Dear Mr. President:

[TitanTiger 20,476]

No one is holding anyone hostage here. You're expecting the organization to call and help facilitate transportation to an abortion clinic.

The rule clearly states that the UC will be transferred to someone else's custody. Not letting that happen (even if it is by omission) is kidnapping. Full stop. If someone requested emergency care and you deliberately refused to hear their request, you are violating the law. In this case, not only the law, but a constitutionally guaranteed right.

What would you have these organizations do? The underage forcibly pregnant child requests the care, and they should ignore it? Tell the kid to shut their trap? Throw them out on the streets?

Honestly, what do you want to have done that satisfies both of the rights?

My reading of that rule doesn't say they leave and go into another's custody. That description sounds more like "you call us, we'll come pick the girl up to do the dirty deed and bring her back."

I could tell a UC our rules: We don't facilitate the procurement of abortions. We don't provide contraception or "Plan B." We can assist you in myriad other ways including pregnancy care and facilitating an adoption if you wish to do that. If these rules are acceptable to you, welcome in. If not, you'll need to call this number and another facility can take care of you. We are committed to meeting your material, emotional and spiritual needs to the best of our ability. We just can't have any part in helping someone commit grave evil.

Then let them decide from there. But I'm not serving as a rest stop and ride coordinator for the gov't to come pick up girls who want abortions.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I will only help you if you agree with my faith.

Correction: I will help you in every possible way that my faith allows given my resources and abilities. I will not help you commit grave evil.

So if they have an abortion and come back to you for help, you would give it to them?

[Auctoritas 2,828]

No one is holding anyone hostage here. You're expecting the organization to call and help facilitate transportation to an abortion clinic.

The rule clearly states that the UC will be transferred to someone else's custody. Not letting that happen (even if it is by omission) is kidnapping. Full stop. If someone requested emergency care and you deliberately refused to hear their request, you are violating the law. In this case, not only the law, but a constitutionally guaranteed right.

What would you have these organizations do? The underage forcibly pregnant child requests the care, and they should ignore it? Tell the kid to shut their trap? Throw them out on the streets?

Honestly, what do you want to have done that satisfies both of the rights?

My reading of that rule doesn't say they leave and go into another's custody. That description sounds more like "you call us, we'll come pick the girl up to do the dirty deed and bring her back."

I could tell a UC our rules: We don't facilitate the procurement of abortions. We don't provide contraception or "Plan B." We can assist you in myriad other ways including pregnancy care and facilitating an adoption if you wish to do that. If these rules are acceptable to you, welcome in. If not, you'll need to call this number and another facility can take care of you. We are committed to meeting your material, emotional and spiritual needs to the best of our ability. We just can't have any part in helping someone commit grave evil.

Then let them decide from there. But I'm not serving as a rest stop and ride coordinator for the gov't to come pick up girls who want abortions.

The part of the rule in question is this "(3) Notify grantor—In some circumstances, another way in which the grantee could ensure access to any program services would be for the grantee to notify the federal program office responsible for the grant if a UC, who has been informed of the available services, may qualify for or be entitled to any program services, including referrals, to which the organization has a religious objection. It would then be the federal agency's responsibility to secure the provision of the needed services, or, if appropriate, transfer the case to another provider."

There is also this point: these children do not willingly come to the grantees, they are assigned, so giving them the "option" to go somewhere else may not be workable in the framework of the program in its entirety.

The interesting thing about your idea is that it tacitly informs them that other options are available - specifically abortion and plan B. You have now let the UC know that those things exist, and if they want them, they need to go somewhere else - which is pretty much exactly what the rule calls for to happen in these cases. Your wording changes nothing about the rule's operations, and, what's more, I am not sure that your wording doesn't follow the rule's directions since you are notifying them of the services available.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

Well, I'm thinking on the fly here. I don't know how a Catholic organization would handle it for instance. Maybe they would simply say that they only provide services related to pregnancy such as prenatal care, adoption services, etc. Anything that falls outside that scope is something we can't do here. I don't know.

[homersapien 11,369]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

Read it again, TT. That's clearly not what the rule says, and to say differently is to be willfully blind at best, lying at worst.

I read it. It is tantamount to referring someone for an abortion. You can try to make it sound like that's not what it is, but that is what it is. There is no moral difference is the religious organization being expected to call Planned Parenthood and calling some government agent to let them know someone wants to get an abortion and could you please come pick them up?

