Rights of Conscience: The Threat of the Freedom of Choice Act
I have been asked to comment on the Freedom of Choice Act, that would seek to impose a single federal standard on abortion regulations. I have not done so until now because I did not know enough about the details and wanted to wait until and unless it became a likely law.
I still don't know much about the FOCA, but a columnist in Slate named Melinda Henneberger, discussing recent speeches by Catholic Hierarchs about an Obama Administration seeking to force Catholic hospitals to violate Catholic moral teaching, worries that passing the FOCA would blow up in all of our faces. From the column:
And the most ludicrous line out of them [the speeches], surely, was about how, under Obama, Catholic hospitals that provide obstetric and gynecological services might soon be forced to perform abortions or close their doors. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of "devastating consequences" to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That's a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for. It couldn't happen, could it?
You wouldn't think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could. If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk...Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."
Whether that would happen, of course, would depend on whether the administrators of Catholic hospitals would truly have the courage of their convictions, or whether they would be swayed by counter arguments that the harm of going out of business would be greater than acquiescing to the law. Frankly, I think that the emphasis in Catholocism on social justice is so strong, that many Catholic hospital administrators would find ways around the problem, with a wink and a nod from the government. But surely some institutions would close their doors. Thus, I think Henneberger is right: Whatever one thinks about abortion rights, FOCA is certainly a bad idea merely from a practical sense.
But that might not dissuade the new Democratic majorities from passing it. I believe there is a drive gaining energy within some ideological quarters to force people of certain moral persuasions to either be complicit in what they perceive to be a culture of death or force them out of health care altogether--as we have seen already in Australia on abortion and in California regarding euthanasia-related proposals.
Then there is the foolishness of attempting to shut down democratic discourse about profoundly morally contentious issues, which never works--as Dred Scott, and Roe v Wade clearly demonstrated. If President Elect Obama truly wants to "bring us together," the FOCA is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It would cause an explosion of dissent.
Labels: Rights of Conscience. Freedom of Choice Act. Consequences.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:21 AM
28 Comments
28 Comments:
I read the summary of the act and the only entities mentioned were the government and women. I saw no reference to health care providers or organizations, so it's hard to believe this could be used to compel health care facilities to perform abortions.
Frankly, what really makes this dubious is the idea that it would throw out informed consent. Can you imagine any hospital performing any procedure in today's legal atmosphere without informed consent?
The Bishops are not bluffing.
Aha! Threat of pulling Medicare and Medicaid funding. That's the missing link I've been looking for. No one has mentioned it to me before. But it makes sense. If the idea is that the "federal government" must not "discriminate" against this particular medical practice, and if the dispersal of Medicare and Medicaid funds constitute the involvement of the federal government, then the federal government can, it seems to me, threaten to pull those funds from providers who "discriminate" against that procedure--that is, who do not allow it to take place on their premises.
Things are coming clearer, now.
Lydia, not all health care facilities offer all forms of health care. A research hospital I worked at famously had no maternity ward. The government can't, at least via this measure, require any given health facility to provide any particular service.
If all else fails, follow the law of self-interest. Would Obama shoot himself in the foot by being responsible for the shutdown of thousands of religiously affiliated hospitals? How would he benefit from doing so? Why would he even ask Catholic hospitals to provide abortions? Give the guy credit for having SOME sense.
(Don't ask me about Boxer, not so sure about her.)
This sort of thing has already happened before in a different setting. It was in Boston (IIRC, place might be wrong, the case is real though) that a law was passed requiring adoption agencies to be willing to place children with homosexual couples.
The Catholic adoption agency(s) in the city, who had a history of successfully placing the hardest to place children was forced to choose between staying in business and violating their conscience or closing their doors. They choose to follow their conscience and close the doors. So in the name of "homosexual rights", the most vulnerable and needy children left out in the cold.
Why would you expect this circumstance to be any different ? Unlike the spineless fascists that come up with this sort of legislation, Roman Catholics do have the courage of their convictions and are willing to go with their conscience. they are very likely to refuse to be complicit in murder even if it means closing the doors of a 1/3 of hospitals, rather than go along with a nudge and a wink because to go along with it will make them complicit in the law.
BTW, although I am a Christian, I am a Protestant and not a Roman Catholic.
