I see nothing contraversial about a regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to kill babies, but I guess if your lifestyle includes killing your young, you do see it that way.

To be sure, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. But no health care professional should be required to participate in abortions except in the context of an emergency-room procedure in which an immediate, gut-wrenching decision must be made between a mother and the unborn child.

Health care professionals should be able to note the irreconciliable conflict of interest regarding who is the patient: mother or unborn child? Certainly, I'm sure that there are health care professionals who see only the mother as the patient. Great. Let them perform the abortions. But abortions are normally not medically required procedures--they're elective surgery. Why should health care professionals be required to participate when they can understandably see two patients in the situation--mother and unborn child--and they chose not to pick sides against the unborn child?

Unless it's an emergency situation, I don't see how any medical oath creates a status of involuntary servitude that requires objecting health care professionals to participate in abortions.

I wonder what the WaPO would say if Pro-Life advocates called themselves "Infant's Health Advocates or Infant's Life Advocates"? I guess they would call the label provocative or simple minded. 

"The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs."

This makes sense to me. I don't understand why some people think it’s "controversial" to prevent someone from FORCING a medical care professional to perform medical services.

Just as a patient has the choice to receive or refuse any suggested health care procedures from a health care professional, a health care professional should have an equivalent right to perform or refuse any health care procedure that the PATIENT suggests (or demands).

If we fail to allow the health care professionals this right, it won’t be long until a patient forces a doctor to surgically remove that patient’s eyes or extremities simply for cosmetic reasons, as an example, even though this procedure is medically unnecessary and contrary to the beliefs of that doctor.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

you saw any MSM outlet refer to our position as "pro-life"?  I've never referred to myself or the pro-life movement as "antiabortion" because it is not a negative movement.  It is a positive affirmation of the sanctity of life and thus "pro-life."

The WaCompost has made their decision and you can tell by their language who has influenced it. 

By this reckonnig, Pro-lifers should be labeled, "Fetal Health Advocates".   But if somebody did that, then the "Women's Health Advocates"  would need to be re-labeled as "Fetal Death Advocates".