Well, guess what: if you don't do that, you are holding someone against their will. Great, now you've trampled not only on someone's constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion, but you are also falsely imprisoning them by not letting them go do what they want.

Seems like Titan's not really considering any of this from the patient's perspective.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

Read it again, TT. That's clearly not what the rule says, and to say differently is to be willfully blind at best, lying at worst.

I read it. It is tantamount to referring someone for an abortion. You can try to make it sound like that's not what it is, but that is what it is. There is no moral difference is the religious organization being expected to call Planned Parenthood and calling some government agent to let them know someone wants to get an abortion and could you please come pick them up?

Well, guess what: if you don't do that, you are holding someone against their will. Great, now you've trampled not only on someone's constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion, but you are also falsely imprisoning them by not letting them go do what they want.

Seems like Titan's not really considering any of this from the patient's perspective.

Why do you think that someone's right to procure an abortion necessitates me helping them get one in any way whatsoever. I'm not stopping them. But I don't have to volunteer that make it easier either.

And actually, I am thinking of the patient. I'm thinking holistically in fact. Moreover, I'm considering that there are actually two patients.

[homersapien 11,369]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

Read it again, TT. That's clearly not what the rule says, and to say differently is to be willfully blind at best, lying at worst.

I read it. It is tantamount to referring someone for an abortion. You can try to make it sound like that's not what it is, but that is what it is. There is no moral difference is the religious organization being expected to call Planned Parenthood and calling some government agent to let them know someone wants to get an abortion and could you please come pick them up?

Well, guess what: if you don't do that, you are holding someone against their will. Great, now you've trampled not only on someone's constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion, but you are also falsely imprisoning them by not letting them go do what they want.

Seems like Titan's not really considering any of this from the patient's perspective.

Why do you think that someone's right to procure an abortion necessitates me helping them get one in any way whatsoever. I'm not stopping them. But I don't have to volunteer that make it easier either.

And actually, I am thinking of the patient. I'm thinking holistically in fact. Moreover, I'm considering that there are actually two patients.

If you refuse to pass their request along then you are effectively stopping them.

And it's not your place to make decisions about what is best for the patient - or patients if you insist - however holistically efficient you think it is.

Again, you are making this all about protecting you, not helping the patient.

[cptau 169]

The U.S. Government wants to provide abortions to citizens of other countries where abortion is illegal......

Those same countries get very upset when we sentence one of their citizens with the death penalty. Capitol punishment is either not use or rarely used in Latin American.

Interestingly abortion is mainly legal in communist Cuba, US Puerto Rico, and French Guyana.

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21579065-brutal-farce-el-salvador-highlights-regional-failing-miscarriages-justice

"in most of Latin America. At the urging of the Catholic church, abortion is banned under all circumstances—including rape, and where the mother faces death—in Chile, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Suriname, as well as in El Salvador. In most other countries it is highly restricted. Only Cuba, Guyana, Puerto Rico and Uruguay offer abortion on demand (so does Mexico City, unlike the rest of Mexico)."

[autigeremt 6,602]

I don't fully understand how this country continues to throw money around to citizens of other countries like its water pouring out of an endless spring.

Our citizens continue to be pushed back to make room for illegals. Sickening.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

If you refuse to pass their request along then you are effectively stopping them.

Am I stopping them from talking to them on their own? No. Perhaps the government, before placing people, can give them all the numbers and info they wish them to have and not involve the charity at all.

And it's not your place to make decisions about what is best for the patient - or patients if you insist - however holistically efficient you think it is.

And it's not the government's place to make me facilitate grave evil. If the government is so (literally) hellbent on making sure people know they can take life, they can inform them without me.

And on a side (but related) note: If you're so all about more information, why do liberals oppose laws that require women seeking abortions to be informed in more detail about their baby's stage of development, getting ultrasounds and so on?

Again, you are making this all about protecting you, not helping the patient.

No, actually, I'm balancing all the considerations. If the government wishes to talk up baby killing, they don't need me to facilitate it, and they certainly shouldn't be changing the rules to put me in a position to either have to help with this in any way or step away from helping more people.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

If you refuse to pass their request along then you are effectively stopping them.

Am I stopping them from talking to them on their own? No. Perhaps the government, before placing people, can give them all the numbers and info they wish them to have and not involve the charity at all.

And it's not your place to make decisions about what is best for the patient - or patients if you insist - however holistically efficient you think it is.