It's pretty obvious that the Catholic hospitals in question block out abortion in a specific way for moral reasons, even while they offer other female healthcare and procedures, including maternity. It would not be hard for a federal regulator to make the case that they are "discriminating" against the abortion procedure in a way that a research hospital that simply doesn't happen to have a maternity ward is not doing. And so they are. And good for them, says I. But that would be the obvious handle for the federal govt. to use to apply something like a FOCA to deny funding to such hospitals. It seems pretty obvious to me, now that it has been pointed out.
National Right to Life has posted a legal memo by an attorney for the US Catholic Bishops at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/USCCBlegalmemoFOCA.pdf. which lays out the case for why FOCA will wipe out abortion conscience protections. The case focuses on the terms fundamental right, interfere and discriminate. It also compares it to previous versions of FOCA which were previously defeated. This one contains no provision to protect consciences.
padraig, only Catholic hospitals that are equipped with ob-gyn facilities (that is, could perform abortions if they weren't considered morally wrong) would be under pressure in this bill.
Now, I'd like to see that Catholics judge the death of their patients if they close their doors in protest or from lack of funding, vs the embryos/foetuses that are going to aborted. That is, which one will result in the most deaths.
Don, I'd read that memo before, but now I'm seeing it in a new light. I hadn't really processed the meaning of the paragraph where it says that the bill (as it was most recently proposed) says that the government may not “discriminate” against abortion in the “regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." Now, that's pretty clear. Medicare and Medicaid are government benefits, and hospitals are facilities. Hospitals that take government funds are part of the system by which government benefits are provided and facilities and services are provided. If that is indeed the language of the bill, then it appears that hospitals that accept these funds could not thus "discriminate" against abortion, because insofar as they accept these funds they are acting as government entities. We have seen this kind of thing before: Colleges that accept government funding, for example, are required to engage in affirmative action programs.
So this is making better sense to me. Previously, I had had trouble seeing how the striking down of the conscience laws would have the immediate effect of requiring the provision of abortion at Catholic hospitals. It seemed to me that that depended on _why_ the conscience provisions were there. What would happen if they were not there? I thought perhaps it had something to do with a background of state laws that said that doctors would provide or refer for any relevant legal service or something like that. But that would not cover hospitals. This puts things together better.
Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on the FOCA, but I have had the disquieting experience of talking to someone who supports it; apparently it allows a woman to "abort" her baby up to the time of giving birth. She (my companion I was chatting about it with in IMs) was supportive of this; I wondered how that was possible since a viable infant being born doesn't need it's mother to survive anymore. Her response was, "as long as the baby is in its mother, the mother has the right to do whatever she wants to with it, since it's *her* body."
Then she and I got into a massive fight and we stopped talking to each other for a while. I'm not always a great debator, and the method of "aborting" a baby at that stage is pretty gruesom and graphic, and she got mad when I told her exactly what happens. Blugh. So, yeah, I don't support it, and I'd rather that a Catholic hospital that faces FOCA enforcement close its doors than be a party to murder...
Lydia, it helped me too. I didn't think it was just talking about entities and personnel who receive government funds. I think it also means that the goverment is interfering with the "fundamental right" to abortion by writing regulations or laws which grant conscience clauses-no matter how small the impact-p.3 paragraph one. That's pretty scary if they can pull it off. The good news is that we beat this when the Democrats had control of the Congress and presidency. Many said that they were pro-choice, but not for these other crazy provisions. Doug Johnson at NRLC says that government officials who give pro-life speeches could be sued. This is radical stuff. But what do you expect from people who support partial birth infanticide?
TE Fine, FOCA's allowance of abortion until birth is not a departure or expansion of current US abortion law. Sorry to say that it's nothing new. Abortion is allowed right now-and has been since Roe-until viability for no reason and after viability for just about any reason that someone wants to give under the health exception. The health of the mother exception is far more than the "life of the mother" exceptions. Doe v. Bolton, handed down on the same day of Roe defines it this way. "...the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
As long as a woman can find a doctor like George Tiller in Kansas to do the deed, there's nothing the law, or the father of the child, can do. I think Tiller is in hot water in Kansas, but it's for doing them without getting another MD to sign off on it.
