Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Rescinding abortion rule misguided

March 4, 2009

Advertisement

For social liberals, what is it about abortion that makes some of them consider it a sacrificial rite through which only the killing of an unborn child can truly liberate a woman from the clutches of paternalism?

A rule approved in the waning days of the Bush administration established broad protections for health care workers whose religious faith, conscience or moral misgivings forbid them from participating in an abortion. Last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is still without a confirmed secretary, announced its intention to rescind the regulation. There will be a 30-day period of public comment before the rule is overturned. Here is mine.

No politician can be found who admits to favoring abortion. To acknowledge moral misgivings means that you are at least acknowledging that the beating heart and brain waves extinguished during an abortion are of greater significance than, say, the removal of an appendix or a tumor. Infected appendices can burst, killing the individual. A tumor can grow, become malignant and cause death. A growing unborn child can be born and contribute not only to the betterment of the country, but if you’re utilitarian about it, increase the tax base. Abortion kills a potential taxpayer, which ought to override every other consideration for liberal politicians who are constantly looking for new sources of revenue.

Why do social liberals say they want to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” but then spend all their time on the first two and none on the third? It is relatively simple to reduce the number of abortions, even while keeping them "safe" and “legal.” Show the abortion-minded woman a sonogram of the fetus she is about to destroy. A 2005 survey by Care Net, a network of about 1,000 antiabortion pregnancy centers in the United States and Canada, based in Sterling, Va., found that “72 percent of women who were initially ‘strong leaning’ toward abortion decided to carry their pregnancies to term after seeing a sonogram.” That isn’t depriving a woman of her “choice.” It is providing more information so that her choice will be fully informed.

Carried to its logical conclusion, repealing the “conscience rule” would allow hospitals to require pro-life doctors and nurses to participate in abortions. The Catholic Church teaches that elective abortion is a mortal sin, so the government is considering a requirement that would place a Catholic in the position of risking excommunication and the eternal damnation of his or her soul. Evangelical Christians regard abortion as equally offensive. Where is the separation of church and state when you really need it?

Arguments in favor of overriding the conscience rule include concerns that it might apply to people dispensing contraceptives at the pharmacy. Others say it could be used to prevent rape victims from receiving pregnancy protection assistance at a hospital. These are arguments we’ve heard before. Even if pro-lifers grant these exceptions, it isn’t enough for the abortion lobby, which uses extreme situations to keep the door open to abortion on demand for any and all reasons.

In my view, there are far fewer people who oppose contraception than oppose abortion. Besides, one prevents conception and the other kills something that is living and, if left to be born, will breathe. Any employee at a pharmacy who doesn’t want to sell contraceptives can ask another store employee to do it. You can’t bring an aborted baby back to life, even if a woman later regrets the decision, which many do.

To repeal the conscience rule is an affront to ever American who believes government ought to be under God, not play God. It is an insult to religious faith and to pro-lifers of no religious faith who see the danger of rendering one category of human life as having less value than another. We should be aware of where this can lead. If you are a resident in an assisted-living center, you might consider putting an extra lock on the door, because you are next. By the time our consciences have been reprogrammed, the bureaucrat who decides you’ve outlived your usefulness will have forgotten how to feel guilty about anything.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Comments

Corey Williams 5 years, 9 months ago

"...the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs..."

"Supporters say the rule protects doctors who should not be forced to prescribe treatments such as birth control pills or the so-called morning-after pill."

"For more than 30 years, federal law has allowed doctors and nurses to decline to provide abortion services as a matter of conscience, a protection that is not subject to rulemaking."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-conscience-rulefeb27,0,1515759.story

But Cal says: "Carried to its logical conclusion, repealing the “conscience rule” would allow hospitals to require pro-life doctors and nurses to participate in abortions."

What a fear monger.

"A 2005 survey by Care Net, a network of about 1,000 antiabortion pregnancy centers in the United States and Canada, based in Sterling, Va., found that “72 percent of women who were initially ‘strong leaning’ toward abortion decided to carry their pregnancies to term after seeing a sonogram.”

