Can I make decisions based on conscience?

Yes, I can and I do. In my field of work (healthcare), I've had to deal with issues of judgment and conscience. I've broken company rules to comply with the wishes of a dying patient. (That was an easy decision, by the way.) I've told doctors that I wouldn't perform actions that they requested. I've done my best to make sure that even someone who was frequently an asshole was treated fairly.

I don't want a job where I can't exercise judgment--where my boss or the company policies are the final word on all matters.

Yet that's what is contemplated for some small business owners. They don't have the privilege of turning down work based on conscience, if their conscience tells them it's wrong to participate in same-sex weddings.

I'm not saying that everyone who declares that they'll never be part of a same-sex wedding has examined their conscience. We all know that some people don't examine anything, but are zipperheads in the thrall of talk radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh. Here's a mechanic who won't fix cars for clearly gay men. This guy is not a conscientious objector--he's an anti-gay bigot. There's nothing in Christianity telling him that doing diagnostics on a gay man's car is aiding and abetting sin. His decision is not as a Christian but as a hater.

But I have no doubt that there are many wonderful Christians who are sincerely against same-sex marriage. I hope there's room for their consciences just as I want there to be room for mine.

Image: consciencelaws.org

Abortion doctor blame game

I remember well when the grisly story of the Philadelphia abortion clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell broke in 2011. My main source for news, NPR, didn't sugarcoat the story of the doctor who performed late-stage abortions, killing the babies who were born alive. His clientele was largely poor blacks and immigrant women. His facilities were horribly unhygienic. Unsurprisingly, no one rose to his defense.

Fast-forward to now (April 2013). A cause celebre among the conservative media is that the MSM is covering up this story. Um, how?

Well, don't you know that his trial is going on right now and the MSM isn't covering it? No, I didn't know that. I know that the Jody Arias trial is going on. She used to be a stunning blonde, but now she has dark straight hair, glasses, a mousy look, a terrible memory, and multiple versions of how her lover ended up dead. That's what I know about.

I suppose this shows that the MSM could transfer a fair amount of resources to covering other more important issues, such as Dr. Gosnell's trial, but that doesn't make it a cover-up.

The accusation of cover-up started with one reporter: Kirsten Powers of Fox News writing in USA Today on April 11. Then the chorus from like-minded conservative media outlets snowballed. What they don't mention is that the conservative media was hardly reporting on the trial either. HotAir started its trial coverage on April 9, not when the trial started in March. Breitbart's coverage is somewhat better, with spotty coverage in March, but the real explosion beginning on April 12.

It looks to me like no media outlets were covering the trial very well until Kirsten Powers cided the MSM, and just the MSM. No bias there.

She definitely had a good point. The trial deserves a lot of coverage, and it's now guaranteed to get it.

With the increased coverage comes an orgy of recriminations about who is responsible. Those being blamed include:

• Dr. Gosnell
• The staff at the clinic
• The radical pro-abortionists
• The Democratic elite
• The Pennsylvania Health Department
• The pro-abortion establishment leaning on the PA Health Department not to do inspections
• The PA governors who were afraid of the pro-abortion establishment, or maybe swing voter backlash
• The pro-life activists who demonstrated outside Gosnell's clinic but completely ineffective in finding out the women's stories or in shutting the clinic down
• The media for not covering stories that hurt the pro-abortion side
• The Hyde amendment for not providing free, early abortions for poor women

Yeah, right. It looks like some people have a few axes to grind, and the occasion of this trial is a good time to do it. I'll ignore the point scoring, but share a few interesting details.

The report from the grand jury that indicted Gosnell is very readable and fascinating. A few observations:

• Gosnell's staff contained mostly poor, under-educated local women, but there were also a few opportunists who should have known better. Among the staff was a 15-year-old high school girl. Within a few months, she was in charge of drug administration on many shifts.
• Gosnell worked one day a week at another abortion clinic. Also, one of his staffers was recommended by a Louisiana clinic owner. This makes me suspect there are other clinics out there that are in the same class as Gosnell's clinic.
• However, not all clinics are like this. Another former worker, who had reported Gosnell's clinic to health authorities, said she had worked at seven different abortion clinics and "she has never experienced an illegally run, unsanitary, and unethical facility such as the Women’s Medical Society operated by Dr. Gosnell" (p. 52). 

