Trump defends health workers' right to object to abortions

  
Via:  tessylo  •  3 weeks ago  •  90 comments

Trump defends health workers' right to object to abortions

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T






































image001-png_162613.png.cf.jpg RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR,Associated Press 1 hour 19 minutes ago 






a95fcb53c0414e349fc66036ac531f92.jpgPresident Donald Trump speaks during a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden of the White House, Thursday May 2, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Advancing his anti-abortion agenda, President Donald Trump moved Thursday to protect health care workers who object to procedures like abortion on moral or religious grounds.

Trump chose the National Day of Prayer to announce the new regulation.

"Just today we finalized new protections of conscience rights for physicians, pharmacists, nurses, teachers, students and faith-based charities," Trump told an interfaith audience in the White House Rose Garden. "They've been wanting to do that for a long time."

The conscience rule was a priority for religious conservatives who are a key part of Trump's political base, but some critics fear it will become a pretext for denying medical attention to LGBT people or women seeking abortions, a legal medical procedure.

In a strongly worded statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "these bigoted rules are immoral, deeply discriminatory and downright deadly, greenlighting open discrimination in health care against LGTBQ Americans and directly threatening the well-being of millions.

"Make no mistake," she added, "this is an open license to discriminate against Americans who already face serious, systemic discrimination." She said she was also addressing another pending regulation seen as undermining the rights of transgender patients. Pelosi said the Democratic-controlled House would "fight" the administration's actions.

San Francisco immediately sued the Trump administration, saying the conscience regulation will undermine access to care.

The complex rule runs more than 400 pages and requires hospitals, universities, clinics and other institutions that receive funding from federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to certify that they comply with some 25 federal laws protecting conscience and religious rights.

Most of these laws and provisions address medical procedures such as abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide. The ultimate penalty can be loss of federal funding for violations of conscience or religious rights, but most cases are settled by making changes in practices and procedures.

The rule makes no new law and doesn't go beyond statutes passed under administrations of both political parties, said Roger Severino, head of the office that will enforce it at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Rather, the regulation will guarantee that religious and conscience protections already on the books can't be ignored.

"We are giving these laws life with this regulation," said Severino, saying it's no different from civil rights statutes enforced in daily life through government regulation and oversight. "It makes sure Congress' protections are not merely empty words on paper."


Under the rule, clinicians and institutions would not have to provide, participate in, pay for, cover or make referrals for procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds.

This will make it "so that people do not have to shed their religious beliefs to participate in health care," said Severino, adding that "certain medical professions such as OB-GYN should not be declared pro-life-free zones."

The rule also addresses conscience protections involving so-called advance directives that detail a patient's wishes for care at the end of life.

Asserting that previous administrations have not done enough to protect conscience rights in the medical field, HHS under Trump created a new division to investigate such complaints within its Office for Civil Rights, which Severino heads.

HHS said last year the office received more than 1,300 complaints alleging discrimination in a health care setting on account of religious beliefs or conscience issues. There was only a trickle of such complaints previously, officials said, about one per year for alleged conscience violations.

Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, said her group representing church-affiliated hospitals, nursing homes and other providers will stress continued service to "all persons."

"Our mission and our ethical standards in health care are rooted in and inseparable from the Catholic Church's teachings about the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death," Keehan said in a statement. "These are the source of both the work we do and the limits on what we will do. Every individual seeking health care is welcome and will be treated with dignity and respect in our facilities."

Among religious conservatives, Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins called the regulation an answer to prayer.

"Protecting the right of all health care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards ... is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which would occur if they were forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances," his statement added.

But Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration has opened the door to discrimination. "Religious liberty is a fundamental right, but it doesn't include the right to discriminate or harm others," she said. "Denying patients health care is not religious liberty,"

The rule takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

___

Associated Press writers David Crary in New York and Janie Har in San Francisco contributed.

___

HHS press release: https://tinyurl.com/yxes698g


















Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

The turd is just speaking to his rabid base of faux christians.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

In a strongly worded statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "these bigoted rules are immoral, deeply discriminatory and downright deadly, greenlighting open discrimination in health care against LGTBQ Americans and directly threatening the well-being of millions.

