Conservative Backlash Forms As President Obama Voids Health Workers' BushCo Era "Conscience Rules"

[ClarkUSA]

The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable triggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring the difficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground on anything related to the explosive issue of abortion.

The administration's plans, revealed quietly with a terse posting on a federal Web site, unleashed a flood of heated reaction, with supporters praising the proposal as a crucial victory for women's health and reproductive rights, and opponents condemning it as a devastating setback for freedom of religion... the move drew deep disappointment from some conservatives who have been hopeful about working with the administration to try to defuse the debate on abortion, long one of the most divisive political issues... Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment... They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.

"We recognize we are not going to be able to agree on every issue," said an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process has just begun.... The announcement capped a week when anger among conservatives was already running high because of the ambitious progressive agenda outlined in the administration's proposed $3.6 trillion budget.

The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs... Women's health advocates, family-planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it created a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning and infertility treatment, and possibly a wide range of scientific research. After reviewing the regulation, newly appointed officials at the Health and Human Services Department agreed.... An array of family-planning groups and others praised the move... But the Family Research Council, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others condemned it.

The Washington Post news story has some amusing quotes from furious conservatives. Rush Limbaugh will no doubt be screaming about this issue in the coming week.

[msongs]

1. do they agree that I can refuse to provide services to republicans then?? nt

[katsy]

3. I would think so.

Since I find right wing facsists spiritually unconscionable and morally repulsive... may I refuse to hire them?

[villager]

2. Why does the press use "conservative" when they mean "rightwing?"

n/t

[Skidmore]

24. "Radical Right" would be better. They have no problem calling us

the "far left".

[muntrv]

4. Can we refuse to deal with reich wingers, please?

[firedupdem]

5. The Obama administration is doing the right thing. If these

providers can't keep their "feelings" in check, they are in the wrong field.

Fat fuck rush is squealing on CNN right now. Full Live Coverage. I was going to send CNN an email but when I went to their site and looked at their big banner promoting their coverage, I knew I would be wasting my time.

[ClarkUSA]

7. I saw Rush on CNN too and changed the channel faster than you can say "anal cyst".

In a way, showing him is doing Democrats a big favor. I doubt most Americans will sympathize with his mean-spirited screed.

[Exilednight]

33. Rachel Maddow put had the best quote ..............

If you're Amish and it's against your religion to drive a car, then don't train, apply, and complain when you don't get a job as a bus driver.

[Cha]

6. Just something your post brought to mind..

Some of us decided that "conservatives" is an bushwellian word for what's in the following most excellent post.

Time for change (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-27-09 10:32 PM
Original message

A Movement Permeated by Fear and Driven by Greed

"The movement that I refer to in the title of this post is the so-called Conservative Movement in the United States. But “conservative” is a misnomer. This movement is not really conservative at all. It would much better be described as the Fear-Greed Movement."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5153394

All they have is a wedge for a foundation.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Interesting.

I used the term because self-identified conservatives still vote overwhelmingly in favor of Republicans.
Of course, I'd love for rabid social and faux fiscal conservatives to feel the social stigma that liberals
had to labor under for the past 25 years during the next eight years of the Obama Presidency.

[Cha]

10. Ah..

Just Desserts..and we'd do it without the corporatemediawhoredom.

The conservatives in this country do identify with the republicans but I love this thread by Time For Change because it describes what they really are.

[ClarkUSA]

12. I agree. I'd love to call them the Greedy Old Prick/Pervert Party, too.

;)

[Cha]

18. Greedy Obfuscatin'

Perverts is awful but we can't shy away from the facts.

[ClarkUSA]

23. lol! I like that, too.

Perverts is awful but we can't shy away from the facts.

Nope. Just ask Mark Foley. :D

[asphalt.jungle]

9. if it's such great policy and vital to wingnut ideology, why ...

sneak it in the backdoor and enact in the final weeks of an 8 year presidency?

[rug]

11. The Weldon Amendment protecting conscience is already in the United States Code.

This regulation has no impact on the statute.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Source, link? Perhaps you know better than Attorney General Holder?

[rug]

14. Perhaps you should learn the difference between a regulation and a statute before you stir the pot.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000300---a007-.html

[ClarkUSA]

15. So you do know more than AG Holder? Better contact Team O now before they make a mistake!

[rug]

16. No, Holder knows what he's doing. You simply don't know what you're posting.

[ClarkUSA]

17. WTF are you talking about? For someone who despises Obama, you sure like to comment here.

[rug]

19. You consider accurate information to be pissing on your post?

BTW, don't let your ego get between you and the spellcheck button.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Source, link, quote? You're simply trying to muddy the waters because you are anti-Obama.

Now try to enjoy the next eight years and stop stalking me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. weldon amendment extends to only public servants, right? whereas the bush regulation

extended to private sector as well?

can you tell me if i am interpreting this correctly?

[rug]

28. The Weldon Amendment applies to any entity, public or private, that receives federal funds.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. so why did bush create this regulation over the weldon amendment

what extra protection does it create?

(sorry to badger you, but since you know this stuff, i may as well learn something new)

[rug]

30. It's an executive regulation to carry out the statute.

Most acts of Congress require the federal agencies to post regulations in the CFR to carry out the law. I believe Bush's regulation was specicifically aimed at pharmacists to allow them to opt out from dispensing the abortifacient morning after pills on conscience grounds. It's arguable as to whether that is encompassed in the statute as are abortion procedures.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. thank you!

[rug]

32. You're welcome!

Now, back to the Lounge.

[southernyankeebelle]

20. Glad he oveturned the ban

I remember when I was in my early 30 and just had a child. It was a very hard pregnancy. My husband was in the military and he set up an appointment to have a snip job(ha) at Walter Reed. We got there late and they would no do the procedure. Then we were off to our new assignment overseas. We made an appointment and the military doctor wouldn't do the procedure. It didn't matter that I had a hard time and almost died. He didn't care. He did however, send me to the family practice doctor. He had to do it I think or he would have gotten in trouble. My husband ended up having it with the family practice doctor. I don't know what would have happen if there would have been no doctors to do the procedures. It isn't right that doctors have that kind of power.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Wow... that's horrible. Was that during the past eight years of BushCo?

Thanks for recounting your painful story. I am sorry you and your husband had to go through such hell.

[WinkyDink]

25. There is no removal or infringement upon "freedom of religion." People are free to apply for jobs.

If they apply for a job wherein they might encounter a moral dilemma, it would be incumbent upon the job-seekers to withdraw their applications.

Although I wish I had had a "moral objection" to teaching grammar. LOL.

[democrattotheend]

26. I have kind of mixed feelings on this

I am militantly pro-choice but part of me believes that being pro-choice means believing that doctors should also have a choice. I don't think hospitals should require doctors to perform abortions or other services that may violate their beliefs as a condition for employment...at the same time, I don't want there not to be access to abortion or family planning services because all the doctors in a hospital are anti-abortion. Am I off-base here?