Obama rolls back Bush “conscience rule”
posted at 8:55 am on March 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Barack Obama began the process of rolling back one of the more notable rules imposed in the final weeks of the Bush administration, the “conscience rule” regarding abortion counseling and contraception access. The rule generated a lot of heat from pro-choice groups, including Planned Parenthood, and its repeal has provoked cries of outrage from their opponents. The rule, though, was never as onerous as described, nor will its repeal mean forcing doctors to perform abortions:
Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.
The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.
The new administration’s action seems certain to stoke ideological battles between supporters and opponents of abortion rights over the responsibilities of doctors, nurses and other medical workers to their patients.
Some have taken this to mean that the government will force doctors to provide abortions. The rule didn’t actually protect doctors from government-imposed abortions. They already had that protection of conscience in federal law, as the Los Angeles Times reports, and the rule didn’t change that. Instead, it extended the protection of conscience to a much wider range of activities, such as dispensing contraceptive pills and devices and discussion of contraception and abortion as therapeutic options. Because the Bush administration could not have passed such a wide-ranging protection into law through a Democratic Congress, it had to use the rules process, which is easily reversed in succeeding administrations.
In fact, one has to wonder how committed the Bush administration was to this rule in the first place. It didn’t bother to propose the conscience rule as law when Republicans controlled Congress, nor did it create the rule until the final weeks of their tenure in the White House. Obama’s rollback just puts the medical industry back to the same status it held in September of last year. It looks more like a poison pill for the Obama administration, giving them a political hotfoot and the pro-life movement an easy rallying point early in Obama’s first term.
Still, this rollback says something about the Obama administration’s priorities. While the freedom of religion is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, the Roe right to an abortion is implied through emanations and penumbras — but the Obama administration appears more concerned with the latter than the former. Patients who don’t like doctors who won’t discuss abortion or prescribe contraception can see another doctor; they can also find another pharmacist if the neighborhood pharmacy won’t fill a prescription for the Pill. The free market works out those issues on its own without government sticking its nose into it and forcing providers to violate their religious tenets to stay in business.
Isn’t the government busy with more pressing matters at the moment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
This sort of stunt will force good students to other branches of medicine i.e. research, or podiatry, leaving the hackers to take care of the women. The med school sliders will be lined up for the open slots in the OB/GYN dept.
As a woman, I NEVER want a doctor to touch me if he is not really wanting to treat me. What kind of woman thinks this is OK? Oh right, the feminist ones.
caygeon on March 2, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Baracko supports late-term abortion and therefore supports killing babies. Babies, not a fetus, or protoplasm, or other non-entity. So Baracko is more than pro-abortion. He supports killing babies.
BTW whats wrong with saying pro-abortion? Is that too icky for the baby killers? How about pro-choice-for-everyone-but-baby.
All better?
kooziegirl on March 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Unregulated markets are prone to monopolization as well as corruption. It is necessary have some force ensuring the integrity and competitiveness of the market.
The mafia is a self-regulated market, and there are many like it in primitive cultures. Those markets have trouble scaling.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I think if a medical care professional objects to certain standard procedures on moral grounds, that should be in a statement somewhere and the patient should be able to refuse care from that person if necessary.
For instance, it is too risque for female Muslim nurses to scrub above their wrists. If a female Muslim nurse is going to assist in surgery on me or any of my family I want the right to refuse her substandard care (unsanitary care, which adds the risk of infection). She has the right to practice her religion, but I have the right to know if she intends to administer substandard care and demand to have a different provider.
justincase on March 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Man, you really know how to throw the Marxist bull, don’t you.
1) It is utterly impossible for a monopoly to form in a free market. The only, and I do mean, ONLY, way for that to happen, is through govt intervention.
2) While humans in general do have a tendency towards corruption, humans who work for govt are not immune from this trend. So the question is, how to you ferret out and punish corruption. By far the best answer to this question is the free market, through the mechanisms that I detailed above. The way to ensure and entrench corruption is by going to a govt regulation scheme.
3) Without govt, every market becomes the mafia?
I have already stated that the govt has a roll in punishing fraud. I haven’t said, and it shouldn’t be necessary for me to, that the govt has a roll in preventing coercion as well.
On the other hand, you love to use govt to coerce people. So why are you objecting to the mafia?