"Make no mistake," she added, "this is an open license to discriminate against Americans who already face serious, systemic discrimination." She said she was also addressing another pending regulation seen as undermining the rights of transgender patients. Pelosi said the Democratic-controlled House would "fight" the administration's actions.

San Francisco immediately sued the Trump administration, saying the conscience regulation will undermine access to care.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2    3 weeks ago
The turd is just speaking to his rabid base of faux christians.  

Probably.

So is this one.

In a strongly worded statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "these bigoted rules are immoral, deeply discriminatory and downright deadly, greenlighting open discrimination in health care against LGTBQ Americans and directly threatening the well-being of millions. "Make no mistake," she added, "this is an open license to discriminate against Americans who already face serious, systemic discrimination." She said she was also addressing another pending regulation seen as undermining the rights of transgender patients. Pelosi said the Democratic-controlled House would "fight" the administration's actions.

Lots of pandering to the bases.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1    3 weeks ago
'The turd is just speaking to his rabid base of faux christians.'  
'Probably.'
No, definitely
'Lots of pandering to the bases'

Nope, not pandering.  Truth.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Nope, not pandering.

Taking a law targeting abortion and making it a gay/lesbian issue?  Definitely pandering.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Taking a law targeting abortion and making it a gay/lesbian issue?  Definitely pandering.

If there was an in-virto test that could tell the parents if a fetus would mature to be an LGBT child would you then support abortion? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

No, not pandering 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
If there was an in-virto test that could tell the parents if a fetus would mature to be an LGBT child would you then support abortion?

Ridiculous question.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.6  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
Ridiculous question.

No, it isn't. I'm testing you to see if your supposed moral opposition to abortion overrides your opposition to LGBT people.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
No, it isn't. I'm testing you to see if your supposed moral opposition to abortion overrides your opposition to LGBT people.

Oh, it's ridiculous.   If you think people believe that way, you really should get out more.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.8  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
Oh, it's ridiculous.   If you think people believe that way, you really should get out more.

I am not saying that some people think that way. Once again, I am testing you to if a person's opposition to the existence of LGBT  and their equal rights overrule a person's pro-life stance.   Which idea is more important to you? Being pro-life and opposing abortion or equal rights for LGBT people?

 This is a very simple question, but it elicits strong contradictory emotions that some people have a difficult time getting past 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
I am not saying that some people think that way.

So you ask a question believing that zero people will answer "yes", and then pretend you're "testing" me?  

This is a very simple question,

So is "do you favor legalization of child pornography"?  Which is similarly insulting.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.10  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    3 weeks ago
So you ask a question believing that zero people will answer "yes", and then pretend you're "testing" me?  

Why are you having such a difficult time with a simple question? Should I phrase it in a different way for you? Despite being pro-life, would you support abortion if there was a 100% accurate in-vitro test that would tell you if your child would be LGBT? 

So is "do you favor legalization of child pornography"?  Which is similarly insulting.

Absolutely not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

And I bet you never thought you would be tested here tonight!

(I mean, besides your patience!)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
Why are you having such a difficult time with a simple question?

It's insulting and I've given it more time than it deserves already.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.13  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.12    3 weeks ago
It's insulting and I've given it more time than it deserves already.

Is your answer yes or no to abortion if the child was LGBT?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.14  Ender  replied to  epistte @2.1.13    3 weeks ago

I don't find it a ridiculous question at all.

I also think the avoidance of an answer speaks volumes. That is an answer in itself.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.15  epistte  replied to  Ender @2.1.14    3 weeks ago
I also think the avoidance of an answer speaks volumes. That is an answer in itself.

You are not the only one to comprehend that action. I found his response both telling of his beliefs and quite amusing.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.16  1stwarrior  replied to  epistte @2.1.10    3 weeks ago

Sorry, but that is an absolutely "Outer Limits" question.  Thank goodness that there aren't any "in-vitro" tests to determine SEXUAL ORIENTATION while a child is in the womb.  Can you imagine the law suits from the unborn because of their "future", totally unfounded, SEXUAL ORIENTATION?  Can't imagine the psychological damage that would be done to the "future" parents.

