From a thrilled AP:

AP Source: Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to repeal a Bush administration rule that has become a flash point in the debate over a doctor’s right not to participate in abortions. The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to provide a medical service because of moral qualms.

A Health and Human Services official said Friday the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, opening a 30-day comment period for advocates on both sides, medical groups and the public.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration rule was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

The news that he was doing so drew praise from abortion-rights supporters and condemnation from groups opposed to abortion.

“It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming,” said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. “What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences.”

McClusky and other abortion opponents said the Bush regulation clarified federal policies and raised awareness about the rights of medical providers to follow their consciences. But abortion rights advocates said it was vague and overly broad, and could reduce access to other services – allowing a drug store clerk to refuse to sell birth control pills, for example.

“I think it’s a wonderful step,” Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who co-chairs the Congressional Pro-choice Caucus and has introduced legislation to overturn the regulation, said of Obama’s move.

“That rule was actually a poorly drafted last-minute attempt to, I think, restrict health care access and I think it would have had far-reaching and unintended consequences.”

Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official.

The Bush administration’s rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.

But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation went too far and could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.

The White House released a statement saying that Obama supports a “carefully crafted” conscience clause – not Bush’s version.

“He believes this issue requires a balance between the rights of providers and the health of women and their families, a balance that the last-minute Bush rule appears to upset,” the statement said. …

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....RTION_RULE

The amazing comment is simply this:

But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation went too far and could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.

Vaccines and transfusions?

No, like the Republican’s simple requirement that union members be notified that they are entitled to a refund of their union dues used for political lobbying purposes that couldn’t be allowed to stand, the real issue here is:

The Bush administration’s rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.

So basically, if a doctor is fired for refusing to perform an abortion, let them sue and sit in court for years waiting for the case to come to trial.

That’ll teach them.

I am glad to hear Archbishop Chaput stand up and say these things, despite public backlash. But IMO, all Churches who support life let down the unborn by staying too quiet prior to the election. Unfortunately, Archbishop Chaput, people elected a ‘gifted’ man to fix the economy and along with that came his socialist agenda and a omplete disregard for the unborn – I’m sorry you didn’t say more BEFORE the election – and I will extend that complaint to every denomination/church who values the life of the unborn.

p.s. JohnMG, Claire McCaskill is also my senator and you are so right about her attitude of disdain for the non liberal voter

Fannie Mae Goes Begging

Spiraling loan defaults force mortgage financier to ask for more government money after a $59 billion loss in 2008. Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of mortgages in the U.S., is asking the government for $15.2 billion to restore it to solvency as more home loans go into default.

Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM – news – people ) reported Thursday that it lost $25.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, as credit and real estate markets continued to deteriorate. That compared to a loss of $3.6 billion in the same period in 2007. At the end of last year, $119.2 billion worth of Fannie’s loans, or nearly 4%, were considered “non-performing,” meaning borrowers are no longer making payments.

At one point the purchaser of over 40% of American home mortgages, which it packages into bonds that are sold across the globe, Fannie was seized by the U.S. government in September after spiraling losses threatened to impair the $3 trillion in outstanding “agency” bonds that Fannie guarantees against default. Fannie’s stock now trades for 49 cents a share, down from $27 a year ago and the company’s net worth is negative. Fannie shares moved a penny lower, or 2%, on Thursday. The Federal Housing Finance Agency now operates Fannie and its main rival, Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE – news – people ). The U.S. government has taken over their guarantees to mortgage bondholders.

Meanwhile the company reported figures that show it is still buying plenty of loans and booking revenue on them. …

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/.....gs_35.html

You can’t make this stuff up.

And who can forget this classic from Drooling Barney:

“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank Opined to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” New York Times Sept. 11, 2003

America, RIP

I don’t know whether this belongs in the comic-relief category or the future-threats category, but the Harvard Law School is having a conference to analyze the “free market mindset.” The basic premise of the conference seems to be that people who believe in limited government are psychologically troubled.

The conference schedule features presentations such as “How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” and “Addicted to Incentives: How the Ideology of Self Interest Can Be Self-Fulfilling.” The most absurd presentation, though, may be the one entitled, “Colossal Failure: The Output Bias of Market Economies.” According to the description, the author argues that the market “delivers excessive levels of consumption.”

From The Cato.org site….but still….