So FOCA's allowance of abortion until birth is nothing new. The media has known this is American law for years, but inconveniently mischaracterize Roe and subsequent abortion decisions. What got FOCA reintroduced was the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. That speaks for itself.
I think the Catholics should go read their Bible:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” - Romans 13:1-2
Joshua said...
I think the Catholics should go read their Bible:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” - Romans 13:1-2
November 26, 2008
This protestant has read his Bible & I have come up with the same sense of morality for a child's life as the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
God gave us the ability to create life. In so doing we are supposed to be the Moral Agents that upon creating life from our loins,must protect & respect the reponsibility for that conception.
After such conception takes place and life begins ,Jesus is quit explicit about the destruction of a child's life. The Old Testament is equally candid in the protection of children.
New Testament::::
# Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)
# Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Mark 9:41-43 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
# Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Luke 17:1-3 (in Context) Luke 17 (Whole Chapter)
To kill a child is one of the greatest offenses which man could offer Christ because we steal that child's RIGHT to love Christ.
Old Testament is inundated with claims such as this:::
2 Kings 21:15-17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
15Because they have done that which was evil in my sight, and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day.
16Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
17Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
THOSE comments are directly linked to serving false gods where the worship entailed the sacrifice of innocent children to make things better for the people offering the sacrifice of innocent children's blood. Have we really grasped how important a child's life is to the Torah or to Christ??? We kill in the womb to make our lives easier without weighing the loss of our own conscience or the millstone we weight ourselves with.
I had something pop up via Yahoo alerts yesterday that caught my eye. Abortion advocates are very happy about the various things President Obama might do/be able to do in the name of "women's health." They list seven things Planned Parenthood's president says could change with his administration. It looks just like the lists I've seen of things that could change with FOCA (plus a couple more, like insurance costs, thrown in there).
It was all in Planned Parenthood-speak, and I blogged on it here. And, yes, one of them was the following:
4. Reversal of the "conscience" regulation that threatens women's access to birth control. Obama will probably reverse a new rule, opposed by most medical organizations including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that's slated to be enacted in the next few weeks by the Department of Health and Human Services. It allows doctors and other healthcare workers to opt out of certain practices that some of them find morally objectionable--like prescribing birth control pills, inserting IUDs, or dispensing emergency contraception (a.k.a. the morning-after pill) to rape victims--without fear of losing their jobs.
In other words, they want doctors and other health care professionals to be forced to act against their conscience.
Go on, call the bluff. The Church isn't going to bow to this. (And it is imperative that we not follow an unjust law. That is something the Church has always taught. Sins are still sins even when the government tells you to do it.)
Hi Joshua,
Your interpretation of Romans 13 implies societal relativism which is contradicted by probably thousands of other biblical verses. God love you.
Tweet! There is a flag on the field.
Thanks for stopping by, Bobby Bambino. Joshua, and Donnie, and all: This isn't a site that focuses on the details of Biblical interpretation. I certainly don't oppose people presenting their religious perspectives, but I don't want the discussion to get too deeply into differing Biblical interpretations.
Thank you.
Resume play.
Thanks for mentioning that, Wesley. Sorry about that, and will do.
I find it very interesting that Joshua and many others like to paste opposition to abortion squarley to religion. Frankly, that is very insulting to nonbelievers who also believe that abortion, particularly in the later trimesters, is a violation of human rights. It's like saying that Christians are the only ones who view killing a fetus as wrong.
As Jason mentioned, rights of conscience have already come under staunch attack in MA, where Catholic Charities was forced to close its doors because of its policy of placing children in heterosexual households only. I support gay rights, but I also support rights of conscience and freedom of religion, and MA's imposition of gay adoption on CC violated both, ultimately hurting children.
I also saw an interview of someone from NARAL who was opposing laws that allowed doctors to refuse to be complicit in abortion by providing referrals to other obgyns, etc. When the interviewer pointed out that in NY state alone, the phone book has three pages of abortion providers, the NARAL spokesperson said, "so, what's wrong with getting a reccommendation from your doctor?" Nothing, as long as the doctor isn't forced to give such reccommendations. NARAL wanted to force such providers to give reccommendations because they said refusing to do so would violate the woman's rights of conscience. It's interesting that they are able to get away with such circular arguments-"rights of conscience are sancrusant, thus, the woman is the only one who can make an abortion decision," tied to "rights of conscience are sacrosanct, so physicians do not have conscience rights when they are asked for abortion referrals." The consistent "pro choice," position protects everyone's choices in the matter of abortion, thus, if NARAL were consistent in their pro-choice stance, it would support the choice of such doctors not to give abortion refferals, since this doesn't impact the legality of abortion itself. But, NARAL, like many organizations with a strong ideology, picks and chooses when it's core principles apply.
