News Commentary 2009
Letter to the Editor
The Star Phoenix,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
25 November, 2009
Sean Murphy
The controversy surrounding the availability of abortion in Saskatoon
appears to have begun with a complaint to the effect that Saskatoon
physicians are generally unwilling to perform the procedure after 12 weeks
gestation. The article noted that the cut-off date in Regina is 16 weeks.1
Since there is no legal restriction on abortion in Canada prior to the onset
of labour, the 12 and 16 week standards probably reflect the views of
physicians called upon to provide the procedure.
However, contrary to the impression created by a recent statement by MP
Maurice Vellacott,2 it does not follow that
these physicians are attempting to prevent women from obtaining the service.
Henry Morgentaler, for example, initially advocated unrestricted abortion
during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In 1989 he was performing abortions
on women 16 weeks pregnant, moving to 18 weeks by 1996. He noted in 2004
that he had "ethical problems" doing abortions from about 24 weeks,
explaining, that he did not want to abort fetuses after they had become
babies.3 In other words, Dr. Morgentaler has
always limited the scope of his practice for ethical reasons, but he has
never been accused of (or congratulated for) trying to restrict access to
abortion.
To put the "cut-off" dates in perspective, doctors at a hospital in Lyon,
France, resigned en masse in 2001 when administrators instructed them
to implement a new law raising the gestational limit for abortion from 10 to
12 weeks.4 While abortions can be obtained in
Scotland up to at least 34 weeks gestation,5
most physicians are unwilling to provide the procedure beyond 15 weeks.6
For the same reason, in 2006 a district health board in New Zealand began
subsidies for women to travel to Australia for second trimester abortions.7
Mr. Vellacott comments are, unfortunately, likely to generate unfounded
accusations that Saskatoon physicians are trying to "control" their patients
and restrict access to abortion. As Dr. Morgentaler's position illustrates,
these are unwarranted assumptions. It is far more likely that they share Dr.
Morgentaler's belief that the ethics of abortion must take the nature of the
foetus into account, and, like Dr. Morgentaler, have limited the scope of
their practices for ethical and practical reasons.
Notes
1. Sharp, Jenn,
"Abortion cut-off date criticized as too early." The Star Phoenix,
13 November, 2009. Accessed 2009-11-25
2. Sharp, Jenn,
"Vellacott weighs in on abortion: Saskatoon MP commends system for
restricting access." The Star Phoenix, 24 November, 2009.
Accessed 2009-11-25
3. Canadian Press,
"Quebec hopes to offer late term abortions." Accessed 2009-06-02.;
Dunphy, Catherine, Morgentaler: A Difficult Hero. Random House:
Toronto, 1996, p. 62-64, 339.
4.
"French
Doctors Rethinking Abortions in Face of New Law: At One Hospital, Physicians
Quit en Masse." Zenit, 7 November, 2001. () Accessed 2006-06-13
5. Foster, Kate,
"Hospital Admits Abortion At 34 Weeks." Scotland on Sunday, 10
April 2005. Accessed 2006-06-13
6. Templeton, Sarah Kate,
"Private firm plans Scottish abortion clinic." The Sunday Herald,
19 January, 2003. Accessed 2006-06-13)
7.
"Royal College calls for conscience decision on second trimester abortions."
Radio New Zealand,11 March, 2006. Accessed 2006-03-11
National Post
15 May, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Randy Hillier
Last year, Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons came close to
implementing a policy that would have made it "unethical" for doctors to
decline, as a matter of conscience, to perform controversial medical
procedures on otherwise healthy patients. If adopted, the policy would have
compelled doctors who consider abortion the taking of innocent life to
provide such a "service" themselves or risk losing their license to practice
medicine in Ontario.
Fortunately, after an outcry from the public prompted some sober second
thought, the College stepped back from the policy, allowing doctors to
continue exercising their conscience in the performance of their duties. In
doing so, however, it also warned doctors that they could still be subject
to prosecution by other quasi-judicial bodies such as Ontario's human rights
tribunals.
This is just one of many reasons why I believe that Ontario's human
rights tribunals need to be drastically reformed, if not abolished
altogether.
Even without out-of-control human rights tribunals, though, there is
still plenty of opportunity for government to suppress dissent or prevent
citizens from acting according to their own conscience. The temptation for
regulatory bodies and activist liberal judges to impose their personal views
on society may be too great for them to resist, even in the absence of human
rights tribunals.
This is just plain wrong, and elected lawmakers have a duty to address
the problem. That's why, as leader of Ontario's PC party, I intend to push
for legislation that will explicitly establish and protect the right of all
Ontarians to refuse to act in a manner that they consider to be morally
objectionable, and as premier of Ontario I will introduce such a law.
Defending freedom of conscience through concrete legislative action is no
mere abstract exercise. Sincere principled dissent is not just something to
be tolerated in a free and democratic society; it's the very wellspring from
which our democratic traditions flow. Without such principled dissent, it
should be remembered, our society might never have rid itself of the scourge
of slavery; women might still be denied the right to vote and Jews might
still be barred from entering Canada, as they were for a time under the
federal Liberal party's policy of "none is too many."
