AP Source: Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

[Wretched Excess]

keep your eye on this one.  I wouldn't be surprised to see acts of conscious suddenly subject
to civil liability or criminal prosecution.  if abortion is a constitutional right, then any activity
that doesn't actively promote that right could be construed as denying that consitutional
right.  After all, we have a high ranking official in the justice department that considers
pregnancy to be a form of involuntary servitude;  the mother is the slave of the fetus.

(I think I have that right . . . . I scanned an article very quickly the other day, and I am
fairly sure that I have relayed the facts correctly)

AP Source: Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said Friday.

A Health and Human Services official said the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, and open a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

Abortion opponents hailed the Bush regulation, saying it clarified federal policies and raised awareness about the rights of medical providers to follow their consciences. But abortion rights advocates said it could reduce access to other services _ allowing a drug store clerk to refuse to sell birth control pills, for example.

Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them. The Bush administration's rule requires institutions that get federal funding to certify their compliance with laws protecting conscience rights. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore the rights of religious and moral objectors.

More

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So, if back in the day slavery was constitutionally recognized than the abolitionists and Harriet Tubman types were...unconstitutional?

[thundley4]

Dayum, is 0Bama doing everything possible to drive medical practitioners out of the business?

[Wretched Excess]

So, if back in the day slavery was constitutionally recognized than the abolitionists and Harriet Tubman types were...unconstitutional?

the comparison is quite appropriate.  I think the moral and philosophical antecedent of the pro-life movement was probably the abolutionists.

but to answer your question directly, "not really".   the constitution, other than allocating a slave as 3/5 of a "free" person for the purposes of representation in congress, was amazingly silent about slavery.  and even in article I, it didn't actually use the word "slave";  it referenced "all other persons".  it tolerated slavery, and left the whole issue to later generations to settle.  that was what the shooting was about 70 years later. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

the comparison is quite appropriate.  I think the moral and philosophical antecedent of the pro-life movement was probably the abolutionists.

but to answer your question directly, "not really".   the constitution, other than allocating a slave as 3/5 of a "free" person for the purposes of representation in congress, was amazingly silent about slavery.  and even in article I, it didn't actually use the word "slave";  it referenced "all other persons".  it tolerated slavery, and left the whole issue to later generations to settle.  that was what the shooting was about 70 years later. 

Oh, I know where the 3/5 rule came from but at the same point the so-called "right to privacy" (as if child pornagraphers also have a right to privacy)conjured in Roe v Wade makes no mention of abortion it merely "tolerates" it. That toleration--as with slavery--was then morphed into a "right" not uncoincidently by the same democrat party.

Democrats never see law as a thing to be obeyed, only as a tool to bludgeon its opponents.

[Wretched Excess]

Oh, I know where the 3/5 rule came from but at the same point the so-called "right to privacy" (as if child pornagraphers also have a right to privacy)conjured in Roe v Wade makes no mention of abortion it merely "tolerates" it. That toleration--as with slavery--was then morphed into a "right" not uncoincidently by the same democrat party.

Democrats never see law as a thing to be obeyed, only as a tool to bludgeon its opponents.

well, yes and no.  the constitution was silent on slavery intentionally.  it was designed to address the shortcomings of
the articles of confederation, and while there was a good bit of opposition to the institution of slavery in the north at
the time, the founders ignored the entire issue in order to appease the slave holding states.  it was a cop out, but a
strategic and necessary cop out in the face of a larger objective.

abortion has an odd and dark past.  margaret sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, originally considered abortion
to be a means of limiting the afrian american population.  in short, abortion was employed as a tool of eugenics.

my own view is that abortion wasn't a national issue until the unfortunate side effects of the sexual revolution of the 60's
were fully realized.  while equal rights was and is a noble objective, the odd focus on equal access to "sex without
consequences" inevitably resulted in questions as to how to deal with the consequences of "free sex".