You may have heard that the Obama administration is moving to repeal Bush regulations meant to protect the consciences of medical professionals. According to the Associated Press:
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.
The opponents of the rule claimed that it was vague and overly broad. If that’s the case, they should be rewriting them, not repealing them. But some in the pro-death religious community are ecstatic that they finally have a White House that will push their agenda. The odious Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice offers this sample letter that its minions can send to applaud and support the move:
As a person of faith, I believe we must balance the needs of both healthcare providers who object to abortion and contraception and patients who need, want and have a legal right to these services. This sweeping regulation would deny many women access to reproductive health services and would limit their ability to make decisions according to their conscience and religious beliefs.
I appreciate that your administration has taken the initiative to restore respect for science, women’s healthcare, and differing views on abortion and contraception.
In order to understand this, you have to understand RCRC lingo:
•”Balance” means, “your conscience has no rights compared to my right to kill my children.”
•”Deny many women access to reproductive health services” means, “how dare you make them go to someone else to get what they need to kill their children!”
•”Limit their ability to make decisions” means, “how dare you suggest that anything other than killing their children might be the right choice for them!”
•”[R]espect for…differing views on abortion and contraception” means, “you can think anything you want as long as you keep it to yourself and do what I demand.”
•”[R]estore respect for science” means, I suppose, that abortion is the only scientifically acceptable way to deal with an unexpected pregnancy, or something like that.
Conscience? We don’t need no stinkin’ conscience!
March 1, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Just out of curiosity, is it safe to assume you think children of rape must not be aborted?
One of the last things Secretary of State Rice did at the UN was lead the Security Council in passing a resolution that recognized rape as a war crime. What do you think about that?
March 1, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Just out of curiosity, is it safe to assume that you think that the children of rape deserve the death penalty for what their biological father did?
March 1, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I agree that rape is a war crime, and I find no Christian reason to believe the implanted zygote should be regarded as a child, since it’s not.
What other war crimes do you favor?
March 2, 2009 at 8:04 am
The only difference between the “implanted zygote” and a newborn is nine months. The newborn was that zygote, therefore killing the zygote is killing the newborn it would have become.
No argument that rape is a crime. I just don’t think that the resulting child should be blamed for it, and be required to sacrifice his or her life in pennance for it.
March 2, 2009 at 8:09 am
Here is an interesting website. Should Rebecca have been executed for her father’s crime? She was an implanted zygote conceived in rape once.
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/
March 2, 2009 at 9:12 am
Ed: Offer arguments, not ad hominem abuse, if you want to comment here.
March 2, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I don’t really need a lecture from some cashier at the local CVS about the immorality of drinking caffeinated soda before they refuse to sell it to me because consuming caffeine is against their religion. Yet, as bizarre as that scenario sounds, that’s how broadly this regulation was written.
Though I greatly sympathize with the underlying ideas behind this regulation, the fact is, I don’t want lectures on morality from my doctor, I want health care expertise. If I have a question about morality, I’ll go to someone who is actually qualified to offer an opinion. At the same time, I’m probably not going to my pastor to have him perform surgery either.
If a pacifist enlisted in the army and then complained when the army required them to shoot at the enemy, I’d think they were stupid to sign up in the first place. A mechanic who refused to fix foreign cars would also likely be fired, as they should be. In the same way, it isn’t like it’s possible to get through medical school in the US and not realize that abortion is legal in this country. If a doctor, a nurse, a pharmacist, or the cashier at the drug store can’t do their jobs, then they should find another profession.
This seems to me as a rather disingenuous attempt to eliminate abortion through a means other than simply outlawing it. Why make all this so needlessly complicated and convoluted? I don’t think these sneak attacks actually do any good at reducing the number of abortions, and I bet they probably appear as sneak attacks to those we’d like to convince about the immorality of abortion, thus weakening our case. If you want to claim the moral high ground, it helps to appear like you know what morals are and are above sneaking around behind people’s backs.
Outlaw it, and you don’t even have to have these sorts of badly written regulations. You just jail people who break the law. Far less interpretation required, and far less likely to get annoying situations in which some store clerk refuses to sell condoms to a grown adult because their religion forbids contraception, or refuses to sell beer to a grown adult because they’re religion forbids consuming alcohol, or refuses to perform surgery of any kind because they believe everything can be healed by prayer, etc., etc., etc.
Additionally, if there is a completely bizarre and stupid way that this regulation could have been used to make someone some money, you can bet some lawyer somewhere would find it … and sue. Best to eliminate it altogether, then do something that might actually stop abortion.