Democracy is possible only when freedom of speech, association and
conscience are protected and private property is respected. A state that can
force doctors to violate their conscience, or that can force private
business owners to endorse and promote same-sex relationships in violation
of their religious beliefs, is a state that can seize private property on a
whim with little or no due process. It's also a state that can shut down
independent schools and outlaw home-schooling entirely as is now the case in
Germany, prosecuting parents who choose not to send their children to
government run schools where liberal indoctrination is more important than
teaching basic reading and writing skills.
In short, a society that suppresses principled dissent is one that turns
its back on genuine democratic principles, even if it holds regular
elections.
This is why I am running for the leadership of Ontario's PC party -
because I believe that the people of Ontario deserve a clear choice between
a Liberal party that is liberal in name only, and a principled Conservative
party that understands the connection between its principles and real
liberal democracy; a Conservative party that is courageous enough to stand
by and defend those principles in the public square, and that is prepared to
deliver a legislative and policy agenda that reflects those principles once
elected.
Explicitly protecting freedom of conscience is an important part of this
agenda.
Some people call this radical - I just call it common sense.
Randy Hillier is the Ontario MPP from
Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox-Addington and was a candidate for the Progressive
Conservative Party of Ontario leadership race in 2009.
USA Today
8 May, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Jonathan Imbody,
Senior policy analyst,
Christian Medical Association - Ashburn, Va.
Citing revelations of substandard outpatient conditions at the Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, a USA TODAY editorial promotes legal protections
for whistle-blowers ("Protect
whistle-blowers," Our view, Your right to know debate, Tuesday).
But legal protections alone are insufficient to motivate an individual to
buck an establishment that has gone AWOL ethically.
Whistle-blowing requires resolute character and a conscientious
commitment to bedrock ethical standards. The absence of such individual
character and universal standards breeds ethical malpractice, such as the
infamous Tuskegee experiment, which deliberately
denied penicillin
treatment for African-American syphilis patients.
Such lessons from history apparently have not given pause to the Obama
administration, which proposes removing a conscience-protection regulation
that implements the right of health care professionals to follow
life-affirming, patient-protecting standards such as the Hippocratic oath.
Based on three civil rights laws passed over the past 35 years with
bipartisan support, the
provider-conscience regulation implemented by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services simply ensures that participating in abortion and
other controversial procedures remains a choice and not a mandate for health
care professionals.
According to two recent national surveys, Americans support the
conscience-protection regulation by a 2-1 ratio, and
95% of faith-based physicians surveyed warn that they will leave
medicine before bowing to pressure to violate ethical standards and
convictions.
The Obama administration can avert a crisis of health care access for
poor patients and those in medically underserved areas by simply keeping
regulatory and legal protections for health care professionals who remain
anchored to ethical standards.
When the political or medical establishment loses its moorings,
conscientious physicians remain the patients' last line of defense.
Letter to the Editor,
National Post
6 April, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Re:
The Next Moral Quagmire: Conscience, April 4.
Thank you once again for an excellent and timely article on a very
important issue. It was in Toronto that a colleague suggested I leave my
beliefs at the door and in Vancouver that a pharmacy manager warned me about
"imposing my morality," after which I was let go under other pretexts.
Why is this significant? Because this is a national problem for
pharmacists. Pharmacist Maria Bizecki suffered a lengthy suspension from her
job for kindly asking a customer to come back for the product she requested
the next day -- when someone else would be all too happy to meet her needs.
In Ontario, pharmacist Michael Izzotti merely asked the doctor to fax in
a prescription request so that a colleague could take care of it the next
day. He was also severely reprimanded when a doctor made a formal complaint
to the Ontario College of Pharmacists. Many other pharmacists will not come
forward with their stories for fear of losing their livelihood.
When convenience takes precedence over the basic human rights of freedom
of conscience and religion, our Canadian democracy is in very bad shape
indeed.
Cristina Alarcon, pharmacist,
West Vancouver
Re: The Next Moral Quagmire: Conscience, April 4.
Letter to the Editor,
National Post
6 April 06, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Based on my informed moral and religious conscience, I am a doctor who
refuses to refer for abortions. I refuse to co-operate with intrinsic
wrongness.
How do I explain this to my own young children? Last night, I read them
Walt Disney's Pinocchio: " 'No, Pinocchio,' she answered. 'First, you must
prove yourself to be brave, truthful and unselfish. You must also learn to
choose between right and wrong.'
'But how will I know what is right and wrong?' he asked. 'Your conscience
will tell you,' said the Blue Fairy. 'What's a conscience?' asked Pinocchio.
'That's the small voice that people don't always listen to.' "
Dr. Rene Leiva, Ottawa.