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I have no problem with anyone lining up their professional decisions with their moral conscience. Plenty of lawyers have bailed out due to that concern. I applaud them.
Anyone who would like to bail out can.
However, denying people a prescription based on that rule….
No.
No, no, no.
Resign, fine. Deny prescriptions?
Absolutely not.
AnninCA on March 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Maybe, fortunately it hasn’t been much of an issue for me. I do have friends complain about the quality of advice they get from their doctors. One doctor will look at a condition and say there is nothing to do, while another will recommend an aggressive treatment. They are required to research and eventually make a decision based on trust.
The process works best when the doctors offer full disclosure of risks and alternatives. If the previous executive order gave doctors more leeway in withholding information, then it probably wasn’t helpful.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 2:22 PM
OT: Rush is letting it rip against Steele right now.
DrStock on March 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Where have markets existed without a government? What shape do they take?
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM
AnninCA on March 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM
denying legal council. OK
denying a prescription. No way.
Someone has their priorities screwed up.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 2:30 PM
And all the Canadian doctors who moved south to escape socialized medicine (even while singing its praises) will have to go back to Canada.
neuquenguy on March 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Good point. You want to know that the licensed professional is adhering to standards, rather than applying personal morality when attending to the care of the patient.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Everywhere. Everywhen.
Anytime two or more people cooperate, there is a market.
Anytime goods or services are exchanged, there is a market.
Even before man knew how to talk, there were markets.
Long before anyone thought that forcing other people to live by their standards was a good idea, there were markets.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You know, I knew I liked you from the Gore-awful-o/Olberdouche thread, this just confirms your clear-minded ideology even more.
I like that, “Pro-choice-for-everyone-but-the-baby”. :)
leetpriest on March 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Right, and historically those markets were subject to a lack of transparency and ultimately controlled by some military force.
In Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries countries like Great Britain and Holland prospered by freeing up markets and taking advantage of private enterprise, but government still needed to provide the legal infrastructure in which markets could operate. The same goes today in emerging markets where some countries have sufficient standards to attract foreign capital and others are more of a crapshoot.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Some contraceptive drugs can act as abortifacients, i.e. chemical abortions. Even the manufacturer’s literature for Plan B admitted that it could block the implantation of an embryo.
I’ve never understood quite why my Catholic friends oppose the death penalty on religious grounds. It was established by God in Genesis 9:6; substitution is a big part of God’s system of justice, and the only thing valuable enough to pay for the life of a human being is the life of another. In Romans 13:4, Paul writes that a ruler “does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” But I do believe it should be carried out fairly.
By the way, many people say that the death penalty unfairly targets the poor; but in my state, the death penalty is not administered for murder alone. It must be accompanied by an aggravating offense such as armed robbery, kidnapping or arson. Wealthy people sometimes commit murder but seldom one of the other aggravating offenses, and so seldom receive the death penalty. The armed robbery charge, by the way, was added to cut down on the murders of convenience store clerks.
KyMouse on March 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Huh? Do you check up on all the emergency rooms that are available from point A to point B when you are traveling?
You are comparing what happened under a dictatorship to what happens in this free Republic. If the day comes that Barack completely evolves into Hugo Chavez I’ll consider the comparison valid.
It is immoral to lie and with malice aforethought subvert the Constitutional process of justice which has been established by we the people. What you are suggesting is not a legitimate exercise of inspired religious belief; it is Machiavellian. As I stated earlier, you do not have to serve on the jury but can recuse yourself on moral grounds.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Translation, everyone should be forced to follow that standards that I approve of, whether they want to or not.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Monopoloy’s can exist without gov. intervention…it is just when they get that large they end up “owning” the government.
Railroads, steel are good examples.
But monopoly’s are not all bad…Bell telephone spread the cost of their operations across millions of people and businesses. Remember when all the phone service calls were free, and 411 was free?
Then the gov. “broke” up the Bell to baby Bell’s, and service declined, and prices rose dramatically.
A case of bad monopoly was the Air Traffic controller unions, that was a monopoly on employees, Reagan broke that up pretty quickly.
right2bright on March 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM
yessssssss, you are starting to get it O Creator of Worlds.
Cultcha Life issues were only a whip to beat the electorate into a frenzy with.
Actually resolving any of those issues meant your stealthy philosopher kings lost the whip hand.
heh.
strangelet on March 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Each and every one of them was? The only ones that lacked transparency were those where the govt prevented it.
