It’s All About Choice, People
WHY THE “CONSCIENCE CLAUSE” MAKES SENSE
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews – July 18, 2008 - The Bush Administration has proposed a “conscience clause” to laws providing federal funding for reproductive services.
The clause seeks to protect health care providers from being forced to engage in services which they deem unconscionable, effectively trumping many states’ laws that require practitioners to provide unlimited access to abortion and a bevy of contraceptives.
At its core, the “conscience clause” reinstates choice to health care workers – which is why it’s ironic that it’s come under fire from feminists and liberals, since that’s the crowd that has made “choice” their universal refrain.
This is maybe the most mundane proposal to come out of the Bush Administration – and the one most in line with the Constitution. Seriously, it’s just downright unconstitutional to force practitioners – via governmental medical licensing boards – to provide services which are inconsistent with their values.
The pro-choice crowd talks a big game about the right to privacy, the right to choose, and the freedom of (from?) religion. But apparently those rights are only supposed to apply to the extent that they further the feminist cause.
Of course, the feminists and the ultra-liberals operate under the guise of “family planning,” a phrase they hope will soften the blow of their actual goal.
Because let’s face it: The aim of so-called family planning has nothing to do with planning for a family and everything to do with planning for convenience. Never has there been such a misguided euphemism; never has there been such a corruption of causes.
Adding to the feminist ire are John McCain’s recent comments about contraceptives. When asked by a reporter what he thought about the lack of parity between male and female reproductive health, McCain paused for way too many seconds before responding that he didn’t have enough information to answer.
The lack of parity to which the reporter referred is the fact that Viagra and its progeny receive more and better insurance coverage than birth control. If McCain had any critical thinking skills, he would have answered that erectile dysfunction meds seek to fix that which is broken, while birth control seeks to break that which works just fine.
Far from an indictment of contraceptives, that answer would highlight the insanity of tax dollars going toward fixing what ain’t broken.
Seriously people, we’ve got to quit coddling the ultra-liberal, anything-goes crowd and start upholding the Constitution for a change – including the reinstatement of choice for health care workers.
Comments
By Spencerforhire on July 18th, 2008 at 6:56 am
These are the same people who seek to promote the 1st amendment rights of free speech yet when you opinion differs from theirs they seek to shut you down by saying your words are hatespeech.
They dont like labels yet the first thing they do is label you – conservative, hatemonger, etc.
Its only about choice – THEIR choice – but if YOU want to choose then you shouldnt have that right. Its ok to choose up to the point where it interfers with their choice :-)
Excellent insight Ms. Wilkes!
By Aquinas on July 18th, 2008 at 6:56 am
“…erectile dysfunction meds seek to fix that which is broken, while birth control seeks to break that which works just fine.”
No truer words written. Great perspective. That’s the sacred cow in our society isn’t it, the “freedom of choice” cow. People who choose to make fertility (and/or pregnancy) a medical problem to “fix” expose their real perspective on life. It’s the same with the poulation control folks: “People” are the problem. They’re going to consume all the world’s resources. We need to deal with it before its too late. Doom & Gloom all around. I like what G.K. Chesterton said about birth control: “It does not control any birth. It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control.” He also said, “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”
By FWFIV on July 18th, 2008 at 7:00 am
This “conscience clause” is a heavy handed way to allow practitioners the ability to base treatment on their own moral standards and not the law. If the doctors and nurses have such a problem with THE LAW then maybe they should seek employment in an area of the profession that does not rely on federal dollars.
To argue that this is good policy makes no sense from either the liberal or conservative perspective, and allowing doctors the right to withold medical options from some patients based on personal feelings is ridiculous.
I hope you continue to publicize this issue, because women should know the current Administration’s contempt for their feelings on personal health issues.
Based on some of your comments, it seems that you are arguing against birth control of any sort, since that is “fixing what is broken”.
So I suppose we all can assume you are saving yourself until marriage to Mr. Right?
By rick on July 18th, 2008 at 7:36 am
What!!!! Follow the constitution? Even in the day of the framers, people were forced to do things they didn’t want to do. When faced with a conflict, the great thing about this country is that we have the right to change jobs, get re-educated etc. Better that you campaign for reduction of laws and use of taxpayer assets rather than more laws to protect the intangable. By what constitutional right does the government have the right to use taxpayer money for any social program? Men or women….you need pills, buy your own, don’t expect me to pay for them.