The Foundry
9 April, 2009
Reproduced with permissionRandy Pate
America is facing a shortage of qualified health care professionals,
including doctors and nurses. The Health Services and Resources
Administration (HRSA)has
identified over 6,000 Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Areas
across the country, with 64 million Americans living in them. According to
HRSA, it would take over 16,000 new primary care doctors in these shortage
areas to meet the need. The problem is even more acute in crucial
specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology. The American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologistsreports
that almost one third of women in rural areas live in counties with no
practicing OB-GYNs. Observers predict the current problems will only get
worse, with some foreseeing nationwide shortages of doctors and other health
care professionals in the next decade.
Many factors affect the supply of doctors, including the aging U.S.
population, low reimbursement rates paid by government-funded insurance
programs like Medicare and Medicaid, burdensome paperwork mandates, and high
medical malpractice insurance costs. But astoundingly, rather than working
to bring more people from diverse backgrounds into the medical field,
advocates of abortion have gone on record saying there should be fewer, not
more, doctors.
The latest proof is found in the debate over the Obama Administration'seffort
to overturn the providerconscience
regulation. This regulation clarifies and implements longstanding federal
laws prohibiting discrimination against health care workers who object to
performing certain controversial medical procedures, such as abortion and
sterilization.
In a New England Journal of Medicineop-ed
written in opposition to the provider conscience regulation, UCLA adjunct
law professor Julie D. Cantor argues that, to keep our health care system
functioning, conscience rights must be stripped away. She believes doctors
who practice life-affirming medicine or who otherwise object to providing
abortion on demand should be booted out of the medical profession. In
Cantor's view, physicians should be required to provide, counsel on, and
refer for "all legal options," even if it violates their deeply held
religious beliefs and moral convictions. So, if you are a doctor or medical
student who has "qualms" with performing abortions, Cantor has a simple
prescription for you: "do not practice women's care." By Cantor's logic, if
you are opposed to euthanasia (now legal in some states) the answer is
simply:: do not practice end-of-life care. In other words, if you happen to
hold a view on ethical issues that differs from that of the official,
state-imposed view-whatever that view may be, now or in the future-your only
choice is to leave the profession or else face potential retribution.
Apparently Cantor and others sharing her view are willing to live with
the devastating reductions in women's access to medical care, especially in
poor and rural areas, that would result from her dangerous prescription.
Even a small percentage of practicing OB-GYNs leaving the profession would
impose dire consequences on patients. Existing shortages would be
exacerbated as students avoided or were turned away from training programs
in health fields where their views were unwelcome. Not to mention the fact
that much health care in the United States is provided by faith-based
institutions like Catholic hospitals, which would be forced to shut their
doors or reduce services if conscience protections were removed.
Unfortunately for patients, Cantor is not alone. Others, including The
New York Times (which said in aneditorial,
"[a]ny doctors who cannot talk to patients about legally permitted care
because it conflicts with their values should give up the practice of
medicine") have made public statements or taken actions reflecting this
disturbing viewpoint . By proposing to overturn regulations protecting the
conscience rights of health care providers, the Obama Administration is
moving in a very troubling direction on health care issues and leaving
doctors and nurses open to attack on account of their beliefs.
No one should be forced to violate their conscience. Now is the time to
protect conscience rights and encourage caring individuals of all faiths and
backgrounds to seek careers in the health professions. Let the Department of
Health and Human Services know of your support for regulations protecting
conscience rights in the health care work place by visitingwww.adoctorsright.com
and sending your comment before April 9.
The Observer
7 April, 2009
Reproduced with permissionChristie Pesavento
One of our most celebrated liberties in America is the freedom of
conscience, or the freedom to hold and act upon conscientious judgments. It
was the motivating factor in the Bush administration's strengthening of what
are commonly known as "conscience" laws that protect physicians and other
health care providers from discrimination if they refuse to participate in
medical procedures that raise religious or other conscientious objections.
What sort of discrimination? In the past, health care providers who refuse
to, say, participate in abortion procedures; have faced harassment,
intimidation, and retribution in the form of denials of promotions and
educational opportunities, and even the loss of employment.
Such laws have been in place since the 1970s, but the Department of Health
and Human Services has done little to enforce them, and many providers
remain unaware of their existence. Thanks to President Bush's efforts, these
laws are now provided with real executive power. President Obama, however,
plans to challenge the letter of the law by eliminating the very regulations
that help enforce them.
In an announcement that gained little coverage from our ever-vigilant news
media, the Obama administration proposed its intentions to rescind the
measures for the purpose of eliminating the potential "ambiguity and
confusion." Considering the fact that the Bush administration's new
regulation clarified the laws and aided their enforcement, it could very
well be that Obama's attempt to do away with the regulation is nothing but a
thinly-veiled attempt to pander to the pro-choice movement. More disturbing,
however, is how Obama's position on the matter raises questions about his
party's commitment to religious liberty, especially when it conflicts with
their agenda to promote ambiguous "reproductive rights."
But before we delve into the realm of politics, let us examine the reasoning
behind opposition to the existence of conscience laws.