You finally managed to get something right.
The fact that govt did not completely give up the control that they had over markets proves that markets can’t exist without govt control. That’s a real unique take on basic logic.
And this is complete proof that only govt can provide transparent markets?
I’m still waiting for you to prove that the mechanisms I detailed above won’t work, rather than have you repeat the mantra that only govt can be trusted.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM
1) So for the .01% who do much traveling, we have to restrict the freedom of the other 99.99%?
2) When I travel, very rarely do I just throw darts at the board, then hop on a plane the next minute. I know where and when I am going, weeks, sometimes months in advance.
3) Secondly, are there no ratings services? (I mentioned UL above) Have instructions in your wallet that you are only to be taken to an emergency room that has a rating of X or above.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Actual translation is that standards make markets more efficient. You pointed to one with UL labels. It is much better when private industry is effective in managing these standards–IEEE has added great value for a long time.
If every service provider adheres to their own standards, the consumer loses the ability to chose efficiently.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM
For a company to get to be big enough to own the entire govt, they would have to be a real significant size of the entire economy.
As for the organizations that you mentioned, they did not own the govt, they just bought the agencies in charge of regulating their sector. A much cheaper proposition. And a route that wouldn’t have existed had not govt created a monopoly on regulation in the first place.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Which mechanisms are you referring to? Is there a comment with a specific question I haven’t addressed.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Yep, and the Pilgrims were very much influenced by the Dutch free market economic principles which they experienced first hand while living in Leyden.
Buy Danish on March 2, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Pardonme but to some people abortion is the equivalent of murder. Many of these people are doctors, nurses and, in some cases, whole hospitals. So let’s see, the president wants to force people to perform abortions. So we have a president who is ordering MURDER.
Many will argue that the legal term abortion is not killing or murder so therefore those who hold those beliefs are refusing something very nebulous. They are not even willing to understand or be tolerant of someone else’s heartfelt belief and therein lies the problem in such an order. I pray for the forgiveness of Obama for this stupid order.
Pardonme on March 2, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Your complaint makes no sense.
First you acknowledge a case where private enterpise very efficiently creates standards and a private lab verifies that companies are adhering to those standards.
Then you claim that such private endeavors can’t work.
—–
100% efficiency is never possible. Period.
The question is, which model comes closest to acheiving 100% efficiency.
One where govt officials decide what the standards are going to be. Subject to which company is paying the biggest bribes that month.
Two, one where private companies set the standards, with the knowledge that if their work is bad, new companies can and will step in and improve on their work.
–
The same with inspections. Which is better?
One where govt employees are in charge of the inspections, with the knowledge that if they are caught taking a bribe, at worst, they may be denied a promotion.
Or one where private companies are in charge of inspections, with the knowledge that if they are caught taking a bribe, their company will go out of business?
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I’ve discussed private ratings agencies and private standards generation agencies on several occassions.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM
You could look at the Middle Ages and the correlation of markets to exist where they could be protected by a militarily powerful nation state.
Today, unregulated markets can be observed in black markets. Domestically, the drug trade offers an example.
Even in the heavily regulated financial markets Bernie Made Off with billions. His kind can be found in the drug trade and throughout history.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM
“Right to choose” for me but not for thee.
Glenn Jericho on March 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Obama= murderer of the unborn. Nice president we got there.
Viper1 on March 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM
My point was about the value of standards. Zip codes and IP addresses are good things to standardize, whether the government or private business does it.
We have a mixed model in the U.S. I think the government could reasonably be 30% smaller. I’d like them out of what they are involved in. However, setting standards for medical professionals isn’t my biggest worry. If Google can provide a rating system for medical professionals and they put the standard in the public domain then great–one less thing for the government to do.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM
You confuse markets with people. They aren’t the same thing at all. People had to be protected from outsiders. That govt then decided to regulate markets so that they could then enrich themselves was a natural outflow of powerfull govt. It had nothing to do with making markets efficient. Just like today, the primary purpose of regulation was to enrich those who ran govt.
That was exceptionally pathetic, and if you had any sense of shame you would apologize to the readers of this site.
If you aren’t aware of the differences between an unregulated but legal market, and an illegal one, then you don’t have enough knowledge about anything to be offering any opinions.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM
And my point was that it is always more efficient to allow private enterprises to design the standards.
