The New Conscientious ObjectorsAug. 01, 2008
Conscientious objectors usually are celebrated, especially by the left, as standing on religious and moral conviction to oppose a government action, notably military combat, because of their beliefs that all killing is wrong. But there's a double standard when it comes to medical professionals who do not belief in abortion.
The Bush administration, through draft regulations at the Department of Health and Human Services, is considering denying federal funding to any medical facility that does not recognize and allow its personnel to opt out of providing birth control or emergency contraception because of their religious beliefs and moral convictions.
The predictable hackles are being raised by the radical pro-abortion types (abetted by the incredibly misinforming mainstream media) who are trying to make the issue one of defining when pregnancy begins. Nothing could be more disingenuous.
It doesn't matter what the government, or anyone, says about when life begins. If a medical professional believes life begins at a certain point, whose right is it to force that professional to provide services with which he or she morally, ethically, religously and/or scientifically disagrees? Why should they be forced into breaking their oath of doing no harm if they believe abortion does great harm?
Aren't professionals free in this country to practice their chosen trade within their chosen profession's ethics? Why do pro-abortionists think the medical community is the exception?
In short, which side always accuses the other of forcing their believes and values on the rest of us and which side is actually trying to do that by resisting and attacking these commonsense proposals?