Making sure there’s still a choice

Bush has secured, for now, the rights of health care workers to
exercise their conscience in practicing medicine morally, while all
around the country liberal activism pushes to allow only one choice:
theirs. The right of conscience must be protected if we are not to be a socialist state.

The rules make it so medical centers and staff aren’t forced to do abortions or refer for them.

They provide better enforcement for existing federal laws by
potentially revoking federal funding from violators and making them
certify in writing that they will respect conscience rights.

But these rights are unacceptable to the ‘choice’ crowd, who want their choice made law.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut says
he will lead a fight against the federal rule and is expected to file a
lawsuit against it.

Though the new regulations have nothing to do with birth control,
Blumenthal is echoing the arguments from leading pro-abortion groups
who claim its access will be adversely impacted by them.

He said he will resume working with pro-abortion officials in the
other states to derail the pro-life protections for medical centers and
staff — slated to take effect on January 20.

Of course, that’s inauguration day. So what will happen to conscience clauses after that?

Here’s some cause for concern:

In April 2007, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton, along with other pro-abortion legislators, re-introduced what
is called the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Denise Burke, legal counsel
for Americans United for Life, describes FOCA as “a radical attempt to
enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law.” The National Right to
Life Committee describes FOCA as an attempt to “invalidate all limits
on abortion.” Barack Obama has pledged his support for FOCA and
promised Planned Parenthood that if he was elected president, he would
sign FOCA into law if the legislation reached his desk.

Amazingly, many Americans still don’t know about the Freedom of Choice Act, a misnomer to beat them all. Here’s a re-cap…

If abortion is established as a “right” on par with the
freedom of speech and freedom of religion, no American citizen will be
able to object to any woman’s plan to have an abortion. FOCA puts the
“right” to abortion on a collision course with the First Amendment
rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. As [Denise] Burke
states, FOCA is “a radical attempt to prematurely end debate about
abortion.” Thus, not only can we expect abortions to increase in this
country—despite the fact that abortion proponents often call abortion a
“tragedy” and something they would like to see decreased in
incidence—but no healthcare provider will be able to conscientiously
object to a woman’s request to have an abortion. Healthcare providers,
then, will be forced to go against their religious and ethical beliefs,
or they will have to leave their professions.

Further likely consequences…

To name a few, FOCA will nullify the legal protections
that have been afforded to Catholic hospitals, force all medical
students to train to perform abortions, overturn parental notification
and informed consent laws, and force American taxpayers to fund
abortion, which many find morally objectionable.

Nurse and bioethics expert Nancy Valko, a friend, passed along this letter she sent to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Dear editor,
    As an RN of almost 40 years experience, I am shocked that a St.
Louis Post-Dispatch editorial (”An unconscionable conscience rule”
December 24, 2008) would state that doctors, nurses and pharmacists
with ethical objections to participating in certain procedures or
treatments just “should choose another profession.” This is not just
about abortion. Legalized assisted suicide has just been passed in
Washington state in addition to Oregon. Missouri has seen similar
efforts. Should we then just choose another state?

And as a recipient of health care for almost 60 years, I am more
than nervous about accessing a health care system solely populated by
doctors, pharmacists and nurses who are comfortable with ending life.

We have enough problems as it is with medical ethics. We deny conscience rights at our own peril.
Nancy Valko, RN

Unlike the citizens of Nazi Germany, who didn’t know the extermination had already started in the hospitals, we have been warned.


Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.