Dear Mr. President:

[homersapien 11,353]

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.

Everything in red constitutes opinion and substantively irrelevant.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

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.

Wrong. Read what I said again. The government has options for addressing this that don't have to involve the charity whatsoever. They should handle it that way.

[WarTim 3,456]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

That seems to be to be quite a stretch. They aren't being forced to do anything. They just will not be federally funded.

Not a stretch at all. When you force them to choose between helping you help people or violating the tenets of their faith, you have absolutely forced them to withdraw from these programs. Because violating their faith is not an option.

It means they will have to significantly scale back who they can help. These charities EXIST to help people like this. And they do it better than anyone. They shouldn't be put in such a position at all. There is nothing about being a conduit for federal funds to help people that should entail a demand like this.

It says "your contributions aren't welcome if you don't do things that violate your faith." It seems aimed primarily at driving a wedge between people of faith who want to help and the public sphere and it's utterly indefensible.

...and yet many will fail miserably in the attempt to do so...

[cooltigger21 0]

It's just one more reason to scale back the government and let charities handle this work.

[japantiger 4,051]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

Let me see if I got this straight...if you are for killing the unborn; you get Federal aid (Planned Parenthood); if you are for the sanctity of human life and don't believe in funding abortion; you don't get Federal aid? We are truly lost.

[japantiger 4,051]

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.

And the Supreme Court can also reverse itself...do you think Dred Scott was a good decision; how about Plessy v Ferguson....I think the point is; when you start trying to create rights where this is no plain language or even legislative record of intent; you get a mess like Roe. Fortunately, the nation is beginning to wake up; 58m abortions too late; but waking up nevertheless to start restricting and unwinding this awful slaughter of those that can't defend themselves....all that was enabled by the whims of a very fallable panel of 9 people.

[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.

And the Supreme Court can also reverse itself...do you think Dred Scott was a good decision; how about Plessy v Ferguson....I think the point is; when you start trying to create rights where this is no plain language or even legislative record of intent; you get a mess like Roe. Fortunately, the nation is beginning to wake up; 58m abortions too late; but waking up nevertheless to start restricting and unwinding this awful slaughter of those that can't defend themselves....all that was enabled by the whims of a very fallable panel of 9 people.

Dont forget, Jim Crowe too.