News Releases: 2003
Wackiness
Rules as Opponents of AB67 Continue Their Assault on the
Conscience Rights of Health Care Professionals
Wisconsin
Right to Life
For immediate release
Thursday, 22 July, 2003
Last month the Assembly overwhelmingly approved Assembly Bill 67. This
reasonable, common sense legislation would protect the conscience rights
of health care professionals and facilities in the specific areas of
abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unethical medical experiments
involving the deliberate destruction of human life. Authored by Rep.
Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen. Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh), a
public hearing in the State Senate is likely in early fall.
"As AB 67 works its way through
the legislative process, the opponents of the bill are so fearful the
legislation will become law they have resorted to ridiculous
fabrications about what the bill would do," said Susan Armacost,
Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "Some falsely
claim that under AB 67, medication could be denied to an AIDS patient
and that the bill targets birth control and living wills. Some
legislators resorted to extremist name calling, with Rep. Sheldon
Wasserman going so far as to refer to the pro-life movement as the
'Islamic Jihad of Wisconsin.' With such wacky rhetoric being thrown
around by the opponents of AB 67, it is more important than ever to have
a reality check on what the bill would and would not do."
The
majority of the opposition to AB 67 comes from the pro-abortion lobby,
most notably Planned Parenthood, the state's largest abortion provider.
No surprise here since the pro-abortion movement has been involved in a
national effort to force health care providers to participate in
abortion. In Alaska, the state supreme court ruled that some community
hospitals must perform abortions against their will. In Connecticut, a
certificate of need was denied to a proposed outpatient clinic that
refused to perform abortions. Other pro-abortion "successes" have
occurred in other states.
The pro-abortion lobby has even
gone so far as to try to force medical programs to train students to
perform abortions or lose accreditation. In this regard, the radical
pro-abortion lobby has failed, in large part, because of the diligence
of the National Right to Life Committee and their state affiliates, of
which Wisconsin Right to Life is one.
Should the
pro-abortion activists attempt similar tactics in Wisconsin, AB 67 would
protect health care professionals and facilities from involvement in
abortion. The bill would also protect them from participating in the
other areas outlined in the bill … assisted suicide, euthanasia and
unethical research.
Even though assisted suicide
and euthanasia are not legal in Wisconsin and it is unlikely at the
current time that the legislature would legalize them, a court could
overturn our current laws that prohibit these acts. As surely as Roe v.
Wade made our laws against abortion invalid, a court could do the same
thing in regard to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Pro-euthanasia
organizations have targeted Wisconsin in their efforts to strike down
prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia. If that should
occur, AB 67 would give the needed protections to health care
professionals and facilities that want nothing to do with the deliberate
taking of an individual's life.
Actions that are tantamount to
assisted suicide and euthanasia sometimes occur, such as causing the
death of a patient by starvation and dehydration when the patient is not
dying. For many in the health care profession, this is no different
than injecting them with a deadly drug - except that it takes seven to
10 days for the patient to die instead of a few moments. Assembly Bill
67 would protect health care professionals and facilities in these
situations.
In spite of false claims of
opponents of AB 67, the bill does not cover drugs or devices that are
intended to prevent a pregnancy. In fact, the bill distinguishes
between drugs that are intended to cause an abortion and drugs that are
intended to prevent a pregnancy.
Nor does AB tamper with living
wills or any other advance directive for health care, as some falsely
claim. If a patient who has a living will is uncomfortable with a
physician because he/she will not participate in abortion, assisted
suicide, euthanasia or unethical research, that patient can do what
patients typically do when dissatisfied with a physician - they can find
another physician.
Opponents of AB 67 want to
amend the bill to force a physician who objects to abortion to transfer
a pregnant woman to an abortionist. Or force a physician who does not
want to starve or dehydrate a patient to death to transfer the patient
to a physician who is willing to kill the patient in that manner. The
Assembly soundly rejected an amendment that would have mandated such
transfers.
In view of ridiculous arguments
from the pro-abortion lobby and some others, it's time for a reality
check about AB 67. The bill provides health care professionals and
facilities conscience protection only in the areas of abortion,
euthanasia, assisted suicide and unethical research. These are all
activities that intentionally destroy human life. It does not, as
opponents falsely claim, "take aim at living wills," or protect
conscience rights for medical treatments, pain medication, prenatal
care, birth control, fertility treatments, anti-depressant drugs or
anti-seizure medications.
"Assembly Bill 67 recognizes
that many health care professionals and facilities believe their mission
is to treat and heal patients, not to engage in actions that
deliberately destroy human life," said Armacost. "This reasonable and
common sense legislation deserves to be enacted into law."
Contact: Susan
Armacost, Legislative Director
414-778-5780 or toll free:
877-855-5007
Pro-Life Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
14 May, 2003
Madison - The Assembly Labor Committee gave their approval this morning to
Assembly Bill 63, legislation that will provide much needed job security for
pharmacists who conscientiously object to dispensing drugs or devices that
they reasonably believe would be used to cause death through
abortion,
euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, or any other method of intentionally
killing another human being.
