Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.ebay.com/thread.jspa?thre...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
eBay Forums: What Would You Do If Your Method Of ...
What would you do if your method of birth control (ie: pills, IUD's), were deemed to be an abortion and no longer available to you?
This is a reproductive rights story that has been covered by bloggers for several weeks now.
And, as shocking and crazy as it sounds, it just may become a reality before the end of the Bush administration.
If this policy is implemented, it will not be a simple thing to correct, even with a new administration.
On his blog yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, has attempted to defend his position of redefining contraception as abortion.
In his dishonest attempt to clarify this position, he blatantly ignores the main aspect concerning contraception, while also blurring the lines between medical ethics and ideology
http://www.care2.com/politics/birth-control-deemed-abortion.html
|
|
Does that mean they will only have Trojans available at abortion clinics.
Are you going to have to fight thru protesters to get your Trojans now.
~~~
|
|
Masturbation will become illegal.
Oh, God, I hope not.
Those are some of the best dates I ever had!
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?
I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us.
It cannot come from abroad.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.
As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Abraham Lincoln, 1838
|
|
Am I missing something here?
This article from the NY Times seems to state that the issue is one of discriminatory practices rather than birth control being considered abortion.
I didn't read any blogs, and frankly blogs are nothing but opinions and many times opinions are formed from the improper understanding of a statement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the WebUnder the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.
The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says 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.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.
This is an interesting part of the article:
The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
Since the "in utero between conception and natural birth" is a state that occurs AFTER THE ACT THAT PRODUCED CONCEPTION birth control is not affected.
Birth control pills, condoms, IUD's, etc., are things that PREVENT contraception and the article addresses federal funding regarding discriminatory practices.
"Slightly to the right of Attila the Hun"
|
|
|
"The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."
anything else they want to tell people they must do...
or should I say women?
47 Earth Art
|
|
|
What folks are missing here is, the federal government has a right to mandate rules to people who are using federal funds.
what this is saying is, people who are receiving federal funds, like welfare, cannot use the morning after pill, for example, to induce abortion.
|
|
While I hate agreeing with jnon, #5 is probably accurate.
It's one thing to want to ban abortions, but to redefine birth control as abortion is insane, and I know very well that if some have their way, EVERY method of birth control will be made illegal.
#7,
I have no problem with this.
It's simply a desire that people's beliefs not be an issue when getting hired.
I would prefer to expand that to include any and all beliefs, however.
On the flip side, I believe that once hired, you ought to do your job.
For example, a person who believes that abortion and birth control are sinful should not be refused to be hired at a health clinic for that reason, but once hired, that person should be required to hand out material discussing those things, and not hide them due to their beliefs, which has happened before.
|
|
|
> the federal government has a right to mandate rules to people who are using federal funds.
Yes, they do, and this can include lifestyle choices that are unhealthy or dangerous, but they cannot mandate rules that require you to live a certain way just because people in the federal govt believe certain things.
|
|
Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈbȯr-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1547
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b: induced expulsion of a human fetus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
I'd say Michael Leavitt better look up definition of abortion before he digs himself in a deeper hole.
"Science and politics...when science needs to fit the politics then it's ONLY a political issue." --Annie
"So here we have a situation of two publications cherry picking Quote: s to prove their respective cases."
-- Ron Lindsay U of Washington/Seattle Polar Science Center
Supreme Court(5 judges) gave Al Queda Equal Rights Today.
Which makes them Al Queda Americans!!!
|
|
I didn't real all of it, don't have time, but this I find troubling..and if people can't see it, then god help us...read it...
"The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."
since when is it their business to tell people whom they can or can't refuse to hire because oif someone's beliefs systems?
You don't find that a bit 1984 like?
Go ahead, say you support that part.
You can pat yourself on the back, the more freedoms they take.
Stick your head in the sand...
47 Earth Art
|
|
|
#12,
Yes, I support disallowing businesses to hire or not hire based on belief systems, just as I support disallowing businesses to hire or not hire based on race.
Now, it may be odd for an ardent pro-lifer to apply at a health clinic that dicusses and provides birth control and abortion, but they can do so if they wish, as long as they carry out their job duties.
|
|
Since when is it their business to tell people whom they can or can't refuse to hire because oif someone's beliefs systems?
all recipients of aid under federal health programs
Fed paying the bills, Fed makes the rules.
Just like this chat forum on Ebay.
They pay the bills they make the rules.(even though both get their funding from "the people")
"Science and politics...when science needs to fit the politics then it's ONLY a political issue." --Annie
"So here we have a situation of two publications cherry picking Quote: s to prove their respective cases."
-- Ron Lindsay U of Washington/Seattle Polar Science Center
Supreme Court(5 judges) gave Al Queda Equal Rights Today.
Which makes them Al Queda Americans!!!
|
|
I see.. as long as it supports your beliefs, it's ok.
From one who claims he loves less interference from the government ...you're ok with this.
Uh huh...so much for being an independent.
My ***. repub.
47 Earth Art
|
|
|
"The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."
|
|
I quickly skimmed the article, and if you can't see past your own belief systems, and look deeper at that, then "entitlements"..it is a much deeper message there..then you really are blind.
