Abortion Advocates File Lawsuit Against Provision Protecting Hospitals (1 Viewer)

[Schweddy]

Sourse: Lifenews.com

Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocates have filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a provision attached to a spending bill President Bush signed yesterday. The provision protects hospitals, health insurance companies and medical personnel from being forced to be involved with abortions. California state attorney general Bill Lockyer filed the lawsuit against the measure, co-sponsored by pro-life Reps. Dave Weldon, a Florida doctor, and Henry Hyde.

"This is an unprecedented attack on women's rights and state sovereignty,'' Lockyer said in a statement accompanying the released of his suit. He called the measure "a back-door attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade."

The measure ensures that state and local governments receiving money from the federal Health and Human Services Department cannot discriminate against health care providers that do not perform abortions, pay for abortions, provide insurance coverage for abortions or refer to agencies that perform abortions.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a pro-life California group, contends the state wouldn't lose any federal money if it didn't force health care entities to be involved in the abortion business.

"California doesn't have to lose any federal funds," Thomasson said. "Instead of behaving like a lawyer for the wealthy abortion groups, Lockyer should immediately draft legislation to conform California to the new federal law."

Thomasson said Lockyer should "cease and desist from forcing doctors and nurses to horribly kill unborn children against their own conscience."

Lockyer's lawsuit was filed in a California-based federal court and he seeks a declaration that the Hyde-Weldon amendment is invalid.

His actions drew praise from abortion advocacy groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

Julie Sternberg, an attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said, "We applaud California for taking the lead in stopping this sweeping and dangerous measure, and we will do everything we can to support that effort."

Pro-life groups say the measure is necessary because abortion advocates are working feverishly to require hospitals and insurance companies to perform or pay for abortions.

(more of the article at Lifenews.com)

 

[bryanf]

Aren't hospitals typically privately owned and operated? I understand that there are government guidelines in place to ensure that people get the best care possible, but if a hospital chooses not to allow abortions, which are never truly life-saving measures, that should be their prerogative.

This legislation was intended to protect that freedom. It's rather unfortunate that people are trying to force their opinion on others.

 

[Fantasea]

It seems to me that this is being taken as an opportunity by the 'Pro-Choice' side to quash the rights of the 'Pro-Life' side.

If the 'Pro-Choice' side is so committed to choice, why are they struggling to take choice away from the 'Pro-Life' side?

By the way, I wonder whether the fact that many of the nearly 50 million aborted children who would now be adults paying into the Social Security System are not around to do so is a contributing factor its looming insolvency?

The law of unintended consequences showing off again?