Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Good News and Bad News About Bush's Last-Minute War on Choice

Posted by Cara, Feministe at 12:37 PM on November 19, 2008.


I'm hugely pessimistic for the short-term, but optimistic about where this is going to go come January.

This NY Times article, though unfortunately referring to it as a measure that “protects health providers,” gives us some important updates on Bush’s proposed anti-choice DHHS rule.

Bad News: Bush still looks determined to instate the rule.

Good News: Members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including those appointed by Bush, are voicing protest against the rule, saying it is unnecessary and would “overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.”  In addition, it’s being vocally opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, a bunch of senators and congressional representatives, and the attorney generals of 13 states.

Good News: President-Elect Barack Obama has stated his opposition to the proposal, and the NY Times describes his position as believing it would “raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives.” Obama apparently plans to attempt to rescind the rule if it goes into effect.  As I said in my last post on the subject, this is probably the best we can hope for at this point.

Bad News: Rescinding the rule would take three to six months.

To summarize even further, I’m hugely pessimistic for the short-term, but optimistic about where this is going to go come January.

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, anti-choice, women's rights, family planning

Cara blogs regularly at The Curvature and Feministe.


Pay Equity: Raise Your Voice for Equal Pay for Equal Work
Democratic leadership in the House have vowed to push forward with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Post by Christy Hardin Smith. January 8, 2009.
Shocking: "Keep Your Legs Crossed, Sluts" Sex-Ed Strategy Fails
The U.S. government has spent more than $1.5 billion on abstinence programs. What a terrible waste.
Post by Jill Filipovic. December 30, 2008.
North Carolina May Pay Reparations for Eugenics Program That Lasted Until 1975
A state House panel recommended the state give $20,000 to victims of the eugenics program
Post by AlterNet Staff. December 26, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Argument for impeachment
Posted by: pkricker on Nov 19, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Bush, Inc. were being impeached, tried, indicted, investigated, interrogated and prosecuted right now they might not have the time or energy to make any of these last minute attempts to screw the country. I understand the reasons why this is not happening, I just question the judgement that goes along with the reasoning. Bush is not just a lame duck, he's a poisonous creature whose last thrashings about are going to be with us for some time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Argument for impeachment Posted by: luzmejor
Reason not to want Hillary for SOS
Posted by: CA NOW on Nov 20, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton & Murray just introduced legislation to stop the rule from taking effect.

I wrote about it over at the CA NOW blog in "One Reason I Don't Want Hillary as Secretary of State".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH HATES WOMEN!
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 25, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at the way he treats Laura!
I will give you a great example of how he treats women...There was a young lady with a childhood from hell, who messed her life up on drugs and was present when some of her junkie friends killed a drug dealer with a pickax. Her name was Karla Faye Tucker. She was tried and declared GUILTY and sentenced to the DEATH PENALTY here in Texas. In prison, able to get an education and get off of drugs and alcohol FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE, she became a good person and married a minister...EVERYONE who knew her asked that her life be spared and that Governor Bush give her a pardon.

HE LAUGHTED WHEN HE SIGNED HER EXECUTION ORDER AND TORE UP THE CORRESPONDENCE REQUESTING THAT HE SPARE HER LIFE!

THAT IS THE KIND OF GUY GEORGE W. BUSH REALLY IS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

conscientious objectors
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 25, 2008 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a pro-life Democrat, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush or Republicans in general. However...

Author William Saletan, who served in the Clinton Administration, and writes of a "pro-choice majority," notes in his 2003 book, Bearing Right: How (pro-choice) Conservatives Won the Abortion War, that the debate over embryonic stem cell research shows that pro-lifers really do care about the unborn, and are not out to "punish" women for having sex outside of marriage.

A July 25th e-mail from Clark D. Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life to Ross Heckmann of California Democrats for Life similarly reads:

--

Dear Ross,

The Bush administration is considering a proposed policy that would require all recipients of federal money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to certify that they will not discriminate against healthcare providers who object to participating in abortions.

In response to the proposed policy, abortion advocacy groups engaged in a classic attempt at misdirection, arguing that the policy would negatively impact women's access to contraceptives.

However, a careful reading of both the draft policy and the multitude of existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience clearly shows that this policy is directed at abortions, both surgical and chemical (e.g., those induced using RU-486).

Americans, by a large margin, support the right of individuals to refuse to participate in procedures (like abortion) that violate an individual's conscience, morals, or ethics.

Rather engaging in a meaningful and honest discussion of the issues, abortion supporters are feverishly trying to shift the debate to one in which they feel more confident of acquiring some modicum of public support.

The proposed policy simply provides an oversight mechanism to enforce more than a dozen existing (and many long-standing) federal protections for healthcare freedom of conscience.

This step by the Bush Administration is necessary to ensure that existing federal law is enforced and to protect the freedom of conscience of all Americans.

--

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conscientious objectors Posted by: luzmejor