Conscience law critics often point to the responsibility that health care
providers have to their patients, which they believe overrides any moral or
religious beliefs they might espouse. When a patient is in need of a medical
procedure, they argue, it is the duty of the physician or hospital to
provide the procedure. Conscience laws unfairly disadvantage people who do
not have easy access to a variety of medical institutions or practitioners
because they may be denied assistance by providers who refuse to partake in
procedures on religious or moral grounds.
Yet despite these claims, forcing physicians and hospitals to partake in
actions they find morally reprehensible is not the answer because
responsibilities to patients simply do not trump constitutionally-supported
rights that hold a cherished place in the history of democratic thought. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 1975 ruling in the case of Taylor v.
St. Vincent's Hospital, states, "If [a] hospital's refusal to perform
sterilization [or, by implication, abortion] infringes upon any
constitutionally cognizable right to privacy, such infringement is
outweighed by the need to protect the freedom of religion of denominational
hospitals 'with religious or moral scruples against sterilizations and
abortions.'" Thus no rationale, no matter how sound, can justify overriding
a right that is protected by the First Amendment's provision that forbids
Congress from making laws that infringe upon the free practice of religion.
On certain issues, the Democratic Party appears to understand the sanctity
of the freedom to express one's religious and moral beliefs, in particular
those of minority religions. They have stood against measures they believe
undermine what they believe should be a strict separation between church and
state. Yet when it comes to religious beliefs that they disagree with
personally, especially those of most Christian denominations, they have no
qualms about creating government mandates that suppress the free expression
of these practices, such as bans on school prayer and the removal of
monuments displaying the Ten Commandments in public places. If, for
instance, physicians of the Muslim faith were bringing up objections to
performing procedures that contradicted their religious beliefs, I can't
envision the ACLU fighting against measures that would prevent
discrimination against these people. The Democrats' commitment to religious
liberty is largely conditional on whose religious liberty is at stake.
Furthermore, the added dimension of reproductive issues like abortion
complicates the matter. As his Senate record has shown, Obama is an ardent
defender of abortion rights, going as far as sponsoring legislation that
would allow for the killing of infants who manage to survive and are born
alive despite abortion attempts. When combined with his party's inherent
tendency to distrust Christian beliefs, it is obvious why he would want to
rescind any measures that interfere with the alleged rights of patients to
receive abortions on demand. In claiming to be "pro-choice" when it comes to
having an abortion, Democrats are surprisingly anti-choice on the matter of
doctors and hospitals choosing whether or not to provide them.
Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats, repealing Bush's regulations will
not eliminate the conscience laws that have remained on the books for over
three decades. Yet it will be up to health care providers to defend
themselves against discrimination based on their religious and moral
beliefs, a protection that should be the responsibility of the branch of
government that enforces the law.
If you would like to voice your objection to the President's efforts to
rescind the Bush regulation, please visit
http://www.ADoctorsRight.com
before April 9.
The views expressed in this column
are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
Christie Pesavento is in Washington, D.C. and can be reached at
cpesaven@nd.edu
Letter to the Editor
The Hill,
28 March, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Joxel Garcia
U.S. assistant secretary for health (2008-2009)
Jacqueline Halbig
Director,
Freedom2Care.org.
Dr. Leslie Chorun was forced to resign from her residency program because
she refused to refer women for abortions, believing it was below the
standard of care for physicians. Dr. Sandy Christiansen was reamed out in
front of her team of residents and medical students for not wanting to be
involved in her patient's late-term abortion because of her Christian
beliefs.
Reports of discrimination stories like these by healthcare providers and
medical and nursing students spurred the Bush administration to enact Health
and Human Services regulation now referred to as the "conscience rule."
Having been implemented in December 2008, this rule has not had the
opportunity to go into full effect and yet the Obama administration has
already announced its intention to rescind it.
The intent of this rule is not only to educate and raise awareness about the
existing laws that protect the conscience rights, but also to give doctors
and medical students a recourse for discrimination complaints.
Discrimination stories are abundant, and good doctors, nurses and medical
students are being forced to give up their practices because of their moral
convictions.
In a time when baby boomer healthcare providers are retiring at record
numbers and a diminishing number of applicants are going to medical schools,
we continue to nurture a hostile environment which penalizes healthcare
providers who exercise their right of conscience. The result will be a
severe reduction in doctors and nurses in places where they are most needed,
leaving patients without necessary medical care.
If President Obama rescinds the conscience rule, it's very possible that not
only doctors will stop practicing if forced to perform abortions against
their will, but faith-based hospitals will also be forced to close their
doors. If this occurs, local economies will take a severe hit in loss of
jobs and healthcare expenses will skyrocket.
Not exactly healthcare access for everyone, as Obama has promised.
Upon learning that Obama planned to rescind the conscience clause, Sen. Tom
Coburn (R-Okla.), an OB/GYN doctor himself, said that he would rather face
jail time than perform an abortion or any other act that, as a doctor, he
morally opposes.