March 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm
You have a point, but don’t you think there is an order of magnitude difference between a cashier not wanting to have to sell a caffeinated pop, and a doctor wanting the right to refuse to preform an abortion?
March 2, 2009 at 9:29 pm
For Ed and Alan,
Thanks for being willing to weigh in on an issue with opinions probably not shared by many of the people who frequent this website. I mostly don’t agree with you but appreciate your willingness to debate, something rare today, especially with regard to abortion.
Thanks, too, for hanging in there Kate.
I would respectfully ask Ed and Alan a yes/no question intended not to trap anyone, but to try to zero in on what the basic issue is with abortion, so we can address that instead of all the possible red herrings. Do you agree with the following statement?: “It is immoral to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.” If you don’t agree please explain what in the statement you do not agree with.
Don
March 2, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Alan is pro life, actually. You might find yourself agreeing with him, at least on this issue.
March 3, 2009 at 7:51 am
I don’t believe amelioration of a war crime is immoral, no. Can we start there?
March 3, 2009 at 8:58 am
Can you not just answer the question asked? Do you think it would have been a moral decision for Rebecca Kiessing’s birthmother to abort her? She is alive now. Had her mother aborted her, she would be dead. How is this not murder?
March 3, 2009 at 9:24 am
Kate asked, “You have a point, but don’t you think there is an order of magnitude difference between a cashier not wanting to have to sell a caffeinated pop, and a doctor wanting the right to refuse to preform an abortion?”
Any doctor can currently refuse to perform an abortion. This regulation simply stated that employers couldn’t fire someone because of that refusal. On these matters, I’m quite conservative and believe that an employer ought to be able to fire an employee who does not do his/her job. If a doctor doesn’t want to perform abortions, they have options: open a private practice and refuse to perform them, for one. Forcing employers to employ employees who refuse to do their job — a job which is currently legal — is an unreasonable intrusion of the government into employers’ legal business practices. This regulation basically punishes a third party, the employer, for a dispute between a doctor and his/her patient. I don’t see how that’s fair, nor do I see how that’s going to make a convincing or effect case about abortion to anyone.
Yes there’s a difference of degree between doctors who do not want to perform abortions and clerks who do not want to sell condoms. But this regulation did not recognize those differences. And if a regulation is written that only covers doctors refusing to perform abortions and not, say for example, Catholics refusing to sell condoms, that seems like unequal protection under the law.
Don asked if I agree that “It is immoral to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.”
Actually I think it’s immoral to intentionally take the life of *any* human being, Don. Care to agree with me on that one?
I think, Don, that you’re assuming that since I’m against a bad regulation, I’m for abortion. You are incorrect. I just think that this regulation is bad on two counts 1) I think it’s a mess, as I indicated to Kate, and 2) I think it’s nothing but pandering.
How is this regulation simply pandering? I am against abortion and think it should be outlawed. I just think that working to outlaw it should be done with honor and dignity, making the case regarding the immorality of the procedure to the American people, rather than trying to sneak in back-door policies — policies which no one voted on.
I also think these policies are disingenuous considering the appalling lack of action to actually end abortion from some politicians who claim to be anti-abortion while never engaging the issue head on. What’s worse is that some people were duped into thinking this regulation actually amounted to “action” on the part of the Bush administration on abortion, rather than seeing it as the weak tea that it is … a regulation everyone knew would be overturned immediately. In other words, it would be nice if folks demanded accountability from politicians who make promises regarding abortion, rather than being placated by these sorts of half-measures. Even worse than that, people who are against abortion are actually defending these sorts of measures instead of being livid that this is the best a Republican administration could do … an administration that had 7 years of a Republican Congress AND a conservative SCOTUS. When it was instituted, people who are anti-abortion should have been outside the White House protesting this useless regulation as nothing more than petty political pandering. The unborn deserve better, it seems to me.
March 3, 2009 at 9:31 am
I am not very clear on how the American medical system works. Is this an option for an ob/gyn doctor? Would such a doctor be able to get hospital privileges? In Canada, (or at least in Ontario where I live), the majority of doctors are in private practice, and bill the government for their work on a fee for service basis – so in effect they all work for themselves.
March 3, 2009 at 9:38 am
Another point – I don’t think aborting the child of a rape ameliorates a rape. Losing a child is unmitigated hell. I’ve lost two to miscarriage and one to stillbirth at 38 weeks. To this day I wonder what might have been. I can’t imagine how I would feel if I had sought out those losses. Even if the pregnancy is unwanted it is still a loss. There was a life inside, and now there isn’t. I have a relative who had two abortions that I know of, and she is still dealing with the psychological aftereffects more than 20 years later. Abortion doesn’t heal the mother, it harms her dreadfully.
