Pro-Choice, or Pro-Abortion?
President Barack Obama has taken another step in advancing his "pro-choice" agenda. The Chicago Tribunereports that today the new administration "will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs."
Last month, President Obama overturned the Mexico City policy, which prevents taxpayer money from going to groups that provide abortions overseas. The conscience protection that Obama seeks to overturn has stood for more than 30 years.
Supporters say the change is necessary to protect women's health.
Isn't it interesting how often those who wrap themselves in the "pro-choice" flag end up restricting the choices of those with whom they disagree? First taxpayers, and now medical professionals with moral objections to abortion, get their choices nullified.
Perhaps we should be honest and simply call our bright young president what he really is, "pro-abortion."
posted by Stan Guthrie at 11:01 AM
StanGuthrie.com
11 Comments:
Stan,
Let's be clear, the policy Obama is overturning is so new, the ink is not even dry. Bush implemented this in late 2008 and it only went into effect on his last day in office:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101241248
So perhaps the "alarm" you are sound is a bit, unnecessary?
And your return to snark with the "bright young president" line is a step back in the wrong direction. Let's have respectful political discourse, Stan! You can do it. I know you can.
Steve K.,
You are correct that the 'conscience clause' policy is new, but that has no bearing on its merits. I am deeply concerned by the steps Obama has taken to coerce people who believe abortion is morally wrong to support it.
Steven,
I guess I'm still questioning the "merits" of such a policy. Have you read what Grant Brooke has written about the "conscience clause"? Here's the link:
http://matthew25.org/2009/02/on-resending-the-conscience-rule/
Money quote: "Sure, we have allowed a ‘conscientious objectors’ caveat for military service. But once you’ve joined the military, you’re expected to be a soldier." Same thing goes for doctors, lawyers, etc. That makes sense to me. Just curious what others think about that.
Thanks,
Steve K.
Steve K.,
Let's tackle the arguments Brooke is making individually.
1) 'Doctors are not forced to provide procedures they disagree with, yet only make it known to their patients that the procedure is an option.'
Is advising someone that they have the option to murder their brother-in-law ethical? I know that many wouldn't call abortion 'murder' but that is what doctors who refuse to advise it would call it.
2) "The suggestion that this is government overstepping on personal morality is completely false. ... If an attorney could simply follow his or her “conscience” it is doubtful attorney-client privilege would exist."
Is that not an ongoing ethical debate? Should the attorney-client privelege always trump evidence that might disrupt this trust?
3. "The rule was ethically irresponsible because it suggests that the moral burden for personal health decision-making lies with the doctor."
Again, is it right to present all options as equally valid to the patient? Is that really 'caring' for the patient? I would argue that Brooke is creating a false dichotomy between the two.
5) 'Leaving your medical care to the luck-of-the-draw in terms of your doctor’s religious beliefs is ridiculous - especially if the doctor does not have to make her beliefs known when denying the fullness of available care.'
Equating a doctor who refuses to present abortion as a valid option, as Brooke does, with a doctor who refuses to offer medicine isn't a valid comparison. Medicine aims to heal patients; abortion does not. Now there might be differences over what kind of medicine helps the human body, but abortion always snuffs out a life.
Regarding his argument that if you join an organisation, you should play by its rules, does not address whether the rules are ethical in the first place. Are we more interested in questions of truth or just simply seeing the system continue to function the way it has? To take an extreme example (to make the issue clear), should the German soldier who joined the German army in the 1920s have continued to serve under Hitler, even when the leadership had clearly abandoned any semblance of morality? Just because one joins a profession (and don't we all join something to survive!?) does not mean one should put one's thinking cap aside and simply accept things as they are.
Thanks for this thoughtful point-by-point response, Steven.
I guess my question is still, does the so-called "conscience clause" only apply to abortion? Or would this not (at the very least) be a step toward doctors being able to refuse to offer treatment to patients based on whatever "conscience" criteria they might decide? I think it's those kinds of potential ramifications that need to be taken into consideration when judging a policy like this.
Hypothetically, should a non-Christian doctor be allowed to refuse to treat a Christian patient because it goes against their "conscience"? Maybe that's far outside the realm of possibility, but I wonder if pro-life Christians are just not willing to consider those possibilities because they're blinded to the potential downsides of a policy they see as being positively pro-life (and that's all that matters to them).
