Health care providers who depend on federal aid to operate may soon be required to certify that they will not discriminate against doctors, nurses, or any other employees who object to administering birth control and abortion services. In turn, the proposed rule by the Department of Health and Human Services would allow any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. The New York Times also reports "the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."
What is the religious reasoning behind this? Some forms of contraception prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's womb. For members of the religious right, that is classified as abortion because a fertilized egg marks the beginning of "the creation life." In fact, the HHS states the following "definitions" for abortion:
What is the religious reasoning behind this? Some forms of contraception prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's womb. For members of the religious right, that is classified as abortion because a fertilized egg marks the beginning of "the creation life." In fact, the HHS states the following "definitions" for abortion:
Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.
The proposal by the HHS basically discredits the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade by making the indication that what a woman does with her body is not a private matter, but rather something the government and complete strangers would have control over. Hospital pharmacists would get away with refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control, and doctors would be able to turn away rape victims who seeks emergency contraception. Remember, this is all in the name of religion. Separation of church and state is a myth, and it always has been.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 12)
91. I never knew, never will know and don't give a shit. Why do you care? Do you do shit like this to other people too or am I special?
Now I'm assuming you're a virgin and that might explain it. No life of your own.
Would I be right about that, toodles?
Clif Kuplen at 11:38PM on Jul 18th 2008
-------------------------------
Well Clif, in many ways you are a bit special. I will admit this is the first time i saw you admit to grad school, which is at least two more years following your graduate degree. I guess what really fascinates me is that, unlike most posters, is you make claims as fact, then deny those same facts when they are pointed out to you.
Now as to why two field officers would be so concerned about you strikes me as odd because A. you weren't in the military, and B., Officers seldom concern themselves with draft issues except that one has to swear you in. If there was a chance that you were to be available to be inducted and possibly sent to the RVN, that you would have taken just a bit more interest in said proceedings, but you didn't and I wonder why, because if I am to believe you in other things slightly more complex or arcane, it causes your credibility to be just a wee tad suspect.
You may have noticed that no family or former wives have ever really been brought into this because that's not only not germaine to my curiosity, I don't believe in dragging the innocent members of one's family into a pissing contest on this blog over your education/military information that you yourself posted here. It certainly seems like you have the aggressive personality for military service, so why wouldn't they accept you given you say you were 1-A and not II-S if all you had were two classifications ending in A. Were your court involvements all that severe that you could argue per se and not say you went to law school or did you study law elsewhere? But that's off the topic, and it happened 40 years ago just looks like the biggest cop-out I see here on the board. If you dodged the draft by going to school, I have no heartburn with that. If you had done like Ali, you'd have my respect, he had mine. Any CO that truly were against the war and believed it wrong I respect.
I guess what I'm saying is that, from what you've posted are appearing to be a bit disingenuous. I'd have thought that to not be the case, but you leave me no choice but to go by what you say which keeps getting sequentially re-arranged.
So think about it Clif, then maybe you can understand just why I am not buying into the whole story. Now if it were CN, I'd just go on my way because I think he's an ass, but then again, opinions are like that, everybody has one. Ciao.
Dedmanrisn at 12:30AM on Jul 19th 2008
92. Same type of questions I had in the 70's for nuclear power advocates...name the three biggest US nuclear power accidents, and how close did they come to meltdown?
Rich at 11:10AM on Jul 18th 2008
---------------------
Rich: TMI was the biggest accident in the 70's with a partial meltdown. No others in the 70's came close, but a test reactor blew in the 60's in CA and possibly one other None since TMI and release of radioactivity was minimal.
Dedmanrisn at 1:22AM on Jul 19th 2008
93. Officers seldom concern themselves with draft issues except that one has to swear you in.
xx
First, you're wrong.
The selective service boards of every state were under the command of an O-5, 6, somewhere in that range.
A lot of odd things happened after I was exposed to the draft and I cannot account for them. I briefly saw a letter from one officer to the other and of course I can't remember content after all this time. It was as I recall written in anger and seemed to contain a veiled threat if I weren't sent in the next call. There was some protocol I was entitled to that he demanded I not get, but what or how was too long ago.
There was something else odd about it, but it was far too long ago. I'm thinking they were equal rank and one was calling the other by the first name, or seeming to give an order - being overly familiar or some such. The lady at the board only let me look at it for a few seconds, and I don't think she was even supposed to do that.
And the guy at the home board may have known my old man. He was influential in the state and could be a childish prick at times and made enemies, or he may have turned down a request for a favor/handout and that may have had something to do with it. Whatever it was, it was far above my pay grade.