This would mean more if there was more info. 72% of all women, or just those that visited an antiabortion pregnancy center?

frazzled 5 years, 9 months ago

Cal Thomas is the master of the straw-man argument. You don't have to read beyond the vituperative nonsense of the first paragraph, where he intentionally misstates his opponents' positions and proceeds to attack them.

grammaddy 5 years, 9 months ago

"No politician can be found who admits to favoring abortion." I would hope not. Even among pro- choice people, nobody favors abortion. It's not something anybody is dying to do. I don't get the first paragraph.What an idiot.

preebo 5 years, 9 months ago

This is nothing more than editorial opinion masquerading as fact and journalism. Mr. Thomas is a columnist, not a journalist and that is clear in every piece that is attached to this publication. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and voice, simultaneously, we are equally entitled to listen as skeptically.

JohnBrown 5 years, 9 months ago

The rule Bush imposed, and Cal defends, is pure socialism. Company owners, not employees or the government, decide what employees do and don't do.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"The rule Bush imposed, and Cal defends, is pure socialism. Company owners, not employees or the government, decide what employees do and don't do"

Um, yeah. 'Cept the government isn't 'deciding' what the employees do and don't do, John. It gives them the option.

"Abortion kills a potential taxpayer, which ought to override every other consideration for liberal politicians who are constantly looking for new sources of revenue."

It's crap like that which makes Cal nothing more than a blowhard and a 'Coulter-lite'.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the "conscience rule" unless it applies when the mother is in danger in an emergency situation. Even so, I'm betting there aren't that many, if any, healthcare workers who put themselves in the position to have to perform or assist in abortions if it's against their belief system. Rescinding the rule is crap, and infringes on an individual's religious and moral convictions. For those that rail so often about the government stepping on our rights, I would hope you'd be against this as well.

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion,

That's not all.

The rule also allows health care practicioners to not engage in counseling/family planning services.

If they, and abortion, are legal under the law - what gives health care workers the right to not engage in them?

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

Bull@#$5 Marion. He says that in there, but surrounds it with strawmen and other logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and other underhanded tactics.

Just like he always does. Decietful self-congratulations for social conservatives. That's all Cal Thomas ever offers.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

Until, of course, the conservatives get beaten in elections. Then he whines about needing to reach across the aisle.

KansasVoter 5 years, 9 months ago

I couldn't read past the first paragraph of this garbage. The headline sounded reasonable, but considering how disgusting the first sentence is I don't know how the rest could be any better.

1029 5 years, 9 months ago

Wow, this article is bizarre, even for Cal Thomas.

The whole article is hilarious, but one of the best parts is when he cites the Care Net "study", which was a bunch of fabricated propaganda. That "study" is a perfect example of the major flaw of the conservative ideology--rather than gathering evidence and coming to a conclusion, the conservative finds a conclusion he/she likes, and then seeks out "evidence" that supports that conclusion.

The only people entertaining the severely, severely flawed and overly simple correlation between abortions and tax revenue is the idiot conservative, the same person who simple mind comes up with the related idea that there would be no social security crisis if those babies were around to grow up and pay into the system.

One could analyze this article and how it reflects the deficiencies in Thomas' (and most conservatives') thought process all day long, but the last thing that I am going to comment on is the closing paragraph. (a) Religious people should feel insulted all the time. I mean, seriously, think about what it is you believe. Your mind is simple and weak and without the comfort that comes from believing in religious myths, you would feel lost, hopeless, and may even go on a murderous rampage (because, hey, how would you know that murder is wrong if it weren't for the ten commandments, right?) (b) The "abortion today, killing off the elderly tomorrow" idea....well, I don't even know what to say about this. Are conservatives really stupid enough to actually believe this?

I'm glad that conservatives (and their simpleton and myth-driven ideology) are losing their influence with every passing day, month, and year. These people are sheltered, ignorant, fear-driven, and psychologically unstable, and their simpleton ideas would destroy the country if not for the fact that their ideology will inevitably die off as society evolves. Thank God.

ThatGirl2 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

duplenty (Anonymous) says…

The idea that a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to dispense birth control due to their personal religious beliefs is, at best, offensive.

If you can't do your job 'cuz of what your God says, find a new job.”

Marion writes:

So, were euthanasia become “legal” and you as a health care pracatitioner were to refuse to provide the lethal drugs because of your religious beliefs, you should go find a new job?

In a word, yes. If your religious beliefs would prevent you from participating in all aspects of your chosen profession, you need to choose a different profession in which you can fully engage.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"In a word, yes. If your religious beliefs would prevent you from participating in all aspects of your chosen profession, you need to choose a different profession in which you can fully engage"

Ah. So you can come to America to practice religious freedom, but ......well, not really, 'cuz if you choose to practice your religion you're not free to choose your profession. Excellent.

kmat 5 years, 9 months ago

"Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Should a mechanic who specialises in work on automatic transmissions be forced by law to work on brakes?"