I agree that it is a mixed model. That is not evidence that a mixed model is the best model.
This country would be a lot better off if govt were about 2 to 5% it’s current size.
Where did I say that this was my biggest concern? I just pointed out that letting govt set the regulations and then letting govt be the sole decider of whether those regualtions are being followed is a bad idea. Both inefficient and prone to corruption.
Why should they be put in the public domain? Such lists cost money to create.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Pardonme, 46 states already allowed individuals to refuse to perform abortions. So does another federal law, apparently. 43 states already allowed health care institutions to refuse to perform abortions. So it’s not like this executive order had much to do with abortion in 90% of the situations. See http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf.
jim m on March 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Markets operate irrespective of legality or government tax policy.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Every time you post, you remind me of how little you know.
Yes markets operate regardless, but how they operate is very, very different.
In a legal market, there is access to all of the standard conflict resolution mechanisms.
None of these exist for the illegal market.
In a legal market, the consequences of revealing company secrets is that opportunities for profit are lost.
In an illegal market, the consequences of revealing company secrets is that people go to jail, or end up dead.
Your trying to equate unregulated with illegal is a disgusting attempt to imply that unregulated equates to dirty and violent.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Individuals have that right, but many institutions do not.
Case in point, Catholic Hospitals.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM
They would keep their list, but would want to make sure that the manner that the data was structured was standardized in order for the system to be adopted as quickly as possible.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM
You misstate my point. Market behavior is more fundamental to human behavior than modern governments are. If you equate illegal with dirty, that is your own perspective and not one I share.
Illegal markets usually have some degree of conflict resolution. Legal markets can rely on a government for conflict resolution, but as you point out governments have varying degrees of corruption and depending on what country you are in at what point in history, your success in business might be a function of how much political influence you can buy.
dedalus on March 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Lawyers are in trouble too- WND has reported that the Arizona Bar Association is considering new policy that would require lawyers to represent the LG community regardless of the lawyers own religious or moral conscience beliefs and the Florida Bar has been ordered to be neutral on the topic of gay adoptions. The WND article on the Arizona Bar was from 1-2Jan 2009. The article about Flordida Gay adoption neutrality is from the Liberty Council website.
journeyintothewhirlwind on March 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM
The stock market is tanking to new lows, but gosh darnit, he’s going to make sure that those doctors kill those unborn children whether they like it or not!
donnak on March 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM
That’s why I put “own” in quotes, so I didn’t have to state the obvious, which is of course a company can’t own the whole government…but enough of it to influence, whether a committee, or congressman, senator, or some judges.
Those I stated, some were prior to monopoly regulation.
I was specifically responding to your statement that a monopoly cannot exist without govt. intervention, and my stating that monopoly were prior to any govt. laws encouraging or prohibiting such…you have your history, I have mine.
I believe the laws came about because of the monopoly in the late 1800’s (Sherman or Clayton act?) of Standard Oil, the govt. then created the anti-trust laws. Prior to that, monopoly’s could be formed.
right2bright on March 2, 2009 at 4:25 PM
What about the other 11?
right2bright on March 2, 2009 at 4:26 PM
It’s all part of the Democrats grand plan.
You see, when they destroy the economy which they are well on their way to doing, aborting children will lead to fewer mouths to feed.
When that doesn’t work, then, well, abort your political enemies. It’s the Democrat way.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Killer, nothing but a killer.
rlwo2008 on March 2, 2009 at 4:30 PM
“That’s not the Barack Obama I thought I knew.”-The evangelicals and Roman Catholics that voted for His Sorriness.
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 2, 2009 at 4:38 PM
All you did was state that given some impossible condition, a company could buy enough of got to get govt to create a monopoly for it.
Which did not refute my position that it takes govt to create a monopoly. Additionally, if we never grant to govt the power to create a monopoly, then govt buying govt will do no good.
Finally, the Anti-trust laws were created at the behest of those beaten by Standard Oil so that they could get their market share back without having to go through the hassle of producing better products.
Standard Oil never had a monopoly, nor did it ever come close to having a monopoly.
What Standard Oil did was create a new process for refining oil that allowed it to cut it’s costs. With it’s lower operating costs it was able to cut costs to consumers. Who rewarded it with an increase in market share. WHich most of us would agree is a good thing.
