HHS Secretary: OB/GYNs With Objections To Abortion Should Not Have To Refer Patients To Other Doctors
HHS Secretary: OB/GYNs With Objections To Abortion Should Not Have To Refer Patients To Other Doctors
In November, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued new ethics guidelines. Members who have a moral objection to performing abortions are now required to refer their patients to another provider:
Physicians and other health care providers have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request. In resource-poor areas, access to safe and legal reproductive services should be maintained.
The Bush administration has now stepped in to block these guidelines. In a little-noticed letter on Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt wrote a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG), stating that providers with moral objections to abortion should have no obligation to refer patients:
I am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers. […]
It appears that the interaction of the ABOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.
Leavitt is overly concerned with these physicians who may be forced to “violate their conscience,” but apparently not at all concerned for women who may be turned away from the only accessible health care service. ACOG never stated that board certification would be stripped from doctors who ignore these guidelines.
As OB/GYN Wendy Chavkin of Columbia University told NPR this morning, Leavitt’s policy may also allow physicians to deny a woman who has been raped emergency contraception. Listen here:
Yesterday, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice put out a statement supporting ACOG’s “principled and sensible policy,” which would “leave untouched a physician’s right to refuse to provide abortions — a right that has been spelled out in law since 1973 — but would ensure that the patient received the services she needed and wanted.”
But Norman Gant, executive director of the certifying board, says HHS got it all wrong. "They took two and two and came up with five," he said. Gant, who didn't respond sooner because he was out of the office, backed up what ACOG spokesman Gregory Phillips said Tuesday, which is that the ethics committee opinion regarding referrals is not a binding portion of the college's ethics code, and therefore not a factor in the decision about board certification.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
70 Responses to “HHS Secretary: OB/GYNs With Objections To Abortion Should Not Have To Refer Patients To Other Doctors”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Ok, as long as liberal doctors can refuse to treat consevatives on moral grounds and not refer them to other doctors. Especially those conservatives who need viagra scripts.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pmEXCUSE ME!!??
March 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pmI am writing to express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers. […]
It appears that the interaction of the ABOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.”
BUT ABSOLUTELY NO F—ING CONCERN FOR THE RIGHTS AND CONSCIENCES AND HEALTH OF THE F—ING PATIENTS!!!
March 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pmI hope the Bible-Bangers are enjoying this Last-hurrah from their lame duck Pres. and his crooked zealot appointees.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pmI’m so glad that we have a country that’s being run by a narrow moral viewpoint….. makes things so much easier
/snark
March 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pmIt’s the ‘individual right’ for the patient to seek the care to meet their needs, and the obligation of the doctor to meet the patient halfway. The doctor must redirect the patient seamlessly if there’s a reasonable moral objection.
Health care providers’ decision making has nothing to do with ‘individual rights’, Leavitt. It’s more like collectivist bullying.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pmI think all doctors should refuse treatment to anyone that votes for a reich-winger.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pmYou want an abortion? Too bad, your doctor doesn’t like abortions. Yes, that’s right, your doctor’s moral and political leanings take precedence over your health needs. Damn straight they do. You want to go to a new doctor? Can’t do that either. Nope.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pmLeavitt was tapped for Secretary while in corporate whoredom, wasn’t he?
March 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pmYet another New Low from the Administration. Back to the 19th century we go! Why, oh why, do Republicans work so very hard to prove that Government doesn’t work when they assume power? With only 306 days left the Administration is still kicking holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water out!
March 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pmThank God for the 22nd amendment!
Impeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution and End This Circus!
Tom, that’s really the only thing that calms me down re: this BS anymore. It’s just chimpy’s administration trying to placate and re-energize the base for November, and hopefully if we get a Democratic Prez and Congress all this garbage can be rolled back.
Liberal Hussein Traitor
March 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pmAnother giant leap backwards for women’s rights, brought to you by BushCo.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pmLeavitt and herr dubyah plan to enact the following guidelines:
1) Doctors can refuse treatment to women who have premarital sex
March 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm2) Doctors can refuse treatment to women who are not born-again Christians.
3) Doctors can refuse treatment to women who are college educated
4) Doctors can refuse treatment to women have ever voted for a Democratic politician.
express my strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers
Well then, they should not be doctors, should they?
