Brody File
CAPITAL J
Christianity Today Politics Blog
CNN Belief Blog
Daniel Schultz
David Gibson
dotCommonweal
Faith and Reason
James Besser’s Political Insider
In All Things
NCR Today
Religious Connections
RD Blog: The Devil’s Advocate
Episcopal Café: The Lead
Talk to Action
Under God
Whispers in the Loggia
Because Americans have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, the government is obliged to provide military personnel with chaplains at public expense. Americans also have a constitutional right to abortion. So the government also should be obliged to provide pregnant military personnel with access to abortion services, no?
No. As Elisabeth Bumiller reports in today’s New York Times:
Current law bans abortions in most cases at military facilities, even if
women pay themselves, meaning they must go outside to private hospitals
and clinics — an impossibility for many of the estimated 100,000
American servicewomen in foreign countries, particularly in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
A provision of the pending Pentagon policy bill (the same one that does away with Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell) would permit pregnant service women to use their own funds to obtain abortions at military facilities–as was the case during the early years of the Clinton presidency. This is one of those abortion footballs that’s been kicked back and forth over the years, depending on which party has the whip hand in Congress.
Given the importance to the Obama Administration of DADT and the demonstrated strength of anti-abortion forces in Washington these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if the provision disappears from the bill. But as a matter of constitutional principle, it’s not clear to me why sauce for the religious goose shouldn’t be sauce for the abortion gander.
posted June 11, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Somebody has to perform these abortions to which people have a right. Do you favor compelling physicians and nurses to do so?
posted June 11, 2010 at 7:46 pm
A woman in the military can’t get an abortion at a millitary facility? That is ridiculous! It is as ridiculous as the DADT rule still in policy. It would be great if indeed that is done away with when DADT is done away with. Religion once again rears it’s head, making women subject to MEN’s rules when it comes control to their reproductive rights.
posted June 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm
No, I don’t favor compelling physicians and nurses to perform abortions if they are morally opposed to doing so. Just as I don’t favor compelling, oh, Baptist chaplains to conduct Mass for Catholic military personnel.
posted June 11, 2010 at 10:26 pm
“No, I don’t favor compelling physicians and nurses to perform abortions if they are morally opposed to doing so. Just as I don’t favor compelling, oh, Baptist chaplains to conduct Mass for Catholic military personnel.”
Indeed, and since the military has an obligation to provide religious services for all of their personnel requesting such services, what usually happens is that an elisted soldier of that particular faith is allowed to lead the services, with the supervision and assistance of the chaplain assigned to the unit. A friend of mine in the Army who is Wiccan has done this a number of times, once under the supervision of a chaplain who was Southern Baptist. I believe these people are referred to as ‘contact personnel’ for the various religious faiths.
I see no reason to compel a physician in the Army to perform an abortion. I am confident that the Army could find a willing physican in its ranks to perform the procedure or make arrangements for the woman to receive the services at a competent civilian hospital, all covered by the military insurance program.
posted July 10, 2010 at 9:27 am
good