See Comment 3, below, before reading this post.
Pres. Obama is moving to undo a regulation put in by Bush 43 that somehow insulated healthcare professionals from punishment if they refused to perform a procedure or render a service that ran contrary to their moral or religious views. So, if you are an obstetrician who refuses to perform an abortion because it is contrary to your personal convictions, you may have reasons other than high malpractice premiums to get into another line of work.
I am not sure of the mechanics of this. But there is an evident trend.
Less than a week into office, Pres. Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of abortions instituted by his predecessor. One could write this off as the typical back-and-forth that happens in policies every time a different party takes over the executive branch. But Pres. Obama's pre-election history with the Infant Born Alive Act indicates that he is not just going along with the "pro-choice" crowd - he is the new point man.
This isn't about the constitution or Roe v. Wade, which then-Senator Obama used, like the cloak in Harry Potter, to disguise his preferences. These are policies that Roe v. Wade did not require or prohibit, that the express language of the Constitution does not require or prohibit. President Obama would deeply wound freedom of conscience with this move.
Even in time of war, we excuse everyday soldiers from the duty to kill (enemy combatants are "viable" by any reasonable definition) if they have a grounded and genuine conscientious objection. Why allow coercion on doctors and nurses who decline to participate in abortions for similar reasons? I believe the answer is, because those doctors and nurses disagree with Pres. Obama on the question of abortion.
In the long run, this move will thin the ranks of pro-life (anti-abortion) healthcare professionals. Pro-choice (pro-abortion) advocates will in later years be able to cite a growing consensus among doctors that abortion . . .fill in the blank. (Do you see similar patterns in journalism and environmental science?). If your goal is to end dissent, better to kill it than to merely gag it.
Regardless of the motivation and grand-scheme potential of this maneuver, it will inflict blunt-force trauma on the civil liberties of healthcare professionals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
p.s. The Bush 43 policy is a "rule" not an "executive order." Pres. Obama undid the executive order having to do with federal funding of abortions. He cannot undo the rule regarding healthcare professionals so easily, but the rule change is in the works.
I just think it's ironic that the whole abortion movement has always focused on "choice" (i.e. if I'm for abortion I say I'm "pro choice"), yet now as far as doctors go it's (literally speaking) anti-choice. I mean it's one thing to say a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body...but now we're going to let them force decisions onto other people as well. I don't get it: if a woman can make conscientious choices for herself then why can't a doctor make decisions about how he runs his practice? Isn't that a double standard? Are pro-life doctors in such short supply that women will be "forced" into pregnancy merely because they couldn't find a doctor? I don't think so.
I think my dad makes a good point by saying Obama has now overstepped Roe v. Wade (not that I agree with it): all it did was keep abortion legal, it never positively enforced it across the board. This is totally going in the opposite direction now, and what scares me is the possible end destination: might we yet see a law that REQUIRES women to have abortions in certain circumstances EVEN IF THEY OBJECT TO IT??!!! Can you imagine...?
Look at people like "octamom" who are relying on welfare to support their babies...might we want to "limit" their family size at a certain point by compelling them to have abortions, so they are less of a drain on society? What if we become extremely overpopulated? I could think of a lot of reasons to force women to have abortions is you don't "morally object" to it (for the record, I personally do, I'm just saying if I didn't then it would make perfect sense to compel it). And yet, when you think about it, there's really no fundamental difference to this new executive rule (as I understand it). It's just an extremely scary precedent in my opinion...that's a HUGE line Obama crossed here, and I doubt many people realize it.
I know this sounds kind of crazy, but it's happened before already. The predecessor to Roe v. Wade was Brown v. Board of Education, which undid segregation in schools. This eventually lead to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which (among other things) put an end to racial discrimination. Fundamentally speaking, what happened there was the prevention of negative laws: i.e. it struck down laws that prevented black people from going to schools or eating or working at certain places. This is similar to Roe v. Wade in that it struck down (as unconstitutional) any law which prevented a woman from having an abortion.
