Re: House Resolution 1179

[Guest guest]

,Greetings from the " Left Coast " .  Below is the reply I just received from my Congresswoma: 

 

Dear

Mrs. Bartley:

Thank

you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose and conscience clauses for health providers and

health plans.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. 

Unfortunately, this is a matter on which we disagree. 

As

a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I have been an ardent supporter of a woman's right to

choose.  The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most difficult and personal decisions any

woman will ever make.  Each woman's decision on this subject is -- and should be -- solely between herself

and her doctor.  I understand that physicians and other health care providers may choose not to provide

abortion services for their own moral reasons.  That's why the federal government is prohibited from

discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide services, like abortions, that violate

their moral or religious beliefs.  H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would go beyond

the standard conscience clause by applying the same protections given to individual doctors and training

programs to large health insurance companies.  If passed, this could significantly limit women's access

to abortion services.  H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Health. 

While

we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure there are other values we share.  Again, it's good to hear from

you.  The people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in

Congress. 

Sincerely,

Lynn WoolseyMember of Congress

 

On Thursday night, Arroyo interviewed the sponsors of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Conscience Act of 2011.  It has 70 co-sponsors, but it appears to need the support of voters.  So if you haven't done so already, please contact your congressional representative to support HR 1179, an effort to defuse at least parts of the HHS dictate to provide free birth control. 

 

From the dialogue, I became concerned that the conscience protection may be excessively sectarian in its description of moral and religious objections to forced free birth control.  I hope that you who are doctors will make it very clear that the HR 1179 also needs to protect the consciences of agnostics who understand that the Pill greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer and that a vasectomy greatly increases a man's risk of prostate cancer.  In other word, primum nocere needs to apply to birth control as well as everything else.

 

It was also mentioned in passing that while the Left is well represented on these matters, the reaction from people like us is significant in its silence. 

 

Peace,

Kippley

 

[Guest guest]

Hmmm, so even though she is elected to vote based on representing what the people in her district want, she can't do it because its not what she personally believes??! Time to send her an American Government textbook. 

This is just so frustrating as we have this pro-choice front to fight combined with our supposedly pro-life candidates, who say they put their personal beliefs aside & vote with what the people in their district say.  The pro-choicers seem to have their cake & be eating it too!

We can't give up in this fight for our conscience rights. The more we make our voices publicly heard the more that their voting against the majority due to their personal agendas will be brought to awareness in the public eye.

Please keep up the hard work everyone! Your efforts provide me with daily strength as I prepare to enter an Ob/Gyn residency next year as a NFP-only physician. At times, I am frightened at the thought of what their proposed legislation will mean for all of us. Yet, I am encouraged when I see all of the earnest efforts to fight it by those who have gone before me.

Sincerely, Padley

 

,Greetings from the " Left Coast " .  Below is the reply I just received from my Congresswoma:

 

 

Dear

Mrs. Bartley:

Thank

you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose and conscience clauses for health providers and

health plans.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. 

Unfortunately, this is a matter on which we disagree. 

As

a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I have been an ardent supporter of a woman's right to

choose.  The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most difficult and personal decisions any

woman will ever make.  Each woman's decision on this subject is -- and should be -- solely between herself

and her doctor.  I understand that physicians and other health care providers may choose not to provide

abortion services for their own moral reasons.  That's why the federal government is prohibited from

discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide services, like abortions, that violate

their moral or religious beliefs.  H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would go beyond

the standard conscience clause by applying the same protections given to individual doctors and training

programs to large health insurance companies.  If passed, this could significantly limit women's access

to abortion services.  H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Health. 

While

we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure there are other values we share.  Again, it's good to hear from

you.  The people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in

Congress. 

Sincerely,

Lynn WoolseyMember of Congress

 

On Thursday night, Arroyo interviewed the sponsors of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Conscience Act of 2011.  It has 70 co-sponsors, but it appears to need the support of voters.  So if you haven't done so already, please contact your congressional representative to support HR 1179, an effort to defuse at least parts of the HHS dictate to provide free birth control. 

 

From the dialogue, I became concerned that the conscience protection may be excessively sectarian in its description of moral and religious objections to forced free birth control.  I hope that you who are doctors will make it very clear that the HR 1179 also needs to protect the consciences of agnostics who understand that the Pill greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer and that a vasectomy greatly increases a man's risk of prostate cancer.  In other word, primum nocere needs to apply to birth control as well as everything else.

 

It was also mentioned in passing that while the Left is well represented on these matters, the reaction from people like us is significant in its silence. 