That's really more than I could say under oath, sort of a feeling I was left with.
I either wasn't' called after that or called and sent home.
I never applied for II-S nor did too many people because it extended your liability from 26 to 35.
I was eligible for the exemption, but didn't need it. For years my board at least was very quiet.
As to the lottery, I had simply put in a routine appeal to my draft status when I had about two or three months' liability and that suspended their right to draft me until the board heard the appeal and after I could be drafted so that made it over.
I think meanwhile a high 300's number came in, but I didn't need it then.
That was a long time ago and in relation to the rest of my life, of no consequence worth mentioning.
If I'd been drafted there would have been memories or a cancellation, but I was extremely focused on getting up to speed in my trade, the standards set for me were extremely high and it took nearly all my waking hours for a couple of years and that's what I recall the most.
I don't ever recall making contradictory statements here, and if I did, missing a minor event by a year or two from forty years ago is the only way I could think of it would happen.
I've spent my days in what some would call 'interesting times'. I'm not complaining because for my kind of person it's about the journey and I didn't want a boring or unchallenging one, but that does crowd out the minor incidents. How the draft missed me but the same war killed or wrecked half my friends isn't much to want to recall, and it was no minor incident to them.
I have nothing good to say about that war or what it did to my friends and I'd assume everybody's friends.
There's even less of a reason for the one in Iraq.
Clif Kuplen at 1:31AM on Jul 19th 2008
94. Energy Plan Now, I'm not interested in persuading you or anyone else. Remain blind.
Captain Negative at 5:14AM on Jul 19th 2008
95. prior to the anthrax attacks these two senators were on record as being opposed to both the Patriot Act and NCLB?
-----------------------------------------
Not on record as being opposed, but questioning the idea that the "Patriot Act" was too draconian and an act of fear, out of proportion to the actual threat.
The NCLB was considered while the anthrax attacks were happening. To question *anything* the bush-cheney junta wanted was consdiered un-patriotic.
Surely you remember those days bob. A lot of people who post on these blogs still have that, "you're with bush or you're with the terrorist" mentality.
Both 9-11 are and the anthrax attacks are conspiracies. I can make a better case for Cheney being behind 9-11 than you can make for Osama bin Laden perpetrating 9-11.
But we've already been there. The biggest, "conspiracy theory," is the one being foisted on us by the U.S. government. That theory has 19 guys with box cutters simultaneously hijacking four commercial airliners over what is supposed to be some of the most heavily guarded airspace on the planet.
The anthrax attaks...
At the time, Governor bush was blaming it on Al Qaeda, KNOWING that it wasn't true.
Weaponized anthrax isn't just laying around. We know its origin. It sure as hell wasn't Al Qaeda.
And while we are on the subject:
Has Al Qaeda *ever* shown any sophistication in their attacks? What have they used? Speedboat. Plastique. I.E.D.'s. Our soldiers are being killed primarily by rigging unexploded ordnance.
And I'll tell you something else. I'll accept the ridicule but I've been an investigator most of my life and I can tell you with certainty that the reason some factions are making such a big deal of saying, "The democrats want to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue," is because the last thing they want is a thorough investigation of connections between certain Americans, Saudi Arabia, the Bin Laden family and Al Qaeda.
Terrorism is crime and you don't fight crime with infanty. You fight terrorism by investigation. You trace the people and you trace the money.
The place for the military is in precision strikes on terrorists once they are located. Fighting terrorism is the job of cops, intelligence agencies, finacial experts, spies and assassins.
The last thing the perpetrators of 9-11 and the anthrax attacks want is a thorough, non-political investigation.
And, as always, there is this inconvenient fact...
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Rex Tomb
FBI spokesman
June 5, 2006
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Captain Negative at 5:17AM on Jul 19th 2008
96.
Very odd that a government that can't keep a secret still hasn't
told you anything and no leaks from anyone? Hmmmmmmmm conspiracy
coming, hide.
Dedmanrisn at 10:08PM on Jul 18th 2008
=============================================
Who says the government can't keep a secret, Toodles?
The 9-11 Commission said that the Pentagon lied to the Commission and the Pentagon has admitted same.
I'm not interested in trying to persuade an idiot like you of
anything. You were born stupid and nothing is going to change that.
Captain Negative at 5:14AM on Jul 19th 2008
97. If anything will fire up voters against McCain, who is just another Bush, this will. It won't stand, but if it does, we women will do everything in our power to overturn it, and keep it from happening. Bush and the American right wing Taliban won't win on this, no how, no way. Now I am going to go and donate to Planned Parenthood, because this is an outrage!!