Wow - just - wow.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.17  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.16    3 weeks ago

You just made zero sense.

Still didn't answer the question.

If you could end a pregnancy if you knew the child was gay, would you?

Simple yes or no.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.16    3 weeks ago
Thank goodness that there aren't any "in-vitro" tests to determine SEXUAL ORIENTATION while a child is in the womb. 

Not yet anyway. As medical science has advanced to where it can detect fetal and genetic abnormalities, it's not such a stretch to think it might get to the point where it can be determined if a fetus will be gay or not.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.19  epistte  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.16    3 weeks ago
Sorry, but that is an absolutely "Outer Limits" question.  Thank goodness that there aren't any "in-vitro" tests to determine SEXUAL ORIENTATION while a child is in the womb.  Can you imagine the law suits from the unborn because of their "future", totally unfounded, SEXUAL ORIENTATION?  Can't imagine the psychological damage that would be done to the "future" parents. Wow - just - wow.

I had no idea that some people would be so offended by the philosophical quandary, but it suggests that when you are backed against the wall and forced to choose between your opposition to abortion and your opposition to LGBT rights that instead you choose to attack the person who asked a very uncomfortable question.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.20  MUVA  replied to  epistte @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

Would you still support abortion if the parents decided to stop a pregnancy because the child would be gay. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.21  epistte  replied to  MUVA @2.1.20    2 weeks ago
Would you still support abortion if the parents decided to stop a pregnancy because the child would be gay. 

No. I do not support any sort of designer babies or the use of abortion for that goal.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

People have right to their beliefs, and can't be forced to act against them. That is discriminatory.

The LGTBQ community has no more or no less rights than anyone else.

Some rules need to be in place because it seems the left always overreaches and goes to extremes....

like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago

Health workers shouldn't be in a profession where they are able to discriminate.  

'like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond'

[deleted]

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.2  evilgenius  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
People have right to their beliefs, and can't be forced to act against them. That is discriminatory.

Then they should find jobs that don't put them in the position of having to deny service.

The LGTBQ community has no more or no less rights than anyone else.

So according to your logic a LGBTQ first responder, nurse or doctor could deny service to anyone they "believed" was a sinner. For that matter any Baptist could refuse to service any Catholic because they consider praying to the Madonna and the Saints as idol worship.  

Some rules need to be in place because it seems the left always overreaches and goes to extremes....

Some rules need to be in place because conservative snowflakes wanna be bigots and use religion as an excuse. Unfortunately it will probably take someone to die because they were denied medical treatment from a conscientious objector to make the collective Congress act.

like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond.

Oh I know it's okay if one or two people die every once in awhile (or 30K in the case of firearms) to preserve the freedoms for conservative snowflakes, but one fetus with a heartbeat is a solid NOPE. Pro-life my ass!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @3.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
'like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond.'

That's not true and no matter how many times your lying turd of a 'president' says it, doesn't make it true.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
People have right to their beliefs, and can't be forced to act against them.
  • My religion believes in human sacrifice, do you support my right to do so, or do you support laws that force me to act against my religious beliefs?
  • My religion tells me to kill all non-believers, do you support my right to do so, or do you support laws that force me to act against my religious beliefs?

2 simple yes or no questions for you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.4    3 weeks ago

You can do anything within your preferred religion as long as nothing you do breaks U.S. law.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.4.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.1    3 weeks ago

Well no duh.  

 
 
 
epistte
3.4.4  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.1    3 weeks ago
You can do anything within your preferred religion as long as nothing you do breaks U.S. law.

 Jesus/the Bible tells Christians not to do that. 

Luke 6:31

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Romans 13:1

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.2    3 weeks ago

If you follow the conversation, you would have known to direct your comment to the poster asking the question I answered.