That is the only good news from this sordid story.

Image: bringingupbaby.com

Postscript. This isn't anywhere near full coverage of the complex topic of abortion. If there's a lot of interest, I'll set up some open threads.

Short: A conservative rejoins reality

It's a week after the reelection of Obama, and I'm checking in on HotAir. They don't have any stories on secession or the preliminary tax negotiations, but those gaps are for another post. This headline catches my eye: 

Rasmussen: 54% now call themselves pro-choice, 38% pro-life

It's followed by a reasonable analysis of the shift to pro-choice. Basically, whackos on the right pushed moderates into the pro-choice camp, at least temporarily. 

The next article has a headline about Dems wanting to go over the fiscal cliff, but the point is that some GOP might prefer it too because it gives them cover for not raising taxes.

What is going on here? Two articles in a row that challenge typical conservative thinking--that's amazing. Both are by Allahpundit. I look at an archive, and it doesn't look particularly insightful before the election. A dose of reality seems to have helped at least one pundit. I'm hoping that plenty more reality-based medicine is delivered during the next three months, and other conservative pundits recover too.

Be sure to read the comments. The HotAir audience hasn't joined Allahpundit in reality yet.

Update 11/21/12. Allahpundit is back to nasty. It was highly likely if not inevitable.

Sanctions hurt the poor here

Not in Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Libya...

In Texas. The Texas legislature wanted to put sanctions on Planned Parenthood, so they eliminated funding and took the double hit from the loss of federal grants for family planning too. Clinical sites are closing and fees are being instituted or raised.

Some poor women may shift some of their small but existent disposable cash to pay for contraception. But for others, having to travel further and raise the extra $60  for the 3- or 6-month supply of pills will prove impossible, and nature will take its course. By this time next year, Texas may or may not see the results of this policy in birth rates, maternity hospital fees, child health program sign-ups, and adoptions.

We don't know the outcome yet. But it didn't have to come to this. In the fight over Planned Parenthood, someone could have blinked. Texas could have backed down, or Planned Parenthood could have separated into two organization: one that handles abortions and another that handles everything else.

If PP had done that, it would have been a capitulation to anti-choice forces and an abandonment of part of its mission. Still, I hope they considered it. If both types of services remain available through separate, that's not a huge sacrifice to make. Instead, both Texas and PP decided to sacrifice free or subsidized care for poor women.

Well, it's probably wrong to say Texas or PP sacrificed. The government of Texas (elected officials and public employees) and PP (the governing board and employees), and the strident pro-lifers behind the "kill PP" movement, are most likely still covered for the contraceptives they need and want. The real sacrifice is borne by those poor women who are pushed back into the bygone days of no contraceptives with all those stresses and uncertainties. We, the decision makers, are safe.

How far is the clinic?

Sources: NYT, Reuters, local Amarillo station

Update 3/16/12. Texas is suing the federal government over the loss of federal funding for its programs. Texas paper, Baltimore paper.

Update 4/15/12. More details on Planned Parenthood closings in Texas.

Contraception: Good works, bad people

Another rumination on pro-choice issues: Planned Parenthood has been besieged by conservatives all last year, but this might be a turn-around year for them. Susan J. Komen foundation announced that it was going to cut off grants to PP. Before Komen backtracked completely, it announced that it would still fund four locations because they were the only facilities in their areas for low-income women to receive breast cancer screenings.

This confirmed what I suspected: healthcare for the poor is spotty; PP is a major player for poor women; in some poor areas, PP is the only provider.

I wonder how many of the people who are working strenuously to defund (or preferably permanently close) PP have considered how poor women will get the healthcare that PP has provided. Are unsullied providers (with no connection to abortion) ready to step into breaches that would open if PP were closed or cut off from federal and state funding? The big question is: Can you actually separate contraceptive care from abortion?

I did a quick web search and found many independent women's health service providers. Roughly half stated that they provide abortion services, so scratch those. Many of the rest do referrals. Only one stated that it didn't provide abortion services. So it may be hard to find providers who are squeaky clean--no connection to abortion.

