What Ever Happened to Repealing the Bush Provider Conscience Clause?


When, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule that allowed nearly anyone in the medical industry to deny women access to reproductive health services — let alone referrals to alternate providers — if the professional had a religious objection to the service sought by the patient, women’s health advocates gasped at the outgoing Administration’s audacity.

To add insult to injury, the “provider conscience law,” which allows providers not only to refuse to engage in activities that violate their religious beliefs but to actively enforce those beliefs on women by denying them further access to providers willing to provide medical services without those beliefs, went into effect the very day that President Barack Obama was inaugurated: January 19, 2009.

The Obama Administration promised speedy action on its repeal, even as it took immediate efforts to sign the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law and rescind the so-called global gag rule, which prohibited NGOS that provided counseling or referrals for safe abortion services or advocated for changes in abortion laws from receiving U.S. international family planning funds.

Unlike the global gag rule, which Obama could rescind by Executive Order, repeal of the  provider conscience rule would require a more technical solution. But despite earlier promises, the conscience rule remained in place, even as the health care debate was waged in Washington as underscored by the first lawsuit filed on the basis of the regulation.

On August 26, 2008, the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which began the process of creating the provider conscience law. The law requires that the public get 30 days to comment on a proposed rule, and that the department consider the comments before issuing the final rule. That they did: comments were open until October 2008, the department considered them, and on December 19, it issued the final provider conscience rule in the Federal Register, which did not take into account any of the serious comments or concerns raised by reproductive rights organizations or advocates. From start to implementation, the rule-making process took a sum total of five months

To rescind a properly promulgated regulation requires a properly promulgated regulation, as the Administration discovered when it took office. So, on March 10, 2009, the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued its notice of proposed rule-making (h) to rescind the provider conscience law and to take comments from the general public for 30 days.

By then, many of the 11th-hour regulations undertaken by the Bush Administration — from rules on drilling to those on endangered species – had already been overturned by President Obama. The announcement of the provider conscience rule rescission met with some backlash from the conservative groups that initially called for the law but, at the outside, the Administration was expected to at least narrow the rule to abortion services rather than allow it to affect everything from birth control to end-of-life care.

But 30 days passed, the comment period ended… and still women wait. The Administration has yet to issue a final rule rescinding the provider conscience law more than a year after it proposed doing so. Phone calls made and emails sent to the press office and the Office on Women’s Health at the Department of Health and Human Services by the author to inquire about the status of the proposed rule went unreturned.

Most people with whom we spoke on Capitol Hill and in the reproductive rights community either didn’t know whether the repeal had been finalized, or were surprised that it had yet to be finalized. Congresswoman Lois Capps, who co-chairs the Women’s Health Task Force of the Congressional Women’s caucus and sponsored the Capps Amendment to the health care reform bill that was eventually cast aside in favor of the severely restrictive Stupak Amendment, had this to say.

“First off, I want to thank the entire pro-choice community for their support as we fought to enact comprehensive health care reform, despite some obvious setbacks. The bottom line is that reproductive rights are better off with President Obama in office: within the first month of his inauguration, he rescinded the global gag rule.  These things take time, and as we move forward, I will help him in any way I can in his efforts to repeal the conscience clause.”

But with Bush’s provider-conscience law still on the books (more than a year after the new Administration proposed rescinding them) and President Obama’s executive order on abortion restrictions in health reform in place, it’s not a given that women in America are better off when it comes to access to reproductive health services than they were in October 2008, when neither restriction was on the books. That analysis also doesn’t take into account the proliferation of state laws restricting abortion, denying women access to abortion coverage as part of their insurance coverage and the continuing movement to make abortions harder to get while this Administration tries to find a non-existing bipartisan compromise that satisfies no one.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • progo35

    “What Ever Happened to Repealing the Bush Provider Conscience Clause?”

    Well, given that we are having the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history, an economic depression, two wars and a healthcare overall, maybe it’s just not THAT important. Moreover, you want healthcare providers not to work in fields that involve procedures that conflict with their beliefs. IYO, pharmacists who don’t want to dispense the morning after pill shouldn’t be pharmacists, and obgyns who don’t want to perform abortions shouldn’t be obgyns. Whether it’s a priority issue or a difference of opinion regarding the application of conscience, rescinding the conscience clause isn’t going to happen right now.