I will assume he didn't KNOW the answer because he asked the question.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @3.4.4    3 weeks ago
Jesus tells his followers not to do that.

So? Prove it!

If you actually have some point to make, please get to it. I didn't ask for Bible quotes. No one did that I see.

if you have no point, then please skip my remarks and comment to someone else.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.4.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.6    3 weeks ago

If you actually have a point to make other thantrolling,       [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.10    3 weeks ago

I made it.

jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Veronica
3.4.12  Veronica  replied to  Ozzwald @3.4    3 weeks ago

Oh even:  my religion prohibits blood transfusions, so I should be able to deny giving a blood transfusion that can save a person's life?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.4.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.1    3 weeks ago

You can do anything within your preferred religion as long as nothing you do breaks U.S. law.

1st let me point out that discrimination of LGBT people, violates U.S. law, just like discriminating against them due to their race, religion, sex, etc.

  • How do you feel about creating new laws that directly effect my religious beliefs?  
  • How do you feel about creating new religious beliefs that directly oppose the laws?
 
 
 
Don Overton
3.4.14  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.11    3 weeks ago

320

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.4.15  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.1    3 weeks ago
You can do anything within your preferred religion as long as nothing you do breaks U.S. law.

so, if human sacrifice is against the law but my religion believes in human sacrifice - does that mean my first amendment rights for my religious beliefs are being denied and i'm being discriminated against ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.16  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.4.13    3 weeks ago
1st let me point out that discrimination of LGBT people, violates U.S. law, just like discriminating against them due to their race, religion, sex, etc.
How do you feel about creating new laws that directly effect my religious beliefs?
How do you feel about creating new religious beliefs that directly oppose the laws?

WTF does you first sentence have to do with what I wrote?

If you can not understand that you are free to practice any religion you choose or none at all in whatever manner you choose as long as you don't break US laws, then my work here is done.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.17  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.4.15    3 weeks ago
so, if human sacrifice is against the law but my religion believes in human sacrifice - does that mean my first amendment rights for my religious beliefs are being denied and i'm being discriminated against ?

My mistake--I gave you credit to know when your rights are being violated. I was wrong.

Oh well.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.4.18  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.17    3 weeks ago
My mistake--I gave you credit to know when your rights are being violated. I was wrong. Oh well.

my mistake -- i thought you could answer a simple "yes" or "no" question. I was wrong.

Oh well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.19  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.4.18    3 weeks ago

I hope you find the answers to your questions.

Good luck!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.4.18    3 weeks ago
my mistake -- i thought you could answer a simple "yes" or "no" question. I was wrong.

I can answer quite easily.

But inane questions don't deserve my answer. or anyone else's, either.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.4.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.17    2 weeks ago
'I was wrong.'

As usual.  

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
3.4.22  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.20    2 weeks ago
I can answer quite easily. But inane questions don't deserve my answer. or anyone else's, either.

interesting.. because "inane" questions like that (in concept) are heading to the Supreme Court - maybe you should use your "expertise" and let those judges know how they should rule. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
3.5  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
People have right to their beliefs, and can't be forced to act against them. That is discriminatory.

The LGTBQ community has no more or no less rights than anyone else.

Some rules need to be in place because it seems the left always overreaches and goes to extremes....

like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond.

They find a different line of work where you don't need to deny people access to a legal medical procedure because of your beliefs.

like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond.

Elective abortion ends at 24 weeks, despite what someone has convinced you.

You cannot have an abortion after the fetus is born. Donald Trump is a pandering fool for saying that. Why do you believe that when it has been fact-checked? 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/apr/29/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-falsely-doctors-mothers-decid/

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago

It's funny how some religious conservatives think that they have or should have more rights than the LGBQT, or otherwise think LGBQT do not deserve the same rights. 

 
 
 
epistte
3.6.1  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @3.6    3 weeks ago
It's funny how some religious conservatives think that they have or should have more rights than the LGBQT, or otherwise think LGBQT do not deserve the same rights. 