March 3, 2009 at 9:51 am
Yes, in the US, an OB/GYN in private practice can still get hospital privileges. So, even if they went through 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, and residency and yet they still didn’t know that abortion is legal in the US, they’d still have a way to practice their specialty that didn’t force them to perform abortions. There may be other arrangements as well that would allow them to be self-employed, but I’m no expert.
March 3, 2009 at 10:04 am
Yes of course they would know that abortion was legal in the States. Does that mean a doctor ought to be forced to do one against his her conscience? I don’t think that the act of attaining a medical degree means that you agree to do abortions. Taking a position where you know that your employer requires abortions to be preformed and then expecting to be exempted is a different matter entirely.
March 3, 2009 at 10:20 am
Again, no one is forced to do anything. Any doctor can refuse to perform an abortion. There’s nothing illegal about that in the US.
However, refusing to do so may come at the risk of his/her job. (Frankly I’m guessing most of this is overblown. I’d wager my lunch money that most hospitals would simply assign a different doctor. This is yet another reason that I think the regulation is badly written … it probably isn’t even necessary, but it sounded good to some anti-abortion folks who weren’t paying close attention.)
This regulation, however, basically made it difficult if not impossible for a doctor to be fired for refusing to do their job. So basically it does force employers to keep people around who refuse to do the job that the employer demands. If it’s wrong to force doctors to perform abortions, I don’t see how that wrong is righted by forcing employers to keep them around anyway, which is what this regulation did.
March 4, 2009 at 6:04 am
Try if you can to imagine the anguish of a woman who so despises her rape and rapist that she pleads for an abortion to keep her rapist from being triumphant in wiping out her ethnic group. These women don’t make these decisions lightly. I don’t think we should substitute our judgment for theirs. They know their own circumstances. We don’t.
March 4, 2009 at 7:46 am
I fail to see how killing the child in her womb solves anything.I also believe that we were discussing North American abortion laws, and you still haven’t answered Don’s question with a simple yes or no. Care to?
March 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm
OK. I have caught up on the discussions. First I will slightly restate my first propsition:
“It is morally wrong to intentonally take the life of an innocent human being.”
My reading of the replies indicate:
Ed, you indicate you do not agree with that propsition, and would apply it in the case pf a rape comitted as a war crime.
Alan agees with the proposition and would replace “an” with “any”.
Is that a fair statement of your replies?
Alan I think I agree with your “any” although I am not sure if there is any difference.
Ed, so I can understand better, is a rape committed as a war crime your only exception to the principle stated in the proposition?
Kate, I am sorry for the pain you have gone through. Thanks for reminding me this is not just academic.
March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Opps,
Correction: I meant to say Ed would NOT apply the principle in the case of a rape committed as a war crime.
Sorry.
March 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Don wrote, “Alan I think I agree with your “any” although I am not sure if there is any difference.”
I didn’t just replace “an” with “any”, I also eliminated the word “innocent.” (I’m a Calvinist, so I don’t believe I’ve ever met an innocent human being.)
I do so enjoy watching people tie themselves up in knots trying to rationalize being anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty. That’s why I altered your wording, Don, but that’s obviously off topic, and an argument for a different blog post.
March 5, 2009 at 8:45 am
Did Don say he was pro death penalty? Where did that idea come from?
Thanks for your words, Don. Her name was Maggie, and she would have been 8 this spring.
March 5, 2009 at 8:52 am
I didn’t say he was, I was just explaining what I wrote before and why, as he asked.
March 5, 2009 at 9:36 am
I’m confused. Maybe I need another coffee and a tylenol….
March 5, 2009 at 10:50 pm
OK Alan, thanks for pointing out the obvious that I missed, that you would take “innocent” out. I agree that is a subject for another post. I am sure there will be an opportunity for that. Suffice it to say that in the proposition I mean by innocent, not guilty of violating any earthly civil laws.
March 6, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Alan, since you say you are a Calvinist, I must point out that I used the word innocent in the same sense that Calvin himself did in the first paragraph of Chapter 20 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. You might also check out paragraph 10 of the same chapter. I suspect you and John might have an issue.
March 7, 2009 at 10:57 am
Nah, we don’t. I suspect you’re digging for something that’s not there. And I suspect that you don’t know me well enough to suspect anything about me.
But you were right about one thing, all that is a topic for a different post. Peace.