What a stupid comment. The mechanic wouldn't be forced by law to work on brakes. If he is told by his employer to do a brake job and refuses because his specialty is transmissions, then he/she should be canned.

I'm a buyer. If my employer tells me that they need me to help the sales managers and travel to some of their customers with them - guess what? If I want to keep my job I'm going to do what they told me to do. The employer has the right to terminate any employee who refuses to do what they are told to do, as long as what they are refusing to do isn't against the law.

So you believe that company owners don't have rights, huh?

How many times have I heard on here from republicans that if we didn't like Bush we should leave the country? Well, if a pharmacist or Dr. doesn't like the law and their employer makes them follow the law, then they need to get a new profession.

feeble 5 years, 9 months ago

The rule is too broad as written.

A Christian scientist cashier (note, not the pharmacist) at a pharmacy could refuse to sell all medication to all customers under the Bush rule, and be fully protected.

Similarly, under the Bush rule, emergency care, such as resuscitation, could be denied under the pretext that it violates a doctor's or EMT's "religious faith, conscience or moral misgivings".

Do we allow pacifists to become snipers?

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

There goes Marion again with another straw man. If the mechanic works in a shop that only services transmissions, then why the hell would he service brakes? You compare apples to oranges. If you work in a field that provides contraceptives/plan B/abortions and you refuse to provide, you should be fired, end of story. This is not to say that the person behind the counter at Walgreens should be forced to perform an abortion. If there is a product behind the counter that I want and you refuse to give it to me because of your personal beliefs, there is a major problem. And it's not Nazi thinking, but if you work in an abortion clinic and are opposed to abortion, for f*cks sake, get a new job. Nobody is forcing anyone to work there.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

"if a pharmacist or Dr. doesn't like the law and their employer makes them follow the law, then they need to get a new profession"

This and others are false arguments based on comparisons of mechanics and sales men. There's a religious factor here, and it's my understanding we hold a significant respect and deference, or at least we're supposed to, for one's religious freedom. Or is that only if someone's belief system falls in line with what you believe? This isn't Pakistan, is it?

kmat 5 years, 9 months ago

Jaywalker - yes, we do hold significant respect for religious freedom. BUT, when you are hired to do a job and refuse to do that job based on your religious views, then you need to get a new profession. The pill has been around for over 40 years. So unless someone became a pharmacist in the 50's, they knew they would have to dispense the pill. If they decided to get into a profession that they knew their religion would conflict with, then that's their fault.

We are free to believe whatever we want when it comes to religion, but when you are at work, you are on their time. Religious beliefs are personal and shouldn't be expressed at work.

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion, try talking about the topic on hand. Your straw man argument is ridiculous and does not even clash with the arguments the other side has presented. You just keep finding ways to beat around the bush in hopes that someone will believe in your flawed logic.

Music_Girl 5 years, 9 months ago

Even a lawyer has the right to deny taking a case when he believes without a doubt that his client is guilty. He has the right to choose what goes along with his personal moral code. A surgeon can refuse to perform surgery if he feels it is not in the best interest of the patient. Why can't all doctors have the same rights about abortion? If a woman wants an abortion how hard it is to find a doctor who will do it? All she has to do is go to Planned Parenthood and they will provide a list. There is no justification in not allowing doctors to have the freedom to choose what controversial services to provide.

feeble 5 years, 9 months ago

There's a religious factor here, and it's my understanding we hold a significant respect and deference, or at least we're supposed to, for one's religious freedom. Or is that only if someone's belief system falls in line with what you believe? This isn't Pakistan, is it?

The Free Exercise clause is not absolute, see Reynolds v. United States (1879).

Some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law barring polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice.The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

Music: Because it's not a refusal based on what is best for the patient. This is a refusal based on your own moral views. This law even allows the pharmicist at Walgreens to deny filling a birth control prescription. I think before arguing for it, you should understand how far reaching and ridiculous the law is beforehand.

kmat 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion's still trying to compare apples to oranges. I think Marion joined that kitten in that bong and has severe brain damage.

Let's use what you are now listing since you can't really come up with any good examples.