And it's not the government's place to make me facilitate grave evil. If the government is so (literally) hellbent on making sure people know they can take life, they can inform them without me.

And on a side (but related) note: If you're so all about more information, why do liberals oppose laws that require women seeking abortions to be informed in more detail about their baby's stage of development, getting ultrasounds and so on?

Again, you are making this all about protecting you, not helping the patient.

No, actually, I'm balancing all the considerations. If the government wishes to talk up baby killing, they don't need me to facilitate it, and they certainly shouldn't be changing the rules to put me in a position to either have to help with this in any way or step away from helping more people.

You're not balancing anything, you're deliberately withholding a legal medical treatment from someone else - that's not compromise, it's a bushwack. Remember, these are not adults yet, these are children, it's not just a simple matter of informed consent because the agency is in charge in loco parentis. There is a very clear distinction between facilitating an abortion and not getting in the way of someone who requests one. If you can't see that, get your constitutional glasses checked. This rule was VERY carefully written to survive a first amendment challenge with clear procedures that preserve your rights to believe what you wish. The rule states in no uncertain terms that the only responsibility the grantee has is to notify the government that they cannot provide the services requested. That's not even close to an undue burden and to say otherwise is to insert yourself square into the rights and decisions of someone else.

And, once again, this is a very specific thing: trying to get underage, undocumented children who were sexually assaulted medical care they need and (because they are human beings) deserve. Full stop.

And on a side (but related) note: If you're so all about more information, why do liberals oppose laws that require women seeking abortions to be informed in more detail about their baby's stage of development, getting ultrasounds and so on?

We could level the opposite charge at conservatives...why, all of a sudden, are people who are so hellbent on personal rights all of a sudden wanting to take up residence in a woman's uterus and start mandating medical care and what a doctor must do? I could swear you people were furious about that when we talked about the ACA.

I have a problem with those laws because they're not about information, they are about coercion. It is medically unnecessary to require a vaginal ultrasound on someone. It is medically unnecessary to have details about the fetus' stage of development.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

You're not balancing anything, you're deliberately withholding a legal medical treatment from someone else - that's not compromise, it's a bushwack.

"Withholding" and "not volunteering unprompted" are two very different things. I'm not proposing that I should lie to them. If they *ask* about it, I could refer them to the contact info in the info packet they received from the government but tell them that we don't offer those service and don't facilitate them either. But I'm not going to actively promote or facilitate grave evil. So yes, there is a balance to be had and that is what I'm proposing.

Remember, these are not adults yet, these are children, it's not just a simple matter of informed consent because the agency is in charge in loco parentis. There is a very clear distinction between facilitating an abortion and not getting in the way of someone who requests one.

Nothing I've said suggests "getting in the way" of someone getting one. I just shouldn't have to assist in making it happen.

If you can't see that, get your constitutional glasses checked. This rule was VERY carefully written to survive a first amendment challenge with clear procedures that preserve your rights to believe what you wish. The rule states in no uncertain terms that the only responsibility the grantee has is to notify the government that they cannot provide the services requested. That's not even close to an undue burden and to say otherwise is to insert yourself square into the rights and decisions of someone else.

Well, it would help if you'd stop reading things into my statements that I never said.

And, once again, this is a very specific thing: trying to get underage, undocumented children who were sexually assaulted medical care they need and (because they are human beings) deserve. Full stop.

Everyone deserves medical care. No one deserves abortion. I wouldn't wish such a monstrosity on anyone.

We could level the opposite charge at conservatives...why, all of a sudden, are people who are so hellbent on personal rights all of a sudden wanting to take up residence in a woman's uterus and start mandating medical care and what a doctor must do? I could swear you people were furious about that when we talked about the ACA.

I have a problem with those laws because they're not about information, they are about coercion. It is medically unnecessary to require a vaginal ultrasound on someone. It is medically unnecessary to have details about the fetus' stage of development.

As long as we're turning one's words back on each other, I could say the same thing...this isn't really about medical care. The government agencies that place these children could inform them of the availability of these services and how to contact someone to obtain them. To write the law in such as way as to make me complicit in the taking of human life is about coercion...placing people of good will and faith into positions of choosing their religion vs obeying an unjust and unneeded law. It's a pattern with this administration really. Someone who really cared about balancing 1st Amendment rights with this so-called 'necessary' medical treatment could have easily avoided this problem. But they don't care. Just like they didn't care about the contraceptive mandate. They have a worldview about these things and they cannot really fathom anyone that could disagree with them, so their efforts at avoiding such moral dillemmas are half-hearted and half-assed. And they know full well that the end result is to drive more faith-based organizations out of the public sphere.