Take your moronic superstitions and leave them in the church of the Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky…conservatives have got to be the worst subhumans you can imagine.
Bush/Cheney
March 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pmHague Trials ‘09
The neocons would reach right into your womb and tell you what you can and cannot do with your body.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pmAs OB/GYN Wendy Chavkin of Columbia University told NPR this morning, Leavitt’s policy may also allow physicians to deny a woman who has been raped emergency contraception.
Conservatives sticking to their “no abortion at all costs!” principles. A society abundant with rape babies raised to be sent off to die in wars (if one tour doesn’t do it, they’ll keep pressing with 3+ more), is a society ok with them.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pmHealth and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt
Yeah, that title has nothing to do with women…or health.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pmZooey,
Progress, in the conservative mindset, is undoing progress.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pmActually because of crap like this from Reichwingers, I do ask people that want to do business with me if they are Repukes, and if they are I refuse them, I also have a sign by my door that says, “Republicans are not welcome here.” I even don’t invite relatives to any functions if they are Republican, they are simply not welcome, if they support torture and this illegal war, they just are not welcome.
Just my little poke in the eye with a sharp stick to the repukes.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:21 pmMcWars Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Zooey,
Progress, in the conservative mindset, is undoing progress.
I know. *sigh* I just can’t keep myself from being outraged.
Wish I could stay for the duration today, but I have classes.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pmtombaker
March 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I hope the Bible-Bangers are enjoying this Last-hurrah from their lame duck Pres. and his crooked zealot appointees.
Lots of Bibles with pages stuck together after this announcement.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pmZooey Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Study hard, Z!
March 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pmI think a much better comparison to make in this debate is with Blood Transfusions. Under this logic, if a doctor is a Jehova’s Witness, they would have the right to refuse their patients a blood transfusion and not refer them to a different doctor. I think that in a debate on this question those advocating prescribed morality should be asked if they would support that.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pmDoes this mean that doctors could be permitted to deny medical care to gay people, if they disapprove of their “lifestyle”? How about a doctor whose religion forbids tattoos or body markings — can they deny treatment to somebody covered with body art? How about a Muslim doctor who believes the consumption of alcohol to be a sin — can he deny treatment to someone suffering from a weekend binge gone out of control?
I see nothing wrong with refusing to perform a legal medical procedure that goes against one’s moral beliefs IF it’s not an emergency situation where a patient’s life is in immediate danger, and IF the physician refers the patient to another doctor who can and will perform the procedure.
If a doctor can’t even do that, perhaps he/she should find another line of work.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:38 pmOh no Dixie, I’m sure Buckie is just beside himself now.
Who died and made you the official “shame-on-you” lady??
Are you just trying to browse on whatever looks like low-hanging fruit, or do you want to climb up in the branches and take on the big monkeys for the real good stuff?
March 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pmThe medical community should rise up against this inappropriate intrusion into the private lives of US citizens. Please understand the full nature of the actions taken by the government:
1. Abortions are legal under current law. The medical community has taken an appropriate step to reconcile a doctor’s moral belief and standard against the patient’s right to obtain treatment.
2. We have seen right wing organizations against abortion advertise pregnancy assistance and family planning services. Many of these clinics not only try to convince the mother to have the child but will also take steps to delay the mother from going elsewhere for an abortion with the express intention of placing the woman beyond the stage at which she can obtain a legally sanctioned abortion.
3. The government’s only rightful position with respect to medical services is to ensure that the doctors are qualified, appropriately licensed and competent to practice their profession. Government has no right to intrude into the professional obligations of physicians or the ethics of the profession beyond that established by law.
4. The medical professional organizations are in the best position to balance the rights of the patient and the moral compunctions of a doctor.
5. The government now takes the position that the doctor should not only fail to provide a safe and legal procedure to women, but also take actions to frustrate the woman from ultimately obtaining the service from others by giving her no information concerning doctors who will perform such services.
6. We have seen physicians and pharmacists attempt to impose their morals upon others concerning the provision of birth control, emergency contraception and aids. We have also seen such right wing moralists seek government intervention into such areas as removing artificial life support.