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, because working in a field is all about what your ‘beliefs’ are, right?  Healthcare overall is not healthcare overall when it doesn’t include a certain segment of the population, btw….

  • progo35

    Frankly, it disgusts me that so-called pro choice advocates want to FORCE dissenting medical professionals to be complicit in procedures they don’t want to perform or be involved in. There is such a thing as a freaking phone book. If a pharmacy doesn’t want to dispense Plan B, RU86 or overdoses of drugs used in assisted suicide, the client can get into his or her car and drive to another one. If you don’t like it, tough. You expect society to respect YOUR choices and conscience when it comes to obtaining an abortion, and thus it is only fair for you to respect the conscience of someone who doesn’t want to be involved. Otherwise, you are NOT pro choice. You are pro-my-choice.

  • arekushieru

    Apparently, someone cannot distinguish between the qualifications required to do ones JOB and the right to choose.  Oy….  If I am not qualified to do my job, then I am, rightly, fired.  Why should these medical professionals get special treatment?  Oh, that’s right, perhaps because they support the ONLY path PLers want them to take…?  Boohoo.  They can find another job where they ARE qualified.  Why should it be the ‘victim’s’ responsibility?  ‘Victim’-blaming perhaps?

     

    Besides, there are also such things as inaccessible clinics, higher costs at different pharmaceuticals, etc, etc….  Besides, if someone doesn’t want a woman having an abortion, they better damn well provide them with birth control and it’s usually the anti-choicers that don’t want to provide it.  Go figure.  I guess it’s not about fetal life but about punishing women who want to be anything more than incubators…? 

     

    Overdoses would be going aGAINst the ethics of a pharmacist’s job, btw. 

     

    No, we don’t expect society to respect our choices and conscience, we expect society to have kept their noses where they belonged, in the *first* place.  Within their own private medical decisions and on their own bodies.  The fact that they have their noses stuck in women’s uteruses is due none other than to their own volition.  They weren’t forced to do so.   

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Frankly, it disgusts me that so-called pro choice advocates want to FORCE dissenting medical professionals to be complicit in procedures they don’t want to perform or be involved in.

    No, silly! We fully support the right of dissenting medical professionals to not be complicit in procedures they don’t want to perform or be involved in. But you, on the other hand, want to FORCE the employers of these so-called medical professionals to not fire their asses for not doing the job they’re being paid to do.

     

    Which is natural, given that you’re an anti-choice advocate and all. I just thought that you were against women choosing to have abortions, and not employers making normal hiring decisions, like some kind of commie pinko socialist.

  • saltyc

    And Plan B is extremely time-sensitive, preferably taken as soon as possible. Not everyone has a car to go zipping around town to find a non-fascist pharmacy.

    I knew someone whose pharmacist refused to give her plan B, she had to find a pharmacy that would, took it 2 days after uprotected sex and subsequently got pregnant and had to get an abortion. These idiots are CAUSING abortion by trying to force their hand on women they are being PAID TO SERVE.

    And why is it always around women’s rights that these assholes want to have a say in denying? I never hear about them refusing to fill ritalin, viagra or other controversial drugs, it’s always about controlling women, isn’t it?

     

  • squirrely-girl

    How many times can one person ASS-ume in a single post? Let me count the ways…

    If a pharmacy doesn’t want to dispense Plan B, RU86 or overdoses of drugs used in assisted suicide, the client can get into his or her car and drive to another one.

     

    1. RU486 and assisted suicide drugs aren’t dispensed by a pharmacy. These are given by specially licensed medical providers in the office. The people dispensing RU486 and assisted suicide drugs have essentially “signed up” for this. So if you’re specifically discussing pharmacies, then what you’re really talking about is birth control and emergency contraception… neither of which constitute abortion related activities (unless you’re also in denial or ignorant of how they work).

    2. You’re assuming there’s more than one pharmacy in all of these scenarios. That’s super fine and awesome if you live in a larger city… not so super awesome if you live in BFE and have a single pharmacy outside of a 40 mile drive in any direction (I grew up in a town… errrr village, like this).

    3. You’re also assuming everybody can afford to own and operate a car. Just in case you never got the memo, not everybody fits into this category. Plenty of low income individuals are relying on public transportation, which may or may not visit every pharmacy in town.