Healthcare quality exists when there is sound science and open communication
between patients and doctors. Should the conscience clause be rescinded, the
government enters into the sacred space of communication between patients
and doctors, effectively telling doctors what they can or cannot say. Since
when in America have we moved into a socialistic system of government?
Doctors should not be required to check their conscience at the door when
they provide care to their patients or go through training. It's a matter of
freedom and constitutional rights. It's the essence of being an American.
Renew America
27 March, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Bryan Fischer
The Idaho House of Representatives will soon take up a bill, House Bill 216
(HB216) designed to protect the conscience rights of pharmacists and
pharmacies.
This bill, despite strenuous opposition from the usual suspects such as
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, passed out of the House State Affairs
Committee on a 14-4 vote.
This bill is designed to establish conscience protections for Idaho
pharmacists, to insulate them from being forced to dispense drugs that would
violate their moral or religious convictions.
This is of particular significance with regard to the so-called "morning
after" pill, otherwise known as "emergency contraception" or Plan B.
Remarkably, a federal judge has ordered that this high-dosage birth control
pill be made available to 17-year-olds without prescription, even though the
lower dosage version can't be dispensed without one.
The problem here is that Plan B can cause an abortion at the earliest stage
of human development, by preventing the implantation of a fertilized embryo
on the uterine wall.
Planned Parenthood ludicrously claims this is not an actual abortion, which
it does through deceptive verbal sleight-of-hand. Planned Parenthood simply
defines "pregnancy" as beginning with implantation rather than conception,
and presto-chango, you get a free pass on the first seven to 10 days of
human life.
But a fertilized embryo is in fact a human life at its earliest stage of
development, and Plan B can flush this tiny little human being out of a
woman's body by preventing its life-sustaining attachment to the wall of the
mother's womb.
The conscience implications here for a pharmacist with pro-life convictions
are obvious, and are particularly acute for every pharmacist who takes
seriously the Hippocratic Oath and the ethical obligation it imposes to
"Above all, do no harm."
Pharmacists are drawn to the medical profession out of a desire to assist in
therapeutic treatment. They are driven by a desire to heal, not to harm.
No pharmacist should be compelled to violate his own conscience or put his
livelihood at risk by being pressured to dispense a drug that can endanger a
human life and cause its death.
Our Founding Fathers would agree. They believed that freedom of conscience
is a fundamental right, and in fact may have considered it the most
fundamental of all rights.
Thomas Jefferson said that no provision in the Constitution "ought to be
dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the
enterprises of civil authority."
At another place, he said, "We are bound, you, I, every one, to make common
cause...to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience."
James Madison, the Father of the Bill of Rights and author of the First
Amendment, said, a man's conscience is "the most sacred of all property."
He elaborated: "The particular glory of this country (is) to have secured
the rights of conscience which in other nations are least understood or most
strangely violated."
George Washington advised all Americans to "labor to keep alive in your
breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
Tellingly, and right on point, he also said, "The conscientious scruples of
all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness: and it is my
wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to
them."
Samuel Adams, the Father of the Revolution, likewise considered liberty of
conscience to be an original right.
The United States Supreme Court likewise has affirmed conscience as a
fundamental right, ruling in
Cantwell v. Conn. that "Freedom of
conscience...cannot be restricted by law."
The Court also upheld a conscience clause exempting men from the draft who
were opposed to military service due to "religious training and belief,"
because war involves the ultimate matters of life and death.
My own father served as a medic rather than an infantryman in World War II
because our nation granted Conscientious Objector status to those whose
moral convictions prohibited them from taking human life even in the cause
of a just war.
No pharmacist should be forced, against his own conscience, to dispense
drugs that would make him, in his own judgment, an instrument of death.
Of the 50 states, 47 of them provide some degree of protection to healthcare
providers who conscientiously object to certain procedures, indicating that
it is the will of the American people through their elected representatives
that we do not want to force healthcare providers to have to choose between
their consciences and their livelihoods.
Among the first obligations assumed by medical professionals who take the
Hippocratic Oath is, "Above all, do no harm." Professional pharmaceutical
associations have given explicit recognition to freedom of conscience as a
fundamental right for healthcare providers.
For instance, the American Pharmaceutical Association in its
Code of
Ethics includes this statement: "APhA recognizes the individual
pharmacist's right to exercise conscientious refusal..."
And the American Society of Health-Care System Pharmacists recognizes "the
right of pharmacists...to decline to participate in therapies they consider
to be morally, religiously or ethically troubling."
No pharmacist with deep-seated conscience convictions, particularly on the
subject of the sanctity of human life, should be forced to dispense drugs
that in his judgment endanger human life rather than protecting it and
healing it.
When pharmacist Jim Ineck gave testimony before the House Committee, he
rehearsed for committee members the pressure he felt when hired by a Boise
area hospital to dispense medication regardless of any religious or ethical
qualms he may have had. He subsequently left that hospital for one
friendlier to convictions of conscience.