 

Peace,

Kippley

 

[Guest guest]

,Conservatives are very much in the minority in Marin County, CA.  Her personal beliefs  match her constituents but, fortunately, she is retiring.  It is very difficult to make changes in our area.Good luck in your residency.

Peggy

 

Hmmm, so even though she is elected to vote based on representing what the people in her district want, she can't do it because its not what she personally believes??! Time to send her an American Government textbook. 

This is just so frustrating as we have this pro-choice front to fight combined with our supposedly pro-life candidates, who say they put their personal beliefs aside & vote with what the people in their district say.  The pro-choicers seem to have their cake & be eating it too!

We can't give up in this fight for our conscience rights. The more we make our voices publicly heard the more that their voting against the majority due to their personal agendas will be brought to awareness in the public eye.

Please keep up the hard work everyone! Your efforts provide me with daily strength as I prepare to enter an Ob/Gyn residency next year as a NFP-only physician. At times, I am frightened at the thought of what their proposed legislation will mean for all of us. Yet, I am encouraged when I see all of the earnest efforts to fight it by those who have gone before me.

Sincerely, Padley

 

,Greetings from the " Left Coast " .  Below is the reply I just received from my Congresswoma:

 

 

Dear

Mrs. Bartley:

Thank

you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose and conscience clauses for health providers and

health plans.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. 

Unfortunately, this is a matter on which we disagree. 

As

a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I have been an ardent supporter of a woman's right to

choose.  The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most difficult and personal decisions any

woman will ever make.  Each woman's decision on this subject is -- and should be -- solely between herself

and her doctor.  I understand that physicians and other health care providers may choose not to provide

abortion services for their own moral reasons.  That's why the federal government is prohibited from

discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide services, like abortions, that violate

their moral or religious beliefs.  H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would go beyond

the standard conscience clause by applying the same protections given to individual doctors and training

programs to large health insurance companies.  If passed, this could significantly limit women's access

to abortion services.  H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Health. 

While

we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure there are other values we share.  Again, it's good to hear from

you.  The people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in

Congress. 

Sincerely,

Lynn WoolseyMember of Congress

 

On Thursday night, Arroyo interviewed the sponsors of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Conscience Act of 2011.  It has 70 co-sponsors, but it appears to need the support of voters.  So if you haven't done so already, please contact your congressional representative to support HR 1179, an effort to defuse at least parts of the HHS dictate to provide free birth control. 

 

From the dialogue, I became concerned that the conscience protection may be excessively sectarian in its description of moral and religious objections to forced free birth control.  I hope that you who are doctors will make it very clear that the HR 1179 also needs to protect the consciences of agnostics who understand that the Pill greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer and that a vasectomy greatly increases a man's risk of prostate cancer.  In other word, primum nocere needs to apply to birth control as well as everything else.

 

It was also mentioned in passing that while the Left is well represented on these matters, the reaction from people like us is significant in its silence. 

 

Peace,

Kippley

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for trying. Now consider the awkward situation of the US Bishops. Twenty-two years ago one of their committees urged that every engaged couple should be required to attend an NFP course as a normal part of preparation for marriage. Only a half-dozen dioceses have implemented such a policy. Now at least 90% of fertile-age couples who are doing anything about conception regulation are using unnatural methods. And now the US Bishops are appealing to all Catholics to oppose the HHS mandate that will give the contraceptors the free birth control drugs, devices, and procedures they want. One has to wonder. If the bishops had taken the advice of their own committees 22 years ago, would the situation be significantly better today? I think it might be, but they and we are reaping the results of past decisions.

K.

Re: House Resolution 1179

,Conservatives are very much in the minority in Marin County, CA. Her personal beliefs match her constituents but, fortunately, she is retiring. It is very difficult to make changes in our area.Good luck in your residency.Peggy

Hmmm, so even though she is elected to vote based on representing what the people in her district want, she can't do it because its not what she personally believes??! Time to send her an American Government textbook.

This is just so frustrating as we have this pro-choice front to fight combined with our supposedly pro-life candidates, who say they put their personal beliefs aside & vote with what the people in their district say. The pro-choicers seem to have their cake & be eating it too!

We can't give up in this fight for our conscience rights. The more we make our voices publicly heard the more that their voting against the majority due to their personal agendas will be brought to awareness in the public eye.

Please keep up the hard work everyone! Your efforts provide me with daily strength as I prepare to enter an Ob/Gyn residency next year as a NFP-only physician. At times, I am frightened at the thought of what their proposed legislation will mean for all of us. Yet, I am encouraged when I see all of the earnest efforts to fight it by those who have gone before me.

