Pro-choice means choice only for some
I am beginning to discorver that most "family planning" organizations (i.e. abortion advocates) are not really "pro-choice." They howl and yell if someone dares to call them "pro-abortion," but their actions often justify that label.
An article in today's Washington Post exposed our President's plan to eliminate legal protection for health care workers who opt out of providing medical treatments they find morally objectionable. Under the Bush Administration, health care facilities that receive federal funding could not punish or sanction health care workers for following their conscience. Obama reveresed that policy.
"Faminily planning" groups jumped for joy in support of the President. They argued that allowing health care workers to opt out of performing abortion could reduce women's access to abortion. No kidding. My answer is, so what? Should a medical professional not have the freedom to follow his or her conscience when it comes to a procedure as controversial as abortion? Aparently, a woman's choice to abort her child is more important than a medical professional's right to refuse to abort her child. The latter is enshrinded in the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. The former was imposed on this country by seven unelected judges in the worst U.S. Supreme Court decision in history. When "abortion rights" trump our First Amendment rights, something has gone seriously wrong.
"Pro-choice" advocates cry, "how dare you interfere with a woman's right to choose!" However, they have no problem interferring with a woman's right to choose if that woman is a medical professional who refuses to provide abortion.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
There is some hope. The Administration agreed to take thirty days to review the new regulation. Hopefully, they will do the right thing. I'm not holding my breath.
Jerry, can we bring a collection of ND football highlights on the ark?
posted by Tom at
10:52 AM
3 Comments:
Bravo, bravo, bravo! I will pray for Obama to do the right thing and leave the policy in place. Thanks, nephew for writing about this most controversial of subjects.
AC
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:36:00 AM
I agree with AC. I am also praying that Obama leaves this policy in place. thank you, TG! I miss you!!
Anne
By
Annie, at Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:54:00 AM
Ah yes, the right to abortion and the right to contraception - "rights" that trump all other rights.
2 'cases' were cited in Friday's online Chicago Tribune as justification for the Obama administration's position:
"The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has reported cases such as that of a Virginia mother of two who became pregnant because she was denied emergency contraception."
Um, that's not how women become pregnant.
"In Texas, the group said, a rape victim had her prescription for emergency contraception rejected by a pharmacist."
This happened in Denton, TX, which is a decent-sized town 25 miles north of Dallas and home to the U. of North Texas. This pharmacist was the only pharmacist in town? The only one within 30 minutes driving distance? I would have the same questions for the woman in Virginia.
It's interesting how the "right to X" has morphed from "the right to acquire X" to "the right to have X provided to me on demand by whomever I demand it from".
So now "conscientious objectors" are allowed in the area of military service but not in health care. Change we can believe in, folks.
By
Jerry, at Monday, March 02, 2009 11:36:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home