Concealed weapons - if you want to use this then you would have to say that: I work at a gun store and don't agree that it should be legal to carry a concealed weapon, so I decide I'm not going to sell to anyone that has a concealed carry permit. But my boss says I have to sell to them, even though it is against my morals. Hmmmm.

Or, I work at Quick Shop and am morally against the use of tobacco. But under law, anyone over 18 can purchase it. My employer says I have to sell tobacco products. Should my employer be forced to keep me around since I refuse to sell a product that is legal and my employer wants to sell it?

Are you starting to see how stupid your examples are?

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

You are an idiot Marion. Let me fix your argument for you. Your argument is only even on topic if you are talking about the rights of the people behind the counter to not sell you the product the store sells!

If you walk into a liquor store and the person behind the counter refuses to sell alcohol because of his/her personal beliefs, they should be fired. If you walk into a firearm store and the person behind the counte refuses to sell you a firearm because of his/her personal beliefs, they should be fired. If you walk into a gas station and the person behind the counter refuses to sell you cigarrettes because of his/her personal beliefs, they should be fired. If you walk into Walgreens and the person behind the counter refuses to fill your birth control prescription because of his/her personal beliefs, they should be fired.

Get it now?

feeble 5 years, 9 months ago

Does Marion keep a copy of isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" next to the computer? Only the extreme ends of the US political spectrum, both Right and Left, advocate "positive rights".

ThatGirl2 5 years, 9 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

“In a word, yes. If your religious beliefs would prevent you from participating in all aspects of your chosen profession, you need to choose a different profession in which you can fully engage”

Ah. So you can come to America to practice religious freedom, but ……well, not really, 'cuz if you choose to practice your religion you're not free to choose your profession. Excellent.

I didn't limit your right to exercise religious freedom in my comment. Of course, if your religiious beliefs are in direct contradiction to your aspects of your chosen profession, I'm not sure why you would want to be in that line of work anyway. I still stand by my comment---if you can't do your job, find another job. That doesn't apply to religion only (which is frequently used as a scaoegoat as to why someone can't do something). If Marion's transmission man can't fix my transmission (for whatever reason) he needs to find a new line of work. Period.

kmat 5 years, 9 months ago

Music girl

You need to think long and hard about one thing you mention in your post. You say "A surgeon can refuse to perform surgery if he feels it is not in the best interest of the patient."

The best interest of the patient is what matters here, not what the doctors or pharmacists think based on their morals.

Doctors can decide what services they will provide. Why would a doctor work for a place that did abortions if they themselves didn't want to be involved with abortions? And considering that abortions are done at clinics such as PP and at private OBGYN offices, there is no reason why any doctor would be working at one of these clinics unless they chose to. It's not like someone walks into the emergency room or their general doctors office and says "give me an abortion". A doctor would either recommend another doctor or clinic or would say that they are against those services and therefore don't know who to send them to.

And if you want to bring up that any decisions should be based on what's best for the patient, then you have to admit that no pharmacist can restrict filling a prescription that a DOCTOR has decided is best for the patient. Birth control pills are given out for many other reasons than birth control. I know because I'm one of those people. Why should a pharmacist decide what is medically best for me instead of my doctor?

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion is too busy finding a new logical fallacy to use to respond right now.

ThatGirl2 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion writes:

Under recission of the rule, a neurosurgeon, unfamiliar with the abortion process could be forced to conduct abaouttions, as could a heart surgeon or an oncolocy specialist.


LOL!!! Good one Marion!! Cause I'm sure that's where I am headed if I'm seeking an abortion. I mean, the first thing I think is "neurosurgeon!" I suppose if you go to a trasmission place to get your brakes fixed, maybe that is how you process things, but good lord. That is about the most stupid thing I have read all day!

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

Marion: your definition of personal belief is ridiculous. You cite subjective and reasonable examples, yet they do not prove why someone should be allowed to have an objective personal belief that stops them from selling a product their store sells. Nor can you compare valid reasons to deny a gun sale to a valid reason to deny the sale of birth control. Keep the fallacies coming Marion.

In your examples, in order to even contradict mine, you would have to state that it is OK for the gun dealer to stop all sales of guns because he personally believes that guns are bad. The gas station clerk would have to refuse to sell cigarrettes because they believe that the product is too harmful (no matter the age of customer / recipient), and the liquor store clerk would have to refuse the sale of beer because they believe drinking beer is immoral.