Sincerely,

Padley

,Greetings from the "Left Coast". Below is the reply I just received from my Congresswoma:

Dear Mrs. Bartley:

Thank you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose and conscience clauses for health providers and health plans. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. Unfortunately, this is a matter on which we disagree.

As a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I have been an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most difficult and personal decisions any woman will ever make. Each woman's decision on this subject is -- and should be -- solely between herself and her doctor. I understand that physicians and other health care providers may choose not to provide abortion services for their own moral reasons. That's why the federal government is prohibited from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide services, like abortions, that violate their moral or religious beliefs. H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would go beyond the standard conscience clause by applying the same protections given to individual doctors and training programs to large health insurance companies. If passed, this could significantly limit women's access to abortion services. H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

While we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure there are other values we share. Again, it's good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.

Sincerely, Lynn WoolseyMember of Congress

On Thursday night, Arroyo interviewed the sponsors of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Conscience Act of 2011. It has 70 co-sponsors, but it appears to need the support of voters. So if you haven't done so already, please contact your congressional representative to support HR 1179, an effort to defuse at least parts of the HHS dictate to provide free birth control.

From the dialogue, I became concerned that the conscience protection may be excessively sectarian in its description of moral and religious objections to forced free birth control. I hope that you who are doctors will make it very clear that the HR 1179 also needs to protect the consciences of agnostics who understand that the Pill greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer and that a vasectomy greatly increases a man's risk of prostate cancer. In other word, primum nocere needs to apply to birth control as well as everything else.

It was also mentioned in passing that while the Left is well represented on these matters, the reaction from people like us is significant in its silence.

Peace,

Kippley

[Guest guest]

,Of course, you have hit the nail on the head.  If people aren't catechized, we can't put total blame on their following the secular advice of physicians and society at large.  I would guess there is still a significant portion of Bishops who aren't opposed to contraception and some not even to abortion.  I am optimistic, though, that the tide is changing.  I think our Holy Father is fully cognizant of this problem and is effecting some positive change.

The laity, such as those on this group, are putting pressure on many fronts.   I have started writing a series of articles for the newsletter of our local pro-life group, on the connection between OC's, surgical abortion and RU-486 chemical abortions and breast cancer.  This is another avenue of attacking the problem that even secular women can relate to.  It breaks my heart that young women are not being informed of the health risks of contraception and abortion.  The Catholic Church has always been right.

Peggy

 

Thanks for trying.  Now consider the awkward situation of the US Bishops.  Twenty-two years ago one of their committees urged that every engaged couple should be required to attend an NFP course as a normal part of preparation for marriage.  Only a half-dozen dioceses have implemented such a policy.  Now at least 90% of fertile-age couples who are doing anything about conception regulation are using unnatural methods.  And now the US Bishops are appealing to all Catholics to oppose the HHS mandate that will give the contraceptors the free birth control drugs, devices, and procedures they want.  One has to wonder.  If the bishops had taken the advice of their own committees 22 years ago, would the situation be significantly better today?  I think it might be, but they and we are reaping the results of past decisions. 

 

K.

 

Re: House Resolution 1179

 

,Conservatives are very much in the minority in Marin County, CA.  Her personal beliefs  match her constituents but, fortunately, she is retiring.  It is very difficult to make changes in our area.Good luck in your residency.Peggy

 

Hmmm, so even though she is elected to vote based on representing what the people in her district want, she can't do it because its not what she personally believes??! Time to send her an American Government textbook. 

This is just so frustrating as we have this pro-choice front to fight combined with our supposedly pro-life candidates, who say they put their personal beliefs aside & vote with what the people in their district say.  The pro-choicers seem to have their cake & be eating it too!

We can't give up in this fight for our conscience rights. The more we make our voices publicly heard the more that their voting against the majority due to their personal agendas will be brought to awareness in the public eye.

Please keep up the hard work everyone! Your efforts provide me with daily strength as I prepare to enter an Ob/Gyn residency next year as a NFP-only physician. At times, I am frightened at the thought of what their proposed legislation will mean for all of us. Yet, I am encouraged when I see all of the earnest efforts to fight it by those who have gone before me.

Sincerely,

Padley

 

,Greetings from the " Left Coast " .  Below is the reply I just received from my Congresswoma:

 

Dear Mrs. Bartley:

Thank you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose and conscience clauses for health providers and health plans.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue.  Unfortunately, this is a matter on which we disagree. 

