There, I said it.
I am happy that "conscience clause" laws are springing up around the nation regarding a medical professional's right to refuse contraception.
Why?
Because frankly, I personally think this may be the one thing that may get people to wake up and finally engage in a political process that has left many Americans behind. Being "fat and happy" in this country usually equates to political disconnect for the average voter. For many citizens, politics are simply too abstract and complicated to understand, or warrant engagement in. This, in my mind, is a completely different animal as it engages the average citizen head-on, in no uncertain terms...
More below the fold
Conscience Clause laws are now in place in
four states relating specifically to reproduction. There are apparently pending legislative actions going through the process in 11 other states. The Conscience Clause laws currently in effect state that doctors and pharmacists may refuse to dispense contraception, abortion, sterilization, artificial insemination and the like on moral, religious, or ethical grounds.
This movement is the next step that the Right-to-Lifers are beginning to rally grassroots support around because they strongly believe that they have the upper hand in the abortion debate, and it is now time to begin planning the next phase of attack.
Conscience Clause laws fit that bill nicely.
But is it so simple as having it end at just reproduction? I think not. Ethically, I think it represents the setting of a dangerous precedent for an expanding number of health care issues, from infertility to end-of-life care. Take these interesting questions from religionlink.org
Might a certain regimen of pain-relief medication hasten death? Can Catholic hospitals refuse to perform tubal ligations or vasectomies? Could pharmacists refuse to provide medication to treat depression or hyperactivity in children if they don't believe in treating those conditions with drugs?
What if I, as a gay man, need a heart transplant? Will it be possible that my doctor can be legally protected at some point because he/she refuses to give me one on moral grounds, even though I may die without it? Can my sister, who has had an abortion, have that history be made public at some point and have a doctor refuse to treat her for any ailments because she was a "sinner"?
Overreaching assumptions on my part you might say? I don't think so.
Maybe now, Joe and Jane average will begin to understand just how far a radical religious minority has infiltrated their federal, state, and local governments in order to create an outline of the do's and don'ts for its citizenry. Perhaps this has real-world impact for those going into their local pharmacy and/or doctor's offices seeking medical advice and birth control, but instead are given moral lectures about being fruitful and multiplying. Or trying to get medical care for a family member but having it refused because the doctor's religion is in direct opposite of their own.
Maybe now, we have a fighting chance to wake people up to the fact that the barn is on fire, and there are too few people to put it out.
It isn't enough for the pro-lifers to want to overturn Roe v. Wade. They have their sights firmly set on the overturning of Griswold v. Connecticut as well. In my opinion, Griswold was a much more significant ruling because it established a groundwork for numerous right to privacy cases such as Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade. That goes, and we are looking at not only the right of doctors to refuse treatments and prescriptions based upon religious and moral grounds, but the larger picture of governmental moral police peering into your private affairs.
Enough is enough. The line in the sand has been drawn, but I am not going to do anything but engage these goons on their turf.
Lock and load...