I absolutely do not support FOCA. In considering the arguments for abortion, I can understand the very real concerns about illegal abortion and it's impact on women when the legal abortions are performed safely and early. But, NARAL doesn't want any compromises, they want abortion up to the point of birth, and FOCA enables that.
Indeed, Safepres: They are the ones obsessed with religion.
My pal Nat Hentoff is a confirmed atheist and one of the most "pro life" people I have ever met, totally against abortion, assisted suicide, ESCR, human cloning, etc.
Wesley, you say "they" are the ones obsessed with religion.
Who? Christians?
If so, I have never considered myself "obsessed"....but I'll take that description..gladly!
Good for Nat...we can use more pro-life people...no matter what their background.
Hi Jan.
I don't mean to speak for Wesley, but I think he means people who when confronted with the idea that abortion is morally wrong will respond with something like "There is a separation of church and state. You can't impose your religious values on this country." etc. They tend to confuse the issue by saying that abortion is a religion issue rather than a human rights issue.
Jan: I was referring, as Bobby said, to the people who when one makes a human rights argument, say that you are shoving religion down their throats (generally), and specifically to a few people who post here who make similar claims.
Hi SAFEpres,
You commented about what it would be really like if groups like NARAL were truly and consistently "pro-choice".
The only problem with that suggestion is that such groups have never been "pro-choice" but always instead pro-abortion.
Sadly it is a case of "Follow the money"
Jason-yes, I see your point. NARAL's mission statement, including 'the right to bear healthy children' in itself implies a bias toward abortion in cases of disability. And, I also do not understand NARAL giving the nation a 'D-' in reproductive rights-abortion has been legalized, it is readily available, so what else do they want, other than unrestricted, late term abortion for any reason? I also resent NARAL, NOW and PP's position that any woman who is not "pro choice" is not a "real" woman, as if I owe the pro-choice lobby my vote, even as disabled people are being aborted in incomparable numbers. So, I see what you're saying. Also, you're right-the more abortions, the more money for abortion providers.
SAFEpres: "And, I also do not understand NARAL giving the nation a 'D-' in reproductive rights-abortion has been legalized, it is readily available, so what else do they want, other than unrestricted, late term abortion for any reason?"
Drive-thrus. Abortion-related sitcoms. Abortion jingles. The sad part: I'm only half-joking.
It's "People with Morals" vs. "People who don't want consequences and thus are against Morals."
Because the Big Three monotheistic religions have their morals spelled out very starkly, the easiest thing in the world is to smack the label "Christian nut" on him or her.
There are PLENTY of moral atheists out there who support the same things we "religious nuts" do.
There are also plenty of Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, and Spiritualists who are opposed to abortion (I found a website against abortion hosted by a Pagan group that believes abortion interferes with the unborn's destiny and will cause that baby to be "stuck" until it has another chance at being born later, for example).
There are Hindus here in America who are opposed to eugenics, abortion, and euthanasia, and I know because I work with them at my oil company.
There are Buddhists who think that anyone who engages in abortion is mentally ill because no sane person wants to hurt anybody, even the unborn.
People who don't want morality should just come out and say, "We don't care who you are, we disagree with you because we dont' want any rules." At least that's honest, and it doesn't hide behind anti-Christianity/Judiasm/Islam, which is currently in vogue.
Wesley, I'm late on this comment, but I think the following comment of yours is undeniable. "I believe there is a drive gaining energy within some ideological quarters to force people of certain moral persuasions to either be complicit in what they perceive to be a culture of death or force them out of health care altogether..."
I see that in the pharmacist's conscience rights fights up here in NV. Either you do it or get out. It's your job to do these things whether you like it or not. One legislator, as I noted before said, if they don't like it, they can go sell shoes.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home