The Bush administration in it’s continuing efforts to appease the crazies appeal to it’s base is drafting legislation which would
- consider contraceptives abortifacts
- require family planning clinics to hire staff opposed to family planning
- allow any health care provider to refuse care based on their religious beliefs
- consider fertilized eggs not implanted fetuses to be a pregnancy (even though there is no way to test for this )
Under the draft proposal, federally funded hospitals and clinics that provide family planning services would be required to promise in writing that they will turn a blind eye to health care providers’ views on abortion and certain kinds of birth control, such as emergency contraception.
The proposed rule defines abortion as “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.”
Organizations that do not comply would forfeit financial aid distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
While it goes without saying that women have the right to choose to reproduce or not. I wonder if they have considered that many women are on the pill for reasons other than reproductive control. Other medically indicated reasons include;
- acne control
- Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
- irregular or absent menstrual periods
- severe cramps
- endometriosis
- hormone replacement therapy
- estrogen replacement due to such causes as anorexia nervosa, damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy
- anemia from heavy periods
from the draft pdf available here
Ambulance Firm Faces Bias Suit; Worker Fired After Refusing to go to Abortion Clinic, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 9, 2004 at C3 (“An ambulance worker who was fired after she refused to transport a woman to an abortion clinic filed a religious-discrimination lawsuit against her employer Friday…‘I just felt really strongly it was something that I couldn’t do,’ said Adamson, a devout Christian who is adamantly anti-abortion. ‘It would be against everything that I believe in and everything that I support.’”);
This is used an example of bias against people’s religious values. Now what if a gay man requires transport to the hospital is it ok for him to have to wait until an ambulance with a human being non religious person arrives? What about a JW refusing to do a life saving blood transfusion? How about as an atheist or non christian your caregiver declines to contact your priest for last rites because it doesn’t jive with their beliefs? Yes this is a can of worms for choice but also for religious war. And if churches are deciding laws and politics is it not time that their tax exempt status was revoked?
An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. Whether an organization has attempted to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities is determined based upon all relevant facts and circumstances. However, most IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations may use Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, to make an election under IRC Section 501(h) to be subject to an objectively measured expenditure test with respect to lobbying activities rather than the less precise “substantial activity” test. Electing organizations are subject to tax on lobbying activities that exceed a specified percentage of their exempt function expenditures. For further information regarding lobbying activities by charities, download Lobbying Issues.
For purposes of IRC Section 501(c)(3), legislative activities and political activities are two different things, and are subject to two different sets of rules. The latter is an absolute bar. An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the forum or debate shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity. The motivation of an organization is not relevant in determining whether the political campaign prohibition has been violated. Activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria, violate the political campaign prohibition of IRC Section 501(c)(3).
SOURCE
It is said that there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, it is obvious that there can be no such thing as being a little bit pro-choice. American women need to come out in droves and support pro-choice candidates. Not just for themselves but for their daughters and granddaughters and sisters. There is a war on American soil. It is the war of religion against reason, lies against science, and a war for control of your body. Don’t let the Bush administration, as did the Nazi’s, as did the Ceausescu regime, make your body property of the state.
And to Canadian readers, this is why we cannot as Ms. May insists have ‘dialogue’ with the anti-choicers. It only emboldens them. Bills C-484, C-537 and Bill C-338 are all bills designed with the purpose of creating a climate where women’s choices are defined for them by others beliefs.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Contraception = Abortion? Bush Plan Enrages
Community