Pseudo-racism/laughing at derogatory jokes is the new mortal sin. I mean, can anyone here admit to never laughing at and passing on an off-colored joke about blondes, Polish people, Irish people, Mexican people. If the “stereotype” from the joke is so offensive, maybe it’s time to work on the behavior that the joke points out (not all people of Irish extraction can drink like a fish [I can't] not all Mexican people lazy [they are among some of the hardest working people I know, until we messed 'em up and started treating them like pets, as if they could not take care of themselves], and many Germans who lived through WWII are still horrified at what HItler did and how long it took them to really get it. When I was a child, my mom and her parents got very angry at me when I asked if Hitler was a relative. He’s not … nowhere near! )

I would never run for office, no matter how strong my convictions. I inhaled and have been underemployed for nearly 20 years now. I suck.

That occured to me when I saw your post.

Who is so perfect that he or she cannot be demonized about something, even such a trivial joke as is in the article.

Southern California mayor to resign after e-mailing picture of watermelons on White House lawn

The mayor of a small Orange County city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under the title “No Easter egg hunt this year.”
Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose issued a statement Thursday saying he is sorry and will step down as mayor at the City Council meeting on March 2.
Grose came under fire for sending the picture to what he called “a small group of friends.” One of the recipients, a local businesswoman and city volunteer, publicly scolded the mayor for his actions.
Grose says he accepts that the e-mail was in poor taste and has affected his ability to lead the city.
Los Alamitos is a 2 1/4-square-mile city of around 12,000 people.

I am gobsmacked by the stupidity. Something as inconsequential as this costs a guy politically, yet you have liars like Burris and the Clintons shrugging off any sense of impropriety and going on as if they’d done nothing wrong. At least Blagojevitch got his, but how long did that take?

Bill Clinton’s legacy for me is, “What is the definition of sex?”

Obama’s Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

President Obama’s budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion – Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion – eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion – capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion – Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion – tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion – codify “economic substance doctrine”
$61 billion – repeal LIFO
$210 billion – international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion – information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion – excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion – repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million – repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million – repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion – repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion – increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million – eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

– jpt

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....get-a.html

Key point…..starting in 2011. There is time to stop the madness before it destroys the country.

But the jig will be up soon. The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution”

Dick Morris

Dear Mr. (JohnMG);

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Freedom of Choice Act. I appreciate having your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Women, especially those victimized by rape and incest, deserve to have the access to emergency contraception and safe abortions if they so choose. There is a great deal of misinformation about this bill. This legislation would protect women’s reproductive rights whether they are women serving our country in the military overseas or a recipient of Medicaid. There is nothing in the bill that would require health care professionals to perform abortions nor does the bill mandate federal funding of abortions. This bill merely puts the current constitutional protections into law. It does however, prohibit the federal or state government from denying or interfering with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child.

You should also know that this bill has not even been introduced in this session of Congress.

I agree with you – our priority must be to prevent abortions. However, I believe that we must do this without criminalizing women and their doctors. That is why I am a strong supporter of S. 21, the Prevention First Act. This legislation would help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and improve access to women’s health care by increasing awareness about contraception and expanding Medicaid family planning services. S.21 was introduced on January 6, 2009 and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions where it awaits further consideration.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to share your views. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other matters of interest or concern to you.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

Interior Department withdraws expanded oil shale leases

By Roger Fillion

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has put the brakes on expanded research and development leases for Colorado and Utah oil shale, reversing a decision issued in the final days of President George W. Bush’s term.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today that his department will instead offer a second round of research, development and demonstration leases for oil shale in Colorado and Utah. It will withdraw the previous administration’s proposal for expanded RD&D leases.

Salazar told reporters in a teleconference he wanted to further analyze the impact and feasibility of commercial oil shale development in the West.

He called the Bush administration’s decision “premature.”

“Those who have fantasized that oil shale is the panacea for America’s energy needs have been living in a fantasy land. … No one at this point in time can quantify how we’re going to get the carogen out of those rocks and what the associated costs are,” Salazar said. …

http://www.rockymountainnews.c.....l-shale-l/

(Note again – the link above may stop working at any time.)

Well, I’m so glad that Salazar sees oil shale as a fantasy but wind and solar? Why those are real.

Who needs that silly energy anyway.