    4. Likewise, not everybody has forever and a day (particularly with PlanB) to run all over the place looking for pharmacists who actually do their jobs. Some people have multiple jobs, non 9-5 schedules, kids, etc. 

     

    If a person is absolutely adamant about not wanting to be involved in any activities they perceive as “abortion related”… well then maybe they need to pick a line of work that in no way involves women and/or reproduction… or start their own anti-choice company (although I do believe this has been done and it failed miserably).

     

    But if a person CHOOSES to work at a company that doesn’t obviously and openly list itself as “pro-life” (meaning, it’s on the sign out front)… then they need to do the f’n job they’re being paid to do. “Pro-life” people aren’t some special beings deserving of a free pass to not work. Their opinions and beliefs are no more special than anybody else on this planet and thus should be held to the same standard as everybody else when it comes to employment. Don’t want to abide by the job description? FIND A NEW JOB!!

  • progo35

    “You’re assuming there’s more than one pharmacy in all of these scenarios. That’s super fine and awesome if you live in a larger city… not so super awesome if you live in BFE and have a single pharmacy outside of a 40 mile drive in any direction (I grew up in a town… errrr village, like this).”

     

    I grew up in a small town, too. And it definitely had at least two pharmacies. Now it has four. Even the smallest town my family visits in Vermont has more than one pharmacy. So, I don’t buy that the only pharmacy in someone’s town is going to not carry the morning after pill. 

     

    “3. You’re also assuming everybody can afford to own and operate a car. Just in case you never got the memo, not everybody fits into this category. Plenty of low income individuals are relying on public transportation, which may or may not visit every pharmacy in town.”

     

    Dude, how is YOUR view from priviledge mountain? I use public transportation all the time because I can’t drive. (I guess you haven’t thought about the many disabled people who also rely on public transit.) You should do yourself a favor and stop assuming that you know the history of the writer to whom you are responding. I can safely say that I also live in a small town where I attend grad school, and the bus service goes to several pharmacies in town and out of town. If I went to the Rite Aid near my house for Plan B and Rite Aid didn’t want to sell it, I’d take the bus to the CVS. And if it were a natural pharmacy like the one the next town over, I wouldn’t walk in expecting to find Plan B, nor would I force them to sell it. I would only expect that someone operating a pro life pharmacy be shown the same respect.

     

    ” RU 86 and assisted suicide drugs aren’t dispensed by a pharmacy. These are given by specially licensed medical providers in the office. . “

     

    Perhaps you are right about RU 86, which is usually dispensed in doctor’s offices,  but you are WRONG about AS medications. Such medications are dispensed VIA PRESCRIPTION, they are NOT administered by a doctor. Under current AS regulations, it is technically against the law for a doctor to administer any medication that will cause death. Such an act is considered distinct from AS, which is carried out BY THE victim in his or her HOME, since most people who kill themselves this way are doing so so that they can die AT HOME and not IN THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE. In order to do that, someone has to fill the prescription.

     

  • progo35

    “Apparently, someone cannot distinguish between the qualifications required to do ones JOB and the right to choose.  Oy….  If I am not qualified to do my job, then I am, rightly, fired.  Why should these medical professionals get special treatment?  Oh, that’s right, perhaps because they support the ONLY path PLers want them to take…?  Boohoo.  They can find another job where they ARE qualified.  Why should it be the ‘victim’s’ responsibility?  ‘Victim’-blaming perhaps?”

     

    Newsflash, Are and Salty C-if someone opens a pharmacy and clearly states that he or she will not sell a drug there, than that is THEIR RIGHT to do so. They should make their position clear by publically stating their position, perhaps via a sign in the window, but it is NOT their problem if the person seeking the drug is in a time sensitive situation, etc. It is their right to determine how they run thier business. Moreover, this does NOT amount to ‘not serving a segment of the population,” because women ARE being served, just lke everyone else. Like everyone else, they can get anything they want, just not Plan B. Thus, it’s not the same as a fascist pharmacy that will not serve women or black people, because anyone can partake of the services that the pharmacy DOES provide.

     

    Moreover, women obtaining Plan B in a normal situation aren’t “victims,” unless you think that women cannot make up their mind to have sex or not. If the person involved is a rape victim, that is terrible, but how is the pharmacist supposed to know that? That is why we have hospitals and clinics to provide emergency care.