SO’s competitors had two choices.
1) Get on the ball and improve their product.
2) Buy a couple of congressmen.
Some took route one, some took route two.
One fact that is never mentioned in the history of this sad chapter, is that by the time the anti-Trust laws were passed, those companies that had taken route one, had improved their product and were rapidly eating into SO’s market share.
The tale of SO is one that proves that govt intervention is not needed.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Let me reiterate.
The anti-trust laws did not prevent the creation of monopolies, because there were no monopolies prior to it’s passage.
The only ones that existed were the ones that were created by govt charter.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM
searcher484 on March 2, 2009 at 10:09
Check out:
“Deluded? Who Are YOU Calling Deluded?”
at dailynews@omegaletter.com
oldleprechaun on March 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM
I haven’t been back through the thread, so I apologize if this is a repeat.
The LA Times article states this:
This is from an HHS page from last year:
(Weldon was my Congressman–he just retired. A great right to life physician.).
INC on March 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Predatory pricing, that is, selling at a loss to drive your competitors out of business cannot work in the real world, because the predator would need an infinite amount of money to pull it off.
If asked nicely, I could go into an involved explanation, but the gist of it is, the bigger the company gets, the more money it has to spend in order to maintain the predatory pricing.
Additionally, it’s competitor’s do not go out of business, for the most part they just go dormant waiting for the predator to stop. Of those who do go out of business, their assets don’t evaporate. They are available for someone else to buy and operate.
The only way to prevent that from happening is to either continually pay potential competitors to not get into your market, or to maintain the predatory prices forever, because once you try to raise your prices, new competitors will immediately jump into your market. And you have just used up all of your reserve cash driving the last round of competitors out of business.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
On that same HHS page from last year it says this:
This is of interest because I’ve been to the HHS news release page and can find no mention of the rollback. March isn’t up yet and I don’t know if when it will be displayed. (Thanks to the “transparent” Obama administration).
This is the Federal Register page. I haven’t been able to locate the rescinding of this rule here. I don’t know the procedure, but tomorrow I will try to call HHS and find out exactly where we go to comment and complain.
INC on March 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM
This perfectly demonstrates the danger of letting the govt become the sole means for licensing and standards.
I know, I know, the AMA, etc are technically private, not govt agencies, but the govt has granted them monopoly rights in their fields. (Bar association is another)
That is, it is illegal to practice medicine, law, whatever, unless you are first licenced by these agencies.
What happens is that the people who run these agencies are not doctors, they are politicians first and foremost.
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM
OT but OT too.
This is from the Telegraph: a code of conduct for teachers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4927264/Church-schools-could-be-forced-to-promote-Islam-and-homosexuality-Catholics-fear.html
And didn’t Drudge just have a headline about all things Global? Doctors,lawyers, teachers, financial markets-liberals want it all controlled their way.
journeyintothewhirlwind on March 2, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Backatcha leetpriest. Was that where MadisonCon was skewered?
Back to abortion – libtards pretend that killing babies is a choice. They do hate it when we use the term pro-abortion dont they? Too bad nobody aborted them.
kooziegirl on March 2, 2009 at 5:36 PM
First Do No Harm
Can the Federal government circumvent the oath of doctors?
TN Mom on March 2, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Oh Really, try some history…and I believe it was the Sherman act…as far as your statement about predatory pricing, baloney…you must have slept through some of your business classes.
And it gets worse…
…and it gets worse, but the “thugs”, were bad enough. And these were the real deal, not some Hollywood types, but the real “crack your head with a bat” kind of gentlemen.
Now spend some time and Google Samuel Dodd…and trusts…then come back and say that monopoly’s don’t exist, or predatory pricing doesn’t work.
What you fail to understand is that if you own the railroads, no one can come in to compete…and the cost of refinery’s is so great that no one can build one…especially if you own the steel company that produces the steel for the derricks, and you own all the drill bit company’s that make the drill bits…what, build a company to make drill bits, where do you buy the steel for that? Get it? And how do you ship it, trucks and planes were not available, it was the railroads, and who owned them? Now I know you get it…
That should be enough information for you to understand trusts, monopoly’s, predatory pricing.
