Conservatives Go Pro-Choice

Imagine it's Friday. You have just finished a grueling week of shuffling papers from the IN basket to the OUT basket. You and your Sweetie rendezvous at your favorite haunt for dinner. The martinis are great, but when the main course arrives, something is not right. Oh sure, Sweetie is eager to dive into that delicious lobster tail on the plate, but your filet mignon is nowhere to be found. When you ask the waitress about the status of your entree, she replies, "I find it morally reprehensible to eat meat on Fridays. As such, not only will I not eat meat on Fridays, I will not be a party to anyone else eating meat on Fridays."

Now, imagine the filet mignon is healthcare. Maybe you should have done brunch instead.

In the July 31, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST, a Page One (above the fold) story, as reported by Rob Stein, is best summarized in its opening two sentences:

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting healthcare workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Simply put, Uncle Sam wants to close his wallet to any federally subsidized healthcare provider that does not let employees choose to abstain from job responsibilities with which he/she morally disagrees. Both sides, for the most part, see this as an abortion issue of the science-versus-ideology variety. There is no meal-based metaphor for that one.

The rest of Stein's piece presents arguments for and against the proposal. The Conservative side champions, among other things, the protection of workers who "...are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant." The Liberal side wants to safeguard against, among other things, "...[defining] abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg...."

I have issues with this proposal. Surprise.

First, the whole setup smacks of a Constitutional end-around. Conservatives cannot legally deny a woman her right to choose, so instead they try to make the fulfillment of that choice as difficult as possible by cutting healthcare funding. Hmm. This sounds familiar. In broader terms, one political party disagrees with a core ruling that it cannot change, so it attempts to cripple that ruling indirectly by striking at the periphery. Double hmm. It sounds doubly familiar. In more focused (albeit focused elsewhere) terms, Liberals cannot legally deny a person the right to own a gun, so instead they try to make owning that gun as useless as possible by banning bullets. I knew I heard it somewhere before. Attempting to ban bullets has never worked because...it's a Constitutional end-around. Why should this proposal be different?

Second, there's a phrase for how the administration wants to categorize the healthcare workers who do not wish to participate in performing abortions, etc. According to the Selective Service's website (SSS.gov), the phrase represents "...one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles." Yes, the description is militarily based, but you can use the phrase to fit non-military situations such as this one. That phrase is "Conscientious Objector." Just as Selective Service allows someone to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in combat, the new proposal allows someone who opposes abortion to claim to be a Conscientious Objector in an effort to avoid participating in the performance of the medical procedure. This begs only one question: If military Conscientious Objectors are called "Draft Dodgers," what do you call medical Conscientious Objectors? "Health Haters?"

Look, even if the proposal is altruistic, even if the administration has no agenda other than the best interest of employees in the workforce, even if the only partisanship is that being generated by the media and their audience, then there is only one issue to be had with the proposal: Why should we let employees off the hook for responsibilities they knew they would have?

Job duties cannot be selected a la carte. As employees of any business, people are - and should be - expected to perform ALL of the duties of the jobs they are paid for, the jobs they were hired for, the jobs they applied for. I begrudge no one his or her beliefs. If a person is opposed to something, I support their right to that opposition; what I don't support is the abandonment of common sense in the guise of moral self-righteousness.

If you oppose meat on Fridays, and restaurants serve meat on Fridays, why choose to work in a restaurant?

If you oppose war, and the Armed Services conduct wars, why choose to enlist in the Armed Services?

If you oppose birth control, and pharmacies dispense birth control pills, why choose to work in a pharmacy?

If you answered "the money" or "the schedule" or "the opportunity" or "the education" or "the benefits" or "the experience" or "the travel" or any other reason to take any of those jobs, or any other jobs that might pose moral dilemmas, then you made your choice. Live with it. You chose something superficial over your beliefs, which speaks volumes about how important those beliefs must be to you in the first place. Don't ask Mommy, Daddy, or dear old Uncle Sam to bail you out of this one.