  • crowepps

    Newsflash, Are and Salty C-if someone opens a pharmacy and clearly states that he or she will not sell a drug there, than that is THEIR RIGHT to do so. They should make their position clear by publically stating their position, perhaps via a sign in the window,

    I agree, let the market decide.  This was actually tried in Washington DC, and the ProLife pharmacy went broke and had to close.  The problem as I see it is those pharmacies which want to wait until the customer actually NEEDS the prescription and then surprise them with the news they are not a full-service pharmacy.  If pharmacies were required to post their position in the window so that all the customers were aware the pharmacist was running their prescriptions past his/her pastor, I wouldn’t have any problem with their choice.  I just wouldn’t shop there, for anything.

  • progo35

    If that’s the way you want to look at it crowepps, fine, but I think that saying,”This pharmacy does not dispense plan B or prescriptions provided under Montana’s Death with Dignity Act,” is a far cry from, “I’m running your presciptions by my pastor.” But I don’t know about a law forcing pharmacies to make this disclosure,  I just think that it would be mutually beneficial for pharmacies to choose to do so, unless we are going to force Kosher delies to post a sign saying that they do not sell ham and pork tenderloin.

     

  • progo35

    “But you, on the other hand, want to FORCE the employers of these so-called medical professionals to not fire their asses for not doing the job they’re being paid to do.

    Which is natural, given that you’re an anti-choice advocate and all. I just thought that you were against women choosing to have abortions, and not employers making normal hiring decisions, like some kind of commie pinko socialist.”

     

    No, actually you want to FORCE the OWNERS of pro life pharmacies to carry medications that violate their beliefs, even though this violates the first ammendment. THat is what we’re talking about. But, since you’re brainwashed, I suppose that’s only natural.

  • crowepps

    But I don’t know about a law forcing pharmacies to make this disclosure,  I just think that it would be mutually beneficial for pharmacies to choose to do so, unless we are going to force Kosher delies to post a sign saying that they do not sell ham and pork tenderloin.

    Anyone looking at the sign ‘Kosher Deli’ knows it’s unlikely they’re going to find pork there, just as a person seeing ‘PayLess Shoes’ doesn’t think they’re likely to be able to buy a tennis racket, but people seeing a sign that says ‘Neighborhood Pharmacy’ get the distinct impression that the place sells medication.

     

    Since the ProLife pharmacist would be PROUD of his/her principled stance and eager to proclaim his/her superior morality to the world, I don’t see why he/she would have any problem with a law requiring the posting of a sign.

     

    Since, after all, his/her goal is entirely to obey his/her conscience and not to publicly embarrass or humilate or have the opportunity to lecture individual customers.  Seems to me it would eliminate tricky interpersonal problems for everybody.

  • jrm83

    Not every woman who is raped goes to the hospital and not all hospitals provide emergency contraception to rape victims.  The pharmacist may not be able to tell why a woman needs birth control or emergency contraception, but it’s really none of his/her business no matter what the reason is.  People have a right to their own beliefs, but those beliefs should not trump the health of individuals who rely on them for medical care.

  • colleen

    If pharmacies were required to post their position in the window so that all the customers were aware the pharmacist was running their prescriptions past his/her pastor, I wouldn’t have any problem with their choice. I just wouldn’t shop there, for anything.

    Neither would most women.
    I listened to an interview with one of these ‘pro-life’ pharmacists in Seattle. His objection was to women using effective contraception. But it became clear during the course of the interview that the only place he advertised his bigotry was at his Parish because it would be bad for business. As usual with the sneaky little cowards of religious right women were forced to pay for his ‘principles’.

    That said, Progo has it wrong as usual. the so-called conscience laws are designed to protect the jobs of employees who object to women they don’t know using effective contraception or emergency contraception.

  • progo35

    “That said, Progo has it wrong as usual. the so-called conscience laws are designed to protect the jobs of employees who object to women they don’t know using effective contraception or emergency contraception.”

     

    THat is NOT what the law says. The law protects pharmacy OWNERS who don’t want to sell the medication.

  • squirrely-girl

    But I don’t know about a law forcing pharmacies to make this disclosure,  I just think that it would be mutually beneficial for pharmacies to choose to do so, unless we are going to force Kosher delies to post a sign saying that they do not sell ham and pork tenderloin.

