"Delivery to the following recipients was aborted..."

And how.

Ew...

It is important to be aware of the consequences of trying to force medical personnel to perform abortions despite conscientious objections to doing so. What will happen is many of the best and brightest young people who are planning on entering health professions will decide to never enter health care and will choose other career paths. One example I personally know of is my talented niece, who wants to be a doctor. If she is forced to participate in abortion in medical school, or in her career, she will quit. Many current health care providers will quit rather than be forced to commit homicide, which is how they view abortion.

The result of all this would be a shortage of doctors and nurses, and an average lower quality of those who do practice, since many bright young people with great potential chose other career paths. Health care will become less available to all.

We need to admit that for millions upon millions of Americans, abortion is not considered health care and never will be

I'm glad the links aren't working yet. Kept me from making an impulsive mistake. I took the time to read page 3 of the rules change request pdf and saw that "All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible ..."

I looked at the fine print at Regulations.gov and concluded that non-electronic submissions may also be published online. Seems to be at the discretion of the department or agency.

Don't know about you, but I don't want my home or business address published online with my comment. Don't want employer info published either. Safest thing seems to be creating an email address solely for this purpose and sending email via proxy.

Remember what happened with prop 8 donor info? Doesn't make sense to volunteer personal details that can be easily retrieved for malicious purposes.

Remember what happened with prop 8 donor info? Doesn't make sense to volunteer personal details that can be easily retrieved for malicious purposes.
Posted by: Fed Up at March 7, 2009 8:44 PM

I didn't see any malicious purposes with the Prop 8 donor information. Unless you mean boycotts of businesses owned by immoral people.

Hal, not taking your bait and posting specifics here. Perhaps you don't see because you choose not to.

Hey, "reality" - this is it.
Barry O breaks yet another promise to the American people.
The punk can't even take email from those who disagree.

Unless you mean boycotts of businesses owned by immoral people.

Posted by: Hal at March 9, 2009 9:31 AM

Oh, THAT'S rich.

The revocation of 13435 is insane.

Read the blasted thing:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13435

Obama "restoring scientific integrity"?

It's to laugh.

Revoking Bush's order will REDUCE the science that's been insanely fruitful in recent years.

My note to the White House on the matter:

Whatever the perceived problems with the Presidential statement of August 9, 2001, revoking Executive Order 13435 cannot be construed as respect for science. Order 13435 actively promoted ambitious science which has proven tremendously fruitful.

I can't even advise "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," because you've apparently already decided that "since it's humming along splendidly, let's break the damn thing."

13435 promoted the most general possible research -- yes, with one substantial but very specific restraint. You've now flipped this on its head -- supporting a narrow band of ethically controversial research while pulling the rug out from under broader, uncontroversial IPS cell research which has yielded fantastic results.

This smacks of subordinating science to politics -- remarkably, the posture your administration claims to have identified in the previous administration's policies.

What were you thinking?

Whoops. Wrong thread.

LOL

Hal: "owned by immoral people."

Interesting that Hal is quick to judge those who deny homosexuals marriage rights but believes abortion is a "personal" choice. Pretty typical I would say.

Still "thinking" like an animal right Hal?

I judge everyone. I just judge more harshly those who deny homosexuals marriage rights.

If I believed in "sin," that would be a much greater sin than abortion.

http://pharmphun.blogspot.com/

Sunday, March 8, 2009
Father of Canadian Health Care admits it's a failure.
The Father of the Canadian socialized health care system, Claude Castonguay, has after 30 years, admitted that it's a failure. After years of sending their most critical cases to the United States to get timely treatment, his current prescription is to increase privatization.

For a single example, Ontario has sent at least 164 cases since 2006 to the U.S. for neurological cases needing emergency treatment, according to the above linked Investors Business Daily article.

Patients visiting northern U.S. hospitals speak of the high population of Canadians receiving treatment concurrently with them.

There is a Canadian industry which lines up U.S. physicians to give timely care to Canadians who have enough money.

As European countries and Canada consider returning to privatized medicine, Obama is plotting to give US increased socialization, that is: Failure Care.

It would reduce social security payouts, however.
--------------------------------------------------------

KB,

Thanks for the info.

yor bro ken

Hal said, "If I believed in 'sin,' that would be a much greater sin than abortion."

And if you believed that 1+1=2, then you would believe that 2+1=4.

Jon, please try harder.

Keep it simple, Hal? Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible says so. The idea of sin (English word) is a Judeo-Christian one. The New Testament uses the Greek word hamertia, which you can use if you want to refer to the pre-Christian Greek idea.

Homosexuality is obviously hamertia, missing the mark. God designed human beings to have sexual reproduction. You don't need the Bible to recognize homosexuality as a perversion. A knowledge of basic biology will be adequate.

Yes, we all make judgements.

"You don't need the Bible to recognize homosexuality as a perversion."

Yes, I think you do.

I could give a rat's backside about retaliation whether it be Homosexual perverts or Abortioniists. I put all my real info in that email. They can come and get me because I'll be waiting for them.

Hal, have you seen any queer bulls lately? Chickens? Flies? Fish? Cease being stupid.

I could give a rat's backside about retaliation whether it be Homosexual perverts or Abortioniists. I put all my real info in that email. They can come and get me because I'll be waiting for them.

Hal, have you seen any queer bulls lately? Chickens? Fish? Flies??? Cease being stupid.

But if there are homosexual bulls, chickens, fish, and flies--we live after the Fall--these animals are obviously missing the mark. The mark might slightly resemble a female mark and--especially for a bovine be located in the same approximate area, though I've never looked too carefully--but a substitute for the female receptacle will suffer abuse simply because--as one substitute--the anus or colon was not designed to be probed. At least, that's what I've read from one medical doctor about men and boys. Homosexual men have a significantly shorter lifespan; homosexuality is unhealthy.

csfip srbu
drug information ultram

bpjsrfe ybgn
anafranil antidepressant