When it comes to abortion Obama is a man without conscience
What must be understood is that Democrats are control freaks. They have few inhibitions when it comes to using the coercive power of the state to implement their policy. This is just another element of their anti freedom agenda. We will see control freak policies on nearly every aspect of how we produce and use energy because Democrats think they have the morally superior position. It is more than ironic for them to assume they have the morally superior position when it comes matters of the choice for life.
I’ve been waiting for this story and knew it would come - dropped on a Friday night, of course:
Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.
The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.
The spin, of course, is that the Bush law was “confusing in scope.” That it needs “clarification.”
Apparently it is a very complex thing for someone to say, “no, I cannot in good conscience do this,” on issues which - despite the euphemistic language in which both abortion and contraception have long-been shrouded - truly involve matters of life and death or (at the minimum) moral consequence.
A person may believe she is free to take a “morning after pill,” and a second person might even agree with the first that she is free to do that. This does not mean that - if the second person is convinced the thing is an abortifacient - he or she should be compelled by law to deny his or her own conscience and dispense the drug. The point is even clearer in the case of abortion. A doctor may even be “pro-choice” but personally unwilling to perform an abortion and he or she should be free to make that choice.
When people believe their own soul is in peril if they participate in an action, the conscientious objection should be sustained. It always has been, before.
Can it be sustainable in Obamaland, or is this very fundamental sort of American freedom to be denied her citizenry in service to expedient (and monetarily lucrative) politics?
If we are going to be a nation that supports the “freedom to choose,” then it seems to me that has to go both ways. Professional health workers should be “free to choose” whether or not they will participate in what they find to be morally objectionable.
When I talk about the evils of liberalism I mean the liberals pretensions of moral superiority.