Talk about going backwards....
47 Earth Art
|
|
#14,
> Fed paying the bills, Fed makes the rules
Generally, this is true, but the govt is different than a private corporation.
And even eBay can't exclude people from chatting on T.S.
Because of their race.
The same thing ought to apply to personal beliefs.
No company should be able to say "I'm not hiring you because I disagree with your politics".
#15,
Not sure if you're talking to heynow!
Or me, but I'll answer.
>
As long as it supports your beliefs, it's ok
Not at all.
I'm pro choice myself, but I don't think that a company should be able to not-hire somebody just because they're pro-life.
|
|
I see.. as long as it supports your beliefs, it's ok.
Pick any president making rules when federal funds are involved and my point still applies.
Which was my point to begin with.
FED does what it wants.
And being a State Rights person, your ASSumptions are quite humorous.
From one who claims he loves less interference from the government
FEDERAL Guvment yes...I believe the States are better to deal with STATE concerns.
In fact, why not send the FED less money and let the states deal with the "abortion" issue?
That is my INDEPENDENT 2 cents.
And pointing out how things are and knowing how things work, HARDLY means I support it like you guys always ASSume I do.
Knowing how things work allows better decisions in how to change them
you're ok with this.
No..I think Michael Leavitt is severly wrong and will vote/campaign against his redefining abortion
"Science and politics...when science needs to fit the politics then it's ONLY a political issue." --Annie
"So here we have a situation of two publications cherry picking Quote: s to prove their respective cases."
-- Ron Lindsay U of Washington/Seattle Polar Science Center
Supreme Court(5 judges) gave Al Queda Equal Rights Today.
Which makes them Al Queda Americans!!!
|
|
I agree, but that is not what I am saying...read that comment.
They are telling people what they have to do.
And the article goes into more detail.
I don't have time now, am leaving....big brother.
Geesh..pathetic.
I'm talking to lol...
47 Earth Art
|
|
I see, comics....I suppose if the fed's decided men had to follow some dumb *** rules before they could get a vastecomy, it would of course, be different.
Let's see how fast men would have a conniption, if they put restraints on them allowing for that with their insurance.
Basically, they need to cut corners, and the religious right is pushing their agenda.
If you combine to two, the easiest target, and way to cut is women's agenda.
It always is. Basically, it's still a man's world.
Enjoy your day.
47 Earth Art
|
|
Shaman has left for a while, but I'll comment on his #20 anyway.
>
They are telling people what they have to do ...
Big brother
Yes, but the govt does this all the time, and in many cases, most agree that it's a good thing.
This is simply trying to stop discrimination.
From what I can see, Bush is simply trying to get people to stop hiring or not hiring based on a persons beliefs.
How is that different from hiring or not hiring based on a persons race?
There are some exceptions to that belief, of course.
A christian church, for example, could hardly be expected to hire a Muslim, and vice-versa.
Also, private clubs can take in who they want or not.
Banning discrimination based on beliefs is no better or worse than banning discrimination based on race or gender.
|
|
> religious right is pushing their agenda
In the case of redefining abortion, yes.
In the case of disallowing discriminatory hiring practices, no.
|
|
From post 6 "Since the "in utero between conception and natural birth" is a state that occurs AFTER THE ACT THAT PRODUCED CONCEPTION birth control is not affected.
Birth control pills, condoms, IUD's, etc., are things that PREVENT contraception and the article addresses federal funding regarding discriminatory practices.
>>Birth control IS affected by this bill, since some may allow conception but prevent implantation.
Some pills may work this way by affecting the lining of the uterus to be unreceptive to the fertilized egg, and the I.U.D (basically a foreign object in the uterus) works this way as well.
This is problem for some of the anti-abortion crowd because they believe that the moment there is fertilization that microscopic fertilized egg should have the same rights as those who are born.
As for people expecting employers to respect their beliefs.
If one applies for a job, you do all that it entails or you look for employment elsewhere.
If I am Muslim and seek employment at a butcher shop, I cannot then redefine my job description and refuse to sell bacon.
If I obtain a job at a moving company I cannot then state that I will only lift pillows.
If I am a pharmacist I do NOT get to second guess a physician as to the type of medications I will or will not dispense to a customer.
Just do the damn job or find another that agrees with your religious convictions.
|
|
#24,
Yep. Respect is a bit involved at this level, but it boils down to a few things.
If I own a grocery store, and you're a Muslim, I can't refuse to hire you on that basis alone.
However, once you are hired, you can't demand that I redefine your job description based on your beliefs.
As you say, if you can't sell sausage, or if you can't fill certain perscriptions, or hand out certain materials, based on your beliefs, find another job.
|
|
As long as women can't come together and agree to not allow men to make decisions like this about women's bodies, the government is going to continue to (try to) control women in this way.
I was certain I would see true gender equality in my lifetime.
Now we're back to a time before I was born in the way some people think about this.
Further, as long as the government can keep voters arguing about this topic, they are distracted from demanding the government do something about the stuff that really needs fixing: the dollar, jobs, the war, etc., etc.
|
|
"I have no problem with this.
