I love the conclusion in the NY Times article on the new freedom of conscience rules put in place for medical professionals.

Opponents of abortion, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals, support the new regulations and say they are needed to protect health-care providers from being forced to perform abortions and sterilizations.

They are opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, among others. Opponents contend that the regulations are a threat to a womanÂ’s right to choose to have an abortion, and that they are not needed in any event because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.

Now look at that last sentence. It shows the propensity of anti-lifers like the NACDS, AHA and AMA folks to lie about anything in an effort to ensure that abortion is available any time, anywhere, with as little restriction as possible. After all, absolutely nothing in the regulations forbids women to have abortions – they simply ensure that those who have a moral objection to abortion are not forced to participate in them. After all, must every doctor be forced to become an abortionist in order to guarantee a woman the freedom to take the life of her unborn child? Of course not. And since the 1964 Civil Rights Act argument has not generally been successful in protecting the conscience rights of pro-life medical professionals, the latter argument is fatuous

But the assertion made by the proponents of death does lead to a question that no reporter for the Grey Lady would dare ask – if they are opposed to regulations that they claim essentially duplicate protections found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, are they also opposed to the protections found in that seminal piece of civil rights legislation? Do they, in fact, believe that even the religious liberties of Americans must take the back seat to the needs of the abortion industry? But while asking such questions would be good journalism, doing so might expose the anti-freedom agenda of these acolytes of death – meaning that the answers to such questions will never make it into the MSM.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.