It's no surprise if it's hard to separate contraception services and abortion. Many people who use contraception want some sort of backup if the contraception fails. The failure rates aren't insignificant; they range from less than 1% to 20% depending on the contraceptive method. The backup is often abortion rather than continuing the unintended pregnancy. The provider who helped with the contraception will often want to help the woman with the unintended pregnancy, which means providing an abortion, referring her for an abortion, providing prenatal care, or making a referral for prenatal care. Few providers of contraception will want to throw up their hands and not help a woman whose contraception has failed.

So, the big answer: I don't think you can operationally separate contraception providers from abortion providers. People interested in providing contraceptive services don't usually stop there.

And what if they fail?

"I’m amazed, almost daily, at the fervor and zeal for which many conservatives, independents, and liberals espouse, nay advocate, for the murder of human beings to allow for the convenience of a mere vessel." --Wall Street Journal comment


More answers to the big question.
Indiana has trouble separating the services.
Washington Times article regurgitates pro-choice research.

Another way to be pro-life

Readers will have gathered that on the question of abortion, I strongly support its availability as a safe and legal option. But this isn't because I think an unborn baby is nothing of consequence, just an inconvenient lump of tissue.

That argument is mostly a straw man used by people who channel their hate through the abortion argument. I was once that lump of tissue, and everyone I've ever loved was once that lump of tissue. I think only a few people see a fetus or embryo as just a lump of tissue.

To most of us, life is sacred, but life also has limits. We are born, we live for an uncertain amount of time, and we die. Some people are never born at all, and some live such a short life that they never develop a sense of life at all. Some people, who could have lives, are never even conceived because sperm didn't meet egg.

That lack of certainty in life is the main reason I don't think abortion is murder. We don't know if that fertilized egg is viable or a scrambled mess. Sometimes it IS a scrambled mess that will never develop into a living, breathing child. Pregnancy is filled with that kind of uncertainty. It isn't a sure thing.

So what do you do if you never intended to conceive this baby--sperm wasn't supposed to meet egg. You can hope for a miscarriage, which is exactly the opposite of what a happily pregnant woman hopes. You can put your future in the hands of fate. Or you can do what many women do, and end the pregnancy that was never supposed to happen.

Some women wouldn't willingly have an abortion because the unborn baby feels like a living child to them, and an abortion would feel like murder. But for others, this small egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus doesn't feel alive, so the overriding concern is that she couldn't care for a child and never intended to get pregnant. For still other women, they are torn and under immense pressure, especially if they depend on someone else, or their own earnings, for a place to live.

With all these considerations, I wonder how anyone else can think they should make the decision, that their judgment should have priority over the pregnant girl or woman. I know pro-life people who don't want to make that decision for anyone else. They can offer help and advice, but the decision is best  left in the hands of the person closest to the unborn baby, and that's always the pregnant woman.

6 week embryo. Size 1/4 inch (6mm), 0.25 oz. (1g).

Extras: Stories of non-regret. You can easily find stories of regret too, but I think it's important to counter the "you'll hate yourself" propaganda. Gallup poll.

Biblical acknowledgment that an unborn baby is not the same as a living person.

********************************************************************


Originally, I was going to write about an acquaintance (Ann) who counsels pregnant girls/women as part of a pro-life organization. I admire the time she takes with the women, and the help she arranges if they decide to have the baby.

She doesn't want abortion to be a political war. It's in the person's conscience and soul where the dilemma plays out, not in a street or courthouse protest. So she listens to the girl: her fears, her hopes, the pressure from her family and/or boyfriend. She'll talk about the life and death of the baby, but not murder. She doesn't tell a girl that she's going to hell, or what God's judgment will be, because she believes that she can't know God's judgment.

I asked her what happens if the girl decides to have an abortion. "She stops calling us," Ann said. It feels like a failure to her, but that happens when you try something so important and so difficult.

If both sides could refrain from scorched-earth campaigns, both sides could live, work, encourage, and help in the same town and country. She's pro-life and I'm pro-choice, but we respect and care about each other. It can be this way.

The dark side of the pro-life argument

There was a time before Roe v. Wade when we lived in a land that enforced the law that if you got pregnant, you gave birth to the child. Most of us, including me, don't know what that time was like. Here is a reminder (from the comments on a Salon article):

*******************************************************************

My mother graduated from nursing school in the late 50s. While she was training in the emergency room, she befriended a young OB/Gyn and made an agreement that extended to a couple of other nurses. Whenever a young woman came in having had a botched abortion, the nurse would get in contact with that particular doctor no matter where he was or what he was doing, and he would take care of them.

