Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Jindal expands conscience protection
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal just signed a bill expanding conscience protection beyond abortion. Now, physicians and health care workers in Louisiana also have conscience protection for abortion, dispensing the morning-after pill, participating in embryonic stem cell research or embryo cloning, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
Just as this new protection comes into law, researchers now say that abortion pills now account for about one quarter of the total abortions. The widespread use of the abortion pill seems to mean that pro-lifers need to adjust their methods for reaching abortion-minded women. Instead of going to a clinic, women are just going to a pharmacy and taking a pill. How can pro-lifers reach these women? Expanding conscience protection can only go so far.
back to top13 Comments to “Jindal expands conscience protection”
Hmmm…what interesting about the article linked is not Alisa’s rather unimaginative commentary but that the whole article is about the drastically improved safety of medical abortion. It seems simple adjustments have moved the rate of serious complication down from 1/1000 to .06/1000. To bad it doesn’t seem like Alisa read the article though. Mifeprex isn’t available in pharmacies. Is she confusing it with Plan B?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry – you’re right. You can get Mifeprex in clinics and doctor’s office, not pharmacies. I assume that’s any clinic or doctor office and not exclusively abortion clinics, however? The article also said it may lead to more primary care doctors administering abortion pills. The bottom line is still that the pills make abortion faster, easier and more private.
Report comment to moderator
More ways for irresponsible women to kill their children? ? ? ?
Report comment to moderator
There are millions of jobs in this country. And millions of different “consciences”. Should a legal secretary have the right not to type a brief if she disagrees with her boss’ position in the case? Should a meatcutter who suddenly falls under the influence of PETA be allowed to refuse to do his job, or just insist on doing it differently without suffering any consequences?
Someone on the gay marriage thread used a “slippery slope” argument today. If ever there was one, this is it.
And, interestingly, religious groups receiving government money insist that they have the right to refuse to hire those whose consciences are wrong.
You can’t have it both ways.
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, Jindal is just grandstanding here. He’s fighting to be in the lead of the anti-abortion pack. Unless, of course, Louisiana really does have a physician assisted suicide or euthanasia law…
Report comment to moderator
“drastically improved safety of medical abortion”
Safe abortion is a morally repugnant oxymoron. The baby always dies.
Medical professionals acquire their credentials through arduous schooling and are accountable to boards that oversee the profession by establishing and enforcing the norms. Respecting life as intrinsically worthy has historically been a key value, once enshrimed within the words of the Hippocratic Oath.
The slippery slope here is far steeper and less slippery than supposed.
Incidentally you mischaracterize the other argument as “slippery slope.” The point there was rather that an argument loose enough to apply to all manner of situations is no argument at all.
Report comment to moderator
It is understandable that a lot of Democrats have trouble with conscience protection. Having a lack of conscience in the first place many democratic monsters and demons don’t really understand the concept. Of course many of the democratic M & D s were conscientious objectors when that meant they could ‘Opt Out” of serving this country.
I am categorically NOT saying that all CO’s were cowards. But many in the Democratic party especially at the head of the party have no conscience and hence are even more the hypocrite for it.
Report comment to moderator
MFW: Instead of bashing democrats and most C.O’s, why not try to respond to my post. What are the limits for creating a right that allows one’s personal conscience to interfere with one’s duty to do one’s job?
And how does this particular statute with the traditional pro-business position of the Republican Party?
Report comment to moderator
Apparently if you don’t want to murder babies or euthanize the elderly you’re not allowed to be in the medical profession.
How corrupt is our world when the only people allowed to help others are those willing to hurt them?
Report comment to moderator
“Having a lack of conscience in the first place many democratic monsters and demons don’t really understand the concept.”
I’m officially requesting that this personal attack be reprimanded!
Report comment to moderator
We have broad agreement about the criminality of the behavior that we suppress by means of police power. However, many honest, productive, and admirable people who abhor murder nevertheless think that abortion is not murder. How in the world we could criminalize abortion, let alone prosecute it without consensus, is anybody’s guess.
Report comment to moderator
MFW,
“Having a lack of conscience in the first place many democratic monsters and demons don’t really understand the concept”
You can’t just put all Democrats in one group and through them under the bus. A conscience is given to everyone, and it is up to the individual to listen to it or not. Insulting those who might not agree with you will only make them lose respect for you and your beliefs. also, placing all Democrats with the ones who may give them a bad rap, will simply increase the chances of them doing the same thing to us.
Report comment to moderator
Apparently if you don’t want to murder babies or euthanize the elderly you’re not allowed to be in the medical profession.
Bingo. That’s the goal.
Do you want a doctor with a conscience or not? It’s that simple.
As for Arcadia’s red herrings, examples of legal secretaries, etc., are irrelevant. As a physician, I’m not employed by an abortionist. If I were and I refused to do abortions, I’d expect to get fired. As it is, I contract with an individual patient to provide a service. If she requests something I am unable to do because of training or conscience, it is only ethical for me to decline. I don’t do the thing and I don’t get paid for it. Hiring and firing. No government intrusion necessary.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!