At some point you begin to realize they don't really see that as a bug...they see it as a feature.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The thing is, no matter how you try to spin it, the law ISNT written that way. Calling the government and saying "we cannot give the child the care they want" is not facilitating an abortion.

There is no middle ground here. If the request is made by the UC, then the grantee can either help or they request to get out of the way. Staying silent is tacitly forcing your religious beliefs on someone else, which is an egregious violation of their rights, and it is a refusal to provide legal medical care (which, by law and by definition, emergency contraception is medical care).

There is nothing in this rule that forces any religious organization to provide care in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. The only requirement is to let the government know about it so the child will no longer be that organizations responsibility to care for.

I don't understand. Either you care for the child or someone else does. If you don't notify ORR or pass the child on, what other options do you want?

[TitanTiger 20,476]

The thing is, no matter how you try to spin it, the law ISNT written that way. Calling the government and saying "we cannot give the child the care they want" is not facilitating an abortion.

You're the one spinning. It is quite possible that to them, that is facilitating it. By your definition, practically anything short of walking them into the clinic lobby would be considered "not facilitating." And it could easily be handled differently by providing the contact info to the UC prior to placement.

There is no middle ground here. If the request is made by the UC, then the grantee can either help or they request to get out of the way. Staying silent is tacitly forcing your religious beliefs on someone else, which is an egregious violation of their rights, and it is a refusal to provide legal medical care (which, by law and by definition, emergency contraception is medical care).

Of course there is middle ground. You just refuse to see it because in the end, you think the right to abortion trumps everything, including the Bill of Rights.

The middle ground is that the government can give the UC the contact information for services that a charity may not provide. If they approach the charity and ask for something they don't or can't provide according to their beliefs, you simply tell them the information packet they were given has a number to call to inquire about such services. That's literally as far as some would be willing to go and they should not be compelled to go further.

You seem to be confused. Something being legal and available does not place a burden on me to promote or facilitate the procurement of such things.

There is nothing in this rule that forces any religious organization to provide care in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. The only requirement is to let the government know about it so the child will no longer be that organizations responsibility to care for.

If the government deems it important for them to know about it, then the government can take steps themselves to provide that info or a contact number to inquire about that info. They don't need to corral me into their grave evil.

I don't understand. Either you care for the child or someone else does. If you don't notify ORR or pass the child on, what other options do you want?

Children under my care will be given all the love and care that I can possibly give within morally licit bounds. If the government wishes to provide additional "care", then it should be incumbent upon them to inform, not me.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The thing is, no matter how you try to spin it, the law ISNT written that way. Calling the government and saying "we cannot give the child the care they want" is not facilitating an abortion.

You're the one spinning. It is quite possible that to them, that is facilitating it. By your definition, practically anything short of walking them into the clinic lobby would be considered "not facilitating." And it could easily be handled differently by providing the contact info to the UC prior to placement.

There is no middle ground here. If the request is made by the UC, then the grantee can either help or they request to get out of the way. Staying silent is tacitly forcing your religious beliefs on someone else, which is an egregious violation of their rights, and it is a refusal to provide legal medical care (which, by law and by definition, emergency contraception is medical care).

Of course there is middle ground. You just refuse to see it because in the end, you think the right to abortion trumps everything, including the Bill of Rights.

The middle ground is that the government can give the UC the contact information for services that a charity may not provide. If they approach the charity and ask for something they don't or can't provide according to their beliefs, you simply tell them the information packet they were given has a number to call to inquire about such services. That's literally as far as some would be willing to go and they should not be compelled to go further.

You seem to be confused. Something being legal and available does not place a burden on me to promote or facilitate the procurement of such things.

There is nothing in this rule that forces any religious organization to provide care in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. The only requirement is to let the government know about it so the child will no longer be that organizations responsibility to care for.

If the government deems it important for them to know about it, then the government can take steps themselves to provide that info or a contact number to inquire about that info. They don't need to corral me into their grave evil.

I don't understand. Either you care for the child or someone else does. If you don't notify ORR or pass the child on, what other options do you want?

Children under my care will be given all the love and care that I can possibly give within morally licit bounds. If the government wishes to provide additional "care", then it should be incumbent upon them to inform, not me.