Mr. Ineck told me after the hearing about a pharmacist friend of his who
practiced in Illinois. After Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (yes, Blago
himself) issued an edict in 2005 requiring all pharmacists to fulfill all
prescriptions regardless of conscience scruples, Ineck's friend was fired
from his job, had his license suspended for six months, and was forced to
pay a hefty fine. This clearly is far from a merely theoretical issue.
A vote for HB 216 is a vote that puts lawmakers on the side of our Founding
Fathers, the Supreme Court, lawmakers in 47 states, and leading professional
medical associations.
That's good company to keep.
Pharmacist Jim Ineck gave testimony before the House Committee, and
rehearsed for committee members the pressure he felt when hired by a Boise
area hospital to dispense medication regardless of any religious or ethical
qualms he may have had. He subsequently left that hospital for one
friendlier to convictions of conscience.
Mr. Ineck told me after the hearing about a pharmacist friend of his who
practiced in Illinois. After Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (yes, Blago
himself) issued an edict in 2005 requiring all pharmacists to fulfill all
prescriptions regardless of conscience scruples, Ineck's friend was fired
from his job, had his license suspended for six months, and was forced to
pay a hefty fine. This clearly is far from a merely theoretical issue.
On behalf of all of us in the IVA network, I sent a letter to each member of
the Idaho House today, which you can read at the first link below. In the
letter, I stress the noble history liberty of conscience has enjoyed in
America, and suggest that it may well have been the most fundamental human
and civil right of all in the minds of the Founders.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington and Samuel Adams all
explicitly affirmed the fundamental importance of protecting liberty of
conscience in America. Madison referred to it as "the most sacred of all
property," and Washington declared that "conscientious scruples" should be
jealously guarded, and expressed his wish that "the laws may always be
extensively accommodated to them."
Foster's Daily Democrat
21 March, 2009
Aggie Dowd
What is going on in America, the land of the free? It's not pretty; it's not
even practical; and it smacks strongly of anti-Catholic bigotry.
President Barack Obama wants to force the largest not-for-profit provider of
health care services in the nation, and all of its employees, to participate
in procedures - such as abortion and sterilization - that are contrary to
their deeply held moral beliefs and religious principles.
I'm speaking of the Catholic health ministry, which dates back to 1727,
includes more than 2,000 hospitals, and serves all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. Now, tell me why - in this time of national worry over
our medical care system - why would the president want to jeopardize the
existence of Catholic hospitals where one in six patients in the United
States are treated? There is only one answer: When it comes to those who
believe in the sanctity of life, there is no freedom to choose.
President Obama wants to remove the December 20, 2008 Health and Human
Services (HHS) provider conscience rule that codifies existing federal
statues enacted by Congress in 1973, 1996 and 2004 to protect the role of
conscience in health care.
There is not much time to protest. The "comment" period regarding the
removal will close on April 9th.
With bipartisan support, Congress over the last 36 years has enacted many
laws to protect the right of conscientious objection for health care
providers. The 1973 Church amendment (named after its prime sponsor, Sen.
Frank Church [D-Idaho]), declares that receipt of federal funds in various
health programs does not require participation in abortion or sterilization
procedures; protects the general conscience rights of individuals in
federally-funded health service programs; and prohibits entities that
receive public health service funds from discriminating against applicants
who decline to participate in those procedures because of religious beliefs
or moral convictions.
Clear and unambiguous protection for the right of conscience in health care
is needed because our religious freedom, specifically guaranteed in the
Constitution, is under attack. Abortion advocates state unequivocally that
when it comes to abortion, religious freedom must not exist. The American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) project, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive
Rights," states that the "law should not permit an institution's religious
strictures to interfere with the public's access to reproductive health
care."
Andrew Schneider, executive director of Connecticut's ACLU put it this way:
"We have long protected religious liberty rights, but not when it curtails
basic rights to reproductive freedom."
So those who advocate "freedom to choose" abortion are unwilling to allow
those who do not agree with them the same freedom to choose on the grounds
that it hurts a woman's access to such services. Cardinal Justin Rigali,
chairman of the US Bishops' Pro-Life Secretariat, pointed out to Congress
last summer: "If a procedure really elicits widespread ethical disapproval
from conscientious health professionals, and must be imposed on unwilling
physicians and nurses by force of law in order to be available at all, it
may not be as "basic" as pro-abortion groups imagine."
Unfortunately, the statutory policy is relatively unknown, misunderstood and
unenforced, which is why the provider conscience rule is needed. For
example, the Ethics Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists issued an opinion in November 2007 stating that anti-abortion
physicians must do abortion referrals. They had to be reminded by the HHS
Secretary that such coerced referrals are among the abuses that federal
conscience laws have long prohibited.
The Catholic Medical Association noted last week, "The HHS Rule protects a
fundamental freedom of all Americans - to religious liberty and freedom of
conscience... President Obama evidently thinks you can deny conscience
rights on some issues but respect them on others. He is wrong. Denying
respect for conscience on one issue will threaten everyone's right to
conscience."
