Freedom of Choice Act Damages Religious Liberty

by Sal on November 25, 2008

in Politics,Religion

In 2007, Barack Obama said that one of his first acts as President would be to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act.  This radical, pro-abortion law, would end any regulation whatsoever on abortion in the 50 states.  Currently, many states have sensible, popular regulations on abortion, such as parental notifications for minors, requiring informed consent from the woman about alternatives and complications that can arise from abortion, and freedom of conscience laws.  Currently, 46 states have a freedom of conscience law on the books in regards to abortion.  This law allows institutions run by organizations that are morally opposed to abortion (such as Catholic Hospitals, of which there are many in the U.S.)

as they cannot in good conscience contribute to murder.  Even if one is pro-abortion, surely one should be able to recognize that some people have a different view on when life begins and can’t just compartmentalize that view.  FOCA is a bad law and must be opposed to protect religions freedom, states rights, and to help keep abortion numbers from growing even further from the 1.3 million abortions performed each year.

H/T: K-Lo

{ 1 trackback }

Freedom of Choice Act Damages Religious Liberty | Pelican Project Pro-Life
November 25, 2008 at 1:41 pm

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz November 26, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I’m not up on the US situation however believe that any medical practice should be able to decline to carry out a proceedure if it is against their moral principles.

What they SHOULD NOT be able to do is to hide options from a patient.

“We will not carry out or advise on this type of proceedure as it is against out beliefs, however will refer you to a practice who may” What happens then is between the referred practice and the patient.

Whatever side of the fence you’re on with this one, patients do have the right to informed consent and not to have their options limited by any group’s moral views.

Catholic hospitals offer significant service to the community here in Australia, and while I disagree with them, they do have the right to refuse certain proceedures on moral grounds. A doctor’s ethical duty trumps religion in that he MUST allow a patient access to all medically sound treatment options by referring them elsewhere.

I would support the prosecution of any doctor who deliberately hid treatment options from a patient or gave them false advice based on their moral stand.

Having said all that it is my firm belief a religion has no more nor less rights than any other person or sector of society. No person should be able to hold their religious beliefs as defence to breaking the law as it stands, regardless of what their religion or cult is.

While I’m on my Soap Box and only slightly linked by the religion word…

We have a situation here in Australia where a religious party (hiding under the name of Family First) holds the Senate balance of power. In return for supporting the Labor Party (Socialists) they have demanded internet censorship and are portraying any against it as child pornographers.

While I am 100% in favour of doing everything to prosecute anyone involved in that disgusting practice I do not support the use of religious (or any other) views to censor our internet.

The trial that will run over Christmas will block all known child pornography sites, HOWEVER it will also block 1000′s of sites deemed unacceptable to the Minister of Communications. Currently any adult X site will be blocked… but what else – The Minister won’t say… Embarrasing political comment??? Slipper Slope time!

All being rammed down the throats of Australia by religious groups, including the Catholic Church (Who by the way have had more convicted Child Molesters in Australia than all other sectors of society together. (I know that was a bit underhand, but used to show the double standard in play)


rightonoz November 26, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Hi Sal,

MY apologies for the comment on the Catholic church vs child molestation.

While the reality is that an obscene number of priest have been convicted in Australia, that reflects on them as people and not on the Church they belong to except in the instances where the crimes were hidden by senior members (again individuals)and offenders transferred.

Guess I let my hot headedness about the erosion of our freedoms by people hiding behind religion get the better of me.

It was not intended to attack your church or dimish the good work it does in the health sector.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: