The American Spectator

Another Perspective

Freedom to Choose to Refuse

By Doug Bandow on 6.9.05 @ 12:06AM

Abortion, gay rights and marriage, euthanasia, and the like are among today's most contentious political issues. They tend to inflame people's worst emotions.

Choosing sides often isn't easy. For instance, no one should feel comfortable about having the state rebuff a woman's desire for an abortion, but the procedure destroys a human life. The government should not discriminate against gays, but marriage plays a unique role in providing a framework for child-rearing and family life.

What should be a simple decision is allowing people to say no, irrespective of the government's stance. If abortion is legal, no doctor should have to perform it. If assisted suicide is permissible, no medical professional should have to participate.

If gay relationships are left untouched by the authorities, no apartment owner should have to rent to a same-sex couple. If contraceptives are available like other medicines, no doctor should have to write a prescription nor any pharmacist have to fill one.

In short, if "choice" is a virtue, it should be a virtue for everyone. Unfortunately, however, many liberal interest groups seem to believe that choice means allowing them to choose for everyone else.

THE LATEST CAUSE CELEBRE involves pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for birth control or the "morning after" pill. Before that it was insurers who wouldn't provide contraceptive coverage and employers who wouldn't offer marital benefits to same-sex partners.

Earlier controversies surrounded doctors and hospitals who wouldn't perform abortions. Even before that were cases of religious property owners who didn't want to rent to unmarried couples.

The political battle has been joined, with many states approving "conscience clauses" allowing doctors and hospitals to opt out of abortions and pharmacists to refuse to dispense some drugs. But Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich prefers coercion over conscience, and has required pharmacies to fulfill birth control prescriptions. Three states are considering legislation to do the same.

Even the supposedly freedom-loving American Civil Liberties Union tends to favor forcing people to set aside their moral sensitivities to provide politically correct "reproductive" services. States the ACLU: "religious objections should not be allowed to stand in the way" of care in many cases.

THE REAL ISSUE APPARENTLY is fear of citizens acting on their beliefs. Worries columnist Ellen Goodman, "how much further do we want to expand the reach of individual conscience?" Apparently the primary social problem today is too many people caring too much about virtue. We'd all be better off if we dropped our silly moral inhibitions.

In this view one set of moral presumptions should trump all others. Someone engaging in an activity thought to be morally wrong, or at least suspect, has a right to aid and support from others. Do whatever you want while forcing everyone else to give you whatever you want.

What of someone who desires to, say, heal others, but believes that abortion or contraception contradicts that commitment? In Goodman's view, they are asking for "conscience without consequence."

There's no real moral conflict, she suggests, since they could just quit their jobs. Which in the case of doctors and pharmacists presumably means leaving their professions. Property owners should just sell off homes in which they aren't living. And so on.

If people don't follow Ms. Goodman's advice? Coerce them. Chris Taylor of the Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin demanded "a strong penalty" for pharmacist Neil Noesen who refused to fill a birth control prescription.

What is this but allowing people to ignore conscience without consequence? Protecting people from the impact of public disapproval eliminates one of the most important social tools for imparting and shaping morals.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Hillary Clinton, Business, Abortion, Law, NATO