsession with it.
It's like SWF, but for the interwebs.
6:40 imposter:
Hey! You finally admitted you were wrong! Good job, kiddo!
And I love how "being absolutely wrong in my reading, which led to my erroneous conclusion" = "paraphrasing in a way you disagree with"
Ah, the baby killing way. Change the language, and it's not alive!
Love the sex-defamation and gay defamation.
Posted by Basic Fact | February 27, 2009 5:53 PM
Yes you did fucknuts. It 'defamed' you, if you can remember posting this without your meds.
A week ago, Megan had never emailed you.
Now she has emailed you several times.
Yes, huge change in language.
I could change 'dumb cunt' to something else, but you would still be alive.
imposter 6:43:
I'm writing this slowly, because I know you don't read fast.
You asked "How are gay people killing children?" (6:37Pm)
I said "Never said they were." and I didn't. I said making implications about one's sexual activitites and orientation is defamation.
Not murder. Defamation. Look them up.
QED, babykiller. QED.
imposter at 6:46:
"A week ago, Megan had never emailed you."
---I said she had never emailed me about stopping my actions. At the time, she hadn't.
However, I have complained to her both *before* and *after* that about various things, and she has courteously responded.
Not huge change in language, kiddo. Nuance. Learn some. For example, dumb cunt still applies to you, dingbat.
defamation would imply it's a false claim.
When you've sucked several cocks.
But feel free to tell me more about defamation.
both 'before' and 'after' does not total 'several', fucknut.
But nice to know you go whining like a bitch to the blog owner when you don't get your own way.
By the way, much in the same manner as taking some random cum apparently saves lives, I'm not actually taking you seriously - just amusing to divert your attention for a bit from the poor people you encounter in real life.
And it completely derails a thread here, which is nice.
define defamation again, please?
imposter 6:49: Ah, more gay innuendo! Keep it up. And please get a Freudian psychoanalyst when this is over and you are crying into your pillow. He will make much hay of your obsession with the love that cannot be named
imposter 6:51:
fucknuts. really. lol. Waht do those things taste like?
and it does total several. It has been more than twice, hence several. I said several, I mean several. Unlike you, babykiller, I mean what I say.
And I do call out certain practices. Like your deliberately impersonating me to attempt to drive me from the board, mostly because your wee little mind can't argue back and you just want to stamp your feet and act like the immature brat, ahem, liberal that you.
imposter 6:53:
"And it completely derails a thread here, which is nice."
--a babykiller? happy to try to stop talking about his non-logic on murdering children? wow. in other news, sky blue.
definitions are for the law and for dictionaries, sonny boy. I know those are big books and too heavy for you to lift by your lonesome. Stick to the books with the color pictures. They;re more your speed. ;)
just wondered how defamation applied to your description of chris cooper.
unless you want to actually state that they have killed a baby.
imposter 6:59:
Yep. Anyone in favor of abortion=baby killer. By keeping it legal, and fighting for its legality, and encouraging it as a right, you are causing women to murder their children by your encouragement.
Actually, I'm anti-abortion, it's just I think you're an insufferable cunt.
so yes, because I'm anti-abortion, I'm a baby killer.
well done.
have a biscuit.
I see - so unwanted pregnancy doesn't have any connection to abortion, but being in favor of a law alone means you actually cause it.
What a magnificent mind you have.
PS - have you checked if Megan is in favor of abortion - she pretends to be libertarian.
Perhaps in your 'several' exchanges you cordially called her a baby killer.
imposter 7:02pm
riight. sure you are.
riight. because nobody could think you are a complete cunt without also being a baby killer.
I would imagine nearly everyone you meet is a baby killer.
imposter at 7:04:
Ah, I love when baby killers conflate unwanted pregnancy with murder. Because murder is the solution!
Being in favor of keeping murder legal and having taxpayers pay for it and keeping the murderers from being thrown in jail means you encourage it, killer.
I call myself pro-choice. Not pro-abortion. Pro-choice. A choice that I think should be made as rarely as possible. I applaud girls and women who are willing to do the difficult thing and carry the child to term at considerable personal cost.
archives/2008/09/prochoice.php
Why are you having several email exchanges with a baby killer Basic Fact?
Why are you killing babies?
Don't you love America?
imposter 7:06:
Anyone pro-choice is.
