It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: California Sues The Bush Administration Over Antiabortion Amendment

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   
California's District Attorney and state school Superintendent have filed suit against the Bush administration. The suit takes issue with a measure inserted by the administration federal spending bill which they say forces the state to violate womens rights. The amendment denies funding to states that discriminate against any health facility, health maintenance organization or insurer that does not provide abortions or abortion referrals.
 



sfgate.com
Attorney General Bill Lockyer and state school Superintendent Jack O'Connell sued the Bush administration Tuesday over an antiabortion amendment in the new federal spending bill, saying it coerces California into violating women's rights by threatening a huge financial penalty.

The amendment to a $388 billion spending bill signed by President Bush last month denies a wide range of federal funding to states that discriminate against any health facility, health maintenance organization or insurer that does not provide abortions or abortion referrals.

Supporters of the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., say it will prevent states from punishing doctors and hospitals who refuse to perform abortions because of moral objections.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The issue is that California law requires in an emergency that if an abortion is needed, the hospital or health care provider must perform it. At risk is over 49 billion dollars in federal funds that go for health programs and schools. This is simply a back door attempt to restrict abortions rights in states the religious right know they cannot sway. The suit filed in San Francisco has a strange twist to it. Cases are randomly assigned, and in this case, the judge will be Jeffrey White, Bush's only appointee to the San Francisco court.




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I want to say "Thank God I live in Britain" but
1) I dont belive in God and
2) Its only a matter of years before Britain becomes a police state



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
.
What happened to Republican's belief in state's rights?

Current Republicans have become such wafflers on any kind of principles or standards.

Defict spending? State's rights? Small government? Being honest to People?

Go to the back of the line Sherlock.

Any closet libertarian that thought the Republicans had any kind of standard must have jumped ship by now.

This must be where ideologues trump principles and standards.
Can anyone say 'Self righteous Squids'?

[edit on 26-1-2005 by slank]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
How nice to have a "god send" president that " receives messages from the start" to take away needed pro prams for women, we women in the US are still oppress for our choices and now the president itself is proving the fact.

But alas let's give the More to the church so they can preach the evils of sex, while they themselves enjoy them with all the protection.

Women out there open your eyes, one of our god send president agendas is to take rights away from you.

But nobody regulates men Winnie's for their compliances to causing abortions.


Men genitals are a weapon of murder after all it takes two to tangle.

How come I don't see religous zelots blaming men Mr. happy's for causing unwanted pregnacies?

The hypocrasy,

I guess women since the time in the garden of eden are guilty of all the evil in the world and has to submit to anything in the name of god.


One step up five down, "We come a long way baby"

[edit on 26-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
How can they sue the person of the president for a law that he didn't veto?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How can they sue the person of the president for a law that he didn't veto?


For just that reason. He had to sign the law into existance Hence the buck stops with him.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join