If your logic is so sound, which it most certainly is not, why do you insist on disproving straw men? Why can you not uphold the actual topic at hand?

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 9 months ago

Here's a sample question employers can use before hiring:

  1. Do you at any point, for any reason based in your personal beliefs or preferences, plan to refuse to do your job as it has been set forth in the terms of your employment?

That should settle it, right?

And then we can clear the rest up by denying any federal funds to practitioners who would still refuse service on the basis of religious beliefs. Don't like abortions? Pick a career that doesn't involve vaginas.

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

Nancy: Choice concerns the woman involved. Choice in no way gives somebody the right to deny women services/pharmacueticals after she has made such a choice. This law removes the woman's choice and effectively places all the choice in the hands of the person who provides such services / pharmaceuticals.

ThatGirl2 5 years, 9 months ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

I thought you far-left rabid pro-abortion zealots were all about choice? Doesn't seem so here.

Sure I am. Choose your religion and choose your career. All I am asking for is some common sense.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

"Ah. So you can come to America to practice religious freedom, but ……well, not really, 'cuz if you choose to practice your religion you're not free to choose your profession. Excellent."

Would a Muslim or a Hindi be able to become a Parish Priest and still practice his religion, or would he have to convert?

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

kmat: "when you are hired to do a job and refuse to do that job based on your religious views, then you need to get a new profession"

Thatgirl: "if your religiious beliefs are in direct contradiction to your aspects of your chosen profession, I'm not sure why you would want to be in that line of work anyway. I still stand by my comment–if you can't do your job, find another job"

First of all, both of you are under the mistaken assumption that we're talking about someone who was specifically hired to perform abortions. Shouldn't be a news flash, but the health care industry and its applications is a vast profession. The issue here revolves around ONE procedure. Noone's being hired as a doctor strictly to perform abortions and then claiming religious objections. Honestly, to what your positions advocate, I'm not sure who's ever been forced into performing an abortion, aren't the majority of them performed in specific clinics? And a doctor who's hired to work in such a clinic would have to be a moron to then say "I can't do that." In that case I'd agree with you.

Other than that scenario, though, the only way I would have an objection toward a physician's religion-based choice to not perform said procedure is if it was an emergency situation where the mother's life was in danger. To state that they ought to find another job if they don't like it is ludicrous. Let's say they went into medicine, became a doctor, and then one day the government said they have to participate in a rotation at the local penitentiary administering lethal injections. By your logic, they should go ahead and kill someone 'cuz that's now part of their job, whether they believe in the death penalty or are religiously against it? So now killing someone is part of their job description because the state implemented capital punishment?
I'm pro-choice because I'm not a woman and I don't believe such things should be legislated. Legislating that a physician MUST perform the procedure is the flip side of the coin, and just as wrong.

Kryptenx 5 years, 9 months ago

There is no legislation stating a physician must perform abortions. This is simply the reversal of a ridiculous policy that protected people against reprecussions for using faith as a reason to not provide a service/product normally provided at a business. The majority of people affected are going to be the average clerk at the pharmacy who thinks they should be able to not give someone birth control that was prescribed by their doctor. A physician who works at a place that performs abortions was obviously well aware of what the job entailed before getting hired on, and has a choice not to work there. The pharmacy clerk should not have a choice in providing medicine. If it's on the prescription, the patient deserves to get their medication/birth control/plan B/etc!

ThatGirl2 5 years, 9 months ago

But Jaywalker,

That's the issue. There is no legislation saying any old doctor will be forced into performing an abortion. As I stated earlier, assuming that someone would go to a cardiologist and demand an abortion is ridiculous. The repeal of the current legislation would only prevent people currently in the business of providing family planning services from stating that they cannot provide those services on the basis of moral or religious convictions. To twist the argument into "we're going to force all doctors to do abortions" is just crazy. Granted, I'm not a doctor....but I would assume that doctors, like most professions, have specialties. I doubt an oncologist knows a heck of a lot about OB GYN issues and vice versa. No one would tell a bus driver--'hey, you're in the transportation business, so how's about you fly this plane'. That's essentially the same argument being put forth here and it's just not true.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Thatgirl,

Aha! Then I stand corrected and completely concede your point! If this is strictly directed at those in family planning then I misunderstood the issue entirely. My apologies to you and kmat. And now logicsound's analogy of the vegetarian at the butcher's makes a lot more sense!
Laughing at myself, my bad.