So your assertion is that a child with zero support structure, an inability to speak English, who has been violated and has become pregnant, and has no upbringing, experience, or education of the structure of the country and it's support services will get a packet, be able to understand it, and have the financial or social wherewithal to be able to access those services by themselves? If they were that independent THEY WOULDNT BE PLACED IN THESE CHARITIES.

I am confused why you think that abortion is less of a right than any other. Roe v Wade found it to be a constitutional right, same as freedom of speech or religion or due process. You don't have to like it, but it's the law. Do I think that right trumps other rights? No, because they are all equal. But in this case, your right to freedom of religion does not mean that you get to extend that right to impact the health, and constitutional rights, of someone else.

Your view of facilitation is so incredibly broad that the only way it can be avoided is to withhold, by silence, medical care. You accuse me of having a broad brush, but that's the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm still trying wrap my head around he tortured logic that notifying the government that you refuse by religious exception to provide care for the child and asking to be relieved of that duty is somehow equivalent to promoting abortion. By that logic, the only way not to promote abortion is to keep the child in the dark and refuse to let them seek requested medical care, because any other action offends your religious sensibilities.

This whole argument is a red herring. Dress it up in first amendment garb all you want, but the objection has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with wanting to limit or proscribe abortion.

As someone noted, these organizations are given federal money to act as administrators and government entities. That means they are acting IN THE PLACE OF the government. Therefore, it is their responsibility to do the things required to govern, which includes the duty to inform.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I think part of the reason that we are not seeing each other's positions may be because we do not know the actual processes and procedures for placement. For instance your assumption is that the Federal government sees them, collects, and then places them after a time.

My assumption is that these entities are actually the first line, the first contact the UC has. From what I know of these programs (I am no expert on this specifically, but do have some experience and training), the federal government cedes all control to the grantee and acts only as oversight. I don't think ORR have any contact with the children. Somebody in another agency or branch of government may, but this rule does not translate interagency lines because it is a responsive rule (I.e., it takes effect when the protection is granted after an event of sexual assault) and cannot be invoked until the rule is needed because of a triggering or enabling event.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

As someone noted, these organizations are given federal money to act as administrators and government entities. That means they are acting IN THE PLACE OF the government. Therefore, it is their responsibility to do the things required to govern, which includes the duty to inform.

I'm not going to continue with the back and forth on the rest of it because I believe your are doing the exact same things you accuse me of, just from a different opinion of how it should go.

But I do want to address this. This is not how these arrangements were originally started. The government actually came to these charities because long before there were any programs on a federal level to help people, Christian and other religious charities already were doing this work. They had boots on the ground in the areas of need, helping people who needed it. The people in our gov't at the time saw what they were doing and how well they did it and decided that rather than try to reinvent the wheel, it made sense to come alongside these charities and have them keep doing what they do but do it on a broader scale than they were capable of on their own. They saw them as partners, not as an agent of the government. Because the most important thing was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless and protecting the oppressed. So the contention that they are acting in the place of government is a misnomer...it's a more recent interpretation that has been given quite a boost the last 6 years under Obama.

There is no reason for it to have changed other than people with a cultural agenda wanting to press their advantage and marginalize those who disagree.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Abortion, first and foremost is not a right. it is a privilege made available by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices against an overwhelming majority of the states laws.

if we're going to debate rights, it logically follows that they be debated in the context of the underpinnings of our system of law, the Constitution. As an atheist, Actoritas, this is problematic for you because the founders established this country on the premise that rights are "endowed by our Creator" I really cant imagine any circumstance where having an abortion is a right in that context. Here, shout this down.

https://afathersapocalypsis.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/roe-v-wade-was-and-is-a-sham-a-fake-and-fraud/

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Abortion, first and foremost is not a right. it is a privilege made available by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices against an overwhelming majority of the states laws.

if we're going to debate rights, it logically follows that they be debated in the context of the underpinnings of our system of law, the Constitution. As an atheist, Actoritas, this is problematic for you because the founders established this country on the premise that rights are "endowed by our Creator" I really cant imagine any circumstance where having an abortion is a right in that context. Here, shout this down.

https://afathersapocalypsis.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/roe-v-wade-was-and-is-a-sham-a-fake-and-fraud/

That's factually incorrect. SCOTUS in Roe v Wade held that it is a constitutional right to privacy by way of the 9th and 14th amendments. You may not like it, but it's a constitutional right nonetheless.

