Some of you think: the women in cases like this can just "go elsewhere". In the woefully inadequate healthcare system we have today, that is not a real answer. Many people are tied to a health plan at a job which requires them to use the services of a select group of providers. And those providers, frankly, ought to provide what the patient wants.
Conscience Clause: For What?
Tuesday August 19, 2008
I am not opposed to a very narrowly crafted conscience clause where the issue is the sincerely held belief by a person that he or she is being asked to take a "life". This means that conscientious objectors to war can refuse to carry a gun (or participate directly in the institution of war which they oppose). It could mean that a doctor could not be compelled to perform a "lethal injection". And I would include a provision for a doctor who shares the McCainian belief that fully legally protectable life begins at the moment of conception not to do an abortion. But, Jay, I know you would not be satisfied with this. You want a claim of "conscience" to negate any requirement that an individual doesn't want to perform: the police officer who won't stand guard at a womens' clinic to protect the doctors who may enter to perform abortions; the cab driver who won't drive somebody carrying home a sealed bottle from the liquor store; the teacher who won't teach evolution because he doesn't "believe in it", and on and on. To you, religious beliefs nearly uniformly trump the beliefs of third parties affected by that religious belief. We can't run a pluralistic nation that way and the Constitution doesn't mandate that we even try.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About Lynn v. Sekulow
Lynn v. Sekulow is an ongoing debate blog--a blogalogue--about how big (or little) a role faith and religion should play in American politics and government, featuring the two leading voices of the church/state battle: American Center for Law & Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn.
Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates’ positions and political party statements, the Rev. Barry Lynn and Jay Sekulow are offering analysis in their individual capacities as lawyers and commentators. They are not speaking on behalf of Americans United for Separation for Church and State or for the American Center for Law & Justice. Those organizations do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this dialogue should be construed as the positions of the respective organizations.
Archives
About the Authors
Rev. Barry W. LynnExecutive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational organization that defends religious liberty by opposing government interference in religion
» Posts by Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Jay SekulowChief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization focused on protecting religious freedom, American families, and human life.
» Posts by Jay Sekulow
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
abortion, Abortion, ACLU, Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Chief Justice Roberts, Congress, Constitution, election, Establishment Clause, Fairness Doctrine, First Amendment, free speech, graduation, health care, IRS, John McCain, Mexico City Policy, National Day of Prayer, news, News, politics, Politics, President Obama, pro-life, Rick Warren, Senate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, Ten Commandments
Blogroll
Recent Comments
- HG commented on Will You Help Us Stop 'The Family's' Intolerant Agenda?: Yeah Boris
- Malthus commented on Keep the Faith & the Ten Commandments Poster: Boris, I
- Boris commented on Will You Help Us Stop 'The Family's' Intolerant Agenda?: Uh excuse
- Boris commented on Self Interest and Religious Discrimination Mark Anniversary of Obama Faith Based Initiative: Cara, What
- Boris commented on Keep the Faith & the Ten Commandments Poster: Malthus, A
- HG commented on Will You Help Us Stop 'The Family's' Intolerant Agenda?: Sorry, but
- HG commented on Transparency Remains Elusive: "Unfortuna
- Your Name commented on Transparency Remains Elusive: Unfortunat
- Your Name commented on Transparency Remains Elusive: Posterity-
- Your Name commented on Will You Help Us Stop 'The Family's' Intolerant Agenda?: Like I sai
The reason they still allow people to remain in the military WHILE preserving conscientious objection is that there are times when people are FORCED (via draft) to be IN the military.
Nobody is forced to be a doctor in a specialty working in a clinic where abortions might be performed. (Note all the steps it takes to end up even in the position where doing an abortion would even be possible. Nobody is going to make a podiatrist do an abortion, for instance.)
You have to use some more equivalent examples.
Are Muslim cabdrivers forced, against their conscience, to transport people carrying alcohol? YES.
Are Muslim cashiers forced, against their conscience, to handle pork products? YES.
They have CHOSEN to be in both that field, and to work in that site, where such activities are a common, and expected part of any employee's job. If they don't want to do that, they can work where that won't happen.
If the cabdriver takes a job as an independent driver, able to transport whom he wants, problem solved.
If the cashier changes jobs to a clothing store, or hardware, problem solved.
If the doctor doesn't pick one of a handful of specialties even qualified to do an abortion, or works in a private practice where he wouldn't do any surgical procedures at all... problem solved.
Oh, and as was pointed out above..
There IS no 'conscientious objector' career path in the military. The military isn't changing what it is, what it does, or its mission to cater to the conscience of that objector.
It is making a brief niche, knowing there's a few positions available that fit, where they can go while they 'serve their time'. The objector isn't volunteering FOR the military, they are serving their mandated time and getting out.
AND, the military isn't changing job descriptions for them. You aren't going to find a conscientious objector demanding to get into the infantry, then saying they can't be made to hold a gun. They simply choose and are given the choice of jobs where holding a gun isn't in the job description.
The equivalent in the medical field would be to not get INTO that field. The doctor would, if they wanted to be treated equivalently, change their specialty, if already chosen, to one where the thing they objected to would not be part of the job description.
Please understand that no physician will ever be REQUIRED to perform an abortion. If the Obama administration revokes this rule, it does NOT change a physician's right to refuse. This is well-written as follows (from website above):
Dan Nejfelt, a Senior Communications Associate in the moderate Evangelical group called Faith in Public Life group sent The Brody File the following analysis:
“It’s important to remember that regardless of what becomes of the conscience clause regulations under review, doctors will NOT be required to perform abortions against their will. There’s a thirty-year history of legislation ensuring this, and even completely overturning the regulations in question can’t change it. What the conscience clause is far more likely to affect is access to prescription birth control, which can drastically affect the number and rate of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. In keeping with the President’s repeated statements about the need to reduce abortion, ensuring access to contraception is a logical goal. I don’t know what this review process is going to lead to, but it seems consistent with a commitment to reducing abortion.”
Someone in the debate wrote that one shouldn't even be a doctor if he or she does not want to peform abortion because abortion is the job description in the medical field. Abortion was never a part of a job description in the medical field. Helping people to recover their healthy lifestyles is the job description. So, to disqualify someone of his or her hope of becoming a medical professional just because he or she refuses to perform abortion, to some of us is a pure murder, does not justify one's belief that such person not supporting abortion should not be doctors or nurses or any other type of medical professionals.
This is not a pluralistic society. We, the United States of America, were founded on Christian principles and this should remain a Christian nation. The Conscience Clause is certainly needed to protect the rights of medical professionals who do not want to take life. Many went into the profession for this very reason: to save life versus extinguish it in a barbaric way through abortion procedures that butcher a little life. A Conscience Clause is needed for those who actually have a conscience.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.