New bill lacks conscience

By the time you're reading this article, Obama will have been inaugurated in as the 44th President of the United States and President Bush will become like that bizarre uncle you used to have to pretend to listen to at Thanksgiving until he was finally arrested for a DUI in his boss' Nissan Stanza.

But, unlike that crazy uncle that believed his life was a mirror image of Jodie Foster's in Silence of The Lambs, Bush has the power to keep his influence in politics long after his butt no longer graces the seat in the Oval Office.

Supreme Court Justice appointees, monetary and social influence aside, I'm talking mostly about the new "Right of Conscience" bill that Bush drafted earlier this winter.

The new bill extends beyond a physician's moral objection and refusal to perform an abortion. It includes any member or personnel's of a federally funded medical establishment (that includes nurses, secretaries, orderlies and cleaning crew) right to refuse artificial insemination, birth control and emergency contraceptive prescriptions and even information regarding where to find these services.

In short, if you're a scared girl with a problem in a small town with one Planned Parenthood, and the secretary doesn't believe in contraceptives or abortions (leading one to wonder why she took the job in the first place) then you're S.O.L.

Now, I completely understand a person having moral objections to abortion. I am Catholic, after all. But in all my time of taking care of female friends, acquaintances and working at a rape crisis hot line, I've learned that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, many of these mistakes stem from a malicious intent upon the girl and not, as so many vocal preachers on campus believe, the girl's own lapse in judgment.

At times like these, I believe it is a physician's job, as prescribed under the Declaration of Geneva, to keep "the health and life of [their] patient as first consideration." By that, I mean I can understand a physician's moral objection to abortion but I think it's downright criminal for a health care worker to not even alert a patient as to where they can find the services they need.

Now, assuming you're the type of person who finds no objection to this law based on your own views toward contraceptives or abortion, what if this law ended up affecting you?

A few sects of Christianity and other religions oppose the act of blood transfusions and organ donation based on their religious beliefs.

Assuming you were placed in a situation in which you needed a new kidney, liver or even a few pints of a donor's blood, would you want the secretary, the nurse or even the surgeon who could perform the operation refusing service to you based on their religious beliefs?

Would you and your family accept it as their religious right to even refuse information on where to receive these services? Probably not.

Obama has already spoken publicly that, while he is not a fan of abortion, he feels it's in our nation's interest to attempt to prevent as many abortions from happening through education and contraception. Hopefully, this moderate stance of our new President will allow him to see this bill for what it really is--just another form of chipping away at women's rights in the name of religious freedom.

This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.