In a commentary on CBC Radio, Canada’s publicly funded state broadcaster, Prince Edward Island University professor Richard Raiswell asserted that “abortion is a medically necessary, essential health care service” and insisted that all Canadian women have a “right” to the service. Since the province does not provide abortion on the island, Raiswell argues that women who have to leave the island to obtain the procedure “are being denied access to safe medical care.” He suggested that that is illegal. [CBC Radio]
Category: Commentary
Support access to health care? Protect conscience rights.
Catholic Organizations Respond to HHS “Preventive Services” Mandate
We, the undersigned, strongly support access to life-affirming health care for all, and the ability of secular and religious groups and individuals to provide and receive such care. That is why we have raised objections to a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services forcing almost all private health plans to cover sterilization procedures and contraceptive drugs, including drugs that may cause an early abortion.
As written, the rule will force Catholic organizations that play a vital role in providing health care and other needed services either to violate their conscience or severely curtail those services. This would harm both religious freedom and access to health care.
The HHS mandate puts many faith-based organizations and individuals in an untenable position. But it also harms society as a whole by undermining a long American tradition of respect for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a pluralistic society, our health care system should respect the religious and ethical convictions of all. We ask Congress, the Administration, and our fellow Americans to acknowledge this truth and work with us to reform the law accordingly.
Robert B. Aguirre, President Catholic Association of Latino Leaders
Carl A. Anderson, Supreme Knight Knights of Columbus
F. DeKarlos Blackmon, OblSB, Supreme Knight/CEO Knights of Peter Claver
William J. Cox, President/CEO Alliance of Catholic Health Care
Michael Galligan-Stierle, PhD, President/CEO Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
John Garvey, JD, President The Catholic University of America
Sheila Gilbert, President National Council of the U.S. Society of St. Vincent de Paul
John M. Haas, PhD, STL, President National Catholic Bioethics Center
Ken Hackett, President Catholic Relief Services
Jan R. Hemstad, MD, President Catholic Medical Association
Rev. John Jenkins, CSC, President University of Notre Dame
Patty Johnson, President National Council of Catholic Women
James G. Lindsay, Executive Director Catholic Volunteer Network
Stephen L. Mikochik, JD, Chair National Catholic Partnership on Disability
Karen M. Ristau, EdD, President National Catholic Educational Association
Geralyn C. Shelvin, Supreme Lady Knights of Peter Claver Ladies Auxiliary
Rev. Larry Snyder, President Catholic Charities USA
Joanne Tomassi, National Regent Catholic Daughters of the Americas
The Most Rev. José Gomez Archbishop of Los Angeles Chairman , Migration and Refugee Services
The Most Rev. Timothy Dolan Archbishop of New York President United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
In the True North Strong and Free
Project Letter to the Calgary Herald
Twelve years ago, an editorial in the Calgary Herald1 expressed hope that a bill proposed by MLA Julius Yankowsky2 would ensure that health care professionals would not be forced to participate in procedures or services to which they objected for reasons of conscience.
The editorial cited the example of coerced participation of nurses in late term abortions at Foothills Hospital3 and the case of Maria Bizecki, a pharmacist facing discipline for refusing to dispense the morning after pill.4 The bill, said the editorial, was “a common sense compromise” that would respect freedom of conscience without preventing access to abortion or drugs. Yankowsky’s bill did not pass, but a common sense compromise was eventually worked out between Ms. Bizecki and her employer, the Calgary Cooperative Association.5
While Ms. Bizecki’s case was grinding slowly forward, she and Professor Donald De Marco met the Herald editorial board. Danielle Smith, then a member of the board, was at the meeting. So was Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz, who, at one point, personally congratulated Ms. Bizecki for her stand.6
Danielle Smith, now leader of the Wildrose Party, appears to be advocating the kind of compromise supported by the Herald when it expressed support for freedom of conscience for health care professionals. Ms. Lakritz, however, seems to have changed her mind.
“The word ‘conscience,’” she writes, “is now being used to advocate doing the wrong thing” – like refusing to dispense the morning after pill. (“Conscience rights is another way of allowing discrimination.”Calgary Herald, 10 April, 2012)
Ms. Lakritz is not alone in this belief. She reports that Alison Redford, the Premier of the province, is actually frightened by suggestions that at least some people in Alberta might refuse to do what they believe to be wrong. We are told that Liberal and NDP leaders also oppose freedom of conscience, and that the Alberta Party leader condemns protection of conscience legislation as “an exercise in exclusion,” a point apparently overlooked by those who drafted Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to Ms. Lakritz, the Premier believes that suppression of freedom of conscience demonstrates respect for diversity, that people are treated with “dignity and respect” when they are forced to do what they believe to be wrong, and that threatening conscientious objectors with dismissal makes people feel “safe and included.”
We are not told if the Premier and other leaders opposed to freedom of conscience insist that their candidates sacrifice their personal integrity in order to run for office. Nor does Ms. Lakritz tell us if employees at the Calgary Herald must do what they believe to be wrong as a condition of employment or promotion.