Why are you consorting with a baby killer?
Well done BF
You've just called the host of this blog a baby killer.
Except you actually meant it.
imposter 7:08:
oh yes, those girls should be SO APPLAUDED for NOT COMMITTING MURDER.
It's amazing how far we've fallen when doing the humane thing is somehow extreme and rare. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KILL.
Anyone pro-choice has this moral calculous: 9 months of pregancy is worse than murder. So we should let the murders kill without consequence.
You are a filthy child killer.
Basic Fact,
you might want to forward that last message to Megan then.
before she finally bans your moronic ass.
imposter 7:12:
lol. Megan knows I have strong opinions. She also knwos you're an impersonating liar. Guess who's going to be banned.....
at imposter:
If you're so anti-abortion, you would want these slime punished. You don't. You're just a moral coward then. And contributing to the murder of innocents by their harpy sick twisted killer mothers.
I would imagine both of us would be banned; best outcome for everyone.
and anyway, you're clearly impersonating sov and mike m in this thread.
But you've still not had the balls to call her a baby killer directly, even when you've had the quote shown to you.
such a brave, brave boy.
at imposter 7:15:
"impersonating sov and mike m"
---hey, sicko-----they like baby killing even more than you do. this would be THE OPPOSITE of that, genius.
And nice try with the balls part. Why not just insult my mother, or, better yet, go back to yuor gay innuendo? lol
Well done to avoid the fact that you don't even have the courage to say that Megan is by your own twisted logic a baby killer.
You'll do so much to save a life, except in case you get banned.
lol.
is coward non sexual enough? You've clearly insulted your mother better than I could ever do.
And why are you still posting on the blog of, according to you, a baby killer?
imposter 7:19:
Said the imposter who wishes her mother had aborted her.
come on imposter, is that all you've got?
No more gay jokes?
No more cheap insults with the words "fuck" and "nuts"?
I'm very hurt. I expected more rabid foaming-at-the-mouth from you. I suppose you aren't the quality of stalker I've come to expect.
Pity.
imposter 7:19:
"And why are you still posting on the blog"
--for the joy of speaking to (and spanking)heartless cowards like you.
Still avoiding the fact that you call all supporters of abortion baby killers, but are posting on, and have lovely email exchanges with, a supporter of abortion, and therefore by your own logic, a baby killer.
Why are you posting and friendly with someone who supports abortion BF, given what you've already said?
Hypocrisy, or cowardice?
Say what you like. I'm off for the night - declare your victory and so on. It won't hide how pathetic you sound right now.
imposter: 7:23:
I also walk on the street paid for by you baby killers.
You do not know the content of the email exchanges with Megan. Why do you assume anythign about them? Oh wait, as a baby killer, you are psychic as well.
imposter at 7:23:
"declare your victory and so on."
--don't need your permission killer. I won this the moemnt you reared your sick little head.
"It won't hide how pathetic you sound right now."
--said the person trying to justify letting murderers roam free.
I declare victory!
Megan, please kill this crap.
Basic Fact
The commentator Basic Fact took the shortbus to the library today and is posting garbage.
Basic Question
Is the commentator Basic Fact a moron
Fuck and yes
Bush passed a rule. Obama undid the rule. How can both these actions be equally "inimical to liberty?"
I honestly can't tell if you're actually thinking here, or just being reflexively contrarian.
Basic Question:
Does Schooner enjoy murdering children, and is he a soulless selfish beast?
Basic Answer: Yes.
Selfish Beast ? Possibly.
One note poster with nothing interesting to say? Nope. Wouldn't want to take your job Basic Assclown.
It doesn't violate anyone's personal liberty to force a hospital to provide all important public health services. A Catholic hospital with issues will simply have to figure out how to hire people willing to do those things, and how to reconcile the objections of their other personnel with providing necessary support. It seems to me that it's not the right to personal freedom but the right to insularity that's being claimed, and of course this isn't a right, especially when you're offering a public service.
"I honestly can't tell if you're actually thinking here"
Here's a hint - she's rarely if ever thinking. Its much easier to sloganeer. Like expressing outrage that we have some standards about how people should perform their jobs, especially if they're receiving public funds. Witness the sad spectacle of a grown woman expressing outrage that someone who was raped will now be able to get a morning after pill if the hospital she is taken to is a Catholic one and receives public funds.