This is indeed a slippery slope. We have already seen attempts to limit publicly funded medical care to illegal immigrants. Why not medical treatment to such foreigners even though they may have insurance or the money to pay? Only as a matter of conscience. Why not restrict treatment of those who are Muslim? Only as a matter of conscience. How about African Americans? Someone who fails to tell the doctor that they are evangelical? Only as a matter of conscience.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pmF(ck you Southern Man! Just because Buckie refuses to suffer fools DOES NOT MAKE HIM LIKE YOU AND YOUR REPUBLICON CONTINGENCY. You have been coddling the King of Fools for eight years and would sell this nation down the toilet for another 4 years if you could.
Buckie Boy- I just gave you a “recommend” thanks to Southern Fool.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pmI’ve long held the belief that men, like myself, should stay out of the “abortion” discussion.
Other than 7 seconds of pleasure, most men don’t think beyond their sexual encounter, so they have no place being “conerned” about the after affect.
It’s just another case of trying to control people you don’t agree with, and whether or not you carry a baby to full term or not is a WOMAN’S business only.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pmIn Dixie’s hyper-sensitive world, not getting invited to Buckie’s for the Super Bowl is tantamount to abridging their right to seek healthcare services???
Wow - and Righties actually accuse the Left of being too sensitive. That is some weird, weird, stuff right there.
Too many folks playing way to fast and loose with their “equals” signs.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pmlets face it, most doctors in America are republicans. They are in it for the money. If they were dedicated to patient care then they would be working to change this broken system.
Since they are republicans they naturally want to run your life although if the secrets were known…..they really can’t even run thier own lives.
I recently went through several illnesses and found that the doctors I was dealing with were not really helping me….but still wanted to be paid. I went on a search for a democratic doctor and it caused me some problems but I don’t care…..I now have a doctor that exihibits traits of compassion which I find desirable in a doctor.
Southern man, I find myself agreeing with you on principal but does that mean we should be tolerant of torure?
March 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pmThis is about the setting of professional standards for OB/GYN physicians, of which Mike Leavitt is not one!
He has no business weighing in on this matter and the ACOG should shred his letter.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pmSweet.
I cannot wait for the day where I can refuse to dispense a person’s meds based on:
-their attractiveness (per my rating scale), and their ability to flirt with a 41 year old pharmacist.
-their ethnicity (especially if different from mine)
-their sexuality (see above)
-their financial status
-their political beliefs
-their religion (or lack there of)
-their mannerism
Hell, I might as well take the scientology aspect, and refuse mental health clients their anti-depressants because I don’t believe in them.
Of course, the above examples are just plain silly, and was done in “snark”ness, but then again, because of the topic of this thread, maybe the silliness is not too far off (yikes)
March 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pmAren’t these the very same people that claim they want to “get the government off the backs of the people”? Hypocrisy at its finest.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pmKeep scary socialism out of the healthcare system. Leave more options for you and your family.
And you will have a family.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pmIt is the woman - not the doctor - who has the choice about abortion. If a doctor has “moral” objections to abortion, then s/he should tell the patient that s/he will not provide her with that service and that she should seek another provider. That’s where the doctor’s involvement should end, period.
Quite frankly, it is absurd that a doctor who do such a thing considering that abortion is a LEGAL procedure. They’re not being asked to do anything illegal, and if they can’t handle working with women who want an abortion then they should seek another facility. Ditto for pharmacists.
I can only imagine the chaos and madness that would overtake the right if an atheist doctor refused to treat a patient on the basis that the doctor disagreed with the choices that the patient made in his life and then went further to refuse to provide the patient with a referral to another doctor. “HE’S VIOLATING THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS!!!”, they would scream.
Or what about the scenario where a known anti-abortionist and creationist comes in to the clinic wanting some antibiotics to clear up an infection? The doctor could reasonably conclude that the patient would not want to receive a treatment that was based on research from embryonic stem cells and evolutionary science, and then decline to offer such treatment to the patient. How is this any different to the scenario described in the original post? Should this secular-minded doctor’s personal beliefs allow him to deny care to any patient?
March 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pmThis is just more institutionalized religious zealotry being inflicted upon us by the theofascists of the Bush administration.
ITMFA!!!
March 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pmjpopphan Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Or what about the scenario where a known anti-abortionist and creationist comes in to the clinic wanting some antibiotics to clear up an infection? The doctor could reasonably conclude that the patient would not want to receive a treatment that was based on research from embryonic stem cells and evolutionary science, and then decline to offer such treatment to the patient. How is this any different to the scenario described in the original post? Should this secular-minded doctor’s personal beliefs allow him to deny care to any patient?