In response to compelling public testimony from several Wisconsin
pharmacists last March, the Assembly Labor Committee on a 6 to 2 vote sent
the measure on for expected approval by the full Assembly. Pro-Life
Wisconsin applauds the leadership and support of the bill's author,
Representative Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh), as well as the following Labor
Committee members who voted in favor of AB 63: Committee Chairman Steve
Nass (R-Palmyra), Committee Vice-Chairman Dan Vrakas (R-Hartland), and
Representatives Wayne Wood (D-Janesville), Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend),
Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Beaver Dam), and Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville). The
dissenting votes came from Representatives Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee)
and Terry Van Akkeren (D-Sheboygan).
"In the past ten years new abortion techniques focusing on chemical means to
end the life of preborn babies have received FDA approval or became more
readily available," said Matt Sande, legislative affairs director for
Pro-Life Wisconsin. "While abortion was formerly relegated to a clinical
setting, it is now possible to receive life-ending drugs in a pharmacy, thus
compelling pharmacists to be party to abortion."
Opposing testimony employed the scare tactic that this bill would ban birth
control. "This is not true," said Sande. "The bill will not make drugs
such as the morning-after pill and the birth control pill unavailable. It
simply recognizes that pharmacists, like doctors and nurses, are valued
members of the professional health care team who should not be forced to
choose between their consciences and their livelihoods. Just as a woman's
legal right to surgical abortion should not compel a hospital to provide
one, a woman's legal right to abortifacient drugs should not compel a
pharmacist to dispense them."
AB 63 is modeled after legislation that was enacted into law in March, 1998,
in the state of South Dakota. Missouri and North Carolina are currently
considering legislation that would recognize the rights of pharmacists not
to engage in procedures that violate their consciences.
"People who call themselves 'pro-choice' should especially appreciate the
intent of this bill," said Peggy Hamill, Pro-Life Wisconsin's state
director. "Pharmacists should have the right to choose not to be complicit
in the taking of innocent human life."
Contact: Peggy Hamill, State Director
Matt Sande, Director of Legislative Affairs
(262) 796-1111, (414) 416-0489 or
info@prolifewisconsin.org
Pacific
Justice Institute
23 April, 2003
San Luis Obispo, CA
- After a year of battling, the Cuesta College Federation of Teachers
finally agreed to allow one of its professors to have all of his union dues
diverted to a charity of his choice. Despite making repeated requests,
Professor Paul Bauer had previously been denied the right to divert his
mandatory "fair share" union fees to a charity that did not conflict with
his religious convictions. The choice of charities to which the union had
restricted this instructor were the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Gay and
Lesbian Alliance, and a local scholarship fund that was clearly geared
toward furthering labor union interests.
Acting on behalf of the instructor, the Pacific Justice Institute made
several written formal demands to the union that it either provide a list of
acceptable charities, or allow the instructor to independently select his
own desired charities. In order to prevent a lawsuit against them, the union
finally capitulated. "I am relieved this is finally over," said Professor
Bauer. "I did not want to go to trial, but would have if it had been
necessary. I am extremely grateful to Pacific Justice Institute and their
Affiliate Attorney Richard Kahdeman for their valuable representation."
"Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the unions not only have a
legal obligation to refrain from discriminating on the basis of religion,
they must reasonably accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of the
employees they purportedly represent," said Brad Dacus, president of the
Pacific Justice Institute. "Compliance with Title VII does not end with the
union grudgingly agreeing to divert a religious objector's fees to charity.
The whole purpose of accommodation would be defeated if an employee could be
made to support an organization or fund that profoundly offends his
religious convictions."
Pacific Justice Institute
P.O. Box 4366 •
Citrus Heights •
CA •
95611
Phone:(916) 857-6900
• Fax:(916) 857-6902
info@pacificjustice.org
The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense
organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental
rights, and other civil liberties.
Protection of Conscience Project
5 June, 2003
1155 PM PST
For Immediate Release
A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Victoria makes it lawful to
cause the death of patients by starvation and dehydration. The court has
classified nutrition and hydration not as care, but as 'treatment' that can
by refused by a patient or proxy. Australian health care workers who find
this morally repugnant may now find themselves in a difficult position.
"There are strong ethical traditions that identify nutrition and
hydration as basic care that is owed to any human being," explained Sean
Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "Those who
work within these traditions would no more deprive patients of food and
water
than take their beds and blankets."
The decision in Melbourne involved a 68 year old woman suffering from a
fatal form of dementia known as Pick's Disease, and has spent the past three
years in a vegetative state.
Author Wesley J. Smith cites the case of Marjorie Nighbert, not
terminally ill, who was admitted to a Florida nursing home following a
stroke. Her feeding tube was removed on instructions from her brother. As
she began to feel the effects of dehydration and hunger she begged, "Please
feed me . . . I'm hungry, I'm thirsty." Nursing staff secretly slipped her
small amounts of food and water. The case was eventually reviewed by a
judge, who ordered the process continued. She died in April, 1995.
"Even if this is considered acceptable public policy," said Murphy,
"dissenting health care workers and institutions should not be forced to
participate in what they may consider to be judicially authorized
euthanasia."