Jan at 10:05AM on Jul 19th 2008
98. Captain,
I really think it comes down to what you want to believe.
If you want to believe it's Dick Cheney, there are enough "facts" out there that can be tied together with "logical conclusions" to make a convincing scenario.
It rarely comes down to arguing the facts. It may come down to arguing which facts are relevant and which ones aren't, but It usually comes down to arguing the conclusions.
Here's the kind of statement that I'm talking about:
"The NCLB was considered while the anthrax attacks were happening. To question *anything* the bush-cheney junta wanted was consdiered un-patriotic."
In other words, A happened while B was also happening. A general attitude of C was in play at the same time.
Where's the proof of relationship? Basically in conclusions drawn based on what one wants to believe.
The same could pretty much be said for any of the other points you made.
If you don't want to believe it's possible to use box cutters, a well thought out plan and the element of surprise to hijack 4 planes, fly two into a building, nearly miss another building with the 3rd and essentially fail to come remotely close to the intended target with the 4th, then you aren't going to. You can Monday morning quarterback it into too many coincidences, balls being dropped, suspicious decisions and actions on the part of any number of individuals, etc.
So what we're left with is what makes sense, and that's going to be mostly subjective.
Does it make sense that someone would launch anthrax attacks on members of congress and the media in order to assure passage of some terror related legislation (the Patriot Act) and some totally unrelated legislation (NCLB) during a time when they were almost assured of passage as it was?
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Particularly in the case of the NCLB, which was the legislation singularly addressed by Clif's original statement.
bob at 9:05AM on Jul 19th 2008
99. To all those who think docs can't refuse doing abortions
Someone has sugestted that a doctor who refuses to do abortions is harming the woman.
Firstly,the concept of pregnancy hurting a woman,is not as wide as some think it is.Yes,terminating a pregnancy may be necessary when a woman's life is at risk eg-ectopic pregnancy.
Secondly,as a doc who thinks abortion is wrong,I think that instead of abortion,contraception is better.I am not against the pill,or other forms of contraception.Make contraception widely available,with education,that is my point.
Thirdly,if a gal gets pregnant,and thinks it is inconvienent,please by all means let us bend- over backwards to help her realise that her baby is not inconvienent.Let us as a society support such a woman.
And that is that.
aniekan thomas at 10:12AM on Jul 19th 2008
100. bob, I never said that the goal of the anthrax attacks was passage of
NCLB. It was an unintended consequence.
------------------
"It rarely comes down to arguing the facts. It may come down to
arguing which facts are relevant and which ones aren't, but It
usually comes down to arguing the conclusions."
------------------------------
People go to prison all the time on circumstantial evidence. Witness
the infamous Scott Peterson. There was no physical evidence. Entirely
circumstantial.
Then look at O.J. Simpson. Tons of physical evidence, but not enough
circumstantial evidence to connect it to. Probably not a great choice
for making a point as evryone tries to blam the jury for the
incompetence of the prosecution, but my point stands.
9-11 was clearly a high-tech, inside job. Anyone who watches those
three buildings come down and doesn't see that they fell as a result
of controlled demolition has failed to really look.
There is a mountain of evidence showing that 9-11 was an inside job.
Anyone who takes a look at the broader picture can see that the preponderance of evidence. (which is what caused O.J. civil "guilty" verdict) points to an, "inside job."
The anthrax attacks were made with weapons grade anthrax. It wasn't cooked in some basement like meth. It was made to U.S. military standards in a U.S. facility.
The F.B.I. agent who ordered the data base at Ames destroyed (meaning that the evidence was destroyed) was given a Presidential award. This was done over the objection of staunch conservative Sen. Charles
Grassley.
Those 19 alleged hijackers roamed around the United States, attracting attention to themselves (some for well over a year) without being molested by the F.B.I. They were barely qualified to fly single engined Cessna's, but people easily believe that they all succeeded in hijacking four planes, fixed their positions and navigated into their targets with precision.
Who financed them? Does it remind you of another false flag operation where Lee Harvey Oswald reportedly went about making an obnoxious fool
of himself at a gun range and reckelessly driving cars and allegedly showing up at the Russian embassy in Mexico ring any bells?
The rubble from the WTC towers and WTC #7, was cut up and sold for scrap, overseas. The crime scene was destroyed, just as that databank which included the anthrax was ordered destroyed.