Religious conservatives and political conservatives love to talk about their rights but they refuse to respect those same equal rights for others. It appears to be a one-way street in their mind.   I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there are many people who do not see themselves as part of an interconnected and interdependent society that must cooperate, as well as that with freedoms and constitutional rights comes equal responsibilities to others.  The search for loopholes to exploit in their favor has become a career for many people.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6.2  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @3.6.1    3 weeks ago

You hit the nail on the head. And don't forget, when their loopholes or bigotry is exposed, especially when cowardly hiding behind religion, they whine that they're being "repressed" or persecuted or some such nonsense.

 
 
 
epistte
3.6.3  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @3.6.2    3 weeks ago
You hit the nail on the head. And don't forget, when their loopholes or bigotry is exposed, especially when cowardly hiding behind religion, they whine that they're being "repressed" or persecuted or some such nonsense.

I have said a very long time ago and I have repeated many times that religious conservatives would scream that they are victims of religious persecution if they were required to live by the teachings of the man that they claim to be the son of god and their personal savior. the Bible is nothing but a book to be a cherry-picked in search of legal and ethical loopholes to exploit because most religious conservatives act more like Pharisees than the disciples of Jesus. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6.4  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @3.6.3    3 weeks ago

You are so right, as usual!

 
 
 
epistte
3.6.5  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @3.6.4    3 weeks ago
You are so right, as usual!

I hate to be so very cynical but I can't ignore what is staring me in the face. At more core, I am actually an idealist but I am getting more and more cynical with age.

 I was told in a discussion yesterday that my obsession with logic is annoying and this person doesn't want to have a conversation with me until I stop doing it.  It has come to the point where religious people have actually admitted that they do not approve of logic.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6.6  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @3.6.5    3 weeks ago

I didn't know logic was an obsession. How sad that people can't tolerate logic. I suppose they don't want to deal with something they have no aptitude for or are otherwise uncomfortable with. Quite sad indeed.

 
 
 
epistte
3.6.7  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @3.6.6    3 weeks ago
I didn't know logic was an obsession. How sad that people can't tolerate logic. I suppose they don't want to deal with something they have no aptitude for or are otherwise uncomfortable with. Quite sad indeed.

Can I send you a link to the statement via PM?  I found it to be amusing that they finally admitted that logic is an impediment to religious belief.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6.8  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @3.6.7    3 weeks ago

Sure, that would be interesting 

 
 
 
Veronica
3.6.9  Veronica  replied to  epistte @3.6.7    3 weeks ago

It interests me as well.

 
 
 
epistte
3.6.10  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @3.6.8    3 weeks ago
Sure, that would be interesting

You and I both have had long (attempted) discussions with this person. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.6.11  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  epistte @3.6.7    3 weeks ago

I'd love to see it too!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6.12  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @3.6.10    3 weeks ago

Based on that, I can probably guess as to whom you're referring, lol

 
 
 
epistte
3.6.13  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @3.6.12    3 weeks ago
Based on that, I can probably guess as to whom you're referring, lol

I'll give you three guesses who it might be. The first two don't count. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.6.14  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @3.6.13    3 weeks ago

1 guess is all I'll need, lol

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago

"beyond deliver" is infanticide. What people do you know that advocate that?

And the answer is not liberals. Only psychos and sickos advocate infanticide

 
 
 
Dulay
3.8  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
The LGTBQ community has no more or no less rights than anyone else.

Utter bullshit. 

 
 
 
luther28
4  luther28    3 weeks ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Advancing his anti-abortion agenda, President Donald Trump moved Thursday to protect health care workers who object to procedures like abortion on moral or religious grounds.

Seems to me that these folks may have choose the wrong career path.

 
 
 
Freefaller
4.1  Freefaller  replied to  luther28 @4    3 weeks ago
Seems to me that these folks may have choose the wrong career path.

Just more snowflakes being offended, I blame poor parenting and poor education

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Freefaller @4.1    3 weeks ago

Trump is the poster boy for poor parenting and poor education.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

I bet Trump would have gotten Stormy an ab if he had knocked her up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    3 weeks ago

I bet he's paid for many abortions 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    2 weeks ago

That's a sucker bet

 
 
 
bbl-1
7  bbl-1    3 weeks ago

On the polished alabaster alter the golden image of the fetus was laid.  All cowered in fear of that which was not yet among them.

the Trump?  Panderer to whom?

