Repealing Conscience

From Cal Thomas' column yesterday...

A rule approved in the waning days of the Bush administration established broad protections for health-care workers whose religious faith, conscience or moral misgivings forbid them from participating in an abortion. Last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is still without a confirmed secretary, announced its intention to rescind the regulation. There will be a 30-day period of public comment before the rule is overturned. Here is mine.

No politician can be found who admits to favoring abortion. To acknowledge moral misgivings means that you are at least acknowledging that the beating heart and brain waves extinguished during an abortion are of greater significance than, say, the removal of an appendix or a tumor. Infected appendices can burst, killing the individual. A tumor can grow, become malignant and cause death. A growing unborn child can be born and contribute not only to the betterment of the country, but if you’re utilitarian about it, increase the tax base. Abortion kills a potential taxpayer, which ought to override every other consideration for liberal politicians who are constantly looking for new sources of revenue.

Why do social liberals say they want to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” but then spend all their time on the first two and none on the third? It is relatively simple to reduce the number of abortions, even while keeping them “safe” and “legal.” Show the abortion-minded woman a sonogram of the fetus she is about to destroy. A 2005 survey by Care Net, a network of about 1,000 antiabortion pregnancy centers in the United States and Canada, based in Sterling, Va., found that “72 percent of women who were initially ‘strong leaning’ toward abortion decided to carry their pregnancies to term after seeing a sonogram.” That isn’t depriving a woman of her “choice.” It is providing more information so that her choice will be fully informed.

Carried to its logical conclusion, repealing the “conscience rule” would allow hospitals to require pro-life doctors and nurses to participate in abortions. The Catholic Church teaches that elective abortion is a mortal sin, so the government is considering a requirement that would place a Catholic in the position of risking excommunication and the eternal damnation of his or her soul. Evangelical Christians regard abortion as equally offensive. Where is the separation of church and state when you really need it? [read the entire article here]

Although he takes a little political jab with the taxpayer comment, he otherwise makes some great points. I think a "woman's right to chose" is here to stay, but shouldn't we at least help them make an informed choice? Before you undergo any medical procedure wouldn't you want your doctor to present you with all the facts? And we certainly shouldn't force medical professionals to violate their conscience or the moral teachings of their faith in order to perform an elective procedure. That should be the decision of the doctor, not the government. Where is the separation of church and state when you really need it? Well said Cal.