President Obama has a masterful ability to convince people he is
their friend even while he attacks them.
This talent was on display last Thursday July 2, when the
President spoke to members of the Catholic press about conscience
rights for pro-life doctors.
Obama seems to be persuading even pro-life Catholics that he
supports “robust” conscience rights. The theologically
conservative National Catholic Register
said it was “most noteworthy” that the President “dispell[ed]
… the expectation of the worst regarding conscience clauses.”
Yet one of Obama’s first actions was to repeal basic rules
protecting conscience. Obama
dismissed that action as an unfortunate misunderstanding,
causing people to think “my position may appear unclear.”
What really happened with the repealed conscience rule shows that
Obama’s position against conscience is crystal clear.
In the wake of Roe v. Wade, Congress began passing
statutes protecting doctors from being forced to participate
in abortion. Pro-choice legislators like Obama’s Illinois
predecessor Senator Adlai Stevenson III agreed that
even if abortion is legal, religious freedom requires that
doctors never be compelled to participate.
The statutes are straightforward: no recipient of certain federal
funds may discriminate against a health provider for refusing to
participate in abortion. The statutes also explicitly protect
activities such as sterilization, and in some cases they protect
any religious belief (see
42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c)).
But these statutes were rarely enforced. In recent years the
abortion industry solidified abortion as a right but has faced
fewer providers. So it began active persecution of pro-life
doctors.
In 2007 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
declared
that Ob/Gyns must perform abortions or practice near
abortionists, and must refer women to them. Obama’s core
constituency on this issue is insistent:
“Qualms about abortion, sterilization, and birth control? Do not
practice women’s health.”
So in 2008 President Bush passed a basic regulation empowering
the Department of Health and Human Services to actually enforce
existing conscience statutes. The
regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 88, simply says that if an entity
receives specific federal funds, it must promise to obey the
conscience-protection law that applies.
The abortion industry vigorously opposed the rule as hasty
regulation that exceeds its underlying statutes and restricts
access to contraception.
President Obama bought into this campaign. He issued a regulation
to repeal Bush’s rules completely, and he continues to use the
empty rhetoric against Bush’s rule.
But this background sheds light on Obama’s comments to the
Catholic press.
“There have been some who keep on anticipating the worst from us,
and it’s not based on anything I’ve said or done.” The worst is
based only on what Obama has done. He is repealing Bush’s
conscience rules entirely — he has proposed no alternate.
Obama’s repeal can only signal opposition to conscience
protection itself. Obama
endorses his side’s “concerns about how broad [Bush’s rules]
might be.” Specifically, abortion advocates
complained that Bush’s rule could apply to “contraception,
sperm donations and end-of-life care” — which is another
way of saying that doctors should be forced to commit assisted
suicide. But some statutes focus on abortion, while others offer
broader protection, and Bush’s rules did nothing but implement
the statutes as written. The only possible basis for Obama to
revoke Bush’s rule is that he disagrees with the underlying laws.
President Obama claims that someday he will come out with new
conscience rules, always signaling that they “may not meet the
criteria of every possible critic.” Because the Bush implementing
regulations merely impose statutory language, President Obama’s
rules must necessarily be less protective than the statutes.
What can this mean in practice? Abortion advocates have already
signaled what they consider to be “sensible” conscience rights.
Maybe Obama will allow illegal compulsion if an abortion is
medically indicated, which abortionists say means all abortions.
Maybe HHS will look the other way if objecting makes “access”
inconvenient as Planned Parenthood defines it. Certainly where
the statutes apply to contraceptive acts like sterilization, or
to assisted suicide, Obama’s rules will allow illegal compulsion
as a “compromise.” And where Bush’s HHS might actually revoke
funding for a violation, Obama’s rules will likely be
“educational.”
The irony of Obama’s repeal of conscience rights is that liberal
Catholics champion Obama as a promoter of “common ground.” But
refraining from compulsion against your opponents is the absolute
bare minimum of common ground, and Americans endorse this
common ground in the statutes and in recent polls.
Since Obama and his supporters define the status quo, he can
impose his own view and just call it common ground. Political
power may enable Obama to succeed against conscience laws. But
only the smoothest powers of persuasion will let him do it while
his victims praise him for his moderation.