.
.
.
This scenario you describe does not involve an active, deliberate decision to destroy a human.
Abortion is destroying a human being, and it’s done after an active, deliberate decision.
This treatment “..based on research from …evolutionary science,..” is said by many not to exist. Do you know of some treatment that is based on evolutionary science?
Futher, does a belief in “evolutionary science” make it easier for a woman to destroy her unborn?
Believe DRs can, and do, refuse to treat anyone they don’t want to treat. This decision is not necessarily good for their practice, but then again, not every patient is good for a DR’s practice. Their legal obligation is to provide emergency care, which these days can mean shipping the patient to an ER by ambulance.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pmThe problem really comes in when you don’t know that your doctor is for or against this or that and you need treatment (life or death abortion to save the mother’s life).
We put trust into doctors to treat us based upon our need.
How many of us know what our doctor’s political or religious beliefs are?
March 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pmI find it amazing HHS is more concerned about discrimination against the doctor than the patient. Who is more powerless in this situation? When the doctor refuses to perform the procedure, the patient essentially feels abandoned. In those situations the doctor has a legal right to provide continuity of care. This seems no different.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pmJust got off the phone with HHS, they offered to refer me to the FOIA office to find out if Levitt will issue a corrected statement regarding the requirements of doctors and whether they would loose certification, which they will NOT. Can you believe it? We all know how efficient the FOIA office is. 306 days and then maybe we can get these Bastards out of our Vaginas! Won’t that be a great day? I am so sick of Christianistas that I could puke. If someone does not believe in abortion then they can choose not to have one. Why do these Nazi Christians want to control everyone else’s private parts? Something sick and repulsive about these toe tapping closet sexual sickos in my opinion. Stay out of our Vaginas and we will stay out of your bathroom stall, how’s that? What crap! 306 days and counting.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pmThis is the same shit they’re pulling on Obama.
Separation of Church & State.
A simple principle.
Christ, you’d think Wright gave Obama an abortion.
Leavitt, go Cheney yourself.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pmHow many of us know what our doctor’s political or religious beliefs are?
I do. When I was in the market for a new doctor, I called their office and asked two questions: 1) “does the doctor believe in single payer health care” and 2) does the doctor have any religious or moral limitations when it comes to treating patients.
I asked the person on the phone to get these questions answered for me before I made an appointment to see the doctor. I ruled out three doctors because of their answers to those questions. I really like my new doctor and think I made a good choice.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:22 pmYou cannot do that anymore. They will treat you on your ability to pay.
their political believe can be hard to determine….I resorted to asking during a visit which I was paying for. I offended a few but I don’t care anymore. When I found a democratic doctor who was willing to share that….I move everthing to his office……I have been much happier and healthier.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pmZimzone Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
This is the same shit they’re pulling on Obama.
Separation of Church & State.
A simple principle.
Christ, you’d think Wright gave Obama an abortion.
Leavitt, go Cheney yourself.
Oh please! If McCain’s church had been as religious and morally challenged as Wright, you Hopium addicts would be wailing! The reality is that Obama had very poor judgment, and still refused to admit it, and even was caught lying about it. From where I sit, that disqualifies him as a Democratic choice for ‘change’.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Fred says-
Southern man, I find myself agreeing with you on principal but does that mean we should be tolerant of torure?
Depends on what kind of torture and the reason we are using it. I don’t believe we should use torture unless the situation is extreme. Use the system we use to have for wire taps. Have a judge, or even a three judge panel decide if it is needed.
There’s no such thing as moral or principled torture. There is such a thing as an immoral hypocrite though, that would be you - TARD.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pmJust as a basic question in Medical Ethics, there are many cases where the doctor and patient find themselves in an irreconcilable conflict. (What if a patient wants an untested drug, for example).
In such cases, it is a clear responsibility of the doctor to inform the patient that the doctor cannot, in good conscience, perform the desired action and help the patient find a doctor with whom they are compatible.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pmWhy does the Bush Administration continue to deny the fetus a Social Security Number?
March 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pmjason54301 Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
So are you arguing that a zygote equals a life?
