theist 1 Report post Posted November 23, 2004 Any small step to the pro-life side is a good thing. This is like a couple of those steps. -------------------------------- Congress Helps Providers Refuse Abortions Associated Press Washington, Nov. 22 - Congress made it a little easier for hospitals, insurers and other to refuse to provide or cover abortions. A provision in a $388 billion spending bill passed by the House and Senate on Saturday would block any of the measure's money from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide abortions, make abortion referrals or cover them. "This policy simply states that health care entities should not be forced to provide elective abortions, a practice to which a majority of health care providers object and which they will not perform as a matter of conscience," said Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla., a doctor who sponsored the language. Weldon said his measure was simply a refinement of decades-old restrictions against federal aid for most abortions. "This provision is meant to protect health care entities from discrimination because they choose not to provide abortion services," he said. But Democrats complained that the provision was slipped into the voluminous year-end spending bill without debate or discussion in the Senate or the House. "Now any business entity can decide to tell doctors working for it they can't give information to women about their right to choose," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Many clinics and other providers, in exchange for federal funds, are required to at least tell pregnant women who do not wish to have a child that abortion is among their options. Weldon's language would make it more difficult to enforce that, opponents said. "The Weldon amendment is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral and information," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information." Boxer said she has been promised a vote in next year's Senate to repeal the provision. But House Democrats conceded earlier this year that they lacked the votes to stop Republicans from approving the measure, and likely would not have votes to strip the measure next year either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gauracandra 1 Report post Posted November 24, 2004 I remember a few years ago there was one really weird abortion controversy. Here is how I recall it. Basically the left wanted to exclude any hospital from receiving government reimbursement for medical services if they did not allow abortions. In other words, you are a Catholic hospital and you have made the decision not to perform abortion. Now someone comes in with government funded health care and needs eye surgery. You can't receive funding unless you submit to performing abortions at your hospital. I believe this is how it went. In addition, there was a major push to require ALL surgeons to learn abortion proceedures or else they wouldn't get accredited by some body like the AMA (American Medical Association). The theory was "If there was an emergency a doctor should know how to perform an abortion. If they don't learn this training we can't certify they are competent to be doctors." It was such undeniable garbage. These abortion people really have a radical agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theist 1 Report post Posted November 24, 2004 I believe this to be the reversal of that. Yeah the PCers are really looney. They are more feverent about the right to kill the unborn than most religionists are about their beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