The General Counsel for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops summed it up
this way: "Refusal to cooperate in a morally evil act is a basic human right
which civil law is obliged to recognize and protect ... . Individuals and
institutions committed to healing should not be required to take the very
human life that they are dedicated to protecting."
President Obama must be reminded that the loss of the Catholic health
ministry will be a grave disservice to many Americans. Please, make your
voice heard before April 9th by sending your comments to:
proposedrescissionhhs.gov.
Aggie Dowd
is the founder of
www.ExceptionalEdit.com
The Florida Catholic
24 March, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Pro-choice. Pro-choice. Pro-choice.
We get a little tired of hearing that moniker for the abortion-rights
movement, since it isn't very accurate. Those who promote and support
abortion on demand, especially those who actively oppose any and all
restrictions to it, don't want to hear about informed choices. . .The latest
arena in which the "pro-choice" folks want to take away choice is to remove
the conscience clauses for health care providers who do not want to be
involved in abortion. . . [Complete
editorial]
An Obstacle to Tyranny
From BreakPoint
3 March, 2009
Reprinted with permission of
Prison Fellowship
Chuck Colson
Last week, what the Washington Post characterized as a "terse
posting on a federal Web site" set the stage for a debate on just how
seriously our society takes freedom of conscience.
The posting announced that the Obama administration was planning to rescind
"job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find
objectionable." These explicit protections were issued in the last few
months of the Bush administration.
Under the current provisions, health care providers can lose federal
funds if they don't accommodate health-care workers "who refuse to
participate in care they feel violates their . . . moral or religious
beliefs."
The regulations covered "state and local governments, hospitals, health
plans, clinics and other entities." Health-care providers and "abortion
rights" advocates were quick to attack the Bush administration for
promulgating the regulations. Groups like the American Medical Association
said they opposed the regulations because, as they put it, "health-care
providers have an obligation" to advise patients "of the options despite
their own beliefs."
At the same time, they said that the regulations were unnecessary because
"there are already laws [that protect] health-care professionals" who refuse
to provide care for personal reasons.
Well, not so fast. The rules were
established in response to what the Catholic Health Association called "a
variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to
perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations."
In a country that treasures freedom, what could possibly justify compelling
people to violate their consciences? There is a long tradition established
in the law and court cases not to do this, as in the case of conscientious
objectors not being compelled to serve in the military.
Reportedly, some
officials believe that protecting health-care workers' consciences creates a
"major obstacle to providing many health services" and even interferes with
"scientific research."
It is difficult to imagine what "scientific research" they have in mind-a
pro-life researcher is not likely to choose a specialty where the
destruction of unborn human life is a pre-requisite.
And by "many health services," what's really meant is "pharmacists." One
of the groups leading the charge for rescinding the rule is the National
Association of Chain Drug Stores. Its members have joined with Planned
Parenthood to force pharmacists to dispense prescriptions that violate their
religious beliefs, even when the prescription can be filled elsewhere.
In other words, the government is considering undermining religious freedom
and freedom of conscience for the sake of convenience. They can't even argue
it's necessary. If someone objects, for conscience' sake, to facilitate
abortion, anybody is free to go to another doctor or druggist.
Remember-freedom of conscience is the first freedom. And people who can be
compelled to act in violation of their most deeply held convictions are not
free in any meaningful sense. The good news is that this appears to be a
"trial balloon" of sorts. Administration officials are expecting lots of
comments on the proposed change. And we shouldn't disappoint them. Let them
know that we value freedom of conscience too highly to let it be sacrificed,
especially to those driven by ideology and profit.
Because what government officials are regarding as an "obstacle" is, in
fact, the very foundation of our freedom-and the first defense against
tyranny.
Hello. I am Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and President
of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I'd like to take a
moment to speak about two principles or ideas that have been basic to life
in our country: religious liberty and the freedom of personal conscience.
On Friday afternoon, February 27, the Obama Administration placed on a
federal website the news that it intends to remove a conscience protection
rule for the Department of Health and Human Services. That rule is one part
of the range of legal protections for health care workers-for doctors,
nurses and others-who have objections in conscience to being involved in
abortion and other killing procedures that are against how they live their
faith I God.
As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we are deeply concerned that
such an action on the government's part would be the first step in moving
our country from democracy to despotism. Respect for personal conscience and
freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government
oppression. No government should come between an individual person and
God-that's what America is supposed to be about. This is the true common
ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom
of conscience and of religion-including freedom for religious health care
institutions to be true to themselves.
Conscientious objection against many actions is a part of our life. We
have a conscientious objection against war for those who cannot fight, even
though it's good to defend your country. We have a conscientious objection
for doctors against being involved in administering the death penalty. Why
shouldn't our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection
to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother's womb?
People understand what really happens in an abortion and in related
procedures-a living member of the human family is killed-that's what it's
all about-and no one should be forced by the government to act as though he
or she were blind to this reality.