It's simply a desire that people's beliefs not be an issue when getting hired.
I would prefer to expand that to include any and all beliefs, however."
Then why would you support this proposed change which would allow Catholic hospitals and other anti choice outfits to refuse to hire anyone who does approve of abortion.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander unless the gander is a Republican or a religious nut job?
|
|
> Then why would you support this proposed change which would allow Catholic hospitals and other anti choice outfits to refuse to hire anyone who does approve of abortion.
I didn't read it all that thoroughly, I'll admit.
That kind of change I don't approve of.
If it says "You cannot refuse to hire pro-lifers, but you CAN refuse to hire pro-choicers" as a precursor to taking federal dollars, then it's split-brained and wrong.
|
|
"As long as women can't come together and agree to not allow men to make decisions like this about women's bodies, the government is going to continue to (try to) control women in this way."
I agree Toocreative, and this is not just your run of the mill abortion debate, this is about taking away viable choices made by responsible women and MEN to regulate their fertility.
I cannot see men - ie husbands, fathers, boyfriends supporting such a bill because this affects them as well as women.
If it were just about abortion then we'd get the holier than thous in here saying "it's the womans fault for having sex," "she should have kept her legs together" and "don't play if you don't want to pay" ad nauseam.
But people who want to be responsible will end up with a less effective form of birth control.
Sex is here to stay and this will affect EVERYONE.
However I also think that a business that is so large and influential such as the pharmaceutical industry, will be bring out some big guns if this looks like it would go further.
|
|
|
Just another item on the list of things President Obama will need to undo during his first month in office.
--Everything below this line is a sig--
I've been on the Internet longer than you.
Today's fortune: That hot-shot doctor may think your colon cancer is inoperable, but this week you and your trusty Leatherman will prove them wrong.
This post created with 100% recycled electrons.
|
|
LOL!!! King B.O. will need Congress to change anything.
Or we changing to a Monarchy come Jan '09??
"Science and politics...when science needs to fit the politics then it's ONLY a political issue." --Annie
"So here we have a situation of two publications cherry picking Quote: s to prove their respective cases."
-- Ron Lindsay U of Washington/Seattle Polar Science Center
Supreme Court(5 judges) gave Al Queda Equal Rights Today.
Which makes them Al Queda Americans!!!
|
|
Congress isn't needed to undo an executive order, or change a policy interpretation made by an agency that is part of the executive branch.
This is the sort of thing that intelligent people learn in high school civics classes, so it's unsurprising you don't know it.
--Everything below this line is a sig--
I've been on the Internet longer than you.
Today's fortune: That hot-shot doctor may think your colon cancer is inoperable, but this week you and your trusty Leatherman will prove them wrong.
This post created with 100% recycled electrons.
|
|
Congress isn't needed to undo an executive order, or change a policy interpretation made by an agency that is part of the executive branch.
This isn't the ONLY thing B.O.
Will supposedly do single handed when elected
Maybe Rockstar B.O.
Will be so popular he won't need other two branches at all.
Sure being propped up like it...
"Science and politics...when science needs to fit the politics then it's ONLY a political issue." --Annie
"So here we have a situation of two publications cherry picking Quote: s to prove their respective cases."
-- Ron Lindsay U of Washington/Seattle Polar Science Center
Supreme Court(5 judges) gave Al Queda Equal Rights Today.
Which makes them Al Queda Americans!!!
|
|
I'd either get a hysterectomy - and I'm sure I could find a male doctor to convince I was "hysterical" - or I'd quit having sex.
'Course, it's not an issue for me anymore, anyway.
I don't want to speak too disparagingly of my generation (actually I do, we had a chance to change the world and opted for the Home Shopping Network instead)
Stephen King in 'On Writing'
Every time history repeats itself the price goes up.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
> I'd either get a hysterectomy
There are likely some who would want to consider that an abortion as well, since it would prevent future potential pregancies.
|
|
Well, then, I'd just get my knees sewn together.
I don't want to speak too disparagingly of my generation (actually I do, we had a chance to change the world and opted for the Home Shopping Network instead)
Stephen King in 'On Writing'
Every time history repeats itself the price goes up.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
I think that this whole thing is rooted in an ancient (and sadly NOT quite outdated) belief that women exist only to squeeze out babies and take care of them until they die of old age.
|
|
I vote a big YES for trojans, XXXXL, the size needed so that these idiots can place them over their heads (the one on top of their shoulders), to keep their mouths shut.
And to keep them from spewing such nonsense about a womans choice to make choices that affect her own body.
In 1995, at the Capitol, McCain had a "scuffle" with 92-year-old Republican Senator Strom Thurmond.
That's right, McCain tried to beat up the one person who was even older than McCain himself.
|
|
Just to clarify, I am Pro-choice and do not think a woman's body needs to be regulated by the government in anyway.
My Body, My Choice.
In 1995, at the Capitol, McCain had a "scuffle" with 92-year-old Republican Senator Strom Thurmond.
That's right, McCain tried to beat up the one person who was even older than McCain himself.
|
|
|
|