February 12, 2010

Are some of us more "free" than others?



In a recent radio interview, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat, said that Catholics should not assert their moral objections in hospital settings.

In reviewing her bio, it is evident that her stands on the issues differ from those of many Christian denominations. She is a vocal advocate of legalizing “gay marriage”. She fiercely defends “reproductive rights” for women (although not of the babies lost to abortion).

So while she likely would characterize herself as a freedom fighter of sorts for gays wishing to marry and women wishing to abort, her battle for freedom seems to stop shy of allowing people to freely practice their religious convictions in the workplace. While being interviewed about conscience protections which allow health care workers to refuse to perform procedures such as abortion if it violates their religious beliefs, she said, “You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

In 1973, the U.S. Congress enacted a law ensuring that health care workers with a moral or a religious objection to abortion or sterilization are not discriminated in training or employment by entities receiving certain federal grants or contracts (Church amendment, 42 USC § 300a-7). In 1996, a second law was enacted which forbids federal agencies, and state or local governments receiving federal funds, to discriminate against health care providers and health training programs because they do not provide abortions or abortion training (Coats/Snowe amendment, 42 USC § 238n). Every year since 2004, part of the Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill has forbidden federal funding for government bodies which discriminate against health care providers and insurers not involved in abortion (Weldon amendment).

But this freedom is being eroded.In recent years, legislators in New York and California have considered laws which would force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions and other “services” which violate Catholic teaching. And organizations such as “Merger Watch” have been formed to ensure that, in the event of conflict, a patient’s desire to have a procedure should outweigh a health care provider’s moral convictions and religious freedoms.

Some 20 years ago, I applied for a nursing job working with women with gynecological cancers. The interview went well until the manager mentioned that there were times when women undergoing late-term abortions were also treated on this unit. I was told that sometimes the baby would be born alive, and that I would be expected to place the baby in a basin and place it in the “dirty utility room”, then return to care for the “mother”. I did not… could not… accept this job. Someone else did.

Some years later, I worked in an intensive care unit. At times, decisions were made to discontinue life support. Some who worked on the unit had moral or religious objections to performing this act. These convictions were respected; others who did not share their beliefs would remove the ventilator or the feeding tube.

In more than 30 years as a nurse, I have never seen a patient denied services because of the religious or moral convictions of a health care professional. Never. It is indeed possible for health care consumers to receive the care they desire without forcing health care workers to abandon their convictions.

To me, a fundamental element of religious freedom is protecting individuals from being forced against their will to violate their religious convictions.. To quote founding father Thomas Jefferson:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
____________________________________


Visit 7 Quick Takes each Friday - this week's "issue" is here.

Don’t forget to enter this week’s contest, found here.

StumbleUpon

2 comments:

  1. It is utterly ludicrous to say that a Catholic hospital, or any other Christian hospital, cannot refuse to perform abortions.

    Crazy. And appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "To me, a fundamental element of religious freedom is protecting individuals from being forced against their will to violate their religious convictions"
    I completely agree. I am no fan of Brown, but I am glad that Coakley did not win with those sorts of views.

    ReplyDelete