Another step against self-righteous doctors

The Obama administration is clearly showing it won't stand for those self-righteous and moronic doctors who refuse healthcare to patients for their or their patients' personal, moral or religious beliefs. Imagine a doctor refusing to hand the pill over to a young girl because the asshat doesn't believe in birth control? That's pretty much what this is about, and other related things. Well, such bastards were protected by a Bush law (who else?) on 'Conscience' that allowed them to perform such lowly acts without reprimand, and once again, President Obama is showing just how Bush's policies aren't exactly the brightest in the bulb box.

The Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health-care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The Office of Management and Budget announced this morning that it was reviewing a proposal to lift the controversial "conscience" regulation, the first step toward reversing the policy. Once the OMB has reviewed the proposal it will be published in Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period.

"We are proposing rescinding the Bush rule," said an official with the Health and Human Services Department, which drafted the rule change.

The administration took the step because the regulation was so broadly written that it could provide protections to health-care workers who object not only to abortion but also to a wide range of health-care services, said the HHS official, who asked not to be named because the process had just begun.

And so, President Obama has once again successfully honored one of his electoral promises. Reportedly, next on the list will be the lifting of federal restrictions on federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells. Considering stem cell research could more than likely provide a miraculous cure to many of our worst diseases – such as most forms of cancer and Alzheimer's, to name a couple – I really don't see what moderately-sane person has to say against it. Unless it's one of those deluded fools who consider anything with human DNA to be a 'person' with legal rights, even if they're no more than an embryo that can't feel, think, or give a shit about what happens to it. But then, that's the nature of being a deluded fool, I suppose.