Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Conscience Clause

So I finished the book that I reviewed/ranted about a couple weeks ago. Learned a lot and I highly recommend. Makes you very angry about the state of pro-choice affairs, especially internationally. And though I really don't need another reason to hate antis even more, I found one thanks to Christina Page. I'm even shocked that I, in my infinite wisdom, hadn't though of it before.

Why can docs/pharmacists opt out of learning about abortion/performing life-saving abortion services/writing scripts for or dispensing contraceptives, but pro-choice professionals can't opt out of reading the slime to their patients that abortion takes the life of a "little, tiny" person that is a separate being independent of the woman carrying it?

Take a look at all the states that have so-called "conscience clauses", reserving the right of providers and pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs. Consider a doctor in, say, THE GREAT STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, where the conscience clause exists, plus doctors are required to read this tripe to patients before an abortion:

Why can't that doctor refuse, based on his/her deeply-held scientific - or even religious - conviction, to speak to something that s/he does not believe? CAN THIS CASE NOT BE MADE?! WHY CAN'T WE TAKE THIS TO COURT?!

Legitimate questions, not just my own anger speaking. Why has this point not been brought up or acted on? (or am I just unaware?) It seems airtight to me, but then again I have common sense. THOUGHTS?!

1 comment:

  1. I have asked someone this EXACT question, in the context of "why the fuck did the judge in Baltimore end up overturning the county regulation that required CPCs to post a simple sign informing what they do and don't offer" (this happened about a month ago ish?)...anyway, a health policy type person (caveat, not a lawyer) told me the following:

    "I think the fact that the CPCs in the Baltimore were religious organizations creates a safeguard for their free speech, which is different from that of an abortion clinic that is not. In addition, the Supreme Court has given states the right to enact regulations which are intended to persuade a woman from obtaining an abortion so long as it is not unduly burdensome. I would imagine those scripts as inaccurate as they may be are able to work its way into that rule. As to why the states are able to distribute information that is inaccurate -- I have no idea, but my guess would be that there is at least one study that supports it and that is what they are relying on."

    Now, this doesn't answer your question of why the hell hasn't anyone argued (or succeeded with the argument?) that the misleading speech compelled by scripts is just as much of a religious/moral issue (because it's LYING) for people who would choose to "opt out" as the CPC signs are for the Catholic diocese that made this argument -- more so, I'd argue, since there's no lie involved in those signs, but apparently the Baltimore judge didn't deem that part relevant.

    Sigh. Sorry if I'm rambling. I totally get what you're saying, and have thought/wondered all of it too :( Who else can we ask? Someone from the ACLU??


This is not a debate forum -- there are hundreds of other sites for that. This is a safe space for abortion care providers and one that respects the full spectrum of reproductive choices; comments that are not in that spirit will either wind up in the spam filter or languish in the moderation queue.