Case law, particularly from SCOTUS, establishes constitutionality. To say otherwise is flat out incorrect at best, sour grapes at worst.

Also, the Declaration of Independence and the reference to endowed rights by a creator are not rule-making or establishing documents or clauses. Fun things, but they predate our country and have no impact on the Constitution.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

As someone noted, these organizations are given federal money to act as administrators and government entities. That means they are acting IN THE PLACE OF the government. Therefore, it is their responsibility to do the things required to govern, which includes the duty to inform.

I'm not going to continue with the back and forth on the rest of it because I believe your are doing the exact same things you accuse me of, just from a different opinion of how it should go.

But I do want to address this. This is not how these arrangements were originally started. The government actually came to these charities because long before there were any programs on a federal level to help people, Christian and other religious charities already were doing this work. They had boots on the ground in the areas of need, helping people who needed it. The people in our gov't at the time saw what they were doing and how well they did it and decided that rather than try to reinvent the wheel, it made sense to come alongside these charities and have them keep doing what they do but do it on a broader scale than they were capable of on their own. They saw them as partners, not as an agent of the government. Because the most important thing was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless and protecting the oppressed. So the contention that they are acting in the place of government is a misnomer...it's a more recent interpretation that has been given quite a boost the last 6 years under Obama.

There is no reason for it to have changed other than people with a cultural agenda wanting to press their advantage and marginalize those who disagree.

This is mostly correct, except for the Obama thing. The current structure began in 2002 with Bush II and the implementation of the faith-based services oversight.

I think we've probably made our points ad nauseum. Thanks for the lively debate!

[TheBlueVue 177]

Abortion, first and foremost is not a right. it is a privilege made available by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices against an overwhelming majority of the states laws.

if we're going to debate rights, it logically follows that they be debated in the context of the underpinnings of our system of law, the Constitution. As an atheist, Actoritas, this is problematic for you because the founders established this country on the premise that rights are "endowed by our Creator" I really cant imagine any circumstance where having an abortion is a right in that context. Here, shout this down.

https://afathersapoc...fake-and-fraud/

That's factually incorrect. SCOTUS in Roe v Wade held that it is a constitutional right to privacy by way of the 9th and 14th amendments. You may not like it, but it's a constitutional right nonetheless.

Case law, particularly from SCOTUS, establishes constitutionality. To say otherwise is flat out incorrect at best, sour grapes at worst.

Also, the Declaration of Independence and the reference to endowed rights by a creator are not rule-making or establishing documents or clauses. Fun things, but they predate our country and have no impact on the Constitution.

It was "ruled" a right by a panel of Judges. Our system was never intended to end up with so much implied power in the hands of a panel of 9. Some would argue, for that reason, the entire law is a fraud and while I wouldn't argue the the "law" isn't on your side, it is that way because the issue was highly politicized.

[TitanTiger 20,476]

As someone noted, these organizations are given federal money to act as administrators and government entities. That means they are acting IN THE PLACE OF the government. Therefore, it is their responsibility to do the things required to govern, which includes the duty to inform.

I'm not going to continue with the back and forth on the rest of it because I believe your are doing the exact same things you accuse me of, just from a different opinion of how it should go.

But I do want to address this. This is not how these arrangements were originally started. The government actually came to these charities because long before there were any programs on a federal level to help people, Christian and other religious charities already were doing this work. They had boots on the ground in the areas of need, helping people who needed it. The people in our gov't at the time saw what they were doing and how well they did it and decided that rather than try to reinvent the wheel, it made sense to come alongside these charities and have them keep doing what they do but do it on a broader scale than they were capable of on their own. They saw them as partners, not as an agent of the government. Because the most important thing was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless and protecting the oppressed. So the contention that they are acting in the place of government is a misnomer...it's a more recent interpretation that has been given quite a boost the last 6 years under Obama.

There is no reason for it to have changed other than people with a cultural agenda wanting to press their advantage and marginalize those who disagree.

This is mostly correct, except for the Obama thing. The current structure began in 2002 with Bush II and the implementation of the faith-based services oversight.

I think we've probably made our points ad nauseum. Thanks for the lively debate!