March 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pmjason54301 Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Bush denies Illegal Immigrants Social Security Numbers too…still against the law to kill them…what’s your point?
—————————————
Bush doesn’t deny illegal immigrants Social Security numbers because they aren’t people, he denies them because they are neither citizens nor legal residents, and therefore not entitled to them.
If a fetus is to be regarded as a person, it should be assumed that it would carry the same citizenship as the mother, or be American if fertilized on U.S. soil. So, if a fetus is a person, that fetus is also an American (if meeting these requirements). And if the fetus is an American, shouldn’t it have a Social Security number from the time the sperm meets the egg?
That fertilized egg should be entitled to all the other rights of Americans as well. It should be a deduction off its parents’ taxes (right now we wait until the baby is born for that), it should be counted in the census, etc. And instead of birth certificates, we should issue fertilization certificates and celebrate anniversaries of conception instead of birthdays.
I mean — if we are to treat blastocysts as people, let’s go all the way!
March 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pmInstead of condeming people for what is at best a heartbreaking decision why don’t you get your people on board for actually helping us with them after they are born….you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
No one wants to see abortions happen but you’re not interested in working with people to make life better and easier because you are too busy passing judgment on others at every opportunity.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pmJason54301
March 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pmHow many kids have you and your family, and church adopted, saving them from being aborted?
Who determines when the sperm meets the egg?
March 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pmmissmolly Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I agree! And since that life starts at that zygote stage and added benefit would be the nine month extension of everyone’s age. Think of all the 20 and3 monthers that could be kicking back a cold one at all those bars. Great economic stimulus. Of and about that statutory rape thing… if we would just add those nine months she’s legal and see no problem…
March 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm.
Loyal Christians(R) may practice their love with women, selectively.
.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:02 pm.
Why do Loyal Christians(R) believe the right to life ends after birth?
.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pmMissMolly, how about we go a step farther and grant citizenship to all the sperm and all the eggs and allow deductions for each one?
Here’s a really novel idea (to goopers), what about teaching people how to PREVENT pregnancy? I think they’re not paying attention to the fact that abstainance only doesn’t work. Just think of all those little clumps of cells and tissues that would no longer be as much a part of our national discussion as they are now. If politicians were REALLY concerned, they would dispense contraceptives for free and not make kids feel stigmatized if they decide to have sex. Not that I am for teenage sex because, often, they don’t fully understand the consequences, but hormones being what they are it’s just plain stupid to think kids are going to abstain until they get married. (And if they do…how many more divorces and single parents would ensue?)
It’s amazing how far just a smidge of common sense might go.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pmjason54301 Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Abortion is murder. Extinguishing a human life, is murder. What exactly is the difference of where that life resides or how old it is?
It makes a difference if it resides in my body, and I don’t want it there.
It’s MY body.
Not yours.
Not the state’s.
Not my significant other’s.
Nor does it belong to the fetus.
It’s MY decision.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:00 pmMizzJ,
Soon they’ll want to arrest all women who turn down men in bars — hey, he might have knocked her up, and she prevented it!
March 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pmWell well, once again we have witnessed the work of the socialist, fear-mongering, left-wing gestapo. Let me ask you all a question, why is it that on one hand, a mother-to-be can get all the medical/scientific information she needs on the development, progress, and care of her unborn child, but on the other hand if a mother-to-be is unsure if she wants to be a mother, then alot of that SAME information will be DENIED her, because she might be considering to ‘terminate her pregnancy’? And please, someone, please explain to me why we ignore SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACTS -FACTS mind you!!- when it comes to the fetus in order to maintain a ‘reproductive-right’ that was pushed on to the Majority of America by a Minority. AND if anyone challenges this radical minority’s logic or this ‘reproductive right’ by pointing out those FACTS, or by standing by their morals and refusing to do referals, they are disembowed by that minority or those who support (or are afraid to challenge) their unscientific and irrational views??!! Iam an independently-minded and rational person, so someone please explian this to me using logic and reason. Convince me that Iam the one who is blind and irrational!
March 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pmtry reading some of the posts instead of rubber stamping the thread with your hatred.
see post #57
March 19th, 2008 at 9:18 pmthese are for you ash
an even better one for you is post #56
March 19th, 2008 at 9:20 pm“If we ALL can’t learn to sit down and discuss issues rationally, work things out, and quit whining and finger-pointing everytime something doesnt go the way someone wants, then how do we expect our politicians to? And if they can’t, then I say there is no hope for our nation. Abraham Lincoln said it best: “A house divided cannot stand”. Think about it.”
