It's been a busy time for Illinois Governor Blagojevich at the Illinois Supreme Court. Last week, the state's highest court refused to hear a case involving a challenge to the Governor's fitness to remain in office as he battles corruption charges. That was the big story.
But there was also a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court last week - one you probably didn't hear much about - a decision handing the Governor a defeat concerning a troubling administrative regulation he issued years ago concerning the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals.
We serve as co-counsel for two pro-life pharmacy owners in
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit was not "ripe" for adjudication because the pharmacists had not yet actually suffered any concrete harm from the regulation. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review of the case and heard arguments in March.
Just days ago, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision and reversed the lower courts and ruled that our clients are entitled to their day in court. The high court held that the case was indeed "ripe" for consideration and sent the matter back to the trial court.
The
The court stated: "In its current form [the regulation] has an even greater concrete and coercive impact on plaintiffs. The rule now expressly requires that plaintiffs must stock and dispense Plan B contraception. Under the current version, the simple failure by plaintiffs to make efforts to stock the contraceptive in question would subject plaintiffs to a range of penalties, including license revocation. Under these circumstances, application of the rule to plaintiffs cannot be considered remote. Instead, the rule affects their business operations on a day-to-day basis and exposes plaintiffs to strong sanctions."
This favorable decision on standing really does represent a major victory for pro-life health care professionals in
In its opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court also determined that " . . . they [Gov. Blagojevich and other state defendants] have publicly stated that they will vigorously prosecute pharmacists with religious objections to drive them out of the profession and that a pharmacy must fill Plan B prescriptions without making moral judgments if it wants to stay in business."
In the trial court, we will assert that the Governor's order is in direct conflict with both state and federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care workers. The Governor is clearly determined to force out of their profession pharmacists whose moral codes differ from his.
We look forward to presenting our case in court and remain hopeful that the legal system will uphold a principle that most Americans understand - no American should be forced to make a choice between their conscience and their livelihood.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Boris,
Thanks for the history of "quickening". You taught me something. However, if something is wrong (which I know we have disagreements on this), then legal precedent or history doesn't change the fact it is wrong.
As far as medically, I realize that an unborn baby is 100% dependent on one individual. And I also understand what you said concerning being a separate individual. But when I look at ultrasonography, as well as naked-eye observations, I see something that expresses individual characteristics....such as movement with certain music, sucking its thumb, response by movement to certain voices and no movement to others. Conscience forces me to believe that the 6 characeristics of life, coupled with individual characteristics points to the fetus being a living, human being.
human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
The key word is, of course, "individual". Now, let's look at the definition of "individual".
in⋅di⋅vid⋅u⋅al
–noun
5. Biology.
a single organism capable of independent existence .
"Independent existence" is another key phrase. Here is the final definition:
or⋅gan⋅ism
–noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes .
As you can see a fetus, embryo, and zygote fit none of these descriptions. So if a fetus is neither an individual nor an organism, what can it be? Because it resides inside and uses the organ systems of the woman carrying it, it is assumed that it is part of the larger organism of the woman.
The issue of it having separate DNA is explained if the fetus is described not as an individual organism but as a graft inside of the mother. There are four main types of grafts, and because the fetus has a very similar genetic makeup to the mother, it can be described as a "semiautogenic graft" or a "semiallogenic graft".
An autogenic graft refers to when the donor and recipient are genetically identical, while an allogenic graft refers to when the donor and recipient are not genetically identical but within the same species. Because a fetus' DNA is half of the woman's it is perhaps more accurately described as "semiallogenic."
This graft is not automatically rejected for several reasons, mainly because of hormones released during pregnancy that weaken the rejection method of the immune system and causes the body to recognize this graft as part of itself. When the graft is finally rejected, birth or miscarriage follows.
It is a serious flaw to state that the fetus and woman are two separate entities, and that the fetus itself is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body. Therefore any legislation passed to prevent her from having an abortion is essentially legislation passed to control a part of her body.
I owe a major part, if not all, of this post to this website.
Grasping the essence of the abortion issue
The two key issues to focus on are: the nature of a fetus, and the nature of individual rights.
The first issue to grasp is the difference between potential and actual. A fetus is not an actual human being, but is human tissue. A fetus is only a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. That a fetus is potential human being, does not make it an actual one. Once you grasp this point, you need to grasp a much more complex point — which is not self-evident — about the nature of rights.
The second issue to grasp is that rights only apply to actual human beings. Rights only apply to human beings; they apply to human beings because man survives by reason. Men do not survive — at least for long — like animals do in the jungle. Rather then hunting for food like an animal, man grows it. He builds houses to protect himself from hurricanes and storms. He creates clothing to keep warm. He discovers drugs to kill bacteria that may cause him harm. He manufactures refrigerators to keep his food fresh. This is why man has rights — and animals do not — to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking. As a fetus does not use reason to survive; but, rather it survives on the sustenance provided by the body of its' host, a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights. A fetus has no right to life, liberty, property.
The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of 'right' it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host — the pregnant mother — a slave. Slavery is not a right.