    I get what you’re trying to express, but I think using Kosher is perhaps not the best example… because not selling pork products is exactly what “Kosher” means. And as far as I’m aware, most Kosher deli do post that they’re Kosher… in the name of the deli and everything. They don’t try to hide the fact that they’re Kosher or don’t sell pork products. They don’t lure you in under the premise of buying bacon and then turn you down at the counter.

     

    So this is actually a great example of what I’d expect from a pharmacy that doesn’t want to provide “full service” – either an explicit sign like crowepps mentioned or a special designator like “Kosher” that would mean patrons aren’t going to get the full range of pharmacy services.  People who want pork don’t shop at Kosher deli and frankly, if given the information up front, I would choose to shop somewhere other than a “conscience clause” pharmacy. I already don’t shop at companies that give lots of money to anti-choice causes.

     

    And I think that is exactly the reason pharmacies wouldn’t willingly post this info up front… people like me wouldn’t want to shop there because the store is anti-choice. Just because I don’t need my birth control filled by a pharmacist doesn’t mean I’d want to give my them any of my money for anything else if they were willing to deny those services to somebody else. And I’m absolutely certain that I’m not the only person offended by blatant discrimination and bigotry. Want a little more evidence… look at CPCs. You think they’d be falling all over themselves to proclaim they don’t perform or refer for abortion services or contraception… but they fight truth in advertising tooth and nail. Why? Because they rely on misinformation and deception to get people through the doors… pharmacies with a staff of conscience clause providers that don’t post this info up front/in the sign are doing the exact same thing.

  • prochoiceferret

    No, actually you want to FORCE the OWNERS of pro life pharmacies to carry medications that violate their beliefs, even though this violates the first ammendment. THat is what we’re talking about.

    No, pharmacies deliberately not stocking products wanted by their customers are a whole ‘nuther barrel of monkeys entirely. The Second Amendment grants pharmacy owners the right to shoot themselves in the foot. However, signage laws may be applicable.

    But, since you’re brainwashed, I suppose that’s only natural.

    I use mental floss every day to prevent intellectual decay! Don’t you practice good cranial hygiene?

  • squirrely-girl

    Pro-choicers in Ohio have been working for the last few years to get a law passed that would mandate counseling sexual assault survivors about emergency contraception and STD/STI testing and then making those available if the individual requests them. Being offered emergency contraception after a sexual assault is NOT a given in every state and in Ohio women are ROUTINELY told to “go to a pharmacy.”

  • squirrely-girl

    Moreover, this does NOT amount to ‘not serving a segment of the population,” because women ARE being served, just lke everyone else. Like everyone else, they can get anything they want, just not Plan B. Thus, it’s not the same as a fascist pharmacy that will not serve women or black people, because anyone can partake of the services that the pharmacy DOES provide.

     

    But in this case, the only services they don’t provide are those that directly affect only one group… reproductively capable women. 

     

    Discrimination comes in many forms… and just because everybody is “allowed to shop there” doesn’t mean the business isn’t selectively limiting the rights of it’s patrons. 

     

    At any rate, at least the fascist pharmacy is upfront about their discrimination and bigotry…  

     

  • pilar608

    Except that if you go into a deli not knowing it’s a kosher deli, you can still eat a chicken sandwich, even if you originally wanted ham.  If you need Plan B or birth control, aspirin just ain’t gonna cut it.  I’d be in favor of pharmacies having to post what prescriptions they refuse to fill–either that, or requiring them to have on staff and on clock at all times a pharmacist who will fill such prescriptions.  

  • squirrely-girl


    I grew up in a small town, too. And it definitely had at least two pharmacies. Now it has four. Even the smallest town my family visits in Vermont has more than one pharmacy. So, I don’t buy that the only pharmacy in someone’s town is going to not carry the morning after pill.

    So happy you experienced small town life. And SO HAPPY your town had a whopping two pharmacies. But just because you “don’t buy it” doesn’t mean it’s not true. I grew up in a small town in BFE that had ONE PHARMACY. ONE. We also had ONE GAS STATION, ONE WEEKLY “NEWSPAPER,” ONE DONUT SHOP, AND ONE STOPLIGHT… It was across the street from the elementary and middle school (all ONE BUILDING) and you had to press a button to make the light turn red… so I guess you’d call that a crosswalk more than a stop light. But I digress. At this ONE PHARMACY it was quite well known that the archaic pharmacist behind the counter hassled young women about birth control prescriptions and selectively filled based on his own biased world views. Even in 2010 this town has ONE PHARMACY… albeit that particular pharmacist has passed away and now his son works the counter. So again, just because you lived in the “metro” doesn’t mean everybody does… you’re interpreting the world solely through your particular life experiences… this is what I’m talking about when I ask about the view from privilege mountain :(

    Dude, how is YOUR view from priviledge mountain? I use public transportation all the time because I can’t drive. (I guess you haven’t thought about the many disabled people who also rely on public transit.) You should do yourself a favor and stop assuming that you know the history of the writer to whom you are responding. 

     

    So happy you use public transportation! I do too! Isn’t it great?! I actually WAS thinking about all of the people who use public transportation when I called you out on your use of the phrase, “the client can get into his or her car and drive to another one.” I didn’t put those words in your mouth or type them… you did. I responded to what YOU wrote. Don’t want to be accused of a privileged world view… maybe you should stop using phrases that suggest you have one. Just a thought. And frankly, I’m not overly concerned with the “history” of the writer to whom I’m responding when their comments come across as being self-involved and ignorant… because these cross all lines of race, sex, ethnicity, class, disability, etc. And everybody deserves to be called on it… regardless of their “history” or condition. Individuals with disabilities don’t get a “free pass” to be ignorant or self-involved anymore than the next person. 

    I would only expect that someone operating a pro life pharmacy be shown the same respect.

    More than happy to “respect” that position as long as it’s posted and advertised as such. I can’t respect something I’m not aware of. And honestly, I’m not really willing to “respect” something that the pharmacy isn’t willing to openly announce. If anything, it’s the lack of forthrightness that lends to my disrespect of these individuals/pharmacies. 

     

    With regard to the AS commentary, I think we’re both interpreting this through the lens of our own particular state policies and procedures. I’m just not familiar enough with states outside of my own and a select handful to argue these points emphatically. Alas, such is the problem with allowing issues like these to be determined on a state-by-state basis… the lack of consistency in policy and law isn’t helpful to individuals. And personally, I believe issues such as abortion and assisted suicide shouldn’t be differentially regulated from one state to another… I think US citizens should be able to expect a little consistency if they cross state lines. 

  • wendy-banks

    I use mental floss every day to prevent intellectual decay! Don’t you practice good cranial hygiene?

    *Grins*

  • arekushieru

    Newsflash, Progo, but if someone wants to open up a ProLife Pharmacy, then they should go through the proper channels and apply AS a ProLife Pharmacy, and like SG suggested, advertise on the storefront and all other mediums AS a ProLife Pharmacy.  NO one was suggesting they couldn’t do that.  But ALL Pharmacies are currently run under one umbrella, so to speak, one set of rules for ALL.  If someone denies a prescription based on their conscience, they are going aGAINST those rules AND required qualifications.  Hmmm….  Our point…?  *Shrug*

     

    <<Moreover, this does NOT amount to ‘not serving a segment of the population,” because women ARE being served, just lke everyone else. Like everyone else, they can get anything they want, just not Plan B. Thus, it’s not the same as a fascist pharmacy that will not serve women or black people, because anyone can partake of the services that the pharmacy DOES provide.>>

     

    So, you’re saying that women ARE being served, and just like everyone else, when they are being denied service that they may need just because they ARE women, a service that, when denied, has a full gamut of dangerous health effects that NO other group can experience?  Hmm, that makes NO sense, y’know that, right…?

     

    Hmm, gee, I think you missed the boat on this one.  I wasn’t referring to whether women could choose whether or not to have sex, that might result in pregnancy, beCAAAAUSE that would be sexist.  That would mean I would be basing their sexual freedoms on whether someone has a uterus or not.  I was referring to the fact that women have uteruses, whether they want them or not.  See how simple, now? 

     

     

  • catseye71352

    These idiots are on a par with hardcore vegans going to work for Burger King and then refusing to make or serve hamburgers because it is “against their principles”.  As PCF said above, FIRE their @$$e$!!!!!! Or boycott’em right out of business.