On Feb. 25, I wrote an article for Examiner.com titled “To obey or not to obey government". In other words, I asked the question whether Civil Disobedience would be proper under certain circumstances.
In the article, I gave a few reasons that people, especially Christians might defy a government law, regulation or directive. In all of those cases, I noted that Acts 5:29 tells us that we should obey God’s law and not man’s law. Abortion was one of the things that I mentioned that would qualify to allow us to be justifiably civilly disobedient.
Since that time, Obama has said that he is considering repealing the Bush administrations “Abortion Conscience Clause”. That particular piece of work gives legal protection to those doctors, nurses (in Federally funded institutions) and other practitioners from performing abortions, referring to abortion clinics, and in plain words doing things contrary to their religious beliefs and/or their conscience.
According to CNSNews, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is also an OB/GYN, said that many medical practitioners, including himself, will go to prison before agreeing to engage in medical practices they morally oppose, such as abortion.
Senator Coburn has it correct. Civil Disobedience is certainly called for in his case should Obama appeal the Abortion 'Conscience Clause'. However, Senator Coburn understands that he and any of his fellow practitioners may be placed in jail for their stand against the government.
Two things are at play here. First the Socialist tactics of the Obama administration and secondly the hideous social manipulation that I call "Social Engineering". That would be the government telling us that they know best and that we have no conscience when it comes to stupid laws or regulations that they make. Or worse yet, they tell you that they are taking away your rights because of someone else's rights. So who's right? Of course, Senator Coburn is right!
Comments
"That would be the government telling us that they know best and that we have no conscience when it comes to stupid laws or regulations that they make."
Are you saying that the government should trust citizens, families, and communities to make their own moral decisions?
Are you saying that unironically?
So? Don't work for an organization that performs procedures that would be offensive. Maybe stay away from a career in OB/GYN. Work at a Christian or Catholic hospital. Where's the difficulty?
Those place that perform those procedures would rather have someone willing to perform them anyway, and you'd be happier working somewhere where the problem never comes up.
"would qualify to allow us to be justifiably civilly disobedient"
"Justifiable" only in your mind. As far as I'm concerned, you are wrong.
"Since that time, Obama has said that he is considering repealing the Bush administrations “Abortion Conscience Clause”."
Good. That was a piece of cloak-and-dagger midnight regulation. It should be repealed on principle alone.
As for doctors and conscience, a medical license certifies that a person can offer a standard set of services. Anybody who doesn't want to offer those services doesn't have to, but they should lose their medical license.
"The whole thing about this issue is "principals"."
Well, for me it's about principles. And based on principle, what Bush did was wrong, and what you advocate is wrong.
RE: TRAVIS MORGAN;
You've been reading the wrong books!
The whole thing about this issue is "principals" which is apparently something "some" of the folks who leave comments to my articles are lacking.
Some folks who leave comments here have different moral values, that's quite obvious.
SASnSA said: "So? Don't work for an organization that performs procedures that would be offensive".
Any hospital or care center that receives any Federal financial assistance would fall into that category.
That kinda' narrows the field. You liberals always over simplify!
There is no God. You are wasting your time preaching a believing in nothing, when you could actually be doing some good in the world.
There. Is. No. God. Keep your "values" to yourself.
"Some folks who leave comments here have different moral values, that's quite obvious."
I don't believe in moral relativism. As the pope says, there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, and you're on the wrong side.
This seems like a political wedge issue with no purpose other than to rally the conservative base.
Why on earth would someone who has accepted a job at an abortion clinic suddenly have an objection fulfilling the duties of their job?
Can I enlist in the army and then refuse to fire my weapon?
In response to Francis: "There is no God. You are wasting your time preaching a believing in nothing, when you could actually be doing some good in the world. There. Is. No. God. Keep your "values" to yourself."
You see, in AMERICA, we are still allowed to speak our minds. Whether you agree or not. And also, this applies to the Conscience clause. No person should be forced to do something that goes against everything they believe in. I cannot think of any reason someone should be forced to kill (other than self defense) another human, and christians believe that a fetus, no matter how young, still counts as a life. I cannot point to someone and say "you there! Kill the person next to you! Go on!" any more than Obama, the U.S. government, etc. should be able to ask a doctor to abort a life if he feels disgusted and very much against this act. Sorry. What's the world coming to that this is even an issue?
and um, doctors, most of them, become doctors to HELP people. You know, PROLONG lives. Not end them. To say that if they can't kill an unborn child they shouldn't be a doctor is ludicrous.