Just wait till you tackle the Robertson Patman act, that will make your head spin.
right2bright on March 2, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Hit your history books again…or buy a new one, it is missing a chapter from the late 1800’s.
right2bright on March 2, 2009 at 6:58 PM
as if people needed another reason to avoid a career in medicine
Jamson64 on March 2, 2009 at 7:55 PM
PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT BARACK OBAMA REFUSES TO RELEASE -. OBAMA’S SECRECY AND “CLOSED RECORDS” POLICY
Indonesian Passport – Not released
Application for U.S. Citizenship (as former citizen of Indonesia) – Not released
Immigration Records – Not released
Original Vault Copy Birth Certificate – Not released
Certificate of Live Birth – Counterfeit Version on Obama Web Site
Obama / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro Adoption Records – Not Released
Fransiskus Assisi School Application – Not released
Punahou School Records – Not released
Selective Service Registration – Counterfeit version generated
Occidental College records – Not released
Columbia College Records – Not released
Columbia Thesis – Not released
Harvard College Records – Not released
Baptism Certificate – None
Medical Records – Not released
Illinois State Senate Records – Not released
Law Practice Client List – Not released
University of Chicago Scholarly Articles – None ./,.;
searcher484 on March 2, 2009 at 8:26 PM
If you don’t abort, you must go to court.
njcommuter on March 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM
No problem, Dr. Obama-Mugabe will just import thousands of ill-trained third world “doctors” that no one will be able to understand, like the UK.
At least they’ll work dirt cheap.
They can introduce charming third world customs, like TB and soliciting bribes prior to surgery, for “good luck”.
Everything the Democrats propose is stupid, it failed miserably in the past, but at least you get an arrogant, ignorant lecture beforehand, so it’s all good.
Only two months into the Obama-Mugabe installation and already I can’t stand the sight of him or to hear his horrid voice.
NoDonkey on March 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM
right2bright on March 2, 2009 at 6:57 PM
I have hit the history books, and the econ books. And yes they were the real ones, not the left wing pablum that you’ve ingested.
I’m sorry you take so much pride in displaying your ignorance, I’ve shown you the truth, but you don’t want to have anything to do with it. Your loss. And our countries loss.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 8:26 AM
It really is pitifull how badly you have bought into the propaganda of the left.
Just becuase the hyperpartisan media has declared a company to be a monopoly, doesn’t make them a monopoly.
The only monopolies that have ever existed, did so because the govt granted them the right to be a monopoly, and used the police powers of the state to punish anyone who tried to compete.
If you would bother to read the actual history of the anti-trust laws, you would discover that they were put in place not to punish monopoly behavior, but to punish sucess.
None of the companies that you named were monopolies. They were labeled such by the papers, but since when do we go by what the papers say. The papers of 100 years ago were even more partisan than the modern variety.
As to your claim that you can’t compete against a railroad.
Where on God’s green earth do you come up with such nonsense. Of course you can’t lay a new track on the same piece of ground as the existing railroad. In the same vein, I can’t open up a K-mart inside a Wal-Mart either.
You can however build a new line several miles away. You can open up wagon routes to carry goods to a track that is a little further a way. You can open up canals, or ferry goods on rivers. Your options are only limited by your imagination, if you aren’t so blinded by ideology that you have become convinced that no optiosn are available.
As to your quip that it costs a lot to open a refinery. So freaking what? First off, there are a lot of people who have lots of money. Next, there are lots of people with lesser amounts of money who can be convinced to invest in a money making operation. Thirdly, don’t build a huge refinery, build a smaller one.
Once again, if you dump the garbage that’s infested your mind, you will find that there is a world of possibility out there.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Two words:
President Obortion
BobMbx on March 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Right2Bright made several specific points regarding Standard Oil that you left unaddressed.
With regard to small refineries, aside from cartel or vertical monopoly factors there are economy of scale considerations that could prevent investors from betting on a refinery that didn’t operate at the same marginal cost as a larger refinery.
Even economists who think monopolies are beneficial recognize that they tend to form.
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 10:31 AM
So you are saying that Standard Oil never had control of 90% of the oil?
That they never practiced predatory pricing…
I quoted from my books (which were conservative legal websites), now let’s see the quotes from your history books.
Google…Standard Oil, anti-trust.
Ayn Rand isn’t right on everything, and certainly not on this.
You may think using thugs to intimidate your competitors as being “fair trade”…I don’t.
right2bright on March 3, 2009 at 10:35 AM
right2bright:
By definition, 90% of the market is not a monopoly.
