Ironically, while the report includes "Health" in the title it also suggests it advances reproductive rights. The full title of the report is, "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration."
Let me get this straight so you will understand my bias. I am pro-life, not pro-abortion. I also understand that those who support abortion rights prefer the title, "pro-choice." I don't care how they want to be identified, a rose is a rose whether called a Diana, Princess of Wales™ or a Double Delight™ . And, I'm not sure how abortion advances the "reproductive rights" of women, it seems to me it actually promotes the opposite. They would like the taxpayer to be forced to fund abortions, in other words, what they really seek is to advance a woman's right NOT to reproduce through abortion. I wonder, what does NOT reproducing have to do with reproduction? In my opinion, it would have been more honest to have titled it "Advancing Non-Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," or "Advancing Taxpayer funded Abortions and Health in a New Administration." These advocates care not one whit whether it is against some taxpayer's individual ethical and moral convictions or sensibilities to abort babies for health reasons or just because they are currently inconvenient.
Pro-Life Susan B. Anthony List's President, Marjorie Dannenfelser was quoted in the article as stating, "After a decade of common-sense restrictions on taxpayer funding, the abortion industry thinks it deserves a bailout from President-Elect Obama."
Dannenfelser recommended pro-life advocates contact their senators through their Web site at: www.sba-list.org/abortionbailout to seek their opposition of the taxpayer funded abortions that these pro-abortion groups seek.
Meanwhile, BP reported, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under our current President, George W. Bush, announced a regulation intended to protect doctors' and health care providers' rights,"to refuse to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object."
BP pointed out, HHS was working on the regulation for much of this year and introduced the proposal in August. A 30 day comment period followed.
"The Christian Medical Association (CMA) reported 41 percent of its members said in a survey they had been "pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions.""