J.R. Ash
“Well well, once again we have witnessed the work of the socialist, fear-mongering, left-wing gestapo.”
J.R. Ash
Sorry J.R. Ash but you lack of consistency of thoughts makes anything you have to say subject at best?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pmno need for the ? and the s after thought but I could use a r after you. Still I am confident you get the point
March 19th, 2008 at 9:29 pmJ.R. Ash
March 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I guess you didn’t notice that the Constitution was set up to protect the rights of the minority against the majority.
Nice try.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:38 pmJ.R. Ash Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Well well, once again we have witnessed the work of the socialist, fear-mongering, left-wing gestapo. Let me ask you all a question, why is it that on one hand, a mother-to-be can get all the medical/scientific information she needs on the development, progress, and care of her unborn child, but on the other hand if a mother-to-be is unsure if she wants to be a mother, then alot of that SAME information will be DENIED her, because she might be considering to ‘terminate her pregnancy’? And please, someone, please explain to me why we ignore SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACTS -FACTS mind you!!- when it comes to the fetus in order to maintain a ‘reproductive-right’ that was pushed on to the Majority of America by a Minority. AND if anyone challenges this radical minority’s logic or this ‘reproductive right’ by pointing out those FACTS, or by standing by their morals and refusing to do referals, they are disembowed by that minority or those who support (or are afraid to challenge) their unscientific and irrational views??!! Iam an independently-minded and rational person, so someone please explian this to me using logic and reason. Convince me that Iam the one who is blind and irrational!
Please site one example where a “mother-to- be has been “DENIED” any kind of information. The “DENIERS” are name-calling (”socialist, fear-mongering, left-wing gestapoes”-your words) ill-informed , and impervious to even the most elemental reasoning. Did Jesus think, or just blindly pontificate?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:22 amAnd by the way, the last survey I checked the vast majority of people in this country (unlike Saudi Arabia) supported the right of women to choose, so your “Minority” argument is a straw dog, and one that’s stale and long in the tooth to boot. Those are the facts you wanted, I believe, not they’ll make a difference to those of your ilk, for facts escape you and your closed minds.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:27 amwoodguy, you seem to have missed the point that the extreme lefties have an ideological strangle-hold on the rest of us, through their extremist cronies in the media and their, in the courts and in other positions of power. It is strange that anyone who is not a right-wing nut, is still attacked as being closed-minded, facist, shovenist and ect. It goes to show how completely unwilling those who are ideologically indoctrinated are to face the fact that they selectively choose what scientific and medical facts they want to abide by, and that they will be just as intolerant, bigoted, and close-minded as those who question their ideology in order to preserve, and push their ideology down EVERYONE’s throats. Oh man, I just had an epiphany: The far-left is guilty of the same things it accuses the far right of!! They are just two different sides of the same coin!!! Oh, by the way, that coin is called EXTREMISM.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:25 pmjason54301 Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am
64: Zooey, why is it YOUR decision to kill the baby? And why then should that decision end with birth?
You’re pretty stupid, aren’t you? Re-read my post, and you’ll see why it’s MY decision. Try to fire up your brain, and you’ll figure out why it’s not legal for me to kill my newborn.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:05 pmjason54301 Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am
C’mon FEMINAZIS, advocate the punishment for punching pregnant women in stomach causing miscarriages should ONLY BE TREATED AS BATTERY.
Actually, it would probably be Aggravated Assault, since punching a woman in the stomach hard enough to cause a miscarriage would likely cause serious damage to the woman as well.
But since you hate women, why do you care?
March 20th, 2008 at 11:07 pmjason54301 Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Heaven forbid ANYONE EVER be held responsible for their own actions!!! Have the baby, their are WAITING lists for newborn babies for adoption.
Hey, if YOU get knocked up by accident, or by a rapist, YOU have the baby. You don’t get to decide for anyone else.
While you’re at it, adopt a non-white, disabled child — there’s lots of them available.
Silly me, you’ll be wanting the blond, blue-eyed baby. F_ck off.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:10 pm