By Guess on July 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
FWFIV -
So do you then think that a doctor who has “enlisted” in the military can also be a conscientious objector? It is the same issue – the “LAW” commands them to make a choice against their conscience – yet, where birth control is concerned its ok to “force” a doctor to go against their moral choice BUT as it applies to the military (which they FREELY JOINED – and probably had pay for their med school), its NOT ok to make them go to a war zone. \
I know several OB’s who – in their heart – its not ok to perform abortions – they want to considered conscientious objectors in the “family planning” arena. BUT the “law” as you describe it – forces them to preform surgerys by telling them the “law” will stop paying for all other services.
Regardless of who is in the WhiteHouse – every doctor should have the freedom of choice – to be a conscientious objector – to not perform proceedures they disagree with. Lawyers can conflict out of cases with reason – let doctors do the same.
You cant have it both ways -
By Yikes-ers on July 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Finally, mediciation done at the whims and moral vicissitudes of my practicing doctor! I would really hate a baseline standard of care that didn’t vary.
Frankly, I would have less problem (way less) with just not allowing any federal dollars to go toward services that provide or fund abortion that are not deemed medically necessary for the mother than this back door attempt to do it in a round about way. What’s next, if I come in from a drinking an driving accident, or with a heart attack does the doctor try to figure out for him/herself if it was my fault before treating me – so as to comport with the doctors morales. Also, this is not just talking about abortion, this is talking about any form of contraception, as defined by the whitehouse, as being ‘abortion.’ And an attempt to cut off federal funding to states that don’t cooperate not just hospitals. Note:
“The White House hopes the new proposal, which defines abortion to include many types of contraception…, will end federal funding to hospitals and states that offer legal abortion and contraception services to women.”
Great, so 30+ states loose all highway funding because George Bush gets offended free condoms might be available. He’d rather us pay the tax burden for the illegitimate kids that arise instead. Bush and Co’s new modo should be “Intrusive moral officiousness and intellecutal bankruptcy gauranteed!”
By Good Job on July 18th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I am totally 100% for the womens right to choose, but now the practioner does not have such a right???? FWFIV thinks that as long as it is her right that it should be done…. no matter what any one else thinks…. If she thinks that the profession rely’s on federal $$$ please tell me one industry that does not…. She is speaking of course of the deadbeats that get have refused to work and yet get handouts….
If a painter/plumber/auto mechanic/etc does not want to do a certain job for what ever reason they do not have to do the service. FWFIV I would assume say that is unconstitutional and want to force these providers to perform…..
Then she has to blame the Bush administration for allowing others their constitutional rights…. The new legislation does not ban anything….
Mandee I am behind you on this one!!!
FWFIV is really an idiot….. why don’t we just become like everyother socialist county…. every one have excactly the same.
By Good Job on July 18th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Yikes-ers you don’t have a clue….. the law does not say it is banned…. just if you have a right to choose…..
You believe that we should force all to wear contraceptives unless they totally want to have a baby…..
Total liberal attitude….. Spend $$$ ….
This does not prevent them from obtaining these from a differant provider….
I bet you are one that is for socialized medicine…..
Amazing!
By Gillon on July 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
So what’s new? “health care practitioners”, i.e. doctors, already exercise a “conscience clause’ in one respect. Many can, and do, refuse to take patients who are on Medicaid. I suppose they find it “unconscienceable” to “engage in services” which they deem not to be profitable enough.
By Yikes-ers on July 18th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Good Job, I must be pretty liberal considering I was happier with the option of not allowing abortion funding from the feds in the first place unless medically necessary…?
Also, where did you get from my comments that I believe that we should force all to wear contraceptives unless they totally want to have a baby… was that from my phrase “free condoms might be available”
Also, is the right to choose the same right that the doctors have to seek employment in private medicine? I would be much happier with a more straight foward law that even further limited abortion rights, as stated (in re: federally funded medicine), however, this law paves the way for doctors to refuse treatment on any number of whims such as the examples mentioned, that is the majority of my beef with – don’t let your hatred of liberals blind you from reading. Also, where did I propose spending more money? You could even infer from my comment that I wanted to limit illegitimate kids to limit welfare liability via contraception – I didn’t realize that was a liberal postions or that it involved “Spend $$$.”
By rick on July 18th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Having spent 20 years in the military…..just as with civilian life, the law has a hold over you only if you’re not willing to stand for your beliefs and take the punishment for non-compliance. A law covering the intangibles i.e. my belief that stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to breed and therefore euthanasa is acceptable, shouldn’t be allowed. Since beliefs are internal, only by the individual has an idea of the validity of the belief. So, since I feel and believe that I shouldn’t have to deal with liberals, I believe a law should be passed allowing me to remain at home and the taxpayer supply me with endless money and women of loose morals..
