Last-minute Bush abortion ruling causes furor

[OldRegular]

I don't understand the hypocrisy of the pro-choice side.

Pro Choice is a misnomer, its pro murder of the unborn and sometimes the just been born.:tear:

 

[just-want-peace]

President Bush did a good thing!

Yet, some people are yelling about why he didn't do it sooner...better late than never!

Some people just can't give credit where credit is due, I guess.

bolded mine

When the credit is to Bush, the left cannot acknowledge it in the least measure.

 

[OldRegular]

bolded mine

When the credit is to Bush, the left cannot acknowledge it in the least measure.

It is simple; the left does not agree with what Bush did. But you are correct they would criticize him anyhow.

 

[JustChristian]

Why wasn't this "last-minute...plan" put into motion some 8 years ago?

If the Republican's are so against abortion, why didn't the President continue abusing his Executive Orders powers and overtun Wade or inact more sweeping abortion reform?

In XC
-

According to the article this protection is already available in existing law.

Leavitt, a leading proponent of the rule, said it would increase compliance with laws adopted since 1973 to protect health care workers.
"Federal law," he said, "is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable.”

I think this is more about Bush's concern about his legacy than providing new anti-abortion law.

 

[Bible-boy]

It is simple; the left does not agree with what Bush did. But you are correct they would criticize him anyhow.

In light of the above post I'd say you were speaking prophetically.:smilewinkgrin: Nonetheless, Way to go President Bush!

 

[Marcia]

I suppose most of you, being good Baptists, would support a law prohibiting discriminating against waitpersons for refusing to serve booze to customers?

I don't see the connection between serving alcohol and aborting a baby.

 

[OldRegular]

I suppose most of you, being good Baptists, would support a law prohibiting discriminating against waitpersons for refusing to serve booze to customers?

Am I wrong? I thought everyone on this Forum was a good Baptist.:BangHead:

 

[Gold Dragon]

According to the article this protection is already available in existing law.

Leavitt, a leading proponent of the rule, said it would increase compliance with laws adopted since 1973 to protect health care workers.
"Federal law," he said, "is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable.”

I think this is more about Bush's concern about his legacy than providing new anti-abortion law.

My first questions when I read this was: Why is this proposed legislation needed? Don't these things already exist?

Agnus_Dei's analysis of the reasoning makes the most sense. It is an effort to make it look like Republicans care about pro-life issues because they are concerned about losing their base.

 

[Andy T.]

My first questions when I read this was: Why is this proposed legislation needed? Don't these things already exist?

Yes, but they are being strongly challenged by the abortion lobby and need to be strengthened, since leaving it up to courts could result in lost freedoms in this area.

Agnus_Dei's analysis of the reasoning makes the most sense. It is an effort to make it look like Republicans care about pro-life issues because they are concerned about losing their base.

If that is the case, why didn't Bush do this, say, in October 2004 when he was up for reelection?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Yes, but they are being strongly challenged by the abortion lobby and need to be strengthened, since leaving it up to courts could result in lost freedoms in this area.

Do you have evidence that these things are being challenged and the courts not upholding the current wording of the law, making this legislation necessary?

If that is the case, why didn\'t Bush do this, say, in October 2004 when he was up for reelection?

Republicans were not worried about their base at that time.

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you have evidence that these things are being challenged and the courts not upholding the current wording of the law, making this legislation necessary? Republicans were not worried about their base at that time.

How in the world do you know what the Republicans were worried about?

 

[Gold Dragon]

How in the world do you know what the Republicans were worried about?

It is my opinion based on the 2004 election results and my memories of polls leading up to the election. Maybe Republicans were worried about their base at that time. If so, they did well in the election in spite of it.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is my opinion based on the 2004 election results and my memories of polls leading up to the election. Maybe Republicans were worried about their base at that time. If so, they did well in the election in spite of it.

Election results and polls are not near enough to maintain an educated opinion on this.

 

[saturneptune]

Election results and polls are not near enough to maintain an educated opinion on this.

Really now, maybe your in depth knowledge of the issues of the day and your vast governmental experience are.

 

[Revmitchell]

Really now, maybe your in depth knowledge of the issues of the day and your vast governmental experience are.

There is no way someone in Australia can know what the Repubs or Dems are worried about when making campaign decisions.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Election results and polls are not near enough to maintain an educated opinion on this.

There is no way someone in Australia can know what the Repubs or Dems are worried about when making campaign decisions.

If you disagree with my opinion and think that the Republicans were worried about the support of their base in 2004, feel free to disagree an provide evidence of your view. I was living in Canada in 2004 and if you think that non-Americans cannot have opinions about American politics, I hope you are consistent with your view and keep your mouth closed with regard to non-American politics. I personally think that people can knowledgeably comment on politics outside of their country of residence.

 

[Andy T.]

Do you have evidence that these things are being challenged and the courts not upholding the current wording of the law, making this legislation necessary?

Don't have time to do your research you - the information is out there, though. This issue has heated up the last few years. But I would also like to see your proof that Bush is simply doing this to "shore up the base" or that he is doing it for nefarious reasons, etc. That was your claim. Now let's see your proof.

Republicans were not worried about their base at that time.

Maybe not, but is this issue really just about the "base"? I would think this is a winning issue all around - I would guess that regardless of one's view on abortion rights, that the vast majority of Americans support conscience clauses. There's really nothing more totalitarian, dictatorial and anti-American as opposing conscience clauses. And I would say probably 80% or more of Americans agree with me. This is a winning issue, politically all around - it's not just a base issue. So why didn't Bush do this in 2004 if he's doing it now out of pure political motivation, as you say?

 

[Andy T.]

Double post.