ACLU files lawsuit against conscience protection rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benedict108
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Benedict108

Guest
Bristol, CT, Jan 17, 2009 / 02:15 am (CNA).- New conscience protection regulations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been challenged in a new federal lawsuit filed on Friday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Click to expand...
The HHS announced the rule change on December 18. The new rule reportedly clarifies the rights of health care providers to decline to participate in services to which they object in conscience. The rule will help protect those individuals and institutions in the medical field who object to abortion.
Click to expand...
Acting on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Connecticut. According to the ACLU, the suit argues that the rule significantly undermines access to essential family planning, reproductive and other health care services and information.
Click to expand...
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14808
 
The Anti-Christian Lunatics Union strikes again.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
 
So tell me, what happened to the Freedom of Choice for the physicians that don’t want to participate in abortions???:confused:
 
The Anti-Christian Leftists Union forgets that there is a freedom of religion clause in the first amendment.

Conveniently forgets.
 
Sabbath_Keeper said:
So tell me, what happened to the Freedom of Choice for the physicians that don’t want to participate in abortions???:confused:
Click to expand...
You see, pro-aborts are only ‘pro-choice’ when that choice results in an abortion taking place.
 
It is my feeling that in the next four years we are going to see a rise in the labeling of Christians who speak out against biblical wrongs as “terrorists”. There will, perhaps, be the passage of the “Hate Crimes” bill, which several never made to passage in the last administration. These will again be revived. The ones that I have read were very vague as to what constituted the actual committing of a “hate crime”. They alluded to “instruments” or “venues”, which to me can only mean some connection with speach. Therefore, to write against or speak against these biblical wrongs would be, as it is in Canada and other countries, considered “hate crimes”. I doubt the same force of law would be enforced against those who speak out against the Christian community as we have seen in the past has been case.
 
Sabbath_Keeper said:
It is my feeling that in the next four years we are going to see a rise in the labeling of Christians who speak out against biblical wrongs as “terrorists”. There will, perhaps, be the passage of the “Hate Crimes” bill, which several never made to passage in the last administration. These will again be revived. The ones that I have read were very vague as to what constituted the actual committing of a “hate crime”. They alluded to “instruments” or “venues”, which to me can only mean some connection with speach. Therefore, to write against or speak against these biblical wrongs would be, as it is in Canada and other countries, considered “hate crimes”. I doubt the same force of law would be enforced against those who speak out against the Christian community as we have seen in the past has been case.
Click to expand...
But they never define what a hate crime is. It’s left open to interpretation by anyone with an axe to grind.

An atheist could say it’s a hate crime for a person of faith to say ‘God Bless you’.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
But they never define what a hate crime is. It’s left open to interpretation by anyone with an axe to grind.

An atheist could say it’s a hate crime for a person of faith to say ‘God Bless you’.
Click to expand...
It is a slippery slope. For example. Let’s say you and I are in discussion and it turns heated. Eventually I say something that you don’t like and you punch me in the nose. Obviously hate is involved here as hate surfaces during heated discussions therefore is must be assumed that if hate is involved that a hate crime has been committed in this case. The question arises: Who committed the crime?

Was it me because I said something that offended you and provoced you to punch me in the nose or was it you, who punched me in the nose because you did not like what I said?

If we study the issue further we would find that in most cases of violence some sort of hate is involved. Do we convict a man or a woman when they strike out at each other in a heated argument wherein hate has sprung forth due to infidelity?

Before we can define a hate crime we must define hate. And that in not an easy thing to do in this day and age. The biggest threat I can see in all of the legislation that is to be set forth in the future is that which would be label “hate speech”. We have all on this forum had some heated debates, some has be deamed “hateful” although I don’t think the majority of those here have intended it to be so. Yet, even the appearance of this type of behavior has been determental to many. How much more so when laws are enacted and carried out? How will this type of legislation effect how we communicate our views or suppress sound reasonning?
Frankly, I’d be a bit frightened by all of this where it not for Christ.
 
Sabbath_Keeper said:
It is a slippery slope. For example. Let’s say you and I are in discussion and it turns heated. Eventually I say something that you don’t like and you punch me in the nose. Obviously hate is involved here as hate surfaces during heated discussions therefore is must be assumed that if hate is involved that a hate crime has been committed in this case. The question arises: Who committed the crime?

Was it me because I said something that offended you and provoced you to punch me in the nose or was it you, who punched me in the nose because you did not like what I said?

If we study the issue further we would find that in most cases of violence some sort of hate is involved. Do we convict a man or a woman when they strike out at each other in a heated argument wherein hate has sprung forth due to infidelity?

Before we can define a hate crime we must define hate. And that in not an easy thing to do in this day and age. The biggest threat I can see in all of the legislation that is to be set forth in the future is that which would be label “hate speech”. We have all on this forum had some heated debates, some has be deamed “hateful” although I don’t think the majority of those here have intended it to be so. Yet, even the appearance of this type of behavior has been determental to many. How much more so when laws are enacted and carried out? How will this type of legislation effect how we communicate our views or suppress sound reasonning?
Frankly, I’d be a bit frightened by all of this where it not for Christ.
Click to expand...
I feel that this next comment is more of an end times comment, but I think it fits in here.

So-called ‘hate’ legislation will eventually be used to silence people of faith, fulfilling the prophecies concerning persecution of God’s people.
 
Sabbath_Keeper said:
It is my feeling that in the next four years we are going to see a rise in the labeling of Christians who speak out against biblical wrongs as “terrorists”. There will, perhaps, be the passage of the “Hate Crimes” bill, which several never made to passage in the last administration. These will again be revived. The ones that I have read were very vague as to what constituted the actual committing of a “hate crime”. They alluded to “instruments” or “venues”, which to me can only mean some connection with speach. Therefore, to write against or speak against these biblical wrongs would be, as it is in Canada and other countries, considered “hate crimes”. I doubt the same force of law would be enforced against those who speak out against the Christian community as we have seen in the past has been case.
Click to expand...
I have similar worries about similar issues.

I’m glad that Congress isn’t filibuster-proof, and I hope that there are enough people who are opposed to these things to vote against them.
 
just another reason i’m glad i chose chiropractic over medical. i think the things id be facing morally would be too much. pray for our m.d.s
 
LotusCarsLtd said:
I have similar worries about similar issues.

I’m glad that Congress isn’t filibuster-proof, and I hope that there are enough people who are opposed to these things to vote against them.
Click to expand...
For an idea as to what these sorts of legislation will look like look at one from the past legislature. Google HR 1592
 
I was thinking.

If this issue were decided by the supreme court, I think they would rule in favor of protecting the consciences of doctors who don’t want to perform abortions. The ACLU would have egg on their faces, and the FOCA would be ruled unconstitutional based on that part of it. 👍
 
The ACLU mentality when it comes to broadcasting indecency on the airwaves was to just change the channel if you don’t like what you’re watching/listening.

Why can’t they apply that mentality to medical care? Why can’t they tell people to change their doctors?

One word comes to mind…diabolical.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
The ACLU mentality when it comes to broadcasting indecency on the airwaves was to just change the channel if you don’t like what you’re watching/listening.

Why can’t they apply that mentality to medical care? Why can’t they tell people to change their doctors?

One word comes to mind…diabolical.
Click to expand...
The ACLU was started by two socialists, who were anti-america. I was a documentary on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top