Stinkin Thinkin Part 3 President Bush Does It Again!
Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE
In the waning hours of his administration President George W Bush is trying to sneak in legislation to weaken a woman’s right to choose. It took Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards writing an op ed in the New York Times on September 19th to expose his scheme.
“ a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.”
President Bush’s proposed rule is another attempt to attack Roe v. Wade. The larger issue is an attack on our constitutional freedom as described in Roe v. Wade’s decision. His proposed rule is another way to undermine the Supreme Court decision.
“Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.”
The government is threatening to remove federal financing from any entity providing healthcare or medical care, if the federal government found that entity in noncompliance with the proposed rule.
“Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer.”
I thought Republicans and the Republican administration opposed unnecessary spending. This proposal has not been highlighted until Hillary Clinton’s op ed. The fourteenth amendment defines the constitutional right to privacy. America was built on the premise of separation between church and state as stated in the first amendment.
Religious beliefs should not be translated into federal law. Larry Tribe makes that clear in his book “The Invisible Constitution”.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a controversial United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.
According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.
Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’ The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman’s health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.
Abortion is a religious issue and not a state issue. It is not an emotional issue that can be debated into law. It is an constitutional individual rights issue about freedom. The Supreme Court made this very clear in 1973. Citizens of the United States should have the right to their religious beliefs but the government should not impose religious beliefs on the rights of others.
President George W. Bush in his proposed new rule left open the interpretation of abortion.
“The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers (and the federal government) could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.”
The Bush administration always tries to justify its many attacks on freedoms granted by our constitution by hiding behind protecting our rights and freedoms. He is attacking a basic freedom with this rule. I believe the American people are too smart to buy into his thinking.
“The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?” (and patient’s freedoms)
I read about this proposed rule on September 28th. The comment period ended Sept 25th. The goal of the administration was to sneak the proposal past the public. Why didn’t our presidential candidates publicize the proposed rule?
“The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.”
Even though the 30 day comment period has ended, it is never too late to contact our legislators, They must listen! We elect them! I believe everyone opposed to this proposal should write their representatives in congress as well as their local newspapers. They should send their objections to both John McCain and B
The Republican Party declares it is against government regulations. Yet it wants to impose regulations on one of our basic freedoms. The right to privacy.
Does anyone want four more years of Stinkin Thinkin?
The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.