Bring It On!

Just How Narrow Minded Are Members of the GOP?

September 19th, 2008 | by Windspike |

George W, proves once again that they are only interested in pushing their “morality” on us rather than protecting us. Instead of helping us, they inflict their values on us - which is contrarian to the principles these United States were founded under.

Again, they show us just now narrow they are and really, how uncompassionate these would be “compassionate conservatives” are.

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Don’t any of these right wing nut balls remember the days when women were flayed on unsterilized tables in the dark rooms of illicit abortion houses? Do GOP folks really want to go back to those dismal and lethal times?

The mission of the GOP to stop abortion show complete and utter contempt for the value of the women’s lives.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 2 Responses to “Just How Narrow Minded Are Members of the GOP?”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

    I don’t get it. Laws have been on the books already for 30 years allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions but it’s unreasonable to allow employees and volunteers the same right? I don’t get it. It’s called individual rights. It’s the reason that, even when there was a draft, conscientious objectors were allowed to opt out of combat: because the law has no business requiring free citizens to do things to which they object on moral grounds. We conservatives are struggling to hold on to our rights as free people. Exactly no one is pushing anyone’s morality upon anyone…except, of course, liberals…who would require employees and volunteers to act against their conscience.

    Liberty. It’s the opposite of totalitarianism: the desire to regulate every aspect of people’s lives. Get to know the concept.

  3. By Paul Watson on Sep 20, 2008 | Reply

    Bad analogy. The draft is government compulsion. In the case of these people, they chose to do the job. What job allows people to pick and choose which parts of it they do? If they don’t do all the tasks of a job will their pay be reduced accordingly? If not, why should they be paid for not doing their job? Why should people subsidise these people’s consciences?

Post a Comment