Except the Bush administration did not interpret these faith-based services in the same strict light that the Obama administration has.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Abortion, first and foremost is not a right. it is a privilege made available by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices against an overwhelming majority of the states laws.

if we're going to debate rights, it logically follows that they be debated in the context of the underpinnings of our system of law, the Constitution. As an atheist, Actoritas, this is problematic for you because the founders established this country on the premise that rights are "endowed by our Creator" I really cant imagine any circumstance where having an abortion is a right in that context. Here, shout this down.

https://afathersapoc...fake-and-fraud/

That's factually incorrect. SCOTUS in Roe v Wade held that it is a constitutional right to privacy by way of the 9th and 14th amendments. You may not like it, but it's a constitutional right nonetheless.

Case law, particularly from SCOTUS, establishes constitutionality. To say otherwise is flat out incorrect at best, sour grapes at worst.

Also, the Declaration of Independence and the reference to endowed rights by a creator are not rule-making or establishing documents or clauses. Fun things, but they predate our country and have no impact on the Constitution.

It was "ruled" a right by a panel of Judges. Our system was never intended to end up with so much implied power in the hands of a panel of 9. Some would argue, for that reason, the entire law is a fraud and while I wouldn't argue the the "law" isn't on your side, it is that way because the issue was highly politicized.

So I am to assume you think Brown v Board of Education is likewise a sham?

Article III says "hi" as does 210 years of the concept of judicial review. So does the 14th Amendment.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

As someone noted, these organizations are given federal money to act as administrators and government entities. That means they are acting IN THE PLACE OF the government. Therefore, it is their responsibility to do the things required to govern, which includes the duty to inform.

I'm not going to continue with the back and forth on the rest of it because I believe your are doing the exact same things you accuse me of, just from a different opinion of how it should go.

But I do want to address this. This is not how these arrangements were originally started. The government actually came to these charities because long before there were any programs on a federal level to help people, Christian and other religious charities already were doing this work. They had boots on the ground in the areas of need, helping people who needed it. The people in our gov't at the time saw what they were doing and how well they did it and decided that rather than try to reinvent the wheel, it made sense to come alongside these charities and have them keep doing what they do but do it on a broader scale than they were capable of on their own. They saw them as partners, not as an agent of the government. Because the most important thing was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless and protecting the oppressed. So the contention that they are acting in the place of government is a misnomer...it's a more recent interpretation that has been given quite a boost the last 6 years under Obama.

There is no reason for it to have changed other than people with a cultural agenda wanting to press their advantage and marginalize those who disagree.

This is mostly correct, except for the Obama thing. The current structure began in 2002 with Bush II and the implementation of the faith-based services oversight.

I think we've probably made our points ad nauseum. Thanks for the lively debate!

Except the Bush administration did not interpret these faith-based services in the same strict light that the Obama administration has.

Entirely true. I think that is to our benefit, but that's just personal opinion.

[homersapien 11,369]

As someone noted, these organizations are given federal money to act as administrators and government entities. That means they are acting IN THE PLACE OF the government. Therefore, it is their responsibility to do the things required to govern, which includes the duty to inform.

I'm not going to continue with the back and forth on the rest of it because I believe your are doing the exact same things you accuse me of, just from a different opinion of how it should go.

But I do want to address this. This is not how these arrangements were originally started. The government actually came to these charities because long before there were any programs on a federal level to help people, Christian and other religious charities already were doing this work. They had boots on the ground in the areas of need, helping people who needed it. The people in our gov't at the time saw what they were doing and how well they did it and decided that rather than try to reinvent the wheel, it made sense to come alongside these charities and have them keep doing what they do but do it on a broader scale than they were capable of on their own. They saw them as partners, not as an agent of the government. Because the most important thing was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless and protecting the oppressed. So the contention that they are acting in the place of government is a misnomer...it's a more recent interpretation that has been given quite a boost the last 6 years under Obama.

There is no reason for it to have changed other than people with a cultural agenda wanting to press their advantage and marginalize those who disagree.

Now that there's some irony.

You would refuse to simply pass along the victim's request - not as you implied, taking her to a provider or otherwise assisting her in any way - just simply pass along the victim's request and back out.

No matter how you spin it, that's effectively blocking her from receiving a legal service. You would say good! It's an evil I protected her from. She didn't know what was best for herself.

And then you have to gall to portray the government as the one who is pressing a cultural agenda??

The government has bent over backwards to provide you a way of disassociating yourself from facilitating the patient in this.

Your real problem is the fact abortion is even an option for the patient. And that "problem" is based solely on your opinion.

I know you act according to your own moral imperative, but in this country, you do not have a right to interfere with someone else's will to obtain a procedure that is perfectly legal and doesn't even affect you personally.