Thursday, September 25, 2008

In the Name of Choice

It's hard to imagine that this is true, but here it is:
HARTFORD, Conn. - Attorneys general from 13 states on Wednesday protested a proposed Bush administration rule that would give stronger job protections to doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

In a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, the states said the rule is too vague in defining abortion, and may be interpreted to include dispensing birth control.

"It threatens to drastically discourage and even deter a woman's right to choose," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "This proposed rule unconscionably puts personal agendas before patient care ... failing even to acknowledge the rights of rape victims and others to access birth control and related vital health services."

Other states joining Connecticut in protesting the rule are Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont.

Do you get this, my fellow Catholic Americans? Do you hear what they're saying, my fellow pro-life Christian Americans? Are you listening, my fellow pro-life Americans who are Jewish or Muslim or from other faiths that strongly oppose the murder of the unborn? Our deeply held, centuries-old, fervent and rooted religious beliefs are being labeled "personal agendas" by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. And we're being put on notice that it is unconscionable for us to expect that these beliefs will be respected and that we, especially any of us who happen to work in a medical field, have the right to refuse to participate in the murder of the unborn.

When an unjust law is passed, soon that unjust law is the only law. All other laws, all other rights, all other freedoms shrivel into nothingness; the unjust law is a Medusa's head that turns reasonable objection and the expect for that objection to be accommodated into stone.

Our right to choose not to kill unborn humans is being taken away from us. Our right to expect that among our medical professionals there are some who will not condone or participate in the killing of unborn humans is being taken away from us. Our right, if we have any connection to the medical profession--and so many Catholics and Christians and other pro-life Americans do--to refuse entirely to facilitate the murder of innocent unborn humans is being taken away from us. Soon, it will be impossible to be a doctor or a nurse or a pharmacist in the United States of America unless you are a bloodthirsty abortion enthusiast. And it is being done in the name of "Choice."

It couldn't possibly be more ironic than that, because what we're talking about is removing the right to choose. Doctors won't have the right to choose whether or not they want to kill unborn humans. Nurses won't have the right to choose whether or not they want to help in the killing of unborn humans. Other hospital workers also lose their right to choose whether or not to be associated with the abortion butchers who like to be called "Doctor" as they perform their works of unadulterated evil. Pharmacists lose the right to choose to ask someone else to fill an abortifacient "morning after" prescription. Everyone loses the right to choose life under the kind of scenario the attorneys general of a coven of states would like to see passed.

And under Barack Obama, under the Freedom of Choice Act, this scenario is exactly what we get.

Pray for America. Pray that the right to choose LIFE will remain available to all who oppose the culture of death, especially our medical professionals.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As a pharmacist, I feel it only right that a 'morning after' pill be used the 'morning after' if it's the female's choice in the matter, as well as I feel that if it should not (as above) be my particular creed, and it would cause me great distress to dispense a morning after pill because of an agonizing personal matter of belief, then, I should have that right not to dispense 'morning after' pills, and this goes for patients that bring in bogus prescriptions, scripts for powerful addicting drugs that should not be filled, wrong drugs, doses, etc. However, in most states, and as part of the Pharmacy Code of Ethics (that is doing our job as national pharmacists--for, we are credentialed by a national board of pharmacy in obtaining licenses on graduating an accredited college of pharmacy), we also have a moral obligation to fulfill the requirement of our duty to the best of our ability once we accept the duty of filling the prescription, as well as the right to NOT fill a prescription, even under Dr's orders if it is something we cannot morally do. What Planned Parenthood back east in PA or some other state was complaining about was that pharmacists that felt it was not their duty to fill 'Plan B' were not sending the patients on to other pharmacies, where another pharmacist could fill it who did not have the same moral/ethical beliefs. With pharmacists (and physicians to some extent) as being the only ones in our society to have the privilege of filling prescription-only drugs in the US, it would behoove society to have some recourse for those that have a prescription for a prescribed medication. If a drug is banned in the US, then that means possession is illegal. Some might say that Plan B should be made in the same category as RU-4 was made in Europe some time ago, but that is for another discussion as I think the matter of abortion is semantics and viable fetus, whether it can survive on its own--then don't do anything to kill it, but until then, the consideration of 'growth' should be applied, albeit a very serious matter, but as mentioned before, a matter of the female's choice, and a matter of societal support for those without means to bring to birth with equal opportunity as accorded to anyone given the chance at being born, with equivalent access to moral information and repercussions to those raping or indulging incestuous copulation.