She does, however, claim that those who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to provide a legal drug or service act wrongly and dishonourably because they thus treat some people “as though they were much less equal to others.” This is like saying that refusing to sell tobacco is wrong because it treats smokers “as though they were much less equal” to non-smokers, or that refusing to facilitate prostitution is dishonourable because it denies equality to ‘sex trade workers.’ Even if one accepts such a peculiar notion of equality, however, equality is not the only principle relevant to the moral evaluation of an act. Moreover, the mere legality of a product or service imposes no duty to provide it or to affirm its moral acceptability. Ms. Lakritz made this clear when she excoriated Henry Morgentaler and abortion rights groups for suggesting that Catholic bishops should ask people to stop protesting abortions – a legal, tax-paid service.
“[The bishops] are not exactly known for indulging in moral relativism,” she observed.
“What this society needs is more people like them who take a firm stand on issues and do not apologize for refusing to be swayed by whatever current compromise passes for morality.”7
It is a pity that Ms. Lakritz no longer believes this: that she now holds that such people are “truly disgusting,” and that personal integrity and courage are grounds for dismissal in the true north strong and free.
O, Canada.
Notes
1. “Editorial, The Calgary Herald, April 11, 2000. (Accessed 2012-04-11)
2. Bill 212, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2000.
3. Ko, Marnie, “Personal Qualms Don’t Count: Foothills Hospital Now Forces Nurses To Participate In Genetic Terminations.” Alberta Report Newsmagazine, April 12, 1999
4. Mastromatteo, Mike, “Alberta Pharmacist Vindicated for Pro-Life Stand.” The BC Catholic, 3 November, 2003
5. Gerald D. Chipeur to the Calgary Co-operative Association Re: Maria Bizecki, 19 December, 2001
6. E-mails from Maria Bizecki to the Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project, 10 and April, 2012.
7. Lakritz, Naomi, “Hypocrite Henry: Morgentaler exercises his own brand of violence.” Winnipeg Sun, 17 January, 1995 (Accessed 2012-04-13)
Commentator criticizes broad wording of New Hampshire bill
Wesley J. Smith has critized the wording of New Hampshire bill HB1653 because it “obliterates the fiduciary nature of the doctor’s role by allowing medical professionals to abandon patients for virtually any reason.” He urges that the bill be revised.[Second Hand Smoke] New Hampshire currently has no protection of conscience legislation.
Insuring Religious Liberty: Obama Care, Ronald Reagan, and the Crisis of Conscience in America Today
Reformed Theological Seminary
Charlotte, North Carolina
2 February, 2012
We were told this would not happen. We were told to just let the bill pass and read it later. Well, we are reading it now. And the fine print doesn’t look good for religious freedom. Perhaps you have heard about last Sunday’s “pulpit protest” by Roman Catholic priests around the nation over the administration’s mandated health care program which will require Catholic institutions — universities, hospitals and seminaries to “tow the line” regarding national health care mandates; notably, the requirement to provide insurance that will promote contraception and ultimately abortion.
The protest is unprecedented by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But make no mistake. This is not a Catholic issue only. It is not a contraception issue. It is a religious liberty issue. It is an American issue.
Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted was spot-on when he preached, “we cannot, we will not, comply with this unjust law. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build (America) … Or to have the posterity stripped of their God given rights…” This Presbyterian says, “Amen,” to that Catholic bishop.
As the next chancellor and CEO of one of America’s largest protestant seminaries, I can tell you that the Obama health care mandate is already having an enormous impact on our ministry. Yet until this latest revelation, the impact has mostly been financial. In a word, this thing is going to be extraordinarily expensive.
Now, unless there is a wholesale repeal of this Act or unless there is dramatic and immediate steps taken to curb the government’s prying into the consciences of religious institutions like our seminary, or other similar religious organizations that appeal to a Higher Law than Man’s, we will have a constitutional crisis on our hands. I realize that those are heavy words. But we must all realize that this is a weighty matter.
It is interesting that Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday (February 6th, 1911) is going to be celebrated as this crisis unfolds before us. He had something to say about how government mandated medicine steals liberty. Back in 1961 then actor and General Electric spokesman, Ronald Reagan, warned America:
“One of the traditional ways of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine…”
Reagan went on to describe how a secularist government would use national health care to advance other leftist agendas. He also went on to quote a founder who warned against the loss of liberty through gradual intrusion of a meddling government:
James Madison warned, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (James Madison, speech in the Virginia ratifying convention on control of the military, June 16, 1788 in: History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, Vol. 1, p. 130 [H.B. Grigsby, ed. 1890]).
If liberty and freedom were a government-issued right then it would have the prerogative to take it back. But liberty and freedom, as our founders declared, come from God. To meddle with those rights of conscience is to return to the crisis of human rights that gave rise to this nation. Unless these violations of religious rights are expelled, now, they will bring ruin to this nation.
It is time for Americans to speak up for religious freedom while there is still time. Thank God for the Catholic Bishops and priests who did. We all must. For you can’t lose just a little liberty. You lose — we lose — all of it when we lose any of it.
Contact: Lyn Perez, 407-366-9493