As a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I have been an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose.  The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most difficult and personal decisions any woman will ever make.  Each woman's decision on this subject is -- and should be -- solely between herself and her doctor.  I understand that physicians and other health care providers may choose not to provide abortion services for their own moral reasons.  That's why the federal government is prohibited from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide services, like abortions, that violate their moral or religious beliefs.  H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would go beyond the standard conscience clause by applying the same protections given to individual doctors and training programs to large health insurance companies.  If passed, this could significantly limit women's access to abortion services.  H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. 

While we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure there are other values we share.  Again, it's good to hear from you.  The people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress. 

Sincerely, Lynn WoolseyMember of Congress

 

On Thursday night, Arroyo interviewed the sponsors of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Conscience Act of 2011.  It has 70 co-sponsors, but it appears to need the support of voters.  So if you haven't done so already, please contact your congressional representative to support HR 1179, an effort to defuse at least parts of the HHS dictate to provide free birth control. 

 

From the dialogue, I became concerned that the conscience protection may be excessively sectarian in its description of moral and religious objections to forced free birth control.  I hope that you who are doctors will make it very clear that the HR 1179 also needs to protect the consciences of agnostics who understand that the Pill greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer and that a vasectomy greatly increases a man's risk of prostate cancer.  In other word, primum nocere needs to apply to birth control as well as everything else.

 

It was also mentioned in passing that while the Left is well represented on these matters, the reaction from people like us is significant in its silence. 

 

Peace,

Kippley

 

[Guest guest]

No one should violate their own conscience. We berate Catholic legislators who vote pro choice- we can’t expect anything different, but as Peggy says, the rep. is retiring.. But we can’t have it both ways. Hanna Klaus From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Peggy BartleySent: Friday, September 23, 2011 5:50 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Re: House Resolution 1179 ,Conservatives are very much in the minority in Marin County, CA. Her personal beliefs match her constituents but, fortunately, she is retiring. It is very difficult to make changes in our area.Good luck in your residency.Peggy Hmmm, so even though she is elected to vote based on representing what the people in her district want, she can't do it because its not what she personally believes??! Time to send her an American Government textbook. This is just so frustrating as we have this pro-choice front to fight combined with our supposedly pro-life candidates, who say they put their personal beliefs aside & vote with what the people in their district say. The pro-choicers seem to have their cake & be eating it too! We can't give up in this fight for our conscience rights. The more we make our voices publicly heard the more that their voting against the majority due to their personal agendas will be brought to awareness in the public eye. Please keep up the hard work everyone! Your efforts provide me with daily strength as I prepare to enter an Ob/Gyn residency next year as a NFP-only physician. At times, I am frightened at the thought of what their proposed legislation will mean for all of us. Yet, I am encouraged when I see all of the earnest efforts to fight it by those who have gone before me. Sincerely, Padley ,Greetings from the " Left Coast " . Below is the reply I just received from my Congresswoma: Dear Mrs. Bartley: Thank you for contacting me about a woman's right to choose and conscience clauses for health providers and health plans. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. Unfortunately, this is a matter on which we disagree. As a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I have been an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most difficult and personal decisions any woman will ever make. Each woman's decision on this subject is -- and should be -- solely between herself and her doctor. I understand that physicians and other health care providers may choose not to provide abortion services for their own moral reasons. That's why the federal government is prohibited from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide services, like abortions, that violate their moral or religious beliefs. H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would go beyond the standard conscience clause by applying the same protections given to individual doctors and training programs to large health insurance companies. If passed, this could significantly limit women's access to abortion services. H.R. 1179 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. While we may disagree on this issue, I'm sure there are other values we share. Again, it's good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress. Sincerely, Error! Filename not specified.Lynn WoolseyMember of Congress On Thursday night, Arroyo interviewed the sponsors of H.R. 1179, the Respect for Conscience Act of 2011. It has 70 co-sponsors, but it appears to need the support of voters. So if you haven't done so already, please contact your congressional representative to support HR 1179, an effort to defuse at least parts of the HHS dictate to provide free birth control. From the dialogue, I became concerned that the conscience protection may be excessively sectarian in its description of moral and religious objections to forced free birth control. I hope that you who are doctors will make it very clear that the HR 1179 also needs to protect the consciences of agnostics who understand that the Pill greatly increases a woman's risk of breast cancer and that a vasectomy greatly increases a man's risk of prostate cancer. In other word, primum nocere needs to apply to birth control as well as everything else. It was also mentioned in passing that while the Left is well represented on these matters, the reaction from people like us is significant in its silence. Peace, Kippley