So an objection to the broadening of those terms is useful to add to the online petitions? Thanks!

(I don't think I've ever commented here before. I'm a fan!)

Tammy - I want to sincerely thank you for posting this. Based on these reports of the unclear language of the act, I signed the petition of NARAL.

I believe it is the responsibility of Health and Human Services to ensure that federally funded facilities both respect the religion of their employees AND ensure that "moral objectors" do not prevent women from receiving needed medical care.

In other words, you cannot discriminate against someone who morally objects to contraception and abortion, but at the same time, your job description must include the willingness to provide these services when required.

So thank you for not (yet, anyway) directly attacking the doctors who might refuse to perform an abortion on moral grounds. They have the right to do so.

They do not, however, have the right to take a job from someone who would.

Okay, maybe I'm an idjit, but when I went to the regulations site, I simply couldn't find the proposed rule, no matter what I searched under. So, my comments, when I'm calm enough to write them, will be sent in a paper letter.

Of course, that doesn't mean my letter to my local paper will take me as long. I promise, no bleeping will be needed.

Who is this Michael Leavitt anyway? He has achieved such an important health position in the President's cabinet that he now holds power over every womb in the nation. He must be a renowned physician!

Well, no. Before Leavitt went into politics, he ran one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the U.S. Now he is using his position to redefine abortion in a way that benefits insurance companies. Surprise, surprise. As with everything in the Bush Administration, this rule change is not about principles. It's just about money. --source

HOLY MONKEYFUCKER--no, that's an insult to people who fuck monkeys, I take it back--HOLY GODSBLIGHTED RAPISTS^*. I'm sore tempted to just lay a curse on them already. Honestly.

^*: not to make light of forced sexual intercourse, but using it in a broader sense; a violation, a plundering. It's still a violation of the body, isn't it, albeit indirect.

I'll send my worst, I promise.

Better eugenics through the insurance industry?

Rob Sawyer didn't know how right he had it when he wrote Frameshift, huh?

This week, abortion at will, up to 24 weeks (and after that if assessed by a doctor) was made legal in my state, in Australia. The contrast between that and Bush's last-ditch attempt to harm and control women is astounding. I've donated to Planned Parenthood's campaign, and wish all the women (and allies) in the US the best of luck fighting this attack on human rights.

*fury*
The stupidity...it enrages me....