Midknight Review -- new and revised: Obama goes around congress to strike down Bush rules protecting conscientious objection of medical providers against performing abortions.

We often refer to Obama as an "abortion freak." And here is one the several reasons why we him that brand. Today, the Washington Post (a hard Left major publication), is reporting a continuing assault by Obama against the conscientious objector as relates to abortion. Under ObamaCare, there is no allowance for a conscientious objection to preforming an abortion. Before this freak took office (aaaaaah, abortion freak) there were legal protections for those medical professionals who objected to the practice. From the Post, we learn that Obama has taken down the last protection for those with a conscience against performing abortion.

Obama used the regulatory powers of HHS to take down this presidential order (Bush put the protective rule into existence). According to The New American, (December of 2010) " Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the CMA, added that the rule implemented by the Bush Administration 'was designed to put teeth into the laws that protect our First Amendment rights. Unfortunately, the [Obama] administration has not it in the interim and now they plan to eliminate it altogether. As the case of the nurse who was forced to participate in a late term abortion in New York City demonstrated, presently healthcare professionals have no legal recourse when they are discriminated against unless this regulation is kept in place and enforced.' ”

The Post article makes it appear that Obama and his henchmen allow for conscientious objection, but the prevailing reality is that Obama could not care less for matters of conscience in this matter. This reported action is proof of our claim.

Also, note that Obama could not get this change passed through congress and decided to use HHS to circumvent the will of Congress and the will of the people. Understand that this is a man who proves that he could care less for the will of the people or rule of Constitutional order. How many times have we made this complaint . . . . . Obama running roughshod over Congress? We have lost track.

Up until Obama, we, the people, have trusted our politicians to follow the rules. No president has violated that trust . . . . . until Obama. Now, when constitutionalists get back in power, legislation must be passed to present the kinds of abuses manifest under this foreigner (?) from doing what he has and is doing to this country.

The Stated Nonsense from the Left now includes these Progressive goals:

July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

“ . . . . . . they have become a generation of activists possessed with that most American of ideas – that people who love their country can change it.” -- Obama the Radical

On September 30, Van Jones told MSNBC "I think everybody should hold onto your seats. October is going to be the turning point when it comes to the progressive fight back."

2 comments:

WilliamFebruary 19, 2011 at 3:43 AM
And meanwhile, instead of tackling the deficit, unemployment, what are the Republicans doing in Congress? You guessed it. Nothing but carrying out their bogus religious fetus fetish agenda.
John SmithsonFebruary 19, 2011 at 8:14 AM
Don't you ever get embarrassed about being wrong?

This time, I wake up to your comment, above, and the news that the House just passed a trillion dollar plus budget.

If you think the GOP is going to sit around and do nothing, you missed the point of the last election.

Oh, by "fetus fetish," did you mean "baby killing" ???

That is how your side thinks: "If we don't call 'it' a baby, it isn't a baby." Speaking out for the voiceless infant is hardly a function of religion, per se. It is not a religious decision for me, that is for certain.