« Obama's layers of stupidity -- the 'I'm in awe of it' edition | Main | Obama bin Biden's Great Denver Shakedown »

August 23, 2008

Things that chap my ass: Hillary and the Shrillbots

If one trolls the Vagina Warrior sites and sees the phrases "Bush administration is jeopardizing women’s health by putting their ideology first". or "... regulations are the offense, blatantly threatening our reproductive freedoms." be assured there is probably more to the story. Especially when defeated, humiliated Hillary! needs to find a way back into the news cycle

The regulations now published by HHS raise serious concerns about women's access to family planning services. [...]

We've had enough of putting ideology over science and failed policies harming healthy families.

Oh, isn't that cute? "Ideology over science".

Would somebody tell me when abortion at any stage of fetal development is now suddenly unassailable under the magic label of "science"?

Not that radical feminists, berift of tolerance for anything outside of their ideology, would look beyond the shrieking hysteria and truncated reports from their fellow children in lamestream media

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

Not that Vagina Warriors and ilk would actually sit down and read the fucking draft in the first place.

What does one learn reading the 42 page document? I mean, besides the fact that bureaucratise is better than Lunestra for any getting-to-sleep issues?

1. There is nothing "new" in the regulation. It is, in fact, a kind of centralizing of already existing statutes and acts pertaining to the right of health care workers and institutions not to be forced to perform or participate in abortions.

2. What is actually "new" is complaince benchmarks so that any entity receiving federal funds is not only aware of existing statutes/regulations, but must certify their compliance and make it known to others within their organization of their rights.

Now, pay attention to this, because this is not being covered by Lamestream or Vagina Warriors or Hillary! This is from the document itself:

(c) Entities to whom this subsection 88.4(c) applies shall not:
(1) discriminate against any physician or other health care professional in the employment, promotion, termination, or extension of staff or other privileges because he performed or assisted in the performance, or refused to perform or assist in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion on the grounds that doing so would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions concerning abortions or sterilization procedures themselves;

(2) discriminate against or deny admission to any applicant for training or study because of reluctance or willingness to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with the applicant’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Read that again. Let it sink in. The regulation the Vagina Warriors are rending their organic, carbon-footprint reduced, commune-produced, blouses over protects both people who object to abortions and PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT ABORTIONS from discrimination.

Maybe I should break it down for the "let's fuck but hell I want my neighbor to pay for my pills/foam/abortion" anti-women, anti-responsibility, puerile females out there -- A HOSIPITAL CANNOT FORCE A DOCTOR OR NURSE TO PERFORM AN ABORTION AND A HOSPITAL CANNOT FIRE A DOCTOR OR NURSE FOR PERFORMING AN ABORTION if they receive federal funds.

Any lurking self-identified rad-feminists still unclear on this? Listen up, cunts.

Let me give you an analogy (and you might go look up what that means, considering y'all have a hard time with anything outside of your ten-index card points of left dogma)

I'm pro-capital punishment. Capital punishment is legal. But I would not demand that doctors/nurses/technicians/pharmacists be forced BY LAW to participate in executions if they have a conscience moral objection.

Got it twatwaffles? It is clear?

That's what happens when a "right of opportunity" transmorgrifies into a "right to an object/service". Suddenly the assholes in the audience think the Constitution gives 'em a blank check on the labor of another.

Posted by Darleen at August 23, 2008 06:04 PM


A license to practice medicine is in the nature of a state monopoly - no license, no practice. If someone benefiting from the sharing of that monopoly wants to have the benefits of the restrictions against others which the license represents, the holder of the license ought to be required to provide the licensed services to the public (for whose benefit the state doles out the licenses). If the licensee is unwilling to provide the service to all comers (the license entitles the licensee to conduct and reap the benefits of the BUSINESS aspect of the monopoly), the licensee should forfeit the license, or at a minimum provide an adequate alternative provided for the service in question. If you don't like this, you should change the laws regarding fair business practices, mkay?

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at August 28, 2008 04:15 PM

The state licenses doctors and nurses according to COMPETENCY, not to create a monopoly.

How is refusing to perform an abortion "incompetency"?

Eating hamburger is legal. Should I be able to shut down a vegetarian restaurant because they won't serve me one? They are "licensed to conduct a business", right?

Posted by: Darleen at August 30, 2008 12:06 AM

"That's what happens when a 'right of opportunity' transmorgrifies into a 'right to an object/service'. Suddenly the... audience think the Constitution gives 'em a blank check on the labor of another."

This is a distinction I wish people would make more often. To demand as a Right the service of another is to advocate slavery.

Posted by: Stephen R at September 3, 2008 10:25 AM