In December of 2008, the Bush administration passed a “right of conscience” ruling that permits medical professionals to refuse treatment based on moral or religious grounds.
It appears one of the primary issues regarding this is “women’s health” and abortion, but federal law has specified for more than thirty years doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortive procedures. There are other considerations that could become factors, such as artificial insemination, birth control and more.
The signing of this rule has resulted in the shock and horror of liberals everywhere, many of whom don’t believe in focusing on morals, religious concerns or matters of right and wrong. They apparently believe people should not have a right to listen to their conscience. Do they also believe in slave labor, where people must do as they’re told regardless of their principles or any moral convictions at all?
The liberals have come out in force, presenting all sorts of horror stories about why the freedom of people to act according to their conscience would be bad and should be prevented by law. Their arguments, however, are without merit and are mostly based on the fear that remedies on demand for the results of their dysfunctional lifestyles will be lost.
Wikipedia informs us regarding the Nuremberg war crime trials: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Are the people who are opposed to right of conscience laws also opposed to moral choices being made possible to people? The Nuremburg ruling was a direct way of indicating a person’s conscience or moral awareness should in some circumstances supersede orders from those in charge. Pardon me if I’m mistaken, but aren’t most progressives in favor of freedom of choice (or does this only apply to themselves)? Aren’t they also opposed to slavery?
The “right to conscience” comes from God, as do all of our rights, contrary to what many believe. It has to do with truth that is self-evident, and the same applies to freedom of speech, the right involving self protection, freedom from unreasonable searches and others.
Our founders understood it is necessary to affirm our natural rights by law, so that they are not regarded with contempt or trampled upon. The “right to conscience” ruling could have actually been added as a constitutional amendment, in my opinion. It serves the same purpose and affords the same type of protection as other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The “right of conscience” also pertains to employment law, or employer/employee relations. This is really nothing new, as employees have questioned for years what may or may not fall under the scope of work, or the job description.
Barack Obama has unfortunately spoken out against the right of conscience law, and it comes as no surprise to me he would want to eliminate people’s rights. Is he opposed to the Nuremburg ruling, as well, regarding moral choices that are possible to people?
Obama has stood for drive-through abortion and most other liberal causes. It appears opposing the right of conscience “goes with the territory” of his agenda. Look for him to try to overturn the ruling, although he may have difficulty in doing so.
I applaud President Bush’s ruling that protects the right of a person to listen to his or her conscience and to act accordingly.