The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.
"Anything"? Like if a woman wants to change jobs or move when she's pregnant, that could be subject to Federal regulation? Because that would be "anything" that "affects" the egg? [It's actually even worse: read the regulation, below, and you'll see the egg doesn't even have to be implanted, fercryinout loud. Womb-checks from the TSA, guys? Why not?]
But hey, health care that's truly universal has to come from The God(ess)(e)(s) Of Your Choice, eh?
Of course, Christianist
control over the health care system will stop here.
Not.
NOTE As usual, Pravda on the Potomac teabags the Christianists with the headline "Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights," which is a crock. They were free not to take the job, right? So why did they? To deny people care they think shouldn't be given, and to impose their values on others. Duh.
UDPATE WaPo, naturally, doesn't provide a link to the actual proposal so we can judge for ourselves. This (PDF) looks like it:
Therefore, for the purpose of these proposed regulations, and implementing and enforcing the Church Amendment, Public Health Service Act §245, and the Weldon Amendment, the Department proposes to define abortion as “any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
You should really read the whole memo, because it's a brilliant and Orwellian attempt to control women's bodies by invoking "conscience" and "tolerance." That's why the wording is so broad, don't you know. To impose tolerance.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
hillary was on this 10 days ago....
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi...
...and from the presumptuous nominee.... crickets.
why stop at moving the beginning of life up to fertilization? i think it ought to be ejaculation, making condoms illegal, as well.
half the time, the fertilized egg doesn't implant anyway. does this make all women who menstruate abortionists? the bush administration says yes. well, not all - just the ones who have sex.
Did You Move At All?
From the time you had sex and the time when implantation could occur, did you physically move? If so, have you affected implantation?
Perhaps strapping women down so that they can't move is the safest way. So employers, if you think your women employees might be having sex, feel free to fire them because it upset your religious beliefs that they are getting up and walking around to come to work in the morning and that might affect a few cells in their body.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Surprise! Religions Delight in Controling and Dominating Women .
Any honest history of the world easily confirms that. How can people be surprised that religious idiots have invaded our Nation's government. And so we slowly join the community of nations controlled or greatly influenced by a religion. Today those governments include Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine and a number of others. Please note that list is comprised of nations that the vast majority of Americans despise. The reason we despise them is for their subjugation of their subjects, especially women, under the dogma of a central religious belief.
You don't need religion to keep women down
See for example: Primary, Democratic 2008.
The netroots is supposedly a secular place that believes in the separation of church and state yet they were just as egregious in keeping women down.
If one looks at early Christianity, it was less misogynistic than it became. In fact, if you look at the books of the New Testament that are actually credited to Paul, you'll note a much less hostile environment toward women. The books of the New Testament exhibiting the most sexism/misogyny are later inserts and often attributed to someone who is most likely not the author. I'm not entirely sure that secular power wasn't a motivating factor. After all, we saw the same secular intervention in 2008 to the new messiah.
Only tyrants rig elections.
Where's Your Sense of Humor?
This along with Bush's threatened veto of the new fair pay legislation are two of many reasons why it's so hard to have a sense of humor about drinks named pussy, a video game about a fat princess or the first viable woman presidential candidate being called an irrelevant bitch. All of these things are not unrelated. They are all about teaching women the right way to act and their proper role in society. And surprise! All of them advocate for women to have less power - over their bodies, in the work place, and in the political life of this country.
But, hey, that's probably a coincidence.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
BDBlue
Well, I didn't lose my sense of humor. Your "Did You Move, At All" post was brilliantly funny.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...