"SASnSA: So? Don't work for an organization that performs procedures that would be offensive. Maybe stay away from a career in OB/GYN. Work at a Christian or Catholic hospital. Where's the difficulty?"
well, if this clause was abolished, then, well, there could be no such thing. No hospital would be allowed to decline abortion. Not even catholics.
The bible also says it is a crime against God to charge people interest for a loan. Should we jail all people who work for banks?
"And also, this applies to the Conscience clause. No person should be forced to do something that goes against everything they believe in."
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If your conscience doesn't permit you to perform legal medical procedures or to comply with requests for end-of-life issues, then you have a simple option: give up your medical license.
A medical license certifies that you are able to perform all legal medical procedures. If you cannot, for whatever reason, you shouldn't be practicing medicine. You can always become a preacher or a faith healer.
You have a right to free speech, you have a right to freedom of religion, but you do not have a right to redefine what a medical license stands for.
"you can enlist in the army and then refuse to fire a weapon"
Yes, you can. And then you'll be discharged, possibly after a court-martial and punishment.
"he should not be forced to go to the other extreme, and allow her to discontinue her pregnancy. It makes no sense"
The doctor is a service provider; it is unacceptable for him to attempt to impose his religious views on others. If he does not provide all legal medical procedures without reservation and bias, he should not practice medicine at all.
"No hospital would be allowed to decline abortion. Not even catholics."
And the problem with that would be... what exactly? The hospitals wouldn't disappear, they'd simply get replaced by non-denominational institutions that actually comply with the law and don't hide behind religious exemptions to impose their agenda.
The plan is to seize hospitals from the Catholic (universal) Church as a way impliment universal health care.
2009 is also the last year you can deduct 100% of charitable contributions. Give, give, give!
I hate abortion! It's uderly disgusting! Under any circumstances!
This article is obscuring the issue. The conscience clause only effects federally funded services. And by law you can not provide an abortion with federal dollars, nothing will change that. What this effects is other services that aren't cited specifically in other law, like end of life care and contraception. Secretary Leavitt specifically cited regular old birth control pills as something that health care providers in family planning centers may not want to provide. This changes the tenor of the entire debate. If you are anti-contraception then say so, but please be clear that it doesn't impact abortion.
"well, if this clause was abolished, then, well, there could be no such thing. No hospital would be allowed to decline abortion. Not even catholics."
Were Catholic hospitals forced to allow abortions before the clause was added? Obama isn't writing a new policy, he's removing one that the previous president threw in at the last minute.
This doesn't mean that all of the sudden doctors and nurses that never had to perform abortions and such are going to be forced to. It is a return to the way it has been done for a long time.
sasna, unfortunately that's exactly what it would do.. i wish you were right but that's not the case
avemaria, that's not true.
The wall street journal states that
"Existing federal law allows health-care workers to refuse on moral grounds to provide abortions. The new rule strengthened and extended those protections...There have been recent reports of women being denied emergency contraception, which is federally approved for use within 72 hours of intercourse".
This is designed to raise the hackles of christians who think personhood begins at conception, but legally it does not.
RE: cdesign propentsists;
The Wall Street Journal is totally wrong. Yes, I said wrong!
The new rule if passed would weaken, not strengthen the existing rule. Get real Wall Street Journal!
Um, Jake, I believe you misunderstood the Journal's article...
The OLD rule (before Bush) ALREADY allowed for moral objections to abortion!
Bush's rule went further by specifying that ALL health-care workers (from doctors to janitors) may refuse to provide services, advice, AND INFORMATION to patients based on their moral objections.
Obama is seeking to repeal only Bush's expanded rule. He's not forcing anyone to perform abortions!
RE: cdesign propentists;
Nope, I didn't misunderstand the article, I believe YOU misunderstood MY article.
The point is that I believe your source is incorrect in implying that without this measure, health professionals will be forced to perform abortions against their will. That is not the case - they will still have the right to refuse to perform abortions.
According to the Wall street Journal, Associated Press, and ABC, your source is incorrect.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!