ThatGirl2 5 years, 9 months ago

In Jaywalker's defense, I believe the issue was misunderstood....

kmat 5 years, 9 months ago

Agnostic summed it up all very well in his 3 point post. Well put.

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Agno: "jaywalker and others against abortion rights: Are you even listening to yourselves??

Where is the benefit, for anyone, in forcing doctors and surgeons to perform services/procedures they are against?"

Thatgirl is correct, I completely misunderstood the basis of the argument. That being said, though, how in the world did you come up with my name in connection with being against abortion rights? And even though I was mistaken with my argument, if you'd actually read what I was posting you'd have seen your scenario was basically what I was positing. Wake up, agno.

Music_Girl 5 years, 9 months ago

Kryptenx - it would easy to find a pharmacists that would fill your prescription. Have you ever met a pharmacists who refused to fill a birth control pill script? Keep in mind that the pill is also used for medical reasons such as hormone regulation and to help women who suffer abnormally painful/heavy menstrual cycles. I have yet to find a pharmacists who doesn't recognize that fact. Kmat - currently, yes, abortions are performed in private offices and abortion clinics but if current laws are abolished and FOCA is enacted it will be required that abortions be made available in hospitals and other such regular clinics. I agree that a doctor who doesn't wish to perform abortions would not work in an abortion clinic and as of now OBGYN's have the right to refuse abortions in their private practices but for how long?
What kind of country do we live where we have to choose between ethics and morals? Like it or not, we cannot separate the two.

Katara 5 years, 9 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

Thatgirl,

Aha! Then I stand corrected and completely concede your point! If this is strictly directed at those in family planning then I misunderstood the issue entirely. My apologies to you and kmat. And now logicsound's analogy of the vegetarian at the butcher's makes a lot more sense! Laughing at myself, my bad. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I just want to say that this is incredibly cool of you to post. It is rare that someone cops to misunderstanding and I have quite a bit of respect for you for doing so. :)

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

"It’s good to know that some people still act as if there is a power higher than human law because human laws repeatedly fail humanity."

And the power higher than human law never does? I might have to beg to differ.

blindrabbit 5 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Nancy: Maybe I'm mixed-up about socialism and fascism, but I wonder about you. Socialism is usually thought of as a "left leaning" ideology, one which I'm sure you would associate with "liberals". Fascism on the other hand is regarded as "right leaning" and is "conservative" based . To call all of us progressive thinkers "liberal fascists" (your words) make me think your have wedded opposing ideologies.

I'm sure during WW2 the opposing Nazi Fascists and the Russian Commie (Pinkos) did not get so confused.

jonas_opines 5 years, 9 months ago

"This is not a dead ringer for our current administration, but pretty close, gosh darn it now ya's."

Nope.

BrianR 5 years, 9 months ago

Cal, you could've stopped after you wrote the ridiculous first sentence, I know I did.

Rabbit, The ultra, wacko-right have been rewriting history all over the place and blaming everything negative on the bogie man the call "The Left." I'm not sure they even know what that means anymore. Tom (right_thinker) is a troll and almost everything he writes is designed to inflame and agitate, pay him no mind.

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

Tom,

Are you trying to interfere with others' 1st amendment rights?

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

katara:

Appreciate the kind acknowledgement. I'd like to say that was my first mea culpa, unfortunately I'm wrong alot :<) The path to wisdom meanders through the realization you really don't know anything. And I'm much closer to the end of that axiom than the path itself! Be good.

JohnBrown 5 years, 9 months ago

You are free to put any spin on it you want, but it's STILL socialism when the government interferes with the rights of business, in this case overriding the business owners right to control the business=related activities of their employees.

It's okay if you want this to happen, just be honest enough to admit it's socialism.

Fairness_Doctrine 5 years, 9 months ago

America is being taught to keep their mouths shut and depend on government to handle everything. I see this gradually taking root. Fascism and socialism? Shades of both are creeping in, and this president is only in his infant stages. Neither one in it's whole, but capitalism sure is taking a beating. To not see that is to be blind or awfully dim or both.

Left_handed 5 years, 9 months ago

porch-perthon,

It's too bad that none of your assertions are accurate. It would have been pretty impressive if they had been. Oh well, time for you to visit Daily Kos and get a few more talking points.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.