Guess Bush figures it's more important to sneak in change that HE wants than it is to allow the American people to consider and decide for themselves. Good riddance.

Lame Duck Presidents have always done this kind of thing. It's clear that Bush is reacting to particular Obama campaign promises, as expected.

This is so sad, to go down in history as the ONE who trashed America!

He puts forth something dumber and more devastating everyday. On Jan. 19th he might nuke someone. (sarcasm)
But he is pissing me off more than ever before now.

how is america trashed?

I love your avi CG!

Don't you know, though, that everything is Bush's fault? It doesn't matter who really did it, Bush is responsible.

"would let federally funded institutions turn down abortions for moral or religious reasons; give greater surveillance authority to law enforcement; lease public lands for oil; allow construction projects with less concern for protected species; and subject HIV/AIDS prevention groups to new qualifying rules."

Wow, every one of these upsets me. Does he really want to go out as the guy who pushed a whole bunch of ideologically-based regulations through at the last minute, knowing that they'd be rescinded, apparently just to mess with the incoming administration a bit more?*

*I know there are probably good intentions behind all of these, I'm just saying that it like they would be pushed through just to mess with the incoming administration, considering the timing and the specifics.

Dave, Bush is responsible for Bush's policies.

Well said Jude, this man disgusts me and I just want him to be out of office. Let him go back to being a failed CEO.

I won't argue that Bush is responsible for Bush's policies, but that isn't what has gotten us into this mess.

President G.W.B. The 'gift' that keeps on giving...
:oy

"let federally funded institutions turn down abortions for moral or religious reasons"...I love seeing religion and questionable moral authority impede on abortion rights.

I can't wait for this lame brain duck to finally quack-off

uggg.

Jude-

I'd just like to point out that rescinding these regulations would also be ideologically-based. Clearly, Bush and Obama don't meet eye to eye on almost everything ideologically-oriented.

Also, I doubt Bush is trying to eff with Obama. These are issues that his has consistently pushed, so I don't understand why you think he wouldn't like to protect them as much as possible.

tiabia-

Do you think it is the job of the government to tell you your morals? I can't imagine anyone would think that is a good idea.

I appreciate the fact that if I worked in a Federal Agency, I would not be forced to perform or fund an abortion because I believe it is morally wrong. It's called 'conscientious objecting,' and is not taking away any of women's choices unless you somehow convince all federally-funded medical agency employees that abortion is wrong. Which I do not believe will happen.

I know dave, I love gobbles!

So everyone who works for the government should be allowed to 'conscientiously object' to anything they disapprove of?
The PETA supporters, the environmentalists, the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, the Hemlock Society, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, the Sufis, the Buddhists, the pacifists, the vegans... or is someone going to draw a line or set a standard?

Why should we draw a line? If it goes against your morality, don't do it. If it is going to hamper your being able to sleep at night, don't do it. Go ahead and conscientiously object. Just like soldiers who c-object, I may not agree with it but I still support their right to object.

And as far as Bush goes, I think history will be kinder to him than we are. Time will tell how history will treat Obama too.

steph - I totally agree with you about drawing lines, but - to my knowledge - the government is not forcing vegans to eat animal products as part of their job, or making MADD members get their kids plowed before they take their driving test.

But, I wouldn't have problem if a park ranger who belonged to PETA didn't want to participate in a deerhunt, putting down a sick or injured animal, or even one of those aerial wolf hunt things that Palin pushed.

People in the medical field do more than just perform abortions, and I think it's important that they be able to perform their jobs without feeling like they are violating their morals. This affects a large number of people.

With the knowledge that this country is supposed to be FULL of great things (for that is the way that thousands of people did see this place for years), I just do not understand why anyone would WANT to take away options. That is what is happening, it is what has happened.

What about soldiers who are ordered to fight a war (or take orders)that they are morally opposed to? If they stopped doing that, our military would fall apart...

silver - could you be more specific? Are you talking about opening up areas for drilling, abortion...?

Thanks!

NYF - If you don't want to fight, don't join the military. There is a difference. No one made the people in the military sign up, or re-up.

There's a difference between fighting and carrying out certain orders during the fight that you may be "morally" opposed to.

In the past, the government has expected medical personnel to do the jobs for which they were hired. Now we're being told that people should be allowed to let their moral judgments determine what they will and won't do on the job.

If a soldier objects to killing, he can't simply say 'I don't do that' - he has to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to try and get the military to accept his moral objection. Why should it be different for medical personnel?

