New Page
I have gotten some complaints about the title of my site. Some say it makes the content seem unserious and tends to make readers think of yapping dogs. My original intent of such a title was to highlight the yip yappiness of the Left and their nonsense ideas, and to include the term "yip yap" in every piece I wrote. I was trying to be funny but since I am not a humorous person (if I were, I'd be writing for Jay Leno), the intended humor never appeared. So, in the spirit of being more serious, but hopefully not grumpy, I have changed to a new site called the
Duchess of Wonk. Please go there for future pieces. Thanks.
L
PRESERVING FREEDOM OF CHOICE—FOR EVERYONE
“The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” James Madison before the House of Representatives, 1789
Last December, the Bush administration issued a new regulation that is intended to enforce federal laws that protect health care workers from discrimination and recrimination should they refuse to perform abortions or make abortion referrals due to their moral and religious beliefs.
But since good rules are made to be broken, the Obama administration will revoke the “right of conscience rule” after a 30-day period for public comments, also known as pretend-your-opinion-matters-to-the-White-House. In that spirit, I offer my two bits.
Far from being the cudgel that bludgeons health care as its opponents hysterically claim, the conscience rule does not restrict any health care worker in general from performing any legal medical service. Although there are several federal anti-discrimination laws dating back to the 1970s, the statutes have been hard to enforce on an individual basis. A rising number of reports of increasing pressure on physicians and other health care workers to compromise their medical ethics had prompted the Bush administration to develop the enforcing rule.
As expected, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest of the little rascals have challenged the rule. They have made specious claims that the rule’s (allegedly) vague construction would not only deny health care to women, if you define abortions as health care, but also deny any medical treatment based on the provider’s personal prejudice. For example, a health care provider who opposes homosexual practice might refuse to treat an HIV/AIDS patient.
Likewise, reason the “pro-choicers,” it gives place to the prejudice of professionals to refuse to “treat” a woman infected with pregnancy—and that in contravention of the Hippocratic Oath. Never mind what the Oath actually says: “I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing… and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.” The critics’ fallacious reasoning implies we are too stupid to understand the subtle differences between death-causing diseases and life-affirming conditions.
Pro-choice doesn’t end with abortions. It includes assisted suicide for any reason and the “choice” of euthanasia. The decision to apply euthanasia is often made by people other than the patient.
A person close to me had a major stroke, but far from being comatose with signs of diminishing life, she was alert, moving, thinking and communicating. Her grown children decided that even if she were to recover, her quality of life would have been unsatisfactory so it was better to put her down.
She was euthanized by denial of food and water. It took her two weeks to die from thirst and malnutrition. Where was the Hippocratic Oath then? It seems to me it would have been more merciful to have smothered her with a pillow, strangled her, poisoned her or put a bullet in her in the head.
But that would have been murder.
If the healer is not the last line of defense for the defenseless, who will save their lives as pro-choice organizations attempt to wipe out all resistance in their mission to create a culture of death? We must defend the rights of people in the health care community to follow their consciences according to the dictates of the free exercise of religion. If we don’t we will castrate the power of one of our most precious constitutional amendments and open up the door to Hitlerian ideas of who is worthy of life.
Is that the change you want?