This in essence is the case for a woman's moral right to abortion: a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings (whether a new born child, or a hundred year old grandfather, or a pregnant woman), as they require freedom to act by the use of their mind.
A fetus is not a human being under state law, according to the Minnesota Supreme Court in a decision that means a man who was accused of killing an 8 1/2-month-old fetus in an automobile accident cannot be charged in the death.
In a 6-to-1 ruling, the court said no specific state statute deals with the question of whether a fetus is a human being and that the Legislature has never precisely defined the term ''human being,'' even though it has been used in homicide statutes since territorial days.
The ruling upholds a decision by a county judge, Hyman Segell. John Wodele, executive assistant to Tom Foley, the Ramsey County Attorney, said no appeal would be filed.
The case stems from a November 1984 traffic accident in which a car driven by John Soto of St. Paul collided with a vehicle driven by Jannet Anne Johnson, who suffered a fractured pelvis and broken leg in the accident and underwent a Caesarean section, resulting in a stillbirth.
By Elizabeth O'Brien
SEOUL, July 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On July 9 the Supreme Court of South Korea stated that a human fetus is not a human person until the morning that the mother goes into labor, JoongAng Daily reports.
The ruling was based on a case that took place in 2001 when a 37-year old pregnant woman gave birth to a stillborn baby two weeks overdue. When the woman experienced no labor pains at the natural time, she was advised by a midwife to wait past her delivery due date. They finally delivered the baby through Caesarean section, but the child had already died from brain damage. The mid-wife was charged with "negligent injury," and later "negligent homicide."
According to JoongAng, the court ruled that the child was separate from the mother's body, and therefore the midwife could not be charged with "negligent injury." She was also not guilty of "negligent homicide," for, as the final ruling stated, "The mother did not have labor pains, which is the beginning of childbirth, thus the unborn baby cannot be recognized as a human being."
The decision was in accordance with past court rulings in 1982 and 1998, which stated that an unborn child could only be ruled a person after labor begins. Commenting on the present legal position, Presiding Judge Park Si-hwan declared, "Right now, it is too early to change Korea's legal point of view that an unborn child is not a human being."
The ruling has raising an outcry from Catholics throughout the country, AsiaNews states. Fr. Lee Dong-ik, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Korea and a member of the Bioethics Committee at the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Korea, called it an "extremely shocking and deplorable verdict." He said, "Every country has slightly different legal grounds on when to consider an unborn a human being, but no country has such a definitive ruling that an unborn baby is not a human being."
Calling the ruling a "social defeat", he continued, "We are living in an era in which a 21-week unborn child can be saved with an incubator. It is unacceptable to see a verdict where a 42-week unborn is not considered a human being".
Korea is in line with Canada and Germany's position that an unborn baby is not considered a human person. Abortion can merit a punishment, however, of up to one year in prison. In 2002 France also ruled that an unborn baby is not a human person.
At present, Canada has no legal punishment when the murder of a mother causes the death of her unborn child. In the United States, however, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), declares that all children "in utero" are considered a second-and distinct-victim of violence in the case of the mother being injured.
It is fascinating, in the same way that a horrible car crash attracts attention, to read the positions of the fundamentalist/conservative/literalistic/followers-of-ancient-traditions* here.
The hatred towards women is just as strong as the hatred towards gays.
Both can only be based on the fear that when women and gays have full human rights, the oppressors will no longer be able to abuse them.
Sad.
Personally, I am opposed to abortion. Of course, as a homosexual and a man, I have absolutely no standing. Therefor, I advocate letting the woman confronted with a pregnancy choose for herself what is best. How can I know? I can't.
One of the most important aspects of this debate which the fundamentalist, conservative, literalistic and followers-of-ancient-traditions Christians overlook is that their control over government may not be permanent. Once you replace neutral, secular government rule with theocratic rule, there is always the chance that your particular brand of hatred will be replaced by another sect whose beliefs are antithetical to yours. I have never once been able to get that through the heads of these fundamentalist, conservative, literalistic and followers-of-ancient-traditions, it seems as though they really think they will have the permanent majority.
Hmm, seems a certain political party thought that until recently, theym too would rule forever.
If these people really cared about life and not just about oppressing women, they would be doing all they could to provide comprehensive sex education, free and effective contraception, social structures which made it possible for a woman who does become pregnant unexpectedly to either easily place the child in a home in which the child is wanted or to give her the resources to keep and raise the child without driving both into abject poverty.
Don't see any of those folks arguing for even one of those here. Instead, it is hatred of women from beginning to end.
*One of the nastiest aspects of dealing with this prohibitive mindset is that the moment you refer to one as 'fundamentalist', he insists he is no such thing, rather a 'literalistic' follower. Or he is truly liberal, just a follower-of-ancient-traditions. Or a simple, conservative. No doubt I've missed on or the other, but did my best with this designation.
Clearly as stated, the case is not ripe since pharmacists were required at time of trial to stock and distribute Plan B or else face stiff monetary penalties and/or revocation of their license. The Illinois Supreme Court made the right decision, demanding that the trial court hear the case. Pharmacists should not have to violate their conscience by being required to dispense this life-aborting drug.
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.