While Standard Oil may have tried predatory pricing, it didn’t work, since they weren’t able to gain 100% share and were in fact losing market share long before the anti-trust laws were passed.
A perfect example of why such laws are unneeded and never serve the public good.
While it’s possible you can find a few “economists” who think monopolies form, it’s also possible to find a few “economists” who think Porkulus is a good idea.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM
My debated is that he said there was no such thing as a monopoly or that predatory pricing never existed, that they were unicorns. Which historically, legally, has been shown to have existed.
I think the govt. oversteps in enforcing the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the Robertson Patman Act…the the fact and truth is, they were enacted to stop these abuses…but like many federal laws, they end up being abused.
Created with “good” intentions, then abused with bad policy.
The “robber barons” were not heroes.
right2bright on March 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM
A lot of people claim to be conservative.
Frum, Brooks, and Sullivan come to mind.
Populists think that they are conservative, but they have much more in common with communists than they do with true conservatives.
They both want to use the power of govt to coerce everyone else into living by their personal moral standards. They also think that they can use govt to make the world perfect.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM
right2bright:
I never said that predatory pricing didn’t exist. I said that it never works. Big difference.
Nor did I say that monopolies never existed. I stated that they could only exist with the help of the govt. A point that you at one point, agreed with.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM
I agree that the government frequently creates bigger problems than they are trying to solve and that there are always, at least, unintended consequences.
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Let’s see, according to you guys, we need a big powerfull govt to protect us from evil businessmen getting too much power.
We also need govt to set and enforce all standards because evil businessmen can’t be trusted to do it.
Other than gay rights, what is it that seperates you from your average liberal?
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Which is why using govt to correct the so called “flaws” of capitalism, always fails.
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Often but not always. Without an FDIC and capital requirements for banks, this current mess we are in would start to look a lot like the great depression.
Sure, there could be a private equivalent of the FDIC that might be better but there wasn’t in the 1930’s and the government stepped in.
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Yet you state this:
Hence the problem, you think that a legal monopoly is only 100%…better hit the books again.
There is no use debating someone who does not understand the definition of the terms we are talking about.
You stated it cannot work (not never), then it cannot exist…get it?
This is what you posted
I can only respond to what you post…not what you wanted to post, or thought you posted.
Now, go back and hit the books and read up on the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
And for God’s sake, learn the definition of a monopoly…(please no semantical games about “English” law and monopoly).
Natural monopoly’s exist all the time, patented items for example, or baseball…
right2bright on March 3, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Fine, then you go eat in the restaurants that are not inspected by the county…take your kids there (if you were old enough to have some), let them eat the food off the floor.
Government interference is obtrusive, and pure libertarianism is pure idiocy.
Anything in excess, basically, doesn’t work.
right2bright on March 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Exactly. That’s how pro-life many pro-lifers are. “Unborn children” is simply another wedge issue. If it hadn’t for them, it would have been something about boys kissing. Whatever works politically.
radiofreevillage on March 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I specifically go to pro-life OBs. If the doctor treating me while I am pregnant doesn’t feel my unborn child is a person in their own right and due every possible care then I don’t want them touching me.
darcee on March 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Huh? The Bush-imposed “conscience rule” was the only one that forced anyone to do anything! Rolling back the rule is a pro-freedom and pro-business move by Obama.
You don’t have a right to your job. If your employer requires you to dispense contraceptive pills and you refuse, you should be fired. Having the government step in and say “no, you can’t fire employees for not doing their job” is the immoral intervention. Obama merely reversed this anti-business rule.
P.S. I didn’t vote for Obama. I don’t think abortion should be legal (though it should only be illegal on a state/local level). I will always defend the rights of property holders to run their business how they like, including their hiring and firing. A pharmacist who won’t dispense contraceptive pills is no different than a waiter who won’t serve veal. Do the job, or find a new one that doesn’t make you uncomfortable.
Mark Jaquith on March 3, 2009 at 4:07 PM
And in response the employer can act according to his conscience and fire your ass for refusing to do your job. Why does your right to act according to your conscience trump the employer’s right to run the business as they please? You’re all turning into a bunch of Liberal “workers’ rights” zealots.
Mark Jaquith on March 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM
well the goverment is finally calling out the thought police good going emperor obama
wade underhile on March 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3