I ask you please to let the government know that you want conscience
protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department
of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the
protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health
care services so necessary for a good society. Thank you and God bless you.
Letter to the Editor
Toledo Blade
18 January, 2009
Reproduced with permission
The Blade's Jan. 6 editorial, "Health-care mischief" unwisely attacks a
modest new federal agency regulation that would finally implement 35 years
of First Amendment and civil rights protections designed to keep abortion
"choice" from sliding into abortion "mandate."
The regulation is sorely needed, as health-care professionals who still
follow the Hippocratic Oath and its life-affirming ethical principles are
increasingly discriminated against because they will not perform or refer
for abortions. More than 40 percent of our members report being pressured to
violate ethical principles. Medical students report shifting out of planned
careers in obstetrics because of rampant discrimination in that field
against pro-life professionals.
The new regulation simply implements federal law designed to prevent
discrimination against both those who support and oppose abortion. It would
certainly not be employed, as the editorial incredibly suggests, to "make it
difficult for an individual to obtain a test for HIV or AIDS." The fact is
that the conscientious physicians protected by the anti-discrimination
regulation are the very ones most likely to be ministering to AIDS patients,
the poor, and the medically underserved.
The regulation actually protects the interests of these patients, and of
other patients who seek life-affirming and compassionate physicians - by
making sure those physicians remain able to practice medicine, and that
choice does not become compulsion.
Jonathan Imbody
Vice President for Government Relations
Christian Medical Association, Washington Office
Ashburn, Va.
Mercatornet
26 January, 2009
Reproduced with permission
Nancy Valko
American healthcare workers who oppose abortion and euthanasia could be
squeezed out of their jobs
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did
not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists but
I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the
Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for
me, there was no one left to speak for me." ~ Pastor Martin Niemoeller *
President-elect Barak Obama
has promised to
sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as his first act after taking office.
This benign-sounding law would eliminate virtually every law, legal
precedent and rule enacted in the last 35 years to regulate abortion in the
United States. Although not widely reported, FOCA would also trump
conscience rights for healthcare providers in the area of abortion. The
seeds for this draconian measure were planted years ago and, if signed, FOCA
will set a precedent with far-reaching consequences.
First, a concerted effort started several years ago by abortion
supporters to force pharmacists to supply Plan B (the "morning after pill")
without a prescription and over some pharmacists' moral objections to drugs
that can cause an abortion. Just like the initial roundup of communists in
Pastor Niemoller's quote, there were few public objections except, of
course, from the pro-life community. Some states even enacted laws to force
Catholic hospitals to supply Plan B to rape victims over their objections.
But the agenda was always larger than just the pharmacists and Plan B.
This was made clear when the Bush administration announced
stronger protections for health care providers' conscience rights,
protecting them from workplace discrimination. The reaction was immediate: A
December 24
editorial in the St Louis Post-Dispatch stated, "Doctors,
nurses and pharmacists choose professions that put patients' rights first.
If they foresee that priority becoming problematic for them, they should
choose another profession." (emphasis added) But if the conscience
rights line cannot be drawn at the easily understandable, scientific fact of
abortion, what happens when the discussion turns to euthanasia and the whole
area of end-of-life care?
Barbara Coombs Lee, one of the euthanasia supporters behind Oregon's law
legalizing assisted suicide, exposed the radical agenda behind the war on
conscience rights when
she wrote in January "Now comes a federal rule encouraging workers to
exercise their idiosyncratic convictions at the expense of patient care.
Employees who, for example, might exalt suffering, or disapprove of
discontinuing feeding tubes or respiratory support have license under this
rule to refuse to deliver or support any treatment or procedure." Apparently
Lee also believes that healthcare providers who refuse to participate in
life-ending decisions because of their moral convictions should choose
another profession.
And the proposed destruction of conscience rights for health care
providers is not a peculiarly American issue. For example, earlier this
month, UK ethicist
Baroness Mary Warnock said that doctors who refuse to cooperate in
assisted suicide are "genuinely wicked."
But by eliminating conscience rights for health care providers who adhere
to traditional medical ethics, we will effectively eliminate future as well
as present ethical health care providers from the health care system. And
with a healthcare system solely populated with healthcare providers who are
comfortable with ending life, will medical ethics devolve even further into
mere issues of legality and finances rather than principles?
Thus, Pastor Neimoller's wisdom about the consequences of silence comes
to its logical end with this campaign to end conscience rights: First they
came for the pharmacists, then the nurses, then the doctors. And in the end,
without this thin white line of ethical caregivers who refuse to
deliberately end lives, there is nothing standing in the way of a
conscienceless healthcare system terminating any of us at any age and with
any unfortunate condition.
This is not a mere unintended consequence and we remain silent at our own
peril.
* Lutheran theologian and pastor who opposed the Nazis.
Nancy Valko is president of Missouri Nurses for Life and a
spokeswoman for the National Association of Pro-life Nurses.