What's next? Holding journalists to some sort of intellectual rigor rather than just let them spout nonsense with no facts at their disposal? How inimical (somebody got a thesaurus for the holidays) to liberty!
Gosh, one hundred ten comments and I was first. Momma would be so proud.
Of course, sixty or seventy of those comments don't count because they were posted by an obvious maniac whose 'handle' for the moment is 'basic fact'.
Ahem. The real basic fact is that we live in a democracy. In other words, that in our nation the 'voice of the people' substitutes for the 'voice of god'.
This is very inconvient for those who chose to be the 'voice of god' but find their fellow citizens do not chose to listen and obey.
So tell us, Mr or Ms 'basic fact'...where will you go to find a more deserving and obedient people? I hear Saudi Arabia is nice in season. There is Pakistan. Not too many troublesome promiscuous (and pregnant) women in Vatican City. Boulder Colorado was a good idea for a while. Afghanistan (the Taliban part)? That sounds like your idea of god's republic. Lots of stones near at hand.
To hell with you, basic fact. Literally.
Oh My God. 20 minutes and the voice of god is silent. Maybe atheists have something? Or will 'basic fact' wave his/her staff at the sky and make the sun pause in it's course, the better to strike me down?
What a jerk!!! Die soon, honey. The course of the universe will be smoother with you in the ground.
I'm with Megan on this. Healthcare providers (meaning businesses mainly, but also individuals who practice solo) should be able to determine their own abortion policy free of any suasion except that of the market. If there's demand for abortion (and assuming no law against it) then someone somewhere will provide the service, and that solves that. Just go to Family Planning Clinic #10 instead of Our Lady Of The Sacred Heart hospital.
On the other hand employees shoudld be expected to do the job they are hired for. A Mormon waiter who refused to serve alcohol would be fired and so should a pro-Life pharmacist who refuses to provide the morning after pill. They're smart enough to know what they're getting into after all and should not expect special treatment guaranteed by public regulation.
Re Megan's post
It is always fun to watch a libertarian struggle with nuance.
@Basic Fact 4:28 "Trust me, if I could take everyone one of these children away from these hateful, unloving harpy mothers who would spill their blood *on the first day of pregnancy* I would."
Who will you tax to pay for them?
FOCA will shut down Catholic health care in America, eliminating health care access for many poor people. Good job Obama.
If women's healthcare decisions are sacrosanct, what is everyone's problem with Octomom?
Re: FOCA will shut down Catholic health care in America, eliminating health care access for many poor people.
There is no FOCA bill in Congress.
FOCA has been written, it just hasn't been put through the legislative process.
Speaking as someone who became pro-life late in life, I did so because the "pro-choice" lobby was so extreme. Catholic hospitals will terminate pregnancies to protect the life of the mother. Late term "abortions" are in fact induced labors in which a living baby is delivered and left to die. I became pro-life when I realized that all of the debate was centered on alleviating the responsibilities of the adults at the expense of innocent life. The arguments about "women's health" are specious.
As for rape victims, who are the exception not the rule, make exceptions, don't make the rule based on their extraordinary circumstances.
And it is true that Catholics have done more to provide health care worldwide than any other single organization. They and other Christian denominations have done more for the basic welfare of all sorts of humanity than any other religion or secular institution. It is their belief in God that impels them. But several of the commenters here seem unwilling to recognize the benefits of living culture that owes so much to the Judeo-Christian ethos.
Just a shame they're into fucking underage boys and girls really, because apart from that, they're pretty good Barbara.
Lost in the noise: I second DannyK. I don't understand how rule X and negating rule X can be equally "inimical to liberty." The point that Megan seems to make is that there should be no requirement attached to federal funding. Or maybe that there should be no federal funding. But then why not say so instead of defying logic?
Wow, this comment thread is just about worthless.
Wow, this comment thread is just about worthless.
Yeah... McArdle needs to let loose with the IP banhammer. This is a fucking disgrace.
I don't know if she should ban the imposter or ban Basic Fact for acting so indignant about it.
Given Basic Fact is impersonating people who disagree with him, it's clear both should be gone.
Not least for the fact that he called anyone pro-choice a baby killer; that would include Megan.