By Latisha Kirby on July 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I don’t know why somebody wants abortions or rubbers anyways. Don’t they know you get mo’ food stamps and other free stuff when you a baby mama?
By rick on July 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Naw, Billary slowed down that path to riches, fame and fortune. Free is a misnomer anyway…it always costs somebody something. Generally the taxpayers, who due to whiners, end up supporting bad decisions….not mention those ugly mornings after hazy nights of bad shit and waking up next to baby’s momma after the concert.
By Margaret on July 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“…erectile dysfunction meds seek to fix that which is broken, while birth control seeks to break that which works just fine.â€
Brilliant, Mande! With one simple sentence, you expose the twisted logic that passes for morality today. Contemporary liberalism – with its focus on convenience, pleasure, and instant gratification – has managed to blind most people to the truth inherent in Natural Law. So now, a doctor who understands this natural law – and is, hence, loathe to perform an abortion – is considered a misogynist? It’s a crazy world and just getting crazier…
Aquinas, I’m thrilled to find another Chesterton fan here at FITSNews…
By Vagabond on July 18th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Taking this silly logic to the extreme, maybe doctors should be allowed to deny care to homosexuals, or blacks, or Sic Willie. After all, it’s their personal choice right?
All this “choice” argument would do is result in a de facto ban on certain procedures in poor, rural areas. For example, take any podunk South Carolina town where both doctors decide it’s “un-Christian” to offer abortion. The middle-class teenager has her parents quietly drive her to Charlotte or Atlanta for the procedure, but the minimum wage woman with no car is stuck without any other options. So she has the kid, goes on welfare, and we all pay for it. Yeah, that’s so much better.
By q. on July 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Finally, FITS gets it right on the issues (never mind the usual absence of tact and presentation skills)! However, I don’t know if I would have gone so far as to frame McCain’s response as a lack of critical thinking skills. After all, it’s fair to say that no one on the FITS staff really has to think about much from day to day other than which blog to steal from next. Not to mention the fact that few, if any, of us can say we’ve ever been in a situation that requires such critical thinking as being a prisoner of war. All the same, good writing. I give it a B minus.
~Quintus
By Guero on July 19th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Well, Mande, congratulations, you’ve reached a higher level of intellectual dishonesty. In the past, we could write off your mumblings as simply ignorant. Now, you’ve achieved dishonesty.
There are no state laws that require unlimited access to abortion. PERIOD. You can’t name one because it doesn’t exist.
There are two options when it comes to analysis of this ignorance. Simple gross stupidity or dishonesty. Since the law is clear and has been for many decades that there is no unlimited right to abortion, incompetence can be ruled out and bald-faced lyin’ is the diagnosis by elimination.
I am amazed at y’all in the Sex Police brigade coming out of the shadows and at least by implication now publishing your decades-long hidden agenda of outlawing birth-control pills.
Your duplicity still had to be hidden behind the wingnut buzz words of unlimited abortion as a strawman but at least your hidden agenda is now receiving some sunlight. Keep it up, Mande, you’re a leader in the Repugnant Party’s march back into Luddite Party territory. I, for one, am looking forward to your party’s contraction into its real roots as a sectional irritant.
By SC Lawyer III on July 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I think the FITS argument is the same one made by business owners that opposed segregation, saying it was downright unconsitutional to force service of blacks on people whose values opposed it.
By Christina Martin on July 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
You know, there’s a patient’s rights issue here too. I, as a patient, have a right to choose a doctor who does not harm women or babies. Refusing to allow a conscience clause removes my right to competent and compassionate health care.
By kay on July 30th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I’m assuming this was added to stumbleupon because it’s outrageous, and I am certainly outraged. How dare you bourgoisie and politicians tell me that you know better than I do about what I should do with MY OWN BODY?! Doctors take oaths to provide service to the people. I disagree with idiots… therefore I’m pushing for a bill that intelligence tests be administered before idiots are treated for anything. (kidding) Contraceptives have been used for thousands of years. If Gawd had that much of a problem with it, wouldn’t you think there would be far less people on the planet today? Prohibition of things so central to existence as the right to live closest to the way you want never, ever works. Prohibition of alcohol failed miserably, the ‘war on drugs’ didn’t work, and censorship of P2P forums and other internet freedoms is becoming an inside joke to those who know enough to care.