Alison Gee, Southwest Missouri's Planned Parenthood Vice President, described the regulation as "a midnight regulation," though, in an earlier post, I referenced "Baptist Press" (BP) had reported the Health and Human Services Department had been working on the regulation for much of this year and had introduced the proposal in August. After its introduction, a 30 day comment period followed. In fact, the report from BP had stated (or warned) that critics of the measure were charging it was "an eleventh-hour move," so, no surprise Gee erroneously represented it as "a midnight regulation."
It's a topsy turvy world when the ten commandments are meekly removed from a government office because it offended one man but a nationwide effort is made to force doctors, pharmacists and pharmacist assistants to deal in abortion and abortion drugs against their own moral consciences. Or, should I say, there is an outcry against any regulation protecting those doctors, pharmacists and assistants from providing services and prescriptions which are in contradiction of their own moral code? In other words, your right to an abortion trumps the doctor's right to decline giving you one?
This morning, I followed the hot link provided by the News-Leader at the online edition of the paper:
"Join us. Visit www.plannedparenthood.org to learn more."
...What I found at the link, originally, was a replacement of the home page with a blatant call for money. Under a snowy, pine tree laden, peaceful blue, starlit banner, Planned Parenthood invited those who landed there to support "Choice on Earth":
"We have this special page up for just a few short days instead of the regular Planned Parenthood homepage because right now, we have a special opportunity: A long-time supporter will match, dollar for dollar, every online gift that we receive through December 31, 2008, up to a total of $300,000."
That is what I found the first time I clicked on the News-Leader's hot link. When I went back to pick up the link for this blog entry the link had been updated to direct the reader to the Planned Parenthood homepage. At the home page is a prominent "Choice on Earth" fund raiser notice.
Directly below the "Choice on Earth" contribution notice, the reader is invited to:
"Learn more about issues and elections at the website of our advocacy and political arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund."
Political arm!??? Wait a minute! Didn't Gee promise in her "Voice of the Day" letter today:
"We will fight this and use all of our power to keep politics out of the doctor's office."
Yet, they have a political arm? If their intent is to keep politics out of the doctor's office, why the need for a "political arm?"
Apparently, they just want to keep politics out of the doctor's office if it goes against their own political agenda. You see, it's okay to offend the moral conscience of doctors, pharmacists and their assistants through political activism, just don't offend Planned Parenthood by exercising your own right to be politically active in a cause that counters their own political agenda.
"President Bush is continuing to take his ideology and politics and smother women's ability to make fully informed decisions about their health care."
The regulation isn't about Bush "smothering" a woman's ability to make fully informed decisions about health care. It is about protecting the rights of doctors and pharmacists not to have to provide a procedure or prescribe drugs which cause a moral dilemma for them, individually. But, those very critics of the regulation have already sought the inclusion of funding for abortion in any national health care coverage plan president elect Barack Obama might seek so, it shouldn't come as a surprise these pro-abortion activists care little about the individual rights of people unless it goes along with their own agenda. (See BP's report on that, here.)
In this case, I see Bush trying to protect peoples' rights and Planned Parenthood trying to force others to provide services for an activity the former oppose on spiritual or moral grounds and, not stopping there, Planned Parenthood won't really be happy until they force every American taxpayer whose moral conscience is in opposition to abortion to financially support any woman's choice to abort.
In fact, the regulation does nothing to smother women's ability "to make fully informed decisions about their health care." Planned Parenthood can still inform women and women will still have a choice as to whether they want to abort a baby or choose another option, such as putting the baby up for adoption.
It's really about money, your money and my money. Planned Parenthood wants you to think without more of your willingly donated money, today, and future mandated tax dollars, their ability to "fully inform" women about their health care will be hindered or "smothered." They want to force all doctors and pharmacists to provide abortions and prescription drugs which some doctors are conflicted about providing. They want providing those services and prescription drugs forced upon those doctors and pharmacists to make the choice of abortion more convenient for women who want them and they want all of us to eventually be forced to foot the bill with our tax dollars.
Should women have the right to have a convenient abortion? Women can certainly get one but, poor things, it might not always be as convenient for them as they might like. They might have to make a day trip. What a pity.
I know people who have to travel to Kansas City or St. Louis to get treatment for certain illnesses so, should the taxpayer be forced to provide money (through the government) to every hospital in the nation so that all treatments and procedures are convenient to every single patient who needs those treatments or procedures that might be currently unavailable in their own cities, at their local hospitals and clinics? Is convenient "availability" what should dictate the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, even at the expense of individual moral conflict?
I have a cousin who is often forced to travel to Little Rock, Arkansas to receive the veteran health care benefits she needs. She can get them, but it's less than convenient for her and she often has to make the trip under physical duress, something which isn't often the case for women choosing abortion.
President Bush signed a regulation to affirm "the right of doctors and other health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object," not to deny women access; accessibility to abortions was not affected one whit by this regulation. Abortions are as available to women today as they were the day before Bush signed that bill.
Yes, Alison Gee, let's do ensure we keep politics (and money grubbing) out of the doctor's office.