Bush issues conscience protection rules

Repair of intestines and a new trachea
December 11, 2008
UN pro-lifers at further risk
December 23, 2008

President George Bush issues conscience protection rules

The Bush administration has introduced rules which will allow health workers to refuse to perform unethical procedures. The regulations will take effect two days before Senator Barack Obama takes over next month. The government says they reflect current law. Ms Nita Lowey, a Democrat congresswoman, said the measure threatened women’s health and vowed to overturn it. The National Partnership for Women & Families said the rules threatened women’s primary care. [Reuters, 18 December]

(from SPUC December 23, 2008)

Summary provided by Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, 5-6 St Matthew Street, London, United Kingdom, SW1P 2JT, +44 20 7222 5845.

These summaries, with links to the sources, are found on their website www.spuc.org.uk/news .  The accuracy of the summaries depends on the accuracy of the cited sources, which are paraphrased rather than quoted.

The day the announcement was made, Cecile Richards, of Planned Parenthood, sent out a letter to Planned Parenthood’s supporters denouncing the new rules that will allow medical personnel to abide by their moral standards.  She sees it as the “anti-choice fringe” promulgating misinformation and preventing women from getting their rightful services and she wants the rules rolled back .  She says, I believe that tricking women when they are most vulnerable is wrong — and the federal government shouldn’t pay people to do it.

She would probably be shocked that many pro-lifers would agree with her statement.  Pro-lifers don’t think that tax money should be going to Planned Parenthood, because it certainly does trick women when they are vulnerable.

For example, any group that would say they protect girls who are victims of statutory rape – and then not do it – are tricking a girl when she is most vulnerable.  And an abortionist who says, “Oh, no, it’s just blood” to a woman who asks if the baby is “there yet”  –  that abortionist is certainly tricking her.  And the ones who deny the existence of any potential aftereffects, like depression (https://www.mbbsmedicalcollege.com/valium.html) or breast cancer, how honest are they?

Most Americans would want tax funding withdrawn from any entity that tricks women when they are so vulnerable.

RARTL  December 23, 2008

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *