Jump to content

Judge Ends Obamacare "Right" to Abortion and Sex Change


Recommended Posts

Sorry Libs. You don't have the right to force people to violate the tenets of their religion.

 

Explaining the lawsuit, O’Connor wrote, “Plaintiffs claim the Rule’s interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violates their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans on January 1, 2017.”
The states and nonprofits in the healthcare lawsuit allege that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — which sets the rules for federal government rule-making — and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The regulation in question implements Section 1557 of the ACA, which prohibits health-care entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. According to the regulation, this prohibition extends to discrimination based upon “gender identity,” “sex stereotyping” and “termination of pregnancy.” Among other things, it requires that covered entities treat individuals in accordance with their self-proclaimed gender identity, which is defined as a person’s “internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody's violating the tenets of anyone's religion. No one would force someone to have an abortion who didn't want one.

It isn't a matter of forcing abortion on someone who doesn't want one, it's a matter of forcing someone who believes abortion is a sin, to perform one on a patient.

I'm sorry that you're so fucking stupid, that had to be explained to you.

There you go.

No, not really. Are you as stupid as BeerBoy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a matter of forcing abortion on someone who doesn't want one, it's a matter of forcing someone who believes abortion is a sin, to perform one on a patient.

I'm sorry that you're so fucking stupid, that had to be explained to you.

 

If you have a job as a natal care doctor and you refuse to do abortions based upon your religion, you can defer to another doctor or change professions. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a matter of forcing abortion on someone who doesn't want one, it's a matter of forcing someone who believes abortion is a sin, to perform one on a patient.

I'm sorry that you're so fucking stupid, that had to be explained to you.

 

As usual, you're confused. No one is going to force a doctor to perform an abortion if the procedure is against his/her beliefs either. You need to put away your wingnut.com articles and get acquainted with the real world.

 

Now go punch yourself in the face repeatedly. :) You're making a fool of yourself again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a job as a natal care doctor and you refuse to do abortions based upon your religion, you can defer to another doctor or change professions. Problem solved.

 

You don't know what the law says, even after it was quoted to you in the OP.

Allow me to requote it, in hopes that you might actually learn something from this thread:

The regulation in question implements Section 1557 of the ACA, which prohibits health-care entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. According to the regulation, this prohibition extends to discrimination based upon “gender identity,” “sex stereotyping” and “termination of pregnancy.”

 

 

Since any hospital who takes an Obamacare patients would be "receiving federal funding" they would have to perform abortions under this section of Obamacare, including Catholic Hospitals. That's why the Little Sisters of the Poor sued, and won.

Let me know if you need this explained further to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nobody's violating the tenets of anyone's religion. No one's going to force someone to have an abortion who doesn't want one.

 

Comprehension isn't very strong in GolfToy.

 

He needs sum one to splain it to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, you're confused. No one is going to force a doctor to perform an abortion if the procedure is against his/her beliefs either.

That's exactly what is happening, dumbass. That's why the lawsuit was brought against the government, and this judge ended the practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't know what the law says, even after it was quoted to you in the OP.

Allow me to requote it, in hopes that you might actually learn something from this thread:

 

 

Guess which hospital is going to say NO to federal funding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, Doctors will stop doing referrals! Will this madness stop?

Why are you ignoring the facts in this case? They aren't allowed to do "referals" they are required to perform the abortions.

 

“Plaintiffs claim the Rule’s interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violates their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans on January 1, 2017.”

 

You should actually read, and try to learn something new for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what is happening, dumbass. That's why the lawsuit was brought against the government, and this judge ended the practice.

 

Incorrect. No one would force a doctor to perform an abortion (or any other procedure they didn't feel comfortable with). Stop making up shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you ignoring the facts in this case? They aren't allowed to do "referals" they are required to perform the abortions.

 

You should actually read, and try to learn something new for a change.

No, they're not. You want it to mean that but it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they're not. You want it to mean that but it doesn't.

Sorry. Just quoted you the verbiage of the law, and the statement from the judge when he stopped it from being implemented.

You're the one here not understanding what the law says.

Incorrect. No one would force a doctor to perform an abortion (or any other procedure they didn't feel comfortable with). Stop making up shit.

lol. Of course they are. That's why the lawsuit was brought against the government, dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they're not, Goofboy. Don't believe everything Faux News tells you. They lie.

Not Fox News, dumbass. It's sad you can't read.

Even sadder that you blame your ignorance on "Faux News". Funny, but sad at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Fox News, dumbass. It's sad you can't read.

Even sadder that you blame your ignorance on "Faux News". Funny, but sad at the same time.

 

Sounds to me like you're the one with reading comprehension issues. I read just fine. You've clearly been watching too much Faux News.

 

If a doctor isn't comfortable performing a medical procedure, nobody is going to force them to perform that procedure. You're obviously twisting the story to suit your anti-choice agenda. Why are you such a shameless tool? A woman's choices about her pregnancy are none of your business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. Just quoted you the verbiage of the law, and the statement from the judge when he stopped it from being implemented.

You're the one here not understanding what the law says.

lol. Of course they are. That's why the lawsuit was brought against the government, dumbass.

If you go to ob, you're gonna find doctors that will do abortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry Libs. You don't have the right to force people to violate the tenets of their religion.

 

Explaining the lawsuit, O’Connor wrote, “Plaintiffs claim the Rule’s interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violates their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans on January 1, 2017.”
The states and nonprofits in the healthcare lawsuit allege that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — which sets the rules for federal government rule-making — and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The regulation in question implements Section 1557 of the ACA, which prohibits health-care entities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. According to the regulation, this prohibition extends to discrimination based upon “gender identity,” “sex stereotyping” and “termination of pregnancy.” Among other things, it requires that covered entities treat individuals in accordance with their self-proclaimed gender identity, which is defined as a person’s “internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

 

Yeah, doctors shouldn't be forced to abort or trim toe nails, etc. Get a doctor that does abortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...