I'm certainly in favor of doing justice rather than continuing existing systems, I'm just not convinced that these kinds of "conscience clause" policies are necessary or that the pros of such a policy outweigh the cons. But I respect that you disagree on that point. This has been a good discussion. I appreciate it.
Steve K.,
Thanks for your civility! I do think it important that we specify the issue we're talking about (in this case, abortion) when we're discussing 'conscience clauses'. Yes, I agree that it could hypothetically be taken to extremes. But I would rather see the clause more clearly defined than thrown out altogether, as Obama has done.
Steve & Steve,
Thanks for continuing the discussion in my absence. I realize now I misread the article and what Obama is overturning is a new rule. That's not good news to me; it's still a step in the wrong direction, but at least it's not as bad as I'd feared.
But Steve K., I have yet to hear you raise an honest objection to anything Mr. Obama has said or done (while you have seen me repeatedly praise him where I could). Why is that?
I'm assuming you are a Christian. As a Christian, are you comfortable with his position supporting abortion, supporting taxpayer funding of abortion, stripping away a layer of protection for mediocal professionals so that they don't have to perform abortions? Are you? I'm not.
You offer many arguments (some quite good) in support of a supposedly pro-choice president, but you have nothing to say in defense of the unborn who will certainly die because of the decisions of that president. I'm ashamed for you.
Stan
Hey Stan,
I have my objections, but they are far fewer than yours obviously.
The fact that you would question my Christianity over my differing political views is just indicative of why the conservative movement in this country is flailing (more and more, as people like Rush Limbaugh strangle the life out of it).
On the abortion issue, yes, I've voiced my support for Obama's earlier decision to reverse the "global gag rule." Yes, that decision provides financial aid for hospitals and clinics internationally that provide support (information and services) for abortion. But, at the same time, tens of thousands of women will now have medical care which they did not have before. (I wonder, how many women died because of that decision by President Bush?)
I've also voiced my opposition to FOCA, both on my blog and also directly to the Obama administration via the whitehouse.gov site. I'll continue to share my opposition with the White House (and rally others to do so as well), but I'm also fairly confident that FOCA won't make it through Congress, so the "threat" of FOCA is probably overblown. Listen to this interview with Republican (yes, Republican) strategist Rich Galen where he explains as much:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99763938
I don't "support abortion." I want to reduce abortions, just like you do. I just don't support the one-step "pro-life" plan to overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal. Instead, I honestly believe there are better (more effective, more compassionate) ways to address this issue.
Thanks for pushing back and challenging me in my thinking. I sincerely mean that. I respect you a lot, Stan.
Shalom,
Steve K.
Steve,
I was going to apologize for the tone of my last note. I shouldn't question your Christianity. I'm sorry.
I can understand why some Christians might support Obama, but I just cannot grasp why they would support policies that will surely lead to the destruction of innocent human life. So if you say you are pushing him on these issues, I will believe you. Please keep it up. But I wonder what you think we are getting from this administration that will offset this great evil that it supports.
Let me be honest. Seeing our nation backtrack on the progress we have made on this issue is profoundly depressing, discouraging, and dispiriting. God cares for these little ones. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "I tremble for my country when I realize that God is just." We cannot expect God's blessings if we continue to allow the unborn to be nothing more than a "choice" that some may dispense with.
I think I will take a holiday from writing about abortion. It's just too painful to contemplate right now.
Stan
Stan,
Slavery was legal in the U.S. for over 200 years (1654-1865), and abolitionists like Jonathan Blanchard campaigned for decades before Lincoln finally emancipated the slaves. Even then, it took another 100 years before blacks finally began to make real progress. I see abortion as nothing less than a new slavery, silencing the voices of the helpless for the convenience of their 'owners'. Should we be surprised that it takes so long to win the hearts and minds of people? Yes, Obama's policies have done and will do much damage to the cause. But it doesn't change the righteousness of the cause, nor our obligation to continue it. Let us pray that one day our country will witness an 'emancipation proclamation' for the unborn. Don't give up hope.
Steve,
Your comment gives me hope. Thank you.
Stan
Post a Comment
<< Home