When we go to the doctor, should we now ask for a document detailing their stand on certain moral issues so that we won't be surprised later? Or should we have to answer questionnaires concerning our moral behavior so that the doctor can determine whether we'll be taken on as a patient?

Another example of NYF's point might be an ER physician who is morally opposed to abortion is asked to terminate a fetus to save the mother's life. Should that doctor leave her there to die to appease his own religious beliefs or do what he said he would do when he took his oath?

If I have misunderstood you NYF, I apologize.

Then the code of conduct allows a soldier the opportunity to question an order, "Fire on the civilians", or "Shoot that soldier in the back".

Dave what about someone who signed up, then was assigned to Abu Ghraib? More than one soldier complained that what was happening there was morally objectionable. Several military prosecutors have resigned rather than take part in what they consider sham justice for Guantanamo defendants. Should they instead be treated like medical personnel and simply be allowed to say 'no, I won't do that'? Without having to give up their military careers?

With the knowledge that this country is supposed to be FULL of great things (for that is the way that thousands of people did see this place for years), I just do not understand why anyone would WANT to take away options. That is what is happening, it is what has happened.a
I don't see what you are speaking of silver??? In regards to abortion, he isn't taking away options, he is giving an option to those that are morally opposed to it. I used to work in an insurance company, and they specifically said that I would have to quote abortion benefits. It was so hard for me and many others. And I would LOVE it when someone would get angry with me when I said abortion was not a covered benefit on their plan or that ONLY medically necessary abortions would be covered. They would get super angry and yell, and it took everything for me not to say "sorry if your insurance doesn't want to pay for you to kill your baby" and I know a person who actually said that to one of those people and got fired for it. To put someone in a situation that they morally opposed to can create more problems than it's worth. Including the military. But a person in the military has the right to opt out, they just have to pay the consequences...

"But a person in the military has the right to opt out, they just have to pay the consequences..."

You have the right to opt out too, find another line of work or say what is on your mind like you said someone else did and suffer the consequence of losing your job. But I would think that a professional could separate his/her personal beliefs from thier professional life.

Roarman, I think we aren't talking about abortion to save the life of the mom. I think we are only talking about, what was it, 75% of the abortions that are abortion for birth control.

NYFashionista: Soldiers should have read the fine print and known what they signing up for. So to me that isn't a valid argument at all. Also, there are plenty and I do mean plenty of soldiers that have gone awol for one reason or another in the past.

Kranky: I'm talking about the drilling, the abortions, the less concern for protected species, all of it.

Leasing public property for oil drilling, that will be nice.. real nice. Yes we need to take oil into our own hands instead of being ruled by the prices from other countries. Yet, if I lived across the street from a completely vacant stretch of land would that make it okay for them to search for oil?

Construction companies, its going to be okay for them to not bat an eyelash if any animals safety is compromised by what they are doing. Why? Yes, housing and jobs and all that stuff in between are necessary but it is possible to look out for what was probably there first while building.

Abortions: I strongly believe in the power of free will. Free will allows any woman to request an abortion, it also allows anyone who doesn't want to be there to say so. If someone doesn't want to perform the abortion that's fine, but, its completely different to deny a woman the action.

Big Brother: I did not like the idea of people listening in on phone calls before. I get paranoid very easily, and sometimes the actions of others creeps me out. So I am not a fan of Bush wanting to give the police and/or anyone higher, which I don't trust anyway, the right to peak in closer.

steph, they have a right to request a command change. Military is a contract also. so things run a little differently there. When you join you are recognizing that you have to take orders from your command. You know the inherent risks when signing up. And if someone is morally opposed to fighting, they shouldn't join the military. That is absurd!!! People sometimes think of the military as a free ride into college, and then poof a war begins and now they are morally opposed. Most of those soldiers knew what they are getting into. Now there are certain instances in which people are morally opposed to things, like in the instance of abu ghraib. If they were morally opposed to it they did not have to do the torturing. They could have said no, and went through proper military protocol. Again like I said they are under contract so they have to follow protocol. and as for the case of doctors. When they are hired I think they should be able to say I am morally opposed to abortion and I won't perform one. Then say if a patient comes into the er and this specific dr wont do it, there are plenty of others there on shift, or they can call one in. Just the same as someone being unable to treat a patient because of conflict of interest, or be their counsel or a judge in a trial. all of this talk is silly.

