I’m currently in college and I’m seriously considering going to medical school and becoming a doctor. I will not perform abortions or euthanasia. If the law changes in such a way that I would be required to do so, I will abandon any idea of becoming a doctor. Plan B is engineering.

…apparently being “pro-choice” to a modern Democrat only applies to one particular medical procedure that is, even in the more glowing of terms for it, rather grisly business.

Nowhere in their formulation of being “pro-choice” supports the doctor’s right to choose in the least.

At the very least, can’t they at least be intellectually honest? I know it’s progressive Democrats we’re talking about, so we can’t hold out much hope for it, but is it really too much to ask?

Some would-be Republican leaders tell us that we “should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office” instead of calling attention to his background and his intentions. I can’t take a knee on this one.

There is a slight difference between waiting for evidence before scandal mongering and ‘takinmg a knee’ on actual issues.

Good try though. Okay, not really.

Most funding for abstinence education has already been cut (that is why I was looking for a new job 4 months ago).
The funding that did exist for abstinence education had 8 tenants that had to be followed to a “T”.
The funding for “comprehensive” education had little regulation.
Abstinence education promotes; abstinence, healthy choices and protection. It also delves into drugs, alcohol, peer pressure, healthy relationships, etc.
While “comprehensive” education only dedicates less than 15% of their curriculum to abstaining.
For …well ever, comprehensive has received $12 to each $1 abstinence has received and look what’s going on 50% of black youth have an STD, 1 in 4 sexually active teens has an STD, pregnancy rates through the roof!

Now doctors will be forced to perform a procedure, that a young woman does not NEED? A procedure that would not even have been requested had a decent education on the matter been allowed?

Makes PERFECT sense to me…

It was the false and gratuitous implication that since Newt advised against going after The One right out of the box on a scandal that he has yet to be tied to, that he was saying to go soft on the guy and ignore substantive issues. I have no problem with the gist of the post, merely the clueless or disingenuous slam on Newt.

I clearly said…

I have no problem with the gist of the post, merely the clueless or disingenuous slam on Newt.

I am totally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to being clueless. Your implication is still false, as in divorced from reality. And there is no way to argue it was anything but gratuitous. He didn’t say to give Obama a free pass. He said to avoid going after him on this particular issue, as there has yet to be anything to tie him to it. And your statement above…

Taking a knee on Obama’s behavior in relation to his cronies and Cook County politics opens the door wider for Obama to make such dramatic rule changes by acclaim. The RNC is keeping the base, the grassroots, in the game. The other fellow is advocating, taking a knee, at least until the Obama changes have been made.

…is 180 degrees out of whack. By engaging in blatantly partisan attacks Without Any Evidence, you merely undermine the GOPs credibility and enhance his.

Should we go for a full court press on the birth certificate ‘issue’ as well?

I think it’s quite reasonable and prudent to make preparations to fight a possible Obama move to remove conscience protections. It would be silly to wait until it actually was happening to publicize the possibility and think about responses, for then it would be too late.

is concerned, there is exactly one thing, and IMO only one thing that might stop him from going forward. A credible threat by the US Catholic Bishops to shut down Catholic hospitals.

OTOH, this might be an interesting ploy to backdoor nationalized healthcare. Catholic hospitals provide a very high percentage of hospital beds nationally (upwards of 40% I’m guessing). Threatening closure would create a “national health emergency”, especially among the poor, and would give Obama a reason to nationalize those hospitals and keep them open. I’m sure no shortage of unions would support that move as well.

First of all, no woman in this country would ask a regular doctor to do an abortion. They go to the first page in the yellow pages to find abortionists. Funny how people still don’t seem to understand that abortionists are segregated from real doctors in this country. I find it impossible that any case could arise prompting the feds to shut down a hospital because no one there will do an abortion.

Second, doctors will not do something they believe will be harmful to a patient’s life or health. A doctor who believes abortion is harmful will not have any need to do one. I suspect this happens a lot with legitimate medical procedures. Doctors can disagree about what procedures should or should not be done. There is no law that then compels doctors who disagree to do it anyway or to find a referral.

People supporting the right to conscience are doing themselves a disservice by implying there is some element of spiritual or supernatural belief involved. If it is, then opposition would not be legitimate; and such people are in the wrong profession. Instead of asking for “conscience protection,” doctors would be better served by simply stating, when the matter arises, that the risk outweighs the benefit; and they aren’t going to cause harm to one’s life or health, which abortion does by definition.

Regardless, no woman in the US ever goes to a normal doctor’s office or hospital asking for an abortion, so this situation as implied will never arise.

I suppose there could be times in hospitals where subordinates to doctors may have conflicts where a pregnant woman is already in the hospital because she and/or her unborn child has a serious condition. Such concerns should only be addressed more narrowly though.

I don’t think Obama can directly fund abortions without an act of Congress, and there are several otherwise pro-abortion Democrats who favor the Hyde Amendment. Regardless, this will be something to keep an eye on. The Mexico City policy only deals with those who may refer for abortions. Given the policies and practices of other countries, I don’t think that policy has much impact on the number of abortions in other countries.