You can bet that there are a lot of government agents, cops, scientists and others who know. In New York City a move is underway to have a local investigation commission established. Lots of New York City cops and firefighters know what happened.
And, while it is easy to lable people who haven't swallowed the Kool-Aid as crackpots, there are a lot of us out there. The numbers grow. It isn't people who are living in bunkers.
The rest of the world knows.
The entire bush-junta has been based on lies.
But, as always, if you or anyone else has evidence that Osama BinLaden pulled off 9-11, get down to your local F.B.I. office and share it with them.
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Rex Tomb
FBI spokesman
June 5, 2006
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
The only reason for not knowing that 9-11 and the anthrax attacks were inside jobs, is expressed in this quote...
“Only the small secrets need to be protected.The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.
….Marshall McCluhan
Captain Negative at 4:29PM on Jul 19th 2008
101. "bob, I never said that the goal of the anthrax attacks was passage of
NCLB."
***********
I realize you didn't. Django brought it up in a comment that trailed off into some babble about ketchup being a vegetable and standardized testing as an underfunded growth industry.
**********
“Only the small secrets need to be protected.The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.
….Marshall McCluhan"
*********
Then why in God's name waste so much time struggling to expose those small secrets?
You folks delve into the minutia of small secrets in an attempt to oversell what's right in front of everyone's eyes. If you weren't constantly trying to construct a circuitous route from each and every catastrophe, large or small, directly to Dr. Evil's office and spent more time sticking to you main message, maybe you wouldn't be labeled as fanatical Bush haters.
There are 2-3 main things that are pretty much hard to refute. Stick to those. Have a consistent message that doesn't include numerous aspersions of stupidity upon any reader who doesn't take everything you say at face value. Don't wander off into conspiracy theory land. It's fine for self-amusement, but the part of the population that might be wavering on the fence is going to be tossed right back over the other side if they smell the smoke of kook-fringe hairfires wafting in.
Ramping everything up to the level of hell on earth doesn't sell your message.
It just makes you look nuts.
bob at 9:14PM on Jul 19th 2008
102. bob, thanks for the useless advice. It's always the same with your type. You do nothing but nay-say, without a single contribution. All you do is say, "No that can't be. Elements of the U.S. government and military would NEVER involve themselves in something so horrible."
That doesn't mean diddly. Think of what was "gained" from 9-11 and the anthrax attacks. We now live in a police state, where the bush-cheney junta can label anyone (including you) a "terrorist" and toss you into a prison camp.
They have seized one of the world's largest oil reserves and they are about to expand their grand theft oil into Iran.
Make no mistake. The neocons are true believers. They *know* that PEAK OIL has been reached. They are determined that the U.S. should be the only super-power.
Russia and China have been conducting joint military exercises for a few years now and the Chinese say, quite openly, that they are doing so because there is a need to, "contain the U.S."
The neocons want another cold war. It's good for business.
What's a few thousand American lives compared to TRILLIONS of dollars in "defense spending" and TRILLIONS of dollars in oil?
You're pathetically naive, bob.
It's easy to say, "conspiracy theory" as though that makes one, "nuts." But the biggest "conspiracy theory" of all is the one perpetuated by the bush-cheney junta.
We know that the Pentagon lied about 9-11. They admit it. We know that the anthrax was produced under the direction of the U.S. military. WE KNOW THOSE THINGS, but you choose not to pay attention to what is right in front of your nose.
9-11 was an inside job and the evidence is coming out. You're nuts if you don't see it.
Captain Negative at 6:02AM on Jul 20th 2008
103. If believing that 9-11 was an inside job is, "nuts" then I have a whole lot of company.
Zogby Polls
51% of Americans want Congress to Probe bush/Cheney regarding 9-11 attacks.
www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354 - 15k
Half of New Yorkers believe 9-11 was allowed to happen.
www.wanttoknow.info/zogby911 - 56k -
Captain Negative at 6:40AM on Jul 20th 2008
104. Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Captain Negative at 6:55AM on Jul 20th 2008
105. " bob, thanks for the useless advice. "
You're welcome.
Per usual, you've completely missed the point.
Go back and look at everything you wrote in reply and then ask yourself if what you're doing is having any effect on the situation.
What is your objective? What are you trying to accomplish with the endless reiteration of this stuff? Who are you trying to convince and are you being effective?
How are the investigations you desire going to be brought about?
Should you, perhaps, tone it down a bit to attract rather than repel folks who might possibly be willing to buy some of it, but not your whole package?
It's not conceding points. It's not compromising principles. It's called consensus building. That's how things get done.
bob at 7:37AM on Jul 20th 2008