Is that a real statistic undave? 75% of the people who get abortions in this country willingly got pregnant because they knew they could just go get an abortion to take care of the baby should they get pregnant? Please site.

over 90% dave

Steph - The soldiers at Abu Ghraib should've stood up and said this was wrong. Those who did shouldn't have lost their jobs in the military. Those who didn't say anything should've been convicted of war crimes. The military prosecuters who resigned failed to do their job as well. If they believed it was a "sham" justice, then they should've fought to change the system, not resign.

Roarman - It was cited on here a couple days ago. I just don't remember the percentage. According to Hainan, it's over 90%.

steph - Performing abortions goes against the Hippocratic oath (to preserve life) as well as any moral issues people have with it.

I understand that you do not have a moral objection to abortions. I am completely bewildered that you are angry that people who have moral objections are allowed to refer patients to personnel who don't. Why? This is not about restricting abortions. This is about giving medical personnel a choice to interpret their professional oaths and personal beliefs.

I have known people who went to their OBGYN for abortions, and the Doctor simply referred them to someone else with no comment other than - I recommend such and such for that procedure. Referring people to different doctors happens all the time in the medical field.

I have no experience with the military, so I can't comment on that. I do know that the chain of command and following orders are essential to their MO, though.

Hainan-Are you saying that Undave was too conservative in his percentage of woman who willingly get pregnant and then get abortions? Please source this information, I am really interested to see the date that supports, as you claim, that 90% of women are getting abortions for birth control.

There's fine print to every job for that matter Silver; including government jobs. The point is while abortions are LEGAL in this country, federally funded institutions should not allow their employees to choose to participate or not participate in abortions. Privately, yes you have a right. But, working for a federal institution, no you do not. As UnDave said, you can quit your job if you have a problem with it.

And Roarman- yes I agree!

I just asked my husband about concientious objecting and he said that the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that if you are given an order that you as a soldier find morally objectionable then you are not required to follow that order. And furthermore if you are given an order than you find morally objectionable its your duty to report that order up the chain of command so that it can be handled accordingly.

i tried to post sources but it got flagged!

I believe that in Germany, their law requires allowing conscientious objectors in the military to opt out of following orders to which they have a moral objection. Sure, their military isn't geared towards large-scale aggression on other nations anymore, but they seem to be doing just fine with that.

NYF: I wasn't disagreeing with UnDave. I just said it differently. Every one always has options, good opps and bad opps.

I am outraged and disgusted by these rules. He is defiantly favoring industry. He may not have totally gotten us into this mess but he certainly sitting in the passengers seat.

Soldiers did stand up and say it was wrong. Here's a reminder Dave, of how deeply respectful the military was of the author of the report which opened up the whole torture can of worms: General Antonio Taguba (from a June 2007 article):

"Also, on a personal level, Taguba became something like a Serpico figure amongst his fellow soldiers, a pariah because he gave an honest, thorough accounting of military misdeeds. At one point, Taguba was cryptically warned by General John Abizaid. "You and your report will be investigated," he said. When Rumsfeld first met Taguba in May of '04 he made no attempt to disguise his contempt:

"Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba--of the Taguba report!" Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, "I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting."

Why in the context of obvious wrongdoing and injustice should people have to fight to change the system, while in a setting where a person clearly knew they might be asked to take part in a legal medical procedure of which they personally disapprove, that person is given the option of stepping out?

roar -

We ran into this issue of abortion as birth control a while back. It depends on what you consider "birth control." If you consider it to be any woman who wants an abortion because she doesn't want the child, then eys - the number is percentage is well over 90%. Less than 4% of abortions are performed because the mother was raped, a victim of incest, or her life was in danger.

If you consider reasons like, "I can't afford a baby" to NOT be birth control, yes - the percentage is lower. I couldn't tell you how much lower because I would need more information about your definition of BC. Does that make any sense?

you will have to be patient. And no one said someone "willingly" got pregnant. Just that it was used as a birth control, meaning they wanted to control the birth.... meaning they either used bc incorrectly, or not at all or some other variance. Here is how I look at it. You don't want to get pregnant, right?? Then you choose your partners carefully, and don't use that as an excuse why you should have an abortion. If they are that bad they why are you having sex with them. You use bc. In my case before I was married and wasnt ready for a baby, I used bc and condoms with spermicide. Because for me abortion was not an option. guess what??? I never got pregnant... hmmm To me if you get an abortion for anything other than rape/incest health of the mother/baby... it IS birth control

I am really, really shocked that people take issue with medical care workers saying they won't perform abortions.