Here's the thing, though: it didn't end there. Shortly thereafter the trend kept on going until it went beyond negative prevention to POSITIVE ENFORCEMENT. What I'm talking about is "affirmative action." Rather than just saying "you can't discriminate people because of skin color or religion," now we start saying "you have to give these certain classes a POSITIVE ADVANTAGE."
Justice Scalia notes a fundamental change here with a staggering parallel to the abortion issue: "The Court today [Johnson v. Trans. Agency, Santa Clara Cty.] completes the process of converting this from a guaranted that race or sex will NOT be the basis for employment determinations, to a guarantee that it often WILL." I think you could say the exact same thing but substitute "race or sex" with "morals," "employment determinations" with "medical procedures" and "the Court" for "Obama." What I'm saying is Obama's "rule" is to Roe v. Wade what affirmative action was to the Civil Rights Act. And if nobody picks up on that (and I doubt they will, Obama still seems to have a free pass with the media and most of the public) then I'm afraid that not only will it "inflict blunt-force trauma on the civil liberties of healthcare professionals," but could eventually extend to every woman in America. Maybe I'm being paranoid--actually I hope I am paranoid because that's a very scary prospect (where women are forced by law to commit--at least what they believe to be--murder!), so I really hope I'm dead wrong. I guess we'll see.
OOPS!
In my haste to react, I overlooked a little factoid in the newspaper article that made a big difference. Jeff brought it to my attention.
The rule that Pres. Obama wants to change wasn't put in place until late in the Bush administration. the article doesn't say which Bush, but the context indicates it's Bush 43.
This makes a big difference because if the protections were so important, it is difficult to understand why they were not a higher priority for the anti-abortion Bush.
I thought about scrapping this post altogether, but decided to let it stand as a monument to my pride and carelessness. Hopefully it will become more of a memorial.
OOPS!
In my haste to react, I overlooked a little factoid in the newspaper article that made a big difference. Jeff brought it to my attention.
The rule that Pres. Obama wants to change wasn't put in place until late in the Bush administration. the article doesn't say which Bush, but the context indicates it's Bush 43.
This makes a big difference because if the protections were so important, it is difficult to understand why they were not a higher priority for the anti-abortion Bush.
I thought about scrapping this post altogether, but decided to let it stand as a monument to my pride and carelessness. Hopefully it will become more of a memorial.
Two points: (1) This new executive order proves that when it comes to moral issues (abortion), it really DOES matter who the president is and what his views are on those moral topics. Therefore, why fault someone who feels strongly about a moral issue and votes or doesn't vote for a presidential candidate based on his or her stance on that moral issue?
(2) Dad, I'm not so sure there isn't language in the Constitution that would prohibit something like this. Correct me if I'm off base with this one. We just started this unit in my con law class, so I'm definitely no expert. There is a branch of due process jurisprudence called "substantive" due process (as opposed to "procedural" due process). The basic idea is that IF the government is going to deprive you of life, liberty, or property, it has to have a darn good reason to do so. There have been many cases where state and federal laws have been found unconstitutional because they curtail and infringe upon people's ECONOMIC liberties of practicing their profession how they choose.
I'm wondering if a pro-life doctor who wanted to challenge Obama's order, which would penalize him or her if they refused to perform an abortion because of their personal or religious beliefs, could attack the order on an economic substantive due process theory? I'm curious what the government would come up with as a "good reason" to infringe on doctors' liberties to run their practice like they want! Like Jeff said, I'm sure there are plenty of doctors out there (who practice in abortion clinics and elsewhere) who have no personal or religious qualms of aborting babies. Why not leave the ones who prefer not to alone? I hope that a Dr.challenges the constitutionality of this order in the courts - or better yet, lobbies congress to legislate it out of existence. Either way, I think the order violates the 5th amendment of our Constitution.
Post a Comment