Why was this necessary? Well, none of the other doctors would treat these girls. NONE of them. My mother tells horror stories of little girls as young as 13 or 14 being abandoned in hospital hallways until after they were dead. It was an unspoken rule that the doctor was not to show up until they were cold.

The hardest for her is the case of a little girl who tried to give herself an abortion with a knitting needle. She wasn't even a teenager yet. When her mother came into her bedroom, the child was almost unconscious and the bed was soaked with blood. The mother called her preacher and they prayed over this dying child until morning.

When they finally got the kid in the emergency room, she was given some blood, but no other treatment. There was nothing that could have been done to save her. It was far too late, there was already a massive infection in place and she was too damaged to survive any surgery.

The girl was in and out of consciousness for hours, crying and terrified and knowing that she would die. Her family left her there. My mother was the one that sat with her and held her hand while she died. That kid was 11. My mother was 20 (still a kid herself). This didn't change for another ten years or so. That's a lot of dead women.

My mother (in her 70s now) and her entire graduating class are some of the most adamantly pro-choice women I've ever met.

******************************************************************

These are the kinds of stories that the justices of the Supreme Court weighed when they made their 7-2 decision supporting the right to abortion. Even strong Catholics like Caitlin Flanagan are swayed by the truth of what it was like before abortion was legal and safe.

If you're against safe-and-legal abortion, you need to read these links. Read about the blood and the dying girls, about the doctors and nurses and families who treated them with disgust. You need to be fully informed because you are dealing with life and death, just as a woman considering an abortion (also a life-and-death decision) should be fully and truthfully informed. You also need to know that some medical personnel still treat women this way.

Don't doubt the truth of these stories. With the efficacy of our modern medicine, we forget an important medical fact--women are prone to large blood loss in childbirth or miscarriage.

"A river of blood runs through The Choices We Made, and it runs throughout the history of womankind. ...[A]ll the women and men who made possible a context in which an abortion could be performed legally, safely, and even humanely—together they say: Enough."
- Caitlin Flanagan

Update 6/14/19. As many states put severe restrictions on abortion and hope the Supreme Court will void Roe. v. Wade, the Washington Post published some old articles about abortion prior to the ruling. 

The dirty word in healthcare-choice

One issue that severely hampers honest debate about healthcare is acknowledgment of the tough choices to be made. To some people, choice is a loaded word because of its association with abortion. It's a word to be avoided at all costs, and sometimes it even seems that the concept is not acceptable.

For example, the controversy over Terri Schiavo's feeding tube seemed like a stand-in for something else. Most right-to-die cases don't get national attention anymore since 1990. It's normally considered a private family matter, with an established line of rightful decision-makers in case there's disagreement among the family.

No other recent case got nearly the nationwide attention that the Terri Schiavo case did. The case was superficially about a husband/guardian's fight to have his wife's wishes respected and have her feeding tube removed. But it also concerned the choice to let someone die. To pro-life/anti-abortion forces, this is not a permissible choice. So this case was a surrogate for abortion, and many of the usual pro-life forces were heavily involved (Randall Terry, the Catholic Church, the Pope, evangelical churches, and pro-life politicians in Florida and Washington DC).

 Feeding Tube

This allergy to medical choice cropped up again over the mandate in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that doctors should be paid to have a discussion of end-of-life decisions with patients age 50 and over. Sarah Palin famously called these "death panels," implying that it wasn't a voluntary discussion, but a coercive decision being made by cold, calculating bureaucrats. Well, there never are any half measures by Sarah Palin.

I wonder whether conservatives truly feared that there would be such death panels, which is a bit ludicrous in a country where comatose patients are kept alive for many years. I think the real fear is the legitimacy given to choice if the government conferred payment on such end-of-life care discussions. If we can choose not to do everything always to stay alive, maybe it's because we know life isn't to be maintained at all costs, and that other considerations matter. If other considerations matter, that opens the door to choice when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. To pro-lifers, abortion is an absolute wrong, so its distant cousins-- pulling the plug, Do-Not-Resuscitate orders, even hospice--are suspect as being steps onto the slippery slope to the total sin of abortion.

Not a dirty word everywhere