 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    3 weeks ago

 I read the 'new rule' and the thing that REALLY struck me is that it allows for:

"Consciences protections related to the performance of advanced directives."

Which to my reading means that your medical practitioner can REFUSE to follow the directives in your living will. 

FUCK THAT.

I will be asking any doctor that treats me whether they claim 'Conscience protections' for any reason and if they do, I'll demand another doctor. 

 
 
 
Ender
8.1  Ender  replied to  Dulay @8    3 weeks ago

Next they will say a doctor can lie to you ... for the general good...

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Ender @8.1    3 weeks ago
Next they will say a doctor can lie to you ... for the general good...

Some states already REQUIRE doctors to LIE to women. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8    3 weeks ago
Which to my reading means that your medical practitioner can REFUSE to follow the directives in your living will. 

I'm not sure if that's what it actually means, but if it is, I think your following assessment:

FUCK THAT.

Is appropriate.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2    3 weeks ago
I'm not sure if that's what it actually means, but if it is, I think your following assessment:

I quoted the entire 'protection' and read the underlying statute. I don't know how else you could read it.

Right now my in-laws are both in a care facility, one in hospice, one in rehab. I will be talking to my mother in law about this shit so she can take appropriate action for her husband and herself. 

They tried to make my father in law go to 'chapel' when he first moved there and even with dementia he pitched a fit and made a scene. They never tried that shit again. 

 
 
 
charger 383
9  charger 383    2 weeks ago

If healthcare workers do not want to be involved with abortion, there are many areas they can work and avoid the issue that upsets them so much.  Examples are nursing homes, physical therapy, orthopedics, home care, and many more  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1  Jack_TX  replied to  charger 383 @9    2 weeks ago
If healthcare workers do not want to be involved with abortion, there are many areas they can work and avoid the issue that upsets them so much.  Examples are nursing homes, physical therapy, orthopedics, home care, and many more  

Or just be an Ob/Gyn who doesn't do abortions.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1    2 weeks ago

You can't do that you have to be forced to bend to the will of leftist.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.2    2 weeks ago

Babbling would be speaking words not posting words so I'am not babbling at all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @9.1.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  MUVA @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
You can't do that you have to be forced to bend to the will of leftist.

That may or may not be the case, and it would take a court decision to determine.

But there are cardiologists who don't replace valves.  There are oncologists who don't do mastectomies.  There are orthopedic surgeons who only do hands and wrists.   

Medicine is so highly specialized, I doubt any of this will make any difference at all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

What leftists are forcing people to have abortions????

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.7  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.6    2 weeks ago
What leftists are forcing people to have abortions????

When have people been counseled to have an abortion against their will, by anyone?  This is a common claim but when the proof is asked for the people making these claims magically disappear. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.6    2 weeks ago
What leftists are forcing people to have abortions????

That's not actually what MUVA or Jack were saying.

"Or just be an Ob/Gyn who doesn't do abortions." - Jack

"You can't do that you have to be forced to bend to the will of leftist." - MUVA

Jack was correct, all an ob/Gyn needs to do in order to follow their faith if they don't believe abortions are right is simply refuse to do them. There is no law that forces any doctor to perform an abortion. So that basically knocks the air out of MUVA's comment since no one is "forced to bend to the will" of any "leftist".

When my wife and I were having to decide what to do when our ob/Gyn informed us of a possible cluster pregnancy, she said if we did choose to terminate it would be a different doctor, she chose to not perform any terminations and they would get referred to a local clinic if medically necessary.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.8    2 weeks ago

I understand now what Jack was saying and my comment was to MUVA.

I'll never really understand what MUVA says.  

 
 
 
MUVA
10  MUVA    2 weeks ago
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tacos!
Dean Moriarty
Ed-NavDoc
epistte


65 visitors