Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Bush Takes Parting Shot at Women’s Rights

bush_-_evil_empireHeh Heh Heh. Today’s the last day of George W. Bush ever, but 43’s not going out without a few final salvos in his fight against reality. A new federal regulation enacted by the outgoing Prez gives doctors “conscience rights”, which permit them to refuse to provide medical treatments they find morally objectionable, ie: abortion and contraception. Seven states and two family-planning groups went to federal court yesterday to get the regulation off the books.

The Washington Post explains:

“In three lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, the states and groups sought an immediate court order preventing the regulation from going into effect Tuesday and a permanent decision voiding the rule.

“On the way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president’s inaugural and blow apart women’s rights,” said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who filed one of the suits on behalf of his state, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. “This midnight rule is a nightmare for hospitals and clinics, as well as women.”

Blumenthal’s lawsuit challenges the regulation on several grounds, charging that it is too vague and overbroad and conflicts with other federal laws and state laws. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed a second suit on behalf of its affiliates, while the American Civil Liberties Union filed sued on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents many state and county health departments, among other providers.

“We filed this lawsuit today on behalf of the millions of women whose health care has been put in jeopardy by the Bush administration’s parting shot at women’s health,” said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. “The courts must strike down this unconscionable, unconstitutional last-minute midnight rule.”

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Jan 19, 2009
Tagged: , , ,

  • 11 Comments
    • ChicagoJimmy
      ChicagoJimmy

      Funny that no one ever has a religious or moral problem prescribing or filling Viagra for an 80 year old man. I doubt we’ll hear of any moral objections to women getting breast augmentation surgery either.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx
      REBELComx

      I just love the picture. That Emperor Benedict/Pope Palpatine and Darth Cheney in the back?

      Jan 19, 2009 at 12:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jennifer
      Jennifer

      Way to make me hate you even more, you little SHIT!

      Jan 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KPC
      KPC

      Small-minded idiot.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cmh
      cmh

      Great! does that mean that I can send all my heterosexual patients away who come to me for fertility treatments because I don’t like the fact that there are so many of them breeding.. Fantastic!!!! Shit. Head.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      Japhy,

      You’re thinking too small. This regulation could be used by a medical professional to deny goods and services, like birth control pills, condoms, or whatever the medical profession feels goes against his/her beliefs. Gay male couple wanting to use artificial conception could be refused service. A rape victim could be refused the morning-after pill.

      People should be terrified of this.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      Thanks for discussing this. My sister spoke up for my rights when it wasn’t, shall we say, popular to do so and I’ve always felt that misogynistic policies were too often overlooked by many so-called “progressives.” For example: with Warren what usually gets left out of discussion is his incredible misogynistic bigotry. The man believes God created women, girls to be ruled over by men and that domestic violence is just fine. That’s just crazy talk but apparently most don’t seem to mind.

      We could all speak on behalf of women and girls more. I think to truly tackle homophobia we also have to take on misogyny.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bobito
      bobito

      Is it just me, or does the idea of a doctor performing abortions that he finds ‘morally objectionable’ seem worse than a doctor refusing to perform abortions that he finds objectionable? I mean, women can die from that operation if it’s badly done – would anybody of her own free will actually entrust her body to somebody who might believe that death would be a suitable punishment for her ‘immorality’?

      I understand that some people haven’t got much choice about who their doctor is, but damn! As for the Pretzeldent, did anybody really expect him NOT to enact petty and vicious regulations on his way out?

      PS – to Pete: many articles I’ve read seem to imply that homophobia is an extension of misogyny in the Christofascist mindset. If this is true, then you are right – we can’t fight the one without consciously fighting the other, too.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      As Blake says, this bill is even more far reaching than it first appears, it’s a complete nightmare. And, Pete, nice reply :)

      Jan 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      Barack Obama will get to work on this ASAP. It’s going to take a while (which is why Bush did it, otherwise he wouldn’t have wasted his time if it could be reversed with the snap of a finger), but President Obama is coming to the rescue!

      Imagine if McCain won like 27% of the gay community wanted. He wouldn’t touch this. Just goes to show your vote has far reaching consequences that go beyond taxes and who looks tougher on national security.

      Jan 19, 2009 at 10:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HYHYBT
      HYHYBT

      As I understand it, doctors already were free not to perform procedures they believe are immoral in general; what they could not do until now was to perform them on some patients and refuse them to others. I wonder whether it’s limited to elective procedures? (I know it’s unlikely, but I’m imagining, for example, a particularly convicted surgeon refusing to perform, say, an emergency bypass because he noticed the patient’